County officials presented a series of budget transfers, corrections and appropriation requests during the meeting, ranging from localized drainage work to countywide utility costs and grant accounting adjustments.

Most notable requests included a drainage improvement appropriation: $25,000 proposed for local engineering related to Little Cal River ditch work and $2,000,665.46 proposed for Little Cal River construction. County staff said three projects in Sherville and Dyer are under contract and bids are forthcoming; the projects were described as having been deferred for several years and the requested funds would allow work to proceed.

Finance staff also requested a $1,200,000 appropriation to cover utilities for county facilities for the year, to be paid from the county’s courthouse fund. The presenter said utilities for county facilities are paid from that fund and the amount will be covered in part by a transfer from the general fund.

Other transfers and adjustments discussed included:
- Creation of new line items in grant funds to spend a small veterans’ grant (described as $1,000 in GRAMA funds that must be spent in specified ways) and to appropriate leftover state grant dollars carried from last year into the current year so the grant funds can be spent.
- Requests to create line items and appropriations for sheriff’s safe Narcan and related public‑health items.
- A transfer to correct a negative balance in a forfeiture income fund by moving the balance into a related GRAMA fund that has been closed.
- Transfers to cover shortfalls in part‑time salaries at several county departments and to cover unemployment compensation and postage accounts in the auditor/treasurer functions.

On personnel costs, staff asked the council to approve a salary adjustment for a probation officer: a revised proposed amount of $42,003.11 (the materials showed a present amount of $15,004.73 and a reported difference figure cited at the meeting). County staff said the 2026 budget incorporates newly certified employees and that the requested adjustments were accounted for in the 2026 budget proposals.

Most items were discussed and council members asked staff to verify fund restrictions and language. Several council members asked staff to double‑check whether transfers would comply with ordinance limits on fund use; staff said they would review ordinances and follow up before the next meeting. In several cases staff indicated they would return with revised paperwork for formal action at a subsequent meeting.

Ending: Council members generally voiced support for moving corrections and needed transfers forward but asked staff to confirm fund restrictions and provide revised documents where necessary before final votes.