County budget committee reviews emergency management budget as general fund shortfall looms

The County Budget Committee on Sept. 9 reviewed the Emergency Management Agency's proposed budget and heard warnings that a shortfall in the county general fund will constrain supplemental funding requests. Mister Townsend, emergency management director, presented the agency's revenue and expense estimates and described training and equipment plans for the coming year.

Townsend told the committee that the agency has submitted $18,400 in reimbursements under the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) for fiscal 2025 and expects a recurring EMPG award of about $24,500 next year, though he said the county has not yet received guidance from the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) on the timing for submitting the next application. "I'm not real optimistic with the governor and our presence kind of going ahead," Townsend said. "I hope I'm wrong, but that's about $24,500 that we get." He said the department has not yet received the approved 2025 EMPG reimbursement but expects it in the next week or two.

Townsend outlined equipment and communications spending proposed in the EMA budget. He said the agency is adding cell phones and MiFi devices for first responders and county operations, and that he's budgeting an increased software charge of about $1,800 a year to maintain county weather-station data. He also discussed a planned $10,000 county contribution to help the County Highway Department erect a radio tower at Route 26 and McConnell Road and approximately $3,000 for special weather stations with cameras and road-temperature sensors; he said he agreed to help with one of two such purchases the highway department planned.

Townsend described planned outreach and training: a multiagency exercise and a proposed two-day educational field trip for Creekwood School District students to learn about local emergency management and weather impacts. He also said he was arranging training with a local gas utility (referred to in the presentation as the "Southern Company Gas Company") for pipeline-area first responders and planned to involve the local emergency planning committee.

County finance staff raised broader fiscal limits. Mister Walt, who addressed the committee on the county's budget posture, said the county is operating with a general-fund deficit and that supplemental requests will compete for scarce capital funds. "We're in a deficit in the general fund," Walt said. He noted requests such as a $140,000 increase sought by a veterans assistance program and other levied entities and cautioned that approving one supplemental would require reductions elsewhere or an increased levy.

Townsend said the EMA has a cash balance sufficient to operate this year even if the EMPG is reduced or delayed; "Our backup plan is we have a lot of money in our checkbook. I have a 120 something thousand," he said. He suggested the county could consider modest transfers from public-safety accounts in future years but did not propose immediate reductions in services.

Other departmental budget items were discussed but not finalized at the meeting. The coroner's budget was provided as a placeholder; the enterprise lease on a coroner vehicle was paid off this year, reducing that department's out-year lease cost. Committee members agreed to wait until October for additional submissions from the coroner and the sheriff's office; the sheriff's budget discussion will be revisited next month and may require an executive session.

No final countywide supplemental increases were approved at the meeting. Committee members voted to forward the emergency management budget item (as presented) for further processing; the record shows the motion passed on a voice vote. The committee also approved routine meeting items including the agenda and prior meeting minutes.

Why this matters: The emergency management budget covers critical preparedness functions (communications, weather monitoring, training and interagency exercises) that support first responders and county operations. At the same time, the county's general-fund deficit and competing levy requests could limit the county's ability to fund new capital or supplemental programs, potentially delaying or scaling back equipment and service additions the EMA is proposing.