Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Probation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves probation general fund with one position cut
Summary
Hancock County commissioners approved the probation general fund after trimming one probation officer position and noting a canceled contract that reduced costs; council members said raises target low-paid staff while monitoring caseload to restore positions if needed.
The Hancock County commissioners approved the probation department’s general fund on July 8 with a reduction to one probation officer position.
The meeting opened consideration of probation’s budget, during which department representatives requested a 3% across‑the‑board raise, additional increases for four lower‑paid staff and the elimination of one probation officer position for the coming year. The chair said the department had also canceled a contract with Progress House, producing a roughly $27,000 saving.
"What they're asking for is 3% for everyone, and then there are 4 people they want to increase above a 3% raise, and then they're eliminating 1 position," said Council member Jim Shelby. Shelby moved to approve the fund as presented with the probation officer line reduced from $908,907 to $843,086.
Commissioners who had reviewed probation’s materials said the targeted raises reflected an effort to bring long‑tenured lower‑paid employees toward parity with other county staff, and that the department had produced documentation supporting the requests. Probation staff said they were willing to return the eliminated position if caseload increases.
The motion carried on voice vote with six ayes and no opposition.
The council also considered several probation‑related special funds—juvenile probation, offender transportation and probation user‑fee accounts—and approved them with clarifications about where shortfalls would be covered. Officials explained that some user‑fee funds are routinely pre‑authorized at higher amounts than actual collections, and that the county would monitor collections closely.
What happens next: Commissioners said they would consider restoring any eliminated positions if probation’s caseload grows, and will revisit user‑fee collections in future budget checks.
