Madison County Councilors spent much of the meeting reviewing the county27s draft 2026 budgets, discussing levy shifts and outlining the parameters for negotiations with county law‑enforcement leadership over pay increases.

Councilor North led a prolonged review of the general fund and public safety budgets, walking through changes after levy calculations and line‑by‑line adjustments requested by departments. Several items discussed were technical reconciliations: moving part‑time lines, restoring previously appropriated jail medical and reassigning some food and medicine lines from the general fund to a newly created public safety fund to better reflect operational responsibilities.

Council members and staff discussed how the state27s levy growth quotient, the commissioners27 decision to apply a cumulative bridge (bridge) rate and the removal of a park levy affected available revenue. Staff said moving the county27s working levy rate from 80% to 82% of the maximum would yield additional revenue and reduce the shortfall in the advertised general fund working budget. The council27s working numbers moved several times during the meeting as members identified lines to reduce and reallocated funds among public safety, general and miscellaneous funds.

Rainy day fund and one‑time payouts: Councilors discussed a recommendation to use rainy‑day funds for one‑time employee payouts rather than permanent raises. Staff said the Rainy Day/Capital line currently being discussed would hold roughly $2.5 million; the proposed line-items included a $1.5 million capital reserve item and $1.0 million set aside for a one‑time payout (the later intended to help with pay grievances and contract costs). Councilor North said she had drafted a working plan that would allow a 3% one‑time payout for county employees and an 11% one‑time payout for "merit officers," noting the county would need to allocate those amounts across all affected funds as appropriate.

Sheriff and merit officers negotiations: The meeting included extended discussion about negotiations with the sheriff27s representatives. The county and sheriff27s negotiating group discussed whether to convert an approach based entirely on a permanent matrix increase into a hybrid: a one‑year contract that preserves negotiated benefits plus a one‑time payout (or staged payouts) that together would approximate an overall 21% increase in total compensation for sworn merit officers for 2026. Commissioners cautioned against committing permanent, built‑in salary increases given uncertain state revenue and other county obligations; sheriff representatives said they need a signed contract to recruit and retain staff. Councilors and commissioners tentatively agreed that the council would adopt a budget in October and that parties could return in November (or in January after revenue certification) to finalize contract language and payouts, with the understanding that any changes to advertised appropriations may require supermajority action.

Process and next steps: Council members asked departments to submit clarifications and encumbrances promptly and to provide line‑item receipts so the council could reconcile advertised budgets with actual spending. Staff said they would update the advertised budget to remove the 3% raises from individual department line items and add a single 20‑seventh/one‑time payout line in the rainy‑day account, then circulate revised figures to department heads for review. The council set a tentative meeting date of Nov. 18 to revisit the budget and asked county staff to return with reconciled numbers for miscellaneous funds, central dispatch and highway capital projects.

Councilors stressed the need for more deliberate workforce planning—hiring freezes, reexamination of vacant positions and cross‑departmental efficiencies—to close future budget gaps. Several public commenters urged immediate raises for officers and warned of retention problems if the county could not reach a near‑term resolution.