Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DuBois County council targets 2% salary guidance as state changes threaten $600,000 in revenue
Summary
County leaders were briefed on projected revenue losses tied to state tax changes and instructed departments to prepare 2026 budgets assuming a constrained revenue picture; council members settled on guidance around a 2% pay increase target with flexibility to reduce before final adoption.
DuBois County council members spent a large portion of their meeting discussing the 2026 budget outlook after a briefing that the county could face about $600,000 less in revenue under recent state changes to property-tax treatment and caps.
Council members said the revenue swing stems from changes tied to the state legislative package they reviewed with a legislative office; the briefing showed a notable reduction in the county—urrent revenue baseline.
The nut graf: Councilors debated how much salary guidance to give departments while awaiting final assessed-value numbers and other state clarifications. They agreed to give departments a planning target rather than a final commitment, emphasizing caution because the county will not know final assessed values until July and the budget must be certified in August.
In the meeting, council members discussed a range of options (1% to 3% or higher) and the consequences of each. One council member summarized the dilemma: the county has limited flexibility because some funds are earmarked or grant-funded and cannot be used to cover general salary increases. Another member noted the county lready has generous employee benefits and urged care in setting expectations for taxpayers who may face higher bills.
Ultimately the council coalesced around a planning target of 2% for department budget submissions, with explicit direction that the executive/auditor staff could scale the amount down at final adoption if revenues proved lower than projected. Council members instructed staff to include language to departments that the guidance is subject to revision and that departments should look for internal efficiencies and possible savings before requesting higher appropriations.
The budget discussion also included requests for more complete cost visibility: councilors asked the auditor nd human resources staff to produce a "fully loaded" per-employee cost (salary plus benefits and employer-paid insurance) so elected officials and employees can see the county—ontribution beyond take-home pay.
Looking ahead, staff said they will send budget worksheets to departments on June 1 and expect department returns by July 1 so the council can prepare a budget book for the August adoption cycle. The council also invited department heads to identify potential savings and to treat the guidance as a planning figure rather than a guarantee.
Ending: Councilors left the meeting with an instruction to staff to compile more detailed revenue impact estimates as state rules are clarified, and with a temporary, preparatory 2% target for departments to use while staff finalizes the numbers.
