Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrowly limits late budget changes and debates 2% raises for city officers
Summary
Councilors voted multiple times on whether to permit amendments at third reading of budget ordinances and debated 2% raises for the mayor, clerk and council; several motions to bar third‑reading amendments passed by narrow margins.
The Michigan City Common Council on Oct. 7 debated procedural limits on last‑minute changes to the 2026 budget and separately considered modest pay adjustments for elected and appointed city officers.
Councilman James Dabney (referred to in meeting as Councilman Dabney) moved repeatedly to bar amendments on third reading for the budget and for related ordinances. On a motion addressing the ordinance that sets appropriations and tax rates, the council voted 7‑1 to prohibit amendments on third reading; Councilman Beatry cast the lone dissent. Similar motions for other budget‑related ordinances passed or failed by closer margins through the evening.
Council members and staff emphasized the state deadline to file budget approvals in the state gateway by Nov. 1. City Controller Mary Lynn told the council that the approved budget must be uploaded by that date or the city would revert to last year’s budget.
Separate but related votes concerned pay for city officers. Council members discussed proposed 2% raises:
- The mayor (Mayor Angie Nelson) declined a 2% raise, the mayor’s office said. - The city clerk declined the 2% increase. - Council members debated whether to accept a 2% increase; the council approved an amendment to forgo the council 2% raise by a 7‑1 margin, meaning council pay remains at $15,426.16 for the coming year unless the council later revisits it.
Council members who supported limited procedural changes said the measures protect the city’s ability to meet state filing deadlines and prevent last‑minute “gotcha” amendments that leave insufficient time for administrative updates. Members who opposed the motions said they were reluctant to cede the right to propose substantive changes discovered late in deliberations.
Why it matters: The procedural votes affect when and how council members may change spending priorities. The salary decisions affect the compensation of elected officials and, council proponents said, the city’s ability to attract younger candidates who must balance public service with other work.
What’s next: The budget ordinances remain on second reading and will return for final readings at the next meeting; staff will continue publishing materials to comply with the Gateway filing deadline.
