VERO BEACH — The ongoing feud between Indian River County Sheriff Eric Flowers and county commissioners over the sheriff’s budget resurfaced Oct. 20, when Flowers spoke publicly with the board for the first time since July during a special meeting.
The meeting was the latest chapter in a months-long dispute over the Board of County Commissioners’ denial of Flowers’ full budget request, which sought a $12.2 million increase. The board ultimately approved a $6.9 million increase — well short of the sheriff’s proposal.
Soon after, Flowers released a video accusing commissioners of trying to “defund the police” and of not supporting law enforcement — a claim the board has repeatedly denied. He later filed a lawsuit against the county, alleging the board failed to follow proper procedure when denying the request and asking that his full budget be awarded.
Commissioners have rejected the allegations, saying County Administrator John Titkanich’s line-item reductions were suggestions and that the sheriff retains authority to allocate funds as he sees fit. They also expressed disappointment that Flowers proceeded with legal action.
During the meeting, Titkanich reviewed the timeline of the sheriff’s budget request and explained that diverting money from other county programs is not legally possible.
The sheriff’s budget is funded through the General Fund and the Municipal Service Taxing Unit, not the enterprise fund, which includes revenues from solid waste, utilities, the county building division, and the Sandridge Golf Course.
“None of those revenues can be diverted legally to any other fund,” Titkanich said.
Titkanich also addressed Flowers’ criticism of the county’s consultant spending. The county spent $34.8 million on consultants across fiscal years 2022–23 and 2023–24, most of it for engineering and construction costs.
“Some of these expenses are no different than the expenses that the sheriff's office had to pay when they were designing and doing civil engineering plans and site plans as it related to their administrative complex that's being built,” he said.
He went on to explain the terminology and requirements used in the budget process — a key issue in Flowers’ lawsuit. The suit argues the sheriff is not obligated to provide expenditures at the subobject level, while Titkanich’s correspondence to Flowers said that because he had not done so, the county provided proposed line-item suggestions. The lawsuit contends Flowers submitted his budget in compliance with Florida law.
Titkanich concluded by reiterating the board’s position that the sheriff’s budget is not being cut but simply not increasing to the level requested. The sheriff’s office currently accounts for 72% of the county’s general fund.
“I would submit to you that’s hardly defunding law enforcement,” he said.
Titkanich asked commissioners to approve the object-level reductions and issue a written notice of board action.
Flowers then addressed the board, saying he remains focused on his duties.
“I am focused on the job I was elected to do — protect Indian River County,” he said. “As I have traveled this county, speaking to citizens, I keep hearing the same thing: ‘Keep fighting them, Sheriff.’”
Flowers detailed his meetings with commissioners and Titkanich during the budget process, saying he made clear that this year’s request aimed to make deputy salaries more competitive.
“Any rhetoric about me not meeting with the county commissioners or administrator are false,” he said.
Flowers said he did not want to sue the county but felt he had no other choice.
“I had to sue this board to get you to hold this meeting,” he said. “I regret that I had to sue our county and this board to force you to comply with the law.”
He said he used zero-based budgeting, a practice recommended by Gov. Ron DeSantis, and argued that county leadership had not negotiated in good faith.
“At no point has the county administrator attempted to conduct good faith negotiations with me throughout this process,” he said.
Flowers said he offered compromises, including reducing his request by $2 million and taking on animal control duties, and accused commissioners of failing to understand the details of his proposal.
“My budget request was provided to you on May 1 of this year. It contained not only every dollar I was requesting, but it detailed exactly where I intended to use that money,” he said.
Citing rising costs, Flowers repeated his “defund the police” claim.
“By not funding the sheriff's office, you are making the decision to cut the services we provide from the public,” he said. “So yes, as much as I understand it gets under your skin, you are choosing to defund the police.”
He concluded with a call for fiscal responsibility, pointing to recent county controversies such as the trash pickup changes and continued pay for former planning director Chris Balter, who was arrested earlier this year.
“The public is asking better fiscal responsibility from you and for law enforcement to be properly funded,” he said.
Aimee Cooper, the sheriff’s office chief financial officer, also warned of negative impacts if the proposed budget is approved.
“If we did this, compression would once again occur throughout our ranks, which we fixed since Sheriff Flowers took office,” she said. “Additionally, we would not be able to competitively pay our civilians.”
Several sheriff’s office representatives — including deputies, civilian staff and mental health professionals — spoke in support of the budget increase before Flowers returned to the dais.
“Now, you commissioners have a choice to make: Fund our budget to meet the needs of our community, or tell us why you refuse to do so,” he said.
Commissioner Joseph Flescher clarified that the session was not a budget hearing.
“This is not a budget hearing. This is the official delivery of the information recommended as per statute guidelines,” he said.
Adam Fetterman, Flowers’ attorney, also addressed the board.
“You heard the presentations tonight from the sheriff and his team, and literally every single bit of the budget is critical,” he said.
Fetterman requested justifications for Titkanich’s proposed reductions.
“We do not want to proceed with a lawsuit. We do not want to proceed with an appeal to the governor,” he said. “But we will do the things necessary that we are permitted to under the law and that we have an obligation to under the law.”
A motion to approve the object-level reductions and issue the sheriff a written notice of board action passed unanimously.