Kosciusko County Council approves $5,000 one‑time stipend for probation officers after heated debate, 4-3

The Kosciusko County Council voted 4-3 to approve a one‑time, non‑base‑building $5,000 retention stipend for county probation officers, to be paid from the probation user‑fee fund and revisited annually. The council specified the stipend would be paid out of the user‑fee account and would not increase base wages for state audits.

The judges who requested the stipend said the county relies on experienced probation officers and that retention is a pressing issue. Judge Beelerweis told the council the probation department’s work is critical to court operations and argued for additional compensation, saying the department has built "one of the finest probation departments around" through long service and expertise.

The council debate centered on two competing concerns: the courts’ argument that higher one‑time payments are needed to retain experienced officers, and several council members’ concern for fairness toward county employees and potential morale effects. Council member Rachel moved to approve a $5,000 one‑time, non‑base‑building stipend to be paid from the probation user‑fee fund, and Council member Kim seconded the motion. Rachel described the proposal and conditions for eligibility: "By using the user fee fund, we would not impact the taxpayer dollars. In light of this information I have received, I would like to make a push to approve a one time non base building retention stipend of $5,000 to be paid out of the user fee fund in the last paycheck of the year if the probation officer has been continually employed as a full time probation officer in the county from January 6 to 12/01/2026."

Opponents, speaking from the council bench, argued the stipend could create inequity with other county employees and noted that many county workers will receive a 2% salary increase in 2026. Those members urged a smaller, county‑wide retention measure instead of a larger, department‑specific supplement. Council discussion also referenced guidance from the State Board of Accounts that a properly classified stipend or bonus may be paid as a one‑time, non‑base‑building payment and that paying from the probation user‑fee fund would avoid using general tax dollars.

Council members voted by show of hands; the motion carried 4 to 3. The approved language requires the payment come from the probation user‑fee account; it will not add to base salary in the county payroll ordinance and must be revisited annually. Council staff said a January salary‑ordinance amendment will be needed to implement the stipend in payroll.

The action follows an earlier request from the judiciary for a $10,000 retention supplement; judges said they sought that amount because of recruitment and retention challenges and the long experience of many probation staff. The council reduced that request to $5,000 in the motion that passed.

The council and presenters clarified that the funding source is the probation user‑fee fund and that the State Board of Accounts will audit the salary ordinance (not the internal decision to remove a stipend in a later year). The vote does not change probation officers’ base wages for future salary‑audit comparisons.

Council members indicated the stipend is intended as a retention tool to be reevaluated each budget year; the county will record the required salary‑ordinance amendment at the next ordinance cycle.