Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fiscal Court approves consent agenda; approves $35,913 RAV4 invoice for 9-1-1 training amid concern over 9-1-1 fee use

Hardin County Fiscal Court · March 24, 2026
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

Hardin County Fiscal Court approved a revised consent agenda including grant applications, appointments and contracts, and separately approved a $35,913 invoice for a RAV4 intended primarily for 9-1-1 training after discussion about whether 9-1-1 fees should be spent on a vehicle.

The Hardin County Fiscal Court reviewed and approved a revised consent agenda on March 24 that included multiple financial items, grant applications and appointments.

Items read into the record included a household hazardous waste collection services bid (Res. 32) for July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027; a household hazardous waste grant application (Res. 34); a CivicPlus website renewal (Res. 35); an audit services cost proposal of $30,000 (Res. 36); a Best Friends shelter pet-data agreement for $5,000 (Res. 37); reappointments of Charles Noll to the Hardin County Planning Commission and Greg Youngblood to the Board of Adjustments (Res. 38 and 39); and a rubberized-modified-asphalt grant application for $162,000 for the road department (Res. 40). Judge Hall described each consent item before the court voted to approve the revised consent agenda.

The court separated one invoice (73003/24) from the consent agenda after a magistrate requested removal. That invoice, for $35,913, was for a RAV4 the judge said had been procured via state procurement and would be used primarily for 9-1-1 training when staff travel for courses not provided locally. "We did [purchase it under state procurement]," Judge Hall said, explaining training needs and that the vehicle would primarily serve 9-1-1 training duties.

Magistrate Saltzman objected to using 9-1-1 fees for a vehicle, saying he was "a little disappointed" that fee revenue would fund a car rather than equipment and radios he said were the impetus for raising 9-1-1 fees. After discussion the court approved the invoice by roll call.

The consent agenda approvals also included a rescission of a prior ambulance purchase agreement and multiple committee minutes. The court did not amend or remove other listed resolutions during the meeting.