Tippecanoe County Council advanced multiple budget-related ordinances on first reading and opened detailed departmental review during a budget hearing that centered on a roughly $8 million general‑fund gap and debate over employee pay. Council members voted 7–0 to approve the five ordinances brought forward on first reading and then turned to public comment and department presentations that emphasized rising insurance premiums, recruitment and retention challenges, and proposed funding shifts.

Why it matters: County leaders must close a large projected shortfall while balancing recruitment and retention pressures across public safety, courts and core county services. Departments proposed a mix of revenue adjustments, program cuts or temporary unfunding of vacant positions; county employees urged higher pay because rising health‑insurance costs could erase the modest 1% cost‑of‑living increase included in the commissioners’ recommendation.

The votes and ordinance actions
Councilman Murray moved — and Councilman Richard seconded — five ordinances on first reading. The motions passed unanimously on roll call (Hamilton, Vernon, Basham, Carson, Dolan, Murray, Richard voting "aye"). The ordinances advanced on first reading were recorded in the hearing as:
- Ordinance 2025-26-6-CL (fix compensation and headcount for county officers/deputies) — passed 7–0 on first reading.
- Ordinance 2025-27-CL (county budget ordinance, preliminary/advertised totals) — passed 7–0 on first reading.
- Ordinance 2025-28-CL (solid waste management district budget, first reading) — passed 7–0 on first reading.
- Ordinance 2025-29-CL (Little Wea Conservancy District budget, first reading) — passed 7–0 on first reading.
- Ordinance 2025-30-CL (recorder perpetuation fund: allow operating support from perpetuation fund, first reading) — passed 7–0 on first reading.
(These outcomes were recorded by staff during the hearing on roll call.)

Public comments: county clerks pressed pay concerns
Two employees from the county clerk’s office spoke during public comment, urging the council to reconsider the recommended 1% cost‑of‑living increase plus a $750 stipend for 2026.
- Abby Myers, high‑volume court clerk supervisor in the county clerk’s office, told the council, “I wanna thank you for considering the 1% cost of living raise. Every bit of recognition matters and is appreciated.” She described how rising health‑insurance costs mean many employees with families will effectively take home less pay next year and said competitive wages help retention and local economic activity.
- Susie Sherman, also with the clerk’s office, said the current proposed raise “doesn't even come close to covering the 40 to 60% increase [in] insurance costs for most of our employees next year.” She said many colleagues are working second jobs and warned that turnover harms institutional knowledge and service quality.

Budget math and major policy choices
County staff presented an updated general‑fund model that uses a 97% expenditure realization assumption (i.e., the county budgets at 100% but assumes actual spending will be about 97%), and estimated a roughly $8,000,000 gap under those assumptions. Key revenue updates presented during the hearing included: higher local income/tax replacement (LIT) estimates and modest increases in assessed values (AVs), while excise and other fees were adjusted in line with more current collections.

Council and staff discussed several levers to reduce the gap:
- Increasing the one‑time stipend vs. raising base salaries: staff showed how a higher one‑time stipend can help in the short term while a larger base raise increases long‑term budget pressure and associated benefit/payroll costs.
- Reducing the 97% realization assumption (for example to 96%) to preserve funding for some positions rather than fully funding every vacant slot.
- Unfunding long‑vacant positions and re‑posting them only if an appropriation is approved later; department heads noted that some positions have been vacant a year or more and recruitment is often constrained by market pay levels.

Public safety revenue and jail/DOC issues
The sheriff’s office reported changes in Department of Corrections (DOC) reimbursements and inmate housing that affect the county’s revenue outlook. The sheriff said the state has changed the method for reimbursing counties for inmates the DOC accepts; Tippecanoe County had been owed roughly $645,112 and staff estimated a realistic figure closer to $800,000 for outstanding revenue. The sheriff also said the DOC per‑diem and the choice of county to accept beds for federal (ICE) detainees or other counties’ inmates are shifting, and urged caution about offering beds beyond current staffing capacity.

Council finance staff suggested moving the county’s conservative DOC estimate up to $1 million, pending confirmation, as revenues could be higher if the county continues to house inmates longer while DOC bed availability tightens.

School‑resource officer (SRO) grant reimbursement and juvenile programs
The sheriff and other criminal‑justice staff described changes to the state SRO grant: previously the county had treated grant funding more broadly but the state clarified that grant dollars must backfill positions (year‑one officer costs) and that the number of funded SRO slots must match actual SRO positions. That means the county must ensure positions exist and remain staffed for grant reimbursement to be valid. The local grant manager and county staff are working to maximize reimbursements as the sheriff’s office fills positions.

Departmental highlights and proposed changes
- Building and permits: The building department proposed modest permit‑fee increases (first raised in 2019 in many categories). Staff agreed to break down permit counts by type to estimate expected additional revenue from fee changes.
- Planning and community development (area plan/building commission): Staff and commissioners discussed zoning‑enforcement legal costs, which have grown because the county is prosecuting more code cases; the department requested an increase in legal/professional services.
- County payroll and classification: Human resources staff and several department heads discussed difficulties recruiting for technical/professional roles (surveyor, program engineer, professional technical positions). Departments criticized reliance on a single consultant pay grid as insufficiently responsive to local salary markets (Purdue, Lafayette, West Lafayette and private engineering firms). The personnel committee discussed reconsidering the use of outside consultants for classification or developing a hybrid internal review process.
- Court and indigent defense costs: Judges and the prosecutor noted increases in juvenile detention, interpreter needs and expert costs. County judicial officials warned that juvenile placements outside the county are costly and rising.
- Parks and Fairgrounds: Park officials flagged maintenance and utility cost increases and discussed the county’s uneven recreational supply across the county; fairgrounds staff said revenue can fluctuate with large periodic events (biannual Caterpillar show). The fairgrounds also requested capital purchases and noted rising maintenance needs for the relatively new exhibit hall and site infrastructure.
- Recorder’s perpetuation fund: The recorder presented a sworn statement agreeing that their perpetuation fund may be used to support operating costs after the county moved certain operating expenses out of the general fund; council approved the related ordinance on first reading.

Decisions and next steps
Council members and staff agreed to continue multi‑day budget hearings and to revisit the raises and stipend question after revenue and position decisions are better settled. Several options will be modeled and presented for subsequent hearings: increasing the stipend amount (one‑time), raising base pay to 3% with different stipend combinations, lowering the budget realization assumption from 97% to 96% to preserve funding for key vacancies, and re‑allocating specific user‑fee and special fund revenues to support public safety functions. Staff were directed to provide: permit‑fee revenue estimates by category, updated DOC reimbursement timing and amounts, and a clearer list of departmental positions to consider for temporary unfunding or reallocation.

Votes at a glance (first‑reading outcomes)
- Ordinance 2025‑26‑6‑CL (fix compensation and headcount for elected/county officers) — motion by Councilman Murray, second by Councilman Richard; roll call: Hamilton, Vernon, Basham, Carson, Dolan, Murray, Richard — passed 7–0 (first reading).
- Ordinance 2025‑27‑CL (county budget ordinance, first reading; advertised higher estimates for flexibility) — motion by Councilman Murray, second by Councilman Richard — passed 7–0 (first reading).
- Ordinance 2025‑28‑CL (solid waste management district budget, first reading) — motion by Councilman Murray, second by Councilman Richard — passed 7–0 (first reading).
- Ordinance 2025‑29‑CL (Little Wea Conservancy District budget, first reading) — motion by Councilman Murray, second by Councilman Richard — passed 7–0 (first reading).
- Ordinance 2025‑30‑CL (recorder perpetuation fund use for operating expenses, first reading) — motion by Councilman Murray, second by Councilman Richard — passed 7–0 (first reading).

What to watch next
- Staff will return with revised revenue forecasts (permit fees, DOC reimbursements, interest and investment income), and with options for the council on whether to increase the stipend or raise base wages to ease insurance‑related take‑home pay reductions.
- The council will also revisit the question of unfunding some long‑vacant positions versus funding them now, with HR providing an updated list of position titles and recruitment timelines and budget scenarios showing the effect of changing the 97% realization assumption.

Ending
Council members scheduled continued budget hearings and asked departments to supply clarifying data on specific revenue and cost drivers. Public employees and department leaders urged the council to weigh the long‑term cost of turnover against the short‑term savings of unfilled positions and to consider local market comparisons as they finalize pay policy for 2026.