McCORDSVILLE — How best to divvy up taxpayer dollars to address an array of local issues was the focus of a debate Wednesday between the two Republican candidates for Hancock County Commissioner in District 2.
The race pits incumbent Marc Huber, who is seeking his second term on the board, against Kent Fisk, who currently sits on the Hancock County Council.
The seat on the board currently up for grabs represents Buck Creek, Center and Jackson townships; but voters from across the county came to McCorsdville Town Hall on Wednesday to hear from the two candidates.
During the debate, hosted by John Jester of Greenfield, Huber and Fisk were each given the chance to answer four questions that were submitted by the county’s debate committee, headed by Leadership Hancock County. They then took turns fielding questions submitted by Wednesday’s audience and ended with each candidate taking a few minutes to make a final pitch to voters.
Topics of discussion Wednesday focused on how to improve economic development, how to tackle the current opioid crisis and overcrowding and the jail, and how best to prioritize funding to address these issues.
Huber, a former county councilman, told the crowd he believes the job of a commission is to provide safety to the community, whether it’s through empowering law enforcement, patching potholes to improve roadways or making improvements to public buildings.
Fisk said he’s always felt called to public service, and he aimed to set himself on the path to be a commissioner years ago. He started his political career on the Greenfield-Central School Corp. Board of Directors before joining the county council. He’ll use those experiences on the board of commissioners should voters choose him to fill the seat, he said.
Huber and Fisk carry different opinions on whether to move forward with two major construction projects: the proposed $55 million criminal justice complex and the proposed $16 million fairgrounds and exhibition center.
Huber supports the construction of a new jail, but not a fairgrounds; while Fisk supports the construction of a new fairgrounds, but not a jail.
Fisk called the proposed new jail a “mega building,” and told the audience he didn’t vote to put on the May ballot the question of whether to raise property taxes to construct the facility. He thinks local leaders should have waited, taken more time to finalize the project’s designs and decide how to cover the increased costs that will come with staffing and running a new, larger building.
“I wish we had another six months to work out all the issues,” he said.
But Huber disagreed with his opponent’s characterization that some county leaders pushed the project forward too quickly.
“This isn’t a new issue,” Huber said, “and the council was very much involved in this.”
Two studies on the jail population have been conducted in the past 10 years, and both showed that a new jail was needed, Huber said. When the economy turned in 2010 (after the first study was finished), the talks were abandoned — but the problems didn’t go away, he said.
But there is no better time than right now to talk about the need for a new jail and no better ballot to put the question on, Huber said. He reminded the crowd that the next sheriff, circuit court judge and prosecutor will be decided in this year’s election, in addition to county commissioners and councilmembers — all positions that play a major role in public safety.
Huber knows his opinion about the jail might not be popular, but he believes moving forward with the project is the right thing to do, he said.
“If you don’t want to make the hard decisions, you shouldn’t be here,” Huber said.
Fisk and Huber agree that, if the new jail is constructed, space within the facility needs to focus on treatment programs that would help those with mental health and addiction issues from committing additional crimes.
As far as the fairgrounds goes, Huber said he disagreed with the construction mainly because he knew a new jail was necessary and funding that facility needed to be the priority. Additionally, no local leaders offered up good funding options for the fairgrounds construction, limiting its ability to move forward, he said.
“It’s a very worthy cause, but in my mind, public safety would trump the fairgrounds,” Huber said.
But the fairgrounds went through about two years of public input and scrutiny before the $16 million price tag was settled on, unlike the jail project, Fisk said. Plans for that project offered year-round facilities, that could bring tourists, further economic development and improve the community as a whole, he said.
