Council debates steep Health First Indiana cut; members divided over using county funds to replace lost programs

County staff told the DeKalb County Council that Health First Indiana (HFI) funding for the county has been sharply reduced, and members debated whether to use county resources to sustain school‑based and community health programs the health department had stood up while HFI funding was available.

Staff reported the HFI allocation figures during the meeting: about $846,002.66 in the earlier year and roughly $226,002.32 for the current year. Health department staff and some council members said the department had used prior funding to establish programs — including school‑based services, outreach and community clinics (Saint Martin’s and Children’s First Center among them) — that county leaders value and that appear to be producing positive results.

Council members reviewed a staff‑prepared list of subgrants and proposals the health department was asking the county to consider preserving. One councilor enumerated a set of organizations and programs they would like the council to consider continuing, including the Council on Aging, Garrett‑based programs, the school nurse supply line (listed in the meeting as $40,000), Saint Martin’s clinic support, Children’s First Center, Purdue Extension perinatal mental health education, the Soil and Water septic cost‑share program, the Northeast Center navigation/mental‑health work and several other local nonprofit partners. That councilor cited a subtotal for the suggested continuation list of $262,004.96.

Some council members argued county funds should be conserved for infrastructure priorities such as roads and that school districts and larger hospital systems (Parkview and others) have other revenue sources and should absorb program costs; others said county government has a responsibility for residents’ health and that cutting programs now would hurt vulnerable residents and schoolchildren who currently receive services.

Council discussion touched on several related points: the unpredictability of state grant programs, the historical origin of HFI (noting it was controversial and some counties initially declined the funding), the difficulty of sustaining programs started with temporary state grants, and the potential for opioid‑settlement or other pooled county funds to support behavioral‑health programming under a regional grant process staff described as being coordinated through a county‑level board (referred to in the meeting as a multi‑jurisdictional board to manage opioid funds).

No formal funding decisions were made in the meeting. Staff said they would solicit additional information from the agencies that receive commissioner and health department allocations so the council can better assess what each grant supports and whether county funds already flow to the same organizations through other budget lines. Several council members emphasized they want to preserve school‑based services and nurse supplies as a high priority if dollars are available.

Next steps: staff will collect more detailed budgets and scope‑of‑work information from recipients of health subgrants and report back to the council after the lunch recess. Councilors did not take a final vote on funding levels during the session recorded in the transcript.