Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cumberland County discusses FY 2025–26 budget; approves proposed 2025 tax rate amid debate over insurance and parks funding
Summary
Cumberland County leaders approved the proposed 2025 tax rate and considered final adoption of the FY 2025–26 budget. Staff reported a requested increase to the school transfer, proposed utility fund adjustments and a 3% across‑the‑board raise; commissioners debated using parks and recreation funds to cover rising employee health insurance costs.
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cumberland County commissioners approved the proposed 2025 tax rate and spent the meeting’s primary discussion on finalizing the FY 2025–26 budget, including a requested increase to the school transfer, adjustments to utility fund transfers and debate over how to cover a projected rise in employee health insurance costs.
Staff told the board they had returned with updates requested at the previous meeting, including a requested additional $127,082 for the school transfer that staff said was presented by Dr. Jones, bringing the school transfer total to approximately $5,000,007 (staff noted the figure as reported in the meeting). Staff also said the proposed budget includes a 3% across‑the‑board increase and a 1.5% bonus for compensation board positions; staff said no new positions were requested in this budget.
Why it matters: the tax rate and county budget determine local spending on schools, public safety, utilities and services. Commissioners debated tradeoffs between departmental allocations and funding employee benefits, including a proposal to reallocate money from parks and recreation to cover staff health insurance increases.
During the budget presentation staff reported slight modifications to general fund expenditures tied primarily to reduced transfers from the general fund to the water and sewer enterprise following revised revenue and expense estimates. Staff presented a grand total for general fund expenditures of $21,184,174 and an overall proposed budget of $43,000,129.35, with line items the presenter named for school operations, the governor’s school fund, debt service, social services, utilities, economic development authority funds, asset forfeiture and Child Services Act funds.
A commissioner expressed concern about a roughly 12% increase in health insurance costs and urged the board to fully fund the county’s share of that increase rather than pass the increase to employees. That commissioner proposed taking $29,000 from the parks and recreation budget to cover the county’s share of the increase and separately proposed taking $90,000 and dividing it evenly to provide additional funding to volunteer firehouses. The original combined proposal was withdrawn and replaced with a narrowed motion to reallocate $29,000 from parks and recreation to cover the staff insurance increase; the motion was placed on the floor for consideration.
Staff cautioned that removing $119,000 (the larger combined proposal) from parks and recreation would effectively eliminate that department’s budget; staff stated the current parks and recreation budget was $152,219 and that about $123,000 of that pays salaries and benefits for one full‑time and two part‑time positions. Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives, including approving the budget as presented and directing staff to identify revenue or offsets for any later amendments.
On capital improvements, staff recommended approval of the FY 2025–26 capital improvement plan and recommended assigning $450,000 from the county general fund to the Cumberland Elementary School roof replacement project; the recommendation was presented to the board for approval.
Votes at a glance: the meeting included a roll call vote on the proposed 2025 tax rate; the board recorded yea votes during that roll call and the chair declared the proposed 2025 tax rate approved. The budget discussion continued with motions on reallocations and with staff advising that the board must adopt the budget at the meeting (staff provided options to approve as presented with subsequent amendments, or to approve with caveats and return later with revenue offsets).
Board members and staff thanked department heads, the schools and staff for work on the budget; staff noted they would return with additional recommendations where the board requested further analysis or alternative funding options.

