Cook County commissioners weigh budget cuts following public feedback

Following five public listening sessions across Cook County, commissioners and county staff convened for a budget work session on Wednesday, Oct. 28, to review and discuss the feedback as they continue working on the county’s 2027 budget.

At the work session, officials reviewed a summary of the highly valued spending priorities and main budget concerns residents voiced during the five listening sessions, along with feedback from 36 respondents to a county budget survey. In total, approximately 100 members of the public attended the five listening sessions.

Wednesday’s discussion also took place as commissioners and county staff continue to look for ways to reduce the county’s preliminary 11.98% levy increase, set in September. The county will set the final levy in December, which cannot exceed that number, but can be reduced.

Below is information provided in the Listening Sessions Summary document presented during Wednesday’s meeting:

Main Public Concerns About Spending and Budget Priorities

Non‑mandated services need clearer justification

• Transparency about non‑mandated services, what value they provide, if the board is considering cutting them, and how cuts would affect residents.
• Specific programs or positions questioned: agriculture inspector, childcare wage subsidy, public information officer, historical society funding, YMCA, airport, and EDA/HRA.

Skepticism toward administrative expansion

• The request for an Administrator Services position, including questions about cost, necessity, and comparison with other counties.
• Broader worries about staffing levels, administrative salaries, and whether government is “growing too fast.”

Desire for more responsible, long‑term budgeting

• Concern about reliance on fund balance to reduce levy increases and whether that approach is sustainable. While also wanting the fund balance to be used to offset levy pressure.
• Confusion about levy calculations, “true levy,” and effects of the proposed 11.98% increase. Members of the public want the board to look at all entity levies, such as the North Shore Health Hospital, EDA, ISD 166 School District, and gauge the levy impact from all entities when talking about levy impacts.
• Calls to ensure departments identify cuts and budget more accurately year‑to‑year. Some want departments to budget based on what they can reasonably expect to spend and receive, and not add a cushion to expenses and lower revenue expectations so that they come under budget.

Programs Seen as High Priorities

Childcare

• A common theme throughout the listening sessions, and in light of the YMCA childcare program closure.

Housing & Workforce Stability

• Support for HRA projects and housing initiatives

PHHS and public health grants

• Support for mandated PHHS services and the grant funds

Roads, Highway Department, Infrastructure

• Other topics outlined in the summary included the mixed views about the Cook County YMCA, concerns about taxes and fairness, and transparency, communication, and the public’s access to information.

See the full document, including the listening sessions and county survey summaries, here: Listening Session & Survey Summary.

Budget Work Session

For the first portion of Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners and County Administrator Kristen Trebil-Halbersma recapped the logistics of the listening sessions, what went well, and areas for improvement before moving into the main takeaways from the meetings and what they learned.

Several commissioners said a main takeaway was the need for the county to improve communication and provide more information, particularly about the budget and spending. County officials discussed the ongoing implementation of ClearGov, a software platform designed to help local governments share budget documents and other information with the public. The county has been working to implement the software for several years.

“What I learned is where we’re lacking in our communication, and what more understanding we need to share,” Commissioner Dave Mills said. “I didn’t learn any new topics. I’m very familiar with skepticism of the Y (YMCA), support for the Y, concern about the levy, support for services. Like none of the topics were new. It’s just, how are we lacking? That’s what I learned.”

Commissioner Ann Sullivan said one concern that stood out to her throughout the listening sessions was for the county to eliminate the use of calcium chloride on dirt roads.

Trebil-Halbersma and Cook County Auditor/Treasurer Braidy Powers then moved on to the budget and fielded specific proposals from commissioners for areas or services to trim. Powers mentioned a few slight changes to the budget since commissioners set the preliminary levy in September, but that it largely remained unchanged.

Sullivan said that, given feedback during the listening sessions and concerns about discretionary funding and non-mandated services, she proposed trimming funding for the Schroeder Historical Society and the Cook County Historical Society. She said, “I’m sharing what I’ve heard, not what I feel.” She suggested approving funding for the two historical societies at 61% of their 2027 funding requests.

A list of the non-mandated services and associated costs presented by the county

In the recommended 2027 levy, $79,722 is designated for the Cook County Historical Society, and $15,000 is allocated for the Schroeder Historical Society. Funding the requests at 61% would save the county $36,942.

Commissioners asked how the 61% figure was determined. Sullivan said it reflects the percentage of public health grant funding requests that Public Health and Human Services typically approves. The public health grants are also a non-mandated service the county provides.

Commissioner Deb White said the county should first decide whether to fund the PHHS health grants at the proposed $150,000. Commissioner Gary Gamble said the Budget and Facilities Committee recommended fully funding both of the historical societies, based on an evaluation and criteria matrix.

Sullivan also recommended cutting the proposed Maintenance Worker II future position in the Highway Department. The estimated cost savings would be $60,000. Trebil-Halbersma said she agreed with cutting the request from the budget and had previously spoken with the highway engineer about the position.

For the remainder of the first half of the meeting, Powers and commissioners discussed fund balance, unknown near-term state and federal costs, and various county services and programs.

During the second half of the three-hour meeting, Trebil-Halbersma asked commissioners to identify how much they wanted to reduce the county’s preliminary 11.98% levy before setting the final levy in December.

Sullivan said she would like to see the final levy decrease by “a couple points,” to under 10%. She said she is looking at relatively easy budget reductions to get under that mark.

Mills responded by saying, “I think the numerical is arbitrary.”

“I am against setting a percentage numerical goal because it’s completely arbitrary,” Mills said. “It’s not based on what our community needs are. It’s just based on what we would like. I would like zero. It’s not real.”

He said that rather than set a number, or “whittling away at this or that or the other thing,” he wants to develop a long-term strategy for the budgeting process.

White said her goal was to get the final levy down between 6% and 8%.

“How’s that going to happen? A lot of pain. I don’t know if that’s actually possible,” White said.

Gamble said he also supports getting the levy down to between 6-8%. “That’s where I think we should be, and that is looking at what our budget is and our process to point.”

Commissioner Ginny Storlie said her targeted final levy is between 8.5% and 9%.

County officials stated in the October listening sessions that one percentage point equals $150,000. To reduce the levy from 11.98% to between 6-8%, the county would need to cut between $597,000 and $897,000 from the 2027 budget.

Proposed cost increases for the 2027 budget

Trebil-Halbersma and the commissioners then moved on to discuss and assess the proposed cost increases.

A list of cost increases and additional information presented by the county

One proposed cost increase was for an administrative service position, estimated at $188,345. During several of the listening sessions, the public questioned and raised concerns about the need for the position.

Sullivan said she fully supported adding the position, but she thinks the commissioners did a poor job explaining the value of the position and the work Trebil-Halbersma has done over the past year.

Gamble discussed comparing Cook County’s administrative staffing structure with that of other counties. He said he would like more discussion about the position and to explore other options for administrative support.

Mills pointed to challenges faced by previous administrators and interim administrators, saying, “If we want to support our administrator and to develop our organization, we have to invest.”

Trebil-Halbersma said that when she originally proposed adding this position, which would largely serve in a supervisory capacity for internal county operations, she would only add it to the budget if she had full support from the commissioners.

“I will support pulling it,” said Trebil-Halbersma. But she told the commissioners that without additional resources, her capacity to accomplish her responsibilities and additional board priorities, and unforeseen emergencies, such as the wildfires this summer, will be a bit limited.

As another option for the commissioners to consider, Trebil-Halbersma said she recommended removing the administrative service position, but setting aside roughly $30,000 to bring in a consultant to assess the administrative department, identify efficiencies, and improve operations.

White said she supported not including the position in the budget this year, and instead bringing someone in to assess and reconfigure roles and the administrative position.

Next Steps: continued work on the budget

County staff and the commissioners will hold another budget work session in November and continue to assess potential areas to cut from the 2027 budget ahead of December.

Sullivan said that as part of the budgeting process, she has consulted with the county’s auditor/treasurer and administrator to identify specific items to cut from the budget that would reduce the levy to a targeted goal. She asked whether the other commissioners had done the same and recommended that each commissioner prepare a budget they are comfortable with to discuss at the next budget work session.

“I disagree because that’s five of us tapping Braidy,” Mills said. “That’s not how we’re supposed to operate as a board.”

Mills said a work session among the commissioners, such as Wednesday’s meeting, is how the board is supposed to operate.

Gamble said his comfort level at this point is to have the department heads come to the next work session to assess areas for further budget reductions.

Trebil-Halbersma said that while she appreciated the approach of inviting the department heads, she and Powers can go to the management advisory committee and department heads and do that work individually, which would be more efficient.

The remainder of the meeting included county staff and the commissioners stating they would like to spend more time in 2027 discussing the Cook County Economic Development Authority (EDA) and The Hub. They also discussed potential changes to the Cook County Recycling Center following public input in the community survey and how those changes may affect the budget in the coming years.

With the removal of the administrative services position and the highway department maintenance worker II position, the county cut approximately $200,000 from the 2027 budget during Wednesday’s budget work session, bringing the levy down to roughly 10.5%.

The Cook County Commissioners and county staff will meet again for a budget work session on Friday, Nov. 13, in the ITV Room.

An audio recording of Wednesday’s budget work session is below, seperated into part one, which is the first half of the meeting and part two, the second half of the meeting.

Kalli Hawkins October 31, 2026