Lake County budget hearings put State’s Attorney’s gun-violence prevention request under scrutiny; board asks for short-term bridge options

The State’s Attorney urged Lake County officials to fund a multi‑component gun‑violence prevention initiative after legislative money that would have covered the program has not yet been released by the state. The office requested a one‑year county appropriation to sustain street outreach, peacemakers and mediation services while longer‑term state or private funding is pursued. The State’s Attorney said the full one‑year figure is about $1.877 million and that a five‑year commitment would total about $8.9 million.

County Administrator Patrice Sutton told members the budget process had already recommended a conservative contingency, and she asked the committee to weigh whether to allocate new recurring county dollars for a program that began with state and grant funding. Members pressed for details on alternatives, scale‑down scenarios and possible municipal or private partners; several said they were willing to consider a short bridge (about six months) while administration and the State’s Attorney work to identify other revenue.

State’s Attorney staff described the program as a mix of street outreach, mediation (peacemakers) and wraparound supports for people at risk of violence, and said rapid loss of the program would reduce services that staff and community partners say help avoid shootings and homicides. The State’s Attorney noted the legislative appropriation exists in statute but has not been disbursed and that state rules often require one‑year spending windows tied to the fiscal year, complicating multi‑year planning. The office said it pared its original request and aims to phase any county support down if durable state or private funding is secured.

Board members raised competing priorities. Some said public safety and proven violence‑interruption models deserve prioritized funding; others warned that approving a lengthy, recurring county commitment now would set a new budget precedent for grant‑funded programs. Several members asked administration to return at the next FNA meeting (Oct. 30) with concrete scenarios: a six‑month bridge, a scaled‑down staffing model, and options for using one‑time funds or other special revenue accounts so the county would not immediately add long‑term recurring personnel costs to the operating budget.

No formal vote was taken. Committee members directed staff to prepare the requested funding scenarios and to include how any increase would affect contingency and property‑tax growth calculations so the board can consider a targeted amendment at the Oct. 30 meeting.