Hardin County fiscal court approves first reading of FY27 budget after contentious EMS and staffing debate

Judge Hall convened the Hardin County Fiscal Court and presented the magistrate-proposed FY2026–27 budget for a first reading, telling the court the package would increase cash reserves by roughly $700,000 while avoiding a property tax increase.

The session turned into an extended debate focused on public safety spending. Community commenters urged restoration of emergency services investments: Bill Mullins, a longtime member of Hardin County fire service, said cuts to a proposed deputy fire services director would undercut countywide coordination, training and accountability, and warned that aging apparatus and declining volunteerism create public safety risks. "Dedication alone cannot overcome decades of underinvestment," Mullins said.

Resident Matt McDougall urged the court to use available hospital-sale proceeds strategically to invest in EMS, infrastructure and recruitment to support future growth, arguing that disciplined spending toward the future can drive economic opportunities.

Magistrates pressed budget tradeoffs: speakers questioned removing or reducing several items from the original judge-executive proposal, including a 2% cost-of-living adjustment cut to 1%, the deletion of a proposed deputy fire services director, and delaying purchases such as $900,000 in cardiac monitors. Judge Hall said the magistrates' version of the budget cut about $1.946 million from his original proposal and noted the county plans to use about $2 million per year (for the next 19 years) from the hospital sale payout as recurring revenue. He defended modest market adjustments and a 5% grade increase that had been included for some EMS positions in the original draft.

The cardiac monitors were a prominent point of contention: the judge said the full purchase price had been placed in the budget as a placeholder ($900,000) but that leasing the equipment would cost an estimated $175,000 annually over six years, carrying roughly $165,000 in interest over that term. Several magistrates said they favored further vetting of procurement options and committee review before a final purchase.

The court also discussed a potential state offer of $6.5 million for a Glendale facility (described as an element of a larger five‑ to ten‑year fire services plan). Magistrates emphasized the need for a funding plan that accounts for construction, equipment, staffing and ongoing costs and highlighted possible funding approaches including insurance-premium taxes or special taxing districts, both of which carry legal and political constraints.

After debate, the court conducted a roll-call vote on the first reading of Ordinance No. 347 (FY2026–27 budget). The motion passed on a majority vote; Squire Hicks and the judge (recorded as "Judge Taul" in the roll call) were recorded as voting no. The ordinance will be submitted to the Kentucky Department of Local Government for review and returned for a second reading in June.

The court also noted that if the first reading had failed (five or more no votes), a special called fiscal court meeting would be required to meet statutory deadlines.

What’s next: Ordinance No. 347 returns to the Fiscal Court after review by the Department of Local Government for a second reading in June; several magistrates indicated budget amendments remain an option during the fiscal year if needs arise.