Commissioners debate FY26 budget impacts of SB22 supplements, sheriff staffing and ambulance plans

Cook County commissioners spent the longest portion of their session on the proposed FY26 budget, pressing department leaders for choices to keep the county’s general fund balanced while accounting for one-time supplement funds labeled in the transcript as “SB 22.” The discussion mattered because departments used SB 22 supplements to raise salaries and hire new staff, and commissioners said the county cannot promise permanent raises with money that can be discontinued. “When the money goes away, then we won't supplement SB 22,” a commissioner said during the budget debate. County staff and elected officials described the core problem: departments used SB 22 supplement money to increase pay or hire new people, but rising employer benefit costs (including retirement and insurance) and a 3% general pay increase created a small but real deficit in some offices. Participants repeatedly stressed that the county’s long-term obligation rests with the general fund, not the temporary supplement funds. “If that position does get filled, it just can’t get filled today at that rate,” one commissioner said of a sheriff’s investigator salary that department leaders had proposed. Sheriff’s priorities were a focal point. The sheriff asked for an additional CID investigator (a position that commissioners and budget staff debated whether the mailed summary had included). The sheriff’s office said last-minute hires and benefits increases left its SB 22 account roughly $4,000 over budget for this year; commissioners discussed options including lowering an entry salary, reallocating supplements across offices, or covering the excess with county funds. “If that position is filled, they might have to come in at a lower salary,” a commissioner said, referring to adjustments to preserve budget balance. Transportation and equipment questions were intertwined. Sheriff leadership said a jail transport van and other vehicles were aging; the sheriff said he would give up a marked or unmarked vehicle to free general-fund dollars to pay for personnel, and commissioners discussed cutting one or two vehicles to fund a CID investigator in the general fund. Separately, emergency medical services sought direction on whether to budget for a new ambulance or a remount (rehabilitating an existing chassis) while applying for a state grant. Commissioners noted the comptroller’s grant opens October 1 and that a county cannot spend grant funds retroactively on equipment purchased before application rules allow it. That led to this practical compromise: budget for a new ambulance now but remain prepared to substitute a remount if the grant covers the purchase later. Commissioners also asked department heads to rework SB 22 spending plans. Several commissioners said they expected each department that had taken SB 22 supplements to reexamine how those supplements are distributed so the county doesn’t inherit recurring salary obligations when one-time funds expire. One commissioner urged department leaders to “sit down and look at your SB 22 chart and see how you want to do your SB 22 money.” The court did not adopt the FY26 budget during the meeting; the discussion ended with directions to the sheriff and other department heads to return with reconciled SB 22 allocations, clearer salary projections for potential hires, and revised vehicle/equipment plans so commissioners can finalize a balanced budget. Less-critical details discussed toward the end included that some offices had used all available SB 22 funds for raises (which left no cushion for benefits increases), that interest revenue and projections could partially offset shortages, and that some department heads preferred to find internal offsets before asking the county to absorb recurring costs. The county’s next step is for the sheriff and other department heads to present adjusted SB 22 allocations and revised requests so the commissioners can finalize spending decisions before the budget adoption deadline.