Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hardin County Fiscal Court adopts Ordinance 344-3 and approves consent agenda
Summary
At its Feb. 24 meeting the Hardin County Fiscal Court approved the Feb. 10 minutes, adopted Ordinance 344-3 (Series 2025, fiscal year 2025-26) on second reading, and passed a multi-item consent agenda including resolutions on online auction services and detention-center policies.
The Hardin County Fiscal Court approved several administrative and fiscal items at its Feb. 24 meeting, including adoption of Ordinance 344-3 (Series 2025) and a multi-item consent agenda.
Early in the meeting the court voted to approve the Feb. 10, 2026 meeting minutes after a motion and second; roll-call responses recorded unanimous affirmative votes and the motion passed.
During the business portion, the court held a second reading of Ordinance 344-3, Series 2025 (fiscal year 2025-26). A magistrate asked for an update on outstanding FEMA payments; the presiding judge said no FEMA payment had been received yet. The court then voted on the ordinance by roll call and the motion passed.
The consent agenda included routine payroll registers, February claims, training incentives, a financial report and approval of financial transfers (referenced in the packet as resolution 023), a bid award for online auction services for surplus equipment and vehicles (resolution 24), EMS personnel changes, and approval of resolution 26 concerning the Hardin County Detention Center policies and procedures handbook for 2026-27. No items were removed from the consent agenda and the court approved it by roll call.
No amendments to the ordinance or individual consent items were recorded during the meeting. The court completed roll-call voting for each formal action and adjourned.
Vote details: the transcript records affirmative roll-call responses from Squire Clem, Squire Hicks, Squire Muse, Squire Pennington (appears in transcript as 'Bennington' in one line), Squire Saltzman, Squire Thompson, Squire Whitehead, Squire Yates and the presiding judge; counts on each recorded voice vote were unanimous 'Yes' on the motions documented at the meeting.
