The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners on Oct. 20 approved specific object‑level reductions to the Indian River County Sheriff's FY2025‑26 budget request and issued a written notice of that action, voting 5‑0 after a public hearing that included detailed presentations from county staff, the sheriff's office, and members of the public.

The action came after the board held required budget workshops and two statutorily required budget hearings earlier in the cycle; the board’s adopted county budget for FY2025‑26 funds the sheriff's office at about $85.77 million, an increase over FY2024‑25 that the county administrator described in object‑level terms while the sheriff and sheriff's staff urged the commission to fund the office at higher levels to avoid cuts to operations and safety programs.

County Deputy Attorney Susan Prado framed the hearing as a clarification of the board's written notice of action under Florida Statute 30.49. Prado said the statute permits the board to “amend, modify, increase, or reduce any or all items of expenditure proposed by the sheriff” but also contains a separate provision restricting changes at the sub‑object (very detailed line‑item) level; the board must provide written notice specifying the items it amended, modified, increased, or reduced.

County Administrator John Tkanic presented a timeline and the dollar history the board used in making its recommendation: the sheriff’s original May 1 request was listed at $93,547,675, a July revised request at roughly $91,126,840, and the board’s adopted amount for the sheriff’s office at about $85,773,472. Tkanic described the board’s approach as recommending object‑level reductions (personnel services, operating expenses, capital outlay) that together reduced the sheriff’s revised request by roughly $5.35 million and left the sheriff’s budget an estimated 8.7% above the prior year.

The sheriff, identified in the record as Sheriff Flowers, addressed the commission and a packed public chamber, saying he had met repeatedly with commissioners and county staff and that his line‑item submission was provided to the board on May 1. “This budget battle started out with me trying to get what I needed to fund our daily operations,” he said, and warned that reducing specific operating lines would affect services the office provides. The sheriff and more than a dozen sheriff’s office staff and contractors described programs and line items at risk — from body‑worn cameras and real‑time crime center services to inmate medical care, aviation maintenance, marine patrol readiness, SWAT equipment and training, and mental‑health supports for deputies.

Speakers from the sheriff’s office and partner providers gave specific examples and dollar figures in support of the higher funding level: the sheriff’s staff said Axon (body cameras, in‑car cameras and related services) and FUSIS/real‑time‑crime‑center services support live monitoring and evidence gathering; jail medical staff detailed higher pharmacy and treatment costs and described partnerships that reduced some costs but warned that further cuts would reduce services and could increase hospital transfers; aviation and marine pilots described mandatory FAA or manufacturer maintenance and the operational risks of deferring those services.

The public comment period drew dozens of speakers, including county residents, retired deputies, business owners and representatives of partner health providers; many urged the commission to restore funding or to find alternative county savings to preserve public‑safety programs and competitive pay for deputies.

Adam Federman, general counsel for the sheriff, told the commission that the sheriff’s office viewed the board action as subject to an appellate standard that would be reviewed for whether it was “arbitrary and capricious” in any subsequent administrative appeal, and he asked the board to provide the factual and logical bases supporting the reductions. Federman said the sheriff’s office preferred to avoid litigation but would pursue the remedies available under law if necessary.

After discussion the board moved to approve the county administrator’s recommended object‑level reductions and to issue the revised written notice to the sheriff. Commissioner Adams moved the action; Vice Chairman Daryl Law seconded. The roll call as recorded in the meeting minutes was unanimous in favor (5‑0).

Votes at a glance: Motion — “Approve the specific object level reductions to the sheriff’s FY2025‑26 budget request and issue to the sheriff the written notice of board action.” Mover: Commissioner Adams. Second: Vice Chairman Daryl Law. Vote: 5 yes, 0 no; outcome: approved.

The board’s action does not change the adopted countywide budget or millage rate; county staff emphasized the board’s authority to set the county budget while noting a separate statutory provision that allows a sheriff, after budget approval, to transfer funds among object and subobject categories within his approved total. The meeting concluded after the unanimous vote; the written notice and supporting materials will be part of the public record.

(Reporting note: direct quotations and summarized figures are drawn from speakers who testified at the Oct. 20 public hearing; speaker attributions and numeric figures in this article reflect the language used during the hearing and the county staff presentation.)