Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Prosecutor Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Prosecutor’s budget passes after close votes; juvenile deputy request pared back

Hancock County Council / Commissioners joint budget meeting · July 9, 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

After extended debate, Hancock County approved the prosecutor’s general fund with a $45,000 reduction to a legal‑secretary/assistant clerk line; an earlier motion to eliminate the juvenile deputy prosecutor failed, and commissioners discussed funding tradeoffs with sheriff and court security positions.

The Hancock County commissioners took two votes on the prosecutor’s 2027 budget on July 8, ultimately approving a modified package that removes $45,000 from a legal‑secretary/assistant clerk line.

Prosecutor Bridal Eaton presented a budget that included two new positions — an assistant prosecutor and a juvenile prosecutor — and said partners in law enforcement supported the request. Eaton said the county’s growth and rising case complexity justified dedicated juvenile prosecution capacity.

"The bottom line is the system we have — our felony prosecutors absorbing this work — does not provide a consistent point of contact," Eaton said. "Having the capacity to catch these things early would make us better."

Several commissioners said they supported the concept of a juvenile prosecutor but were constrained by countywide sustainability and the need to cut roughly $800,000 from the general fund. In an initial roll‑call vote, a motion to approve the budget that eliminated the juvenile deputy prosecutor and other specified cuts failed 5‑2. A subsequent compromise motion to approve the prosecutor’s general fund with the single $45,000 reduction to the legal‑secretary line passed 4‑3.

Commissioners discussed possible offsets, including shifting a paralegal or other positions from the sheriff’s budget and exploring hiring freezes or temporary redeployments to cover essential services if new positions are approved later.

The vote record showed several commissioners changed their position between the first and second motions as the group negotiated tradeoffs.

What happens next: The prosecutor said he will follow up with details about which elements were expected to be funded by grants and which are county general‑fund responsibilities. Commissioners said they would re‑examine staffing tradeoffs with the sheriff’s office and consider additional appropriations if vacancies or reorganizations create room later.