Council approves first readings for 2026 budget ordinances as debate grows over employee raises and jail revenues

Tippecanoe County councilmembers on Tuesday approved first readings of multiple ordinances tied to the 2026 budget, and spent much of the hearing discussing how to close an estimated general-fund gap of roughly $8 million while responding to public comments from county employees and a sheriff’s update about jail reimbursements.

The council unanimously approved first readings on five ordinances, including the county compensation ordinance, the county budget ordinance, and separate budget ordinances for the solid-waste district, the Little We All Conservancy district, and the recorder’s perpetuation fund. Councilman Murray moved each motion; Councilman Richard seconded. The roll-call votes were recorded as 7-0 on each first reading.

Why it matters: County staff say the budget is under pressure from rising health-insurance costs, small recommended pay increases and uncertain state projections. Departments also described revenue shifts and grant reductions that reduce flexibility. Several county employees urged the council to expand the recommended pay package, saying the advertised 1% cost-of-living increase plus a one-time stipend will not offset rising employee benefit costs.

The package on the floor and council votes

Ordinances: Councilman Murray introduced and the council approved first readings of the following (motion text and citations are those read at the hearing): - "Ordinance 2025-26-26-CL": an ordinance to fix compensation of county officers, deputies and other employees and to fix the number of deputies and other employees. Motion carried 7-0 on first reading (Hamilton, Vernon, Basham, Carson, Dolan, Murray, Richard voted aye). - "Ordinance 2025-27-CL": the county budget ordinance (advertised above estimates to allow flexibility). Motion carried 7-0 on first reading. - "Ordinance 2025-28-CL": the solid waste management district budget ordinance. Motion carried 7-0 on first reading. - "Ordinance 2025-29-CL": the Little We All Conservancy district budget ordinance. Motion carried 7-0 on first reading. - "Ordinance 2025-30-CL": recorder’s perpetuation fund to support certain operating expenses (recorder provided a sworn statement of agreement). Motion carried 7-0 on first reading.

Budget numbers, gaps and assumptions

County budget staff told the council they are modeling the general fund using 97% of budgeted spending (an assumption that the full adopted budget is not spent in practice). Using that assumption and updated revenue estimates, staff said the general-fund gap to balance the 2026 budget is roughly $8 million. Staff noted recent updates to property-tax and income estimates: the county’s LIT (local income tax) was updated higher than earlier estimates and assessed values (AVs) are growing, which reduces some state circuit-breaker impacts compared with earlier files, but the bottom-line gap remains large.

Staff also presented alternative approaches for raises. The commissioners recommended a 1% across-the-board cost-of-living increase plus a $750 one-time stipend. Finance staff showed that a straight 3% raise would cost significantly more at the county level — county staff estimated a full-county cost in the range of several hundred thousand dollars (examples discussed in the hearing: roughly $400,000–$600,000 for the general fund portion of a larger raise scenario, and larger sums when other funds are included). Council members asked to revisit the percentages and stipend amount as they work through the budget book.

Public comment: clerk’s office staff describe squeeze on wages

Two employees from the county clerk’s office gave public comment urging larger increases.

- Abby Myers, high-volume court clerk supervisor in the clerk’s office, said, “I want to thank you for considering the 1% cost of living raise. Every bit of recognition matters and is appreciated.” Myers added that rising health insurance costs mean many employees with families will take home less next year despite the raise.

- Susie Sherman, also from the clerk’s office, told the council: “This 1% raise with stipend, most employees are still gonna effectively take a pay cut in 2026.” She described employees taking second jobs and said long-tenured staff are being outpaced by city and private-sector increases.

Sheriff: DOC reimbursements and jail per-diem

The sheriff reported that the county is still owed $645,112 from the Indiana Department of Corrections (DOC) for housing inmates and said county staff believe the money exists and is awaiting authorization for payment. The sheriff noted changes in DOC billing practices and that DOC has begun paying some counties differently after recalculations; the sheriff urged consistent, timely billing so counties are paid. On timing he said, “We should definitely get it within this year.”

The sheriff also warned the council that, while higher DOC per-diem rates are helpful, housing sentenced inmates longer in county jails can create staffing and liability concerns; he said the county is generally not seeking to expand boarding of other counties’ inmates given those operational impacts.

Department and revenue updates

- Building/permits: The building commissioner told the council he will produce a breakdown of how fee increases would affect permit revenue (staff said roughly 1,800 permits would be affected by a $25 minimum fee increase). The council later increased the building permit revenue estimate in the budget draft by $81,350 based on proposed fee changes.

- Solid Waste: Staff explained printing, mailing and recycling-guide costs are included in the solid-waste budget and that the current request largely reflects renewed outreach and mailing plans.

- Sheriff/jail revenue: Council members discussed moving some overtime and other personnel costs into the LIT (public-safety) fund to help close the gap. The sheriff and finance staff moved one large overtime line ($500,000) to lit public-safety in the iteration reviewed by the council.

- Employee positions: Personnel staff presented a county-wide review of positions open 12 months or more and recommended unfunding some long-vacant posts while keeping positions posted so departments can recruit quickly if the council restores funding. Surveyor and highway leaders urged caution about unfunding specialized technical positions because outsourcing those functions can be more expensive and the local market for technical staff is tight.

What the council directed

- The council approved the first readings of the ordinances, as recorded above. Members instructed staff to continue running the budget model with alternate raise scenarios, to work with departments to identify additional revenue or expense reductions, and to flag items that require mid-cycle appropriations after lead projects (for example, large bridge lettings) are finalized.

Ending

Council members scheduled follow-up budget sessions; staff noted the council must finish within the scheduled hearing days and planned to return with updated revenue and expense numbers, clarifications about grant awards and the results of additional department requests for adjustments.

Votes at a glance

- Ordinance 2025-26-26-CL (compensation schedule): motion by Councilman Murray; second Councilman Richard. Roll call: Hamilton, Vernon, Basham, Carson, Dolan, Murray, Richard — all voted aye. Outcome: First reading approved 7-0. - Ordinance 2025-27-CL (county budget): motion by Councilman Murray; second Councilman Richard. Roll call: Hamilton, Vernon, Basham, Carson, Dolan, Murray, Richard — all voted aye. Outcome: First reading approved 7-0. - Ordinance 2025-28-CL (solid waste budget): motion by Councilman Murray; second Councilman Richard. Roll call: Hamilton, Vernon, Basham, Carson, Dolan, Murray, Richard — all voted aye. Outcome: First reading approved 7-0. - Ordinance 2025-29-CL (Little We All Conservancy budget): motion by Councilman Murray; second Councilman Richard. Roll call recorded as above. Outcome: First reading approved 7-0. - Ordinance 2025-30-CL (recorder perpetuation fund use for operations): motion by Councilman Murray; second Councilman Richard. Roll call recorded as above. Outcome: First reading approved 7-0.