The Lake County Council plans to take over purchasing authority on July 26, pending a final decision from a judge, in a monthslong process to shift the authority from the Lake County Board of Commissioners.

A judge recently sided with the council in its fight with the commissioners over purchasing and data processing. In the April 16 order, Judge John Sedia referenced the code, approved by the legislature in 1981, that gives the Lake County legislative body, which is the council, “jurisdiction over” salary payments, mileage allowances, purchasing and data processing.

But, in May, the commissioners filed a motion to correct Sedia’s decision arguing, in part, that the 1980s law the council is basing its argument on for the transfer of authority was repealed and it’s still “on the books” as an oversight, Matthew Fech, commissioners’ attorney, previously said.

As the commissioners’ most recent motion is still pending, Councilman Christian Jorgensen, R-St. John, who first proposed creating ordinances transfer

ring authority in September citing the old law, said Tuesday the council will be ready to take over purchasing July 26.

A hearing is scheduled for July 22 for Sedia to make a ruling on the commissioner’s motion to correct error and the council’s response.

But, Commissioners’ president Michael Repay, D-3rd, said the matter is still with the court.

“They can prepare all they want, but the court will decide what has to be decided,” Repay said.

Councilman Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, asked if “for whatever reason” the date had to be shifted could that be possible. Jorgensen said the date is flexible, particularly because of the July 22 hearing.

“I think it’s important for everybody to know that there will be finality to this, and that we’ll be ready, willing and able to immediately take it over. It’ll be a smooth transition process,” Jorgensen said.

Scott Schmal, the finance director, said that at the July meeting the council will address moving the purchasing employees from the commissioner’s budget to the council’s budget. The same employees will be kept, Schmal said, and the same purchasing process will be maintained, but it will then be under council authority.

Jorgensen previously said the council should have authority over purchasing because of “the incessant squabbling” over purchases between the Lake County Sheriff’s Department and the commissioners. The council should have authority over data processing after the county’s software systems were hacked in 2019.

In October, the commissioners vetoed the two ordinances because they “violate the separation of power” between the executive and legislative branches of county government, Fech previously said.

Additionally, Fech previously said that state statute gives commissioners authority to contract, or approve purchases, which means the commissioners have authority over purchasing and data processing — because the data processing board has authority to contract under the commissioners.

The council then filed a lawsuit to have a judge determine if the current veto and override structures — allowing the commissioners to veto a council action and allowing the council to override the veto — are still valid under state law.

Council attorney Ray Szarmach previously said he filed the lawsuit to determine if those steps should’ve been taken. In 2019, the state legislature removed a statute that addressed veto and override procedures, he said.

Sedia wrote that while “for reasons unknown” the state legislature removed the procedures for the commissioners to veto and the council to override, “it is still necessary for the courts to step in to redress this two-year elimination of a necessary process.”

“The right of the commissioners to veto and the right of the council to override are essential to the proper and efficient statutory functioning of government in Lake County, Indiana,” Sedia stated.

Ultimately, Sedia ruled that the veto and override of the purchasing and data processing ordinances “are affirmed, ratified and shall remain in full force” and the council has jurisdiction over purchasing and data processing under state law and the two ordinances.