Lawmakers on the Appropriations & Finance panel discussed options Friday for closing a recurring pay gap for lower-tier judicial employees and asked staff for a short index of House Bill 2 sections and sharper cost estimates.

Committee members and staff centered on an estimated $17,000,000 recurring shortfall to bring target pay increases for the lowest-tier court employees into line with a prior compensation study. "We believe the gap to be about about 17,000,000 and that'll be recurring money on so on an ongoing basis," a staff member said during the meeting.

The discussion mattered to members because the funding would be recurring and compete with other public-safety and behavioral-health proposals in the overall budget. Representative Brown said she preferred delivering full raises at once rather than phasing them, saying, "I'd rather get the increased raises all at one time," because partial delivery could disappoint employees if a later tranche is not approved.

Staff and legislators outlined a range of options. One approach discussed would split the required increase across two fiscal years — 50% in the current budget and 50% in the next — to reduce the immediate recurring burden. Committee staff suggested targeted language and guardrails could be drafted to limit increases to lower pay tiers. An analyst estimated approximately $1,400,000 would fund a 2% targeted pay increase above the 4% already included in section 8 for the lowest tier, with roughly $700,000 needed in the first year under a 50/50 scenario.

Members also pressed staff on where affected employees work and how county-provided positions interact with state funding. John Courtney, who identified himself as a deputy, confirmed county-paid personnel (for example, county-provided security or clerical staff in court facilities) are not state employees and would not be covered by state pay adjustments. "That would be correct. This would just apply to the state employee," a staff member clarified.

Budget staff raised the recurring uncertainty tied to federal grants; several legislators asked how often federal grants lapse and how quickly promised money flows. Staff explained grant schedules vary by award — some pay monthly on a 1/12 basis, others arrive in tranches — and agencies can request supplemental appropriations midyear if federal funds are reduced or delayed.

Committee members asked for three specific follow-ups: a one-page index describing the sections of House Bill 2 and what each covers; a firm, sharpened estimate of the cost to deliver the proposed increases for the lowest-tier court employees; and an estimate for the cost of conducting a staffing or compensation study for the judicial branch similar to previous studies. Staff said they would return with those items.

The informational session did not include any formal votes or changes to the bill text; members repeatedly noted the meeting was for discussion and information-sharing. Next steps identified were staff research and new cost estimates to inform future committee decisions.

Less-critical meeting notes: committee staff and members referenced related budget sections (recurring items typically in sections 4 and 8; nonrecurring items in section 5 and supplementals). Members asked staff to check for overlap between proposed pay pots and other behavioral-health or public-safety funding to avoid double-counting or unintended duplication.

The committee did not take formal action in the meeting; staff committed to return with requested materials and refined figures for further deliberation.