Hancock County Council and Budget Committee: 6/3/26
Hancock Co. Council & Budget Committee
06/03/26
Terry Bynum
These meetings are primarily information sessions–going over fund balances, and getting input from the tax & financial advisor about issues affecting county finances.
Hancock county got approximately 2.2 million dollars from the state in supplemental Local Income tax. Hancock is 7th in the state in the supplemental Lit. 18 counties got zero.
Councilors Keeley Buttrum, Scott Woolridge, and Jim Shelby were appointed as Hancock county reps to the Municipal Unit Strategic Taskforce (MUST). Reps from every city and government entity in Hancock Co have to get together and negotiate how they are going to split up the taxes. The county reps run the meeting .
The coroner asked for additional funding to move one part time person to full time.
The prosecutor again asked for funding for 2 additional people to act as a juvenile team–about $150K in salary, plus benefits.
After a long presentation by the Ag. Association, the board approved $85K for architectural fees for phase 2 of the improvements at the Fairground. Total for phase 2 will be somewhere around $2.1 million. According to tax advisor Greg Gutteraz, this cannot be added to the upcoming 2026 General Obligation bond or the bond would have to be sold as taxable, rather than tax exempt .
The sheriff asked for funding for 1 additional deputy, to meet the request of Amplify Hancock Co. to staff the building with a School Resource Officer.
The sheriff is also exploring making some changes to the Sheriff & Deputy Pension Plan
The County Commission advanced a request from the Planning department to fund a part time position to oversee and consult on plans submitted to the department. A new state law put a clock on planning department review of plans submitted by a contractor, with financial penalties if the county violates the timeline. This person would make sure that didn’t happen.
Councilors also heard an extensive informational presentation from a business, “Scales for Success” talking about an upcoming abatement request. There was a lot of concern on the part of the council about the location–a couple of requests for abatements of potential warehouses at the same location (300 N, between 700 & 800 W) were denied because of the size of the potential buildings and potential traffic. This is a smaller building–the councilors appear to be leaning toward approval.
Scott Woolridge mentioned that there are a lot of abatement requests coming up in the next meeting.
