Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fiscal court approves $1.2M budget amendment on first reading; approves first reading of flood ordinance change

Hardin County Fiscal Court · September 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On first reading, the Hardin County Fiscal Court approved a $1.2 million amendment to the FY2025–26 budget—mainly for EMS ambulance equipment—and took first reading of an amended flood damage prevention ordinance that removes one sentence from the substantial improvement definition.

Hardin County’s fiscal court gave first-reading approval to a $1.2 million amendment to the FY2025–26 budget and also advanced changes to the county’s flood damage prevention ordinance.

Judge Executive Keith Tall said Amendment No. 2 to the budget (Ordinance 344-2, Series 2025) totals $1,200,000 and is primarily intended for EMS ambulance equipment upgrades; the amendment also includes road flex and bridge replacement funding. The court moved, seconded and approved the first reading by roll call.

The court separately took first reading on an amended flood damage prevention ordinance (Ordinance 254, Series 2007). County staff identified a single change — removal of item (c) in the substantial improvement definition on page 11. That item was removed for consideration and the court approved the first reading via motion, second and roll call.

Both measures were acted on in the same meeting but are at the “first reading” stage for ordinances; the budget amendment was presented as Amendment No. 2 for FY2025–26 and will require the formal adoption steps spelled out in county ordinance procedure before the appropriations take final effect.

County leaders tied the budget amendment to equipment needs described by EMS leadership earlier in the meeting, while the flood ordinance change centers on a technical definition in the county code.

The motions passed by roll call; the meeting record does not show floor amendments or a detailed line-item breakdown in open session.

The court moved on to other agenda items after the votes.