Trumbull County commissioners review budgets as $6M-plus shortfall forces talk of cuts, levies and layoffs

Trumbull County commissioners spent the meeting hearing department budget presentations and probing options to close a multi-million-dollar gap, including targeted cuts, use of reserves and asking voters to approve new revenue.

The county auditor’s office and multiple department heads told commissioners they had already pared nonessential spending and that most remaining costs were personnel-heavy. "We only have so many people that we can lay off that are not critical to our efforts," the auditor said while outlining mandatory services supported by county IT and other offices. Several department leaders warned that further reductions would force layoffs or cuts to services residents rely on.

Why it matters: Commissioners were presented with a conservative revenue estimate and a shortfall that several speakers said could exceed $6 million unless the board acts. The decisions will affect public safety, court operations and elected offices that are funded from county budgets.

Departments flagged near-term risks and concrete needs. The county’s 9-1-1 director described a staffing and technology crisis, saying the center handled 273,000 calls last year (71,000 were emergency 911 calls) while operating with roughly 18 dispatchers against a feasibility recommendation of about 40. The director listed urgent capital needs — new servers and a recorder upgrade — and urged the board to consider a $20-per-parcel assessment on the November ballot to raise between $3 million and $4 million annually for a new center and upgrades. "We're hanging on by a thread," the director said of current operations.

The prosecutor’s office and sheriff’s office told commissioners their requested budgets are driven largely by personnel costs and mandated functions. Prosecutor Bill Danso said his office had relied on a temporary grant to retain staff and that cutting the budget would likely mean reducing prosecutors or support staff, which would slow service to county agencies and townships.

Several department heads pointed to grant funding that temporarily covered positions, prompting commissioners to question whether expired grant roles should be absorbed into the permanent general fund. Board members pushed back on departments that had not demonstrated cuts and thanked those that proactively trimmed requests.

The board discussed procedural next steps: commissioners agreed to limit the next round of budget deliberations to the three elected commissioners and key staff, to meet again in a week and to bring back tighter forecasts and comparables from other counties. Commissioners also debated levies and other revenue options; one commissioner said a sales-tax increase or parcel assessment should be considered and put to voters if necessary.

No formal votes or motions were recorded during this meeting. Commissioners instructed staff to return with a realistic five-year forecast, clearer carryover/reserve projections and department-level line-item options for cuts so the board can set a target reduction and a timeline to finalize a 2026 budget.

What comes next: The board scheduled a follow-up meeting to set reduction targets and asked staff to prepare a forecast and options for both spending cuts and potential voter revenue measures.