By VICKI URBANIK

Of the 20 new county positions requested in the 2008 budgets, the Porter County Council approved one of them on Tuesday: A probation officer that will help establish a new juvenile drug court.

Porter County Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper said the new juvenile court will allow cases involving drug offenses to be dealt with separately from other juvenile court cases. The new court will be somewhat like the county’s adult drug court but with much more supervision and intervention.

Though the county council debated at length on various budget items Tuesday, the council had little trouble approving the new drug court. The council did reject the original request to fund the $28,416 position out of the general fund, which comes mainly from property taxes. Instead, the position will be paid for through fees paid by those placed on probation.

That decision is in keeping with the somewhat unusual goal that the county council established for itself during this year’s budget hearings -- namely, that it will try not to collect as much in property taxes for county government in 2008 as the state will allow.

How successful the council will end up is anyone’s guess, but the council made good on its pledge Tuesday by cutting the current year’s general fund by about $68,600 overall, mainly by moving some budget items into fee or grant-based funds.

The move comes one day after council members debated whether to impose a new income tax to either fund future county spending or property tax cuts. After a majority of the council appeared to be against a new income tax, they agreed by consensus to try not to increase next year’s property tax levy, or at least not by the $904,000 that the state is expected to allow.

Still to come, however, are a few big decisions, such as how much of a raise to award to county employees and how to fund a projected $210,000 increase in health coverage for county employees.

Porter County Council President Dan Whitten, D-at large, said in keeping with Monday’s pledge, he sent county department heads a memo warning them that unless it’s absolutely critical, requests for more funding will not be granted.

“We’re coming into these budget hearings armed for cuts,” Whitten said.

Juvenile Detention

One budget that came under scrutiny Tuesday was that for the Porter County Juvenile Detention Center. The JDC sought an overall increase of $168,312, which included a new detention officer position at $27,343 as well as a nearly $52,000 increase in hourly funding.

JDC Director Ken Perkins began his budget hearing by saying that while he understands the budget constraints facing the council, he also has an obligation to submit a budget that represents the true costs of operating a detention center efficiently and safely.

During an extended discussion, several council members appeared willing to support the new detention officer, but not with the added hourly help. Perkins said if the council couldn’t fund both, he would prefer adding more part-time help. In the end, though, no increase was approved at all, as the council opted to keep the 2008 budget the same as this year’s with the understanding that if the JDC runs out of funding, it could return and request an additional appropriation later.

The council also agreed to establish a separate fund to keep track of the payments received from other counties that send their juvenile offenders to Porter County and to renegotiate the contract that sets the daily fee at $110.

Detention Raises

Another JDC matter that was debated at length dealt with a request to tap a fee-based fund, known as CODES, collected from the families of kids in detention to award Perkins and his assistant raises of $12,092 and $13,598 respectively.

Harper said the job descriptions of the director and the assistant director are nothing like they were just a few years ago, since the JDC has added considerably more programming. She noted that the JDC is complying with the council’s request to keep detained kids in the county rather than the much more expensive alternative of sending them to state or other institutions.

Whitten said if the council were to approve the higher pay based on the added workload, other departments would want the same, since the county government overall is doing more. And council member Michael Bucko, D-4th, questioned how employees who are already working hard could be expected to work even harder just by giving them a pay raise.

Noting that the fee-based fund has a balance of about $99,000, Bucko suggested using the money instead to fund a new JDC manager, in order to reduce the workload for the two top directors. But Harper said the purpose of the fund is to enhance services at the JDC, not cover increased operating expenses.

Council member William Carmichael, R-at large, then proposed using the fund for raises, but only at the $6,000 level for the two directors. No one seconded his motion.

After more debate, the council voted 6-1, with only Carmichael dissenting, to reject the entire CODES budget as presented. The council directed the JDC to return at the start of the year with a proposal for a new position out of that fund.

The council’s budget hearings resume today at 5 p.m. with a review of the sheriff’s, prosecutor’s and clerk’s budgets.

Posted 8/29/2007