Grant County Council on Aug. 28 approved a series of non-personnel budget categories across county departments during a special budget session, taking voice votes on each fund after department presentations.

Council members accepted updated revenue estimates and moved rapidly through approvals for court budgets, highway and bridge funds, recycling, wheel-and-surtax receipts and a slate of grant-funded programs. The session addressed departmental requests for personnel increases in discussion, but the council limited formal action that night to non-personnel categories.

Among approvals taken by motion and voice vote: Superior Court 1 (categories 2, 3 and 4), Superior Court 2 (categories 2, 3 and 4), Superior Court 3 (categories 2, 3 and 4), circuit court budgets (categories 2, 3 and 4), highway and motor-vehicle funds (including restricted and nonrestricted highway funds and specific bridge design allocations), the local road and street fund, recycling center fund 4013, wheel-and-surtax fund 49.57 (roughly $1,000,000 baseline estimate), multiple prosecutor funds (including a publications line adjustment), victims and spotlight grants (including a $9,600 spotlight grant), prosecutor-related 9602 fund changes, public defender operating categories, and several community corrections and reentry grant funds. Each motion was seconded and approved by voice vote recorded in the minutes as “Aye” with the chair announcing “Motion carries.”

The meeting also recorded department-specific budget notes: county finance staff reported a modest upward revision to the local income-tax estimate that prompted an updated Form 4B; the highway department budgeted for bridge design/match work and increased pavement-marking line items; the recycling center requested a $25,000 contractual services allocation; and courts consolidated jury per diem and jury-meal budgets (circuit court requested an increase in jury per diem from $52,000 to $80,000 and jury meals from $4,100 to $5,500 to reflect expenditures year-to-date).

Next steps: The council recessed until the next scheduled budget hearing on Thursday, Aug. 29 at 6 p.m., and noted that personnel-level wage and position requests would be handled later in the total budget process. The minutes record each vote as a voice vote with no roll-call tallies provided in the transcript excerpt.

Votes at a glance (motion text condensed; outcome: approved by voice vote):
• Superior Court 1 — approve categories 2, 3 and 4 as presented. (Motion: Mister Fleming; Second: Mister Polley)
• Superior Court 2 — approve categories 2, 3 and 4 as presented. (Motion: Mister Scott)
• Superior Court 3 — approve categories 2, 3 and 4 as presented. (Motion: Mister Scott)
• Circuit Court — approve categories 2, 3 and 4 as presented. (Motion: Mister Scott)
• Highway funds (multiple motor vehicle/highway funds, restricted and nonrestricted) — approve categories 2, 3 and 4 as presented. (Motion: Mister Scott; Second: Mister Polin/Lemming depending on fund)
• Bridge/11-35 funds — approved to cover design work and match for community crossing grants (includes two $300,000 line items for planned bridge projects).
• Local road & street fund (11-69) — category 4 approved.
• Recycling center fund (4013) — categories 2, 3 and 4 approved (contractual services increased to $25,000).
• Wheel & surtax fund (49.57) — category 4 approved (baseline estimate ~ $1,000,000; fund balance ~ $1.23M as of 06/30/2024).
• Prosecutor funds — categories 2, 3 and 4 approved with publications line adjusted to $2,100.
• Victims/grant fund (0290) — categories 2 and 3 approved.
• Spotlight grant ($9,600) — category 3 approved.
• Prosecutor 9602 fund — categories 2, 3 and 4 approved.
• Public defenders (0271) — categories 2, 3 and 4 approved with suggested changes for 2025.
• Community corrections & grant-driven programs (multiple grant funds) — categories approved as listed.

The session recorded general agreement to consider personnel matters (wage increases and position requests) later in the overall budget process; several departments, notably the prosecutor’s and public defender’s offices, presented substantive salary and staffing requests that drew extended discussion but did not produce additional personnel motions that evening.

(Reporting note: All direct quotes and attributions are drawn from the meeting transcript. All votes referenced were recorded in the transcript as voice votes with the chair announcing the result.)