Gloucester County administrator presents $88.4 million FY2026 budget with proposed tax and utility fee increases

County Administrator Miss Steele presented Gloucester County’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget on March 17, outlining an $88,356,943 spending plan that she said includes a requested 4.3¢ increase to the real-estate tax rate and a proposed 14% utilities fee increase to shore up depleted utility fund balances.

Miss Steele said the package would fund a 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for most county employees, a state-funded 6% increase for 911 dispatchers, one new full-time position (a digital evidence investigator requested by the sheriff), and about half of the estimated cost of a previously approved salary study. She told the board there are more than $1.2 million in revenue reductions and that the FY2026 total is about 2% above the FY2025 amended budget.

The county administrator framed the proposal as a constrained plan that does not include several department requests: it omits seven of eight requested new positions, two part-time hires, 41% of the county’s facility maintenance/repair/replacement (FMRR) funding request, the superintendent’s $495,729 additional school funding request, and nearly $1 million in PAYGO capital that department heads sought.

Why it matters: Miss Steele warned the board that deferred facility maintenance and postponed capital projects have accumulated and that the county lacks dedicated funds for economic development incentives. She recommended advertising a 6¢ real-estate tax increase to give the board greater flexibility at adoption, even though the administrator’s baseline proposal is a 4.3¢ increase.

Major elements and tradeoffs

- Revenues and rates: Miss Steele said a one-cent change in the real-estate tax rate would generate approximately $568,845. Her proposed budget model assumes $2.4 million of the projected revenue would come from the tax increase. She recommended advertising a 6¢ increase to provide the board flexibility; she said advertising a higher rate does not obligate the board to adopt it.

- Personnel and benefits: The package includes a 3% COLA for employees and a state-provided 6% for dispatchers (final subject to the governor’s budget actions). Miss Steele said health-insurance costs are projected to rise 12.5% and Maria Callaway, the county’s chief financial officer, provided the estimated dollar impact: “The total is 634,714 on the general general fund and $56,147 for utilities.”

- Utilities: The administrator presented a utilities budget that would raise utility fees roughly 14% (intended to generate about a 10% revenue increase). Miss Steele offered an alternative that would use $813,256 from the county’s development fund to reduce the FY2026 utility fee increase to about 4% in year one, with the plan requiring four years of general-fund repayments (the county would commit $813,256 annually thereafter to repay the development fund). She told the board the development fund’s balance would be about $1.3 million after accounting for other commitments.

- Capital and debt: The FY2026 capital plan, as presented, includes a mix of PAYGO and debt-financed projects. The county has PAYGO requests roughly $6.9 million for FY2027 and similar debt-finance requests; total debt-finance requests presented to the board summed to about $25 million with approximately $17.3 million of that tied to fire department needs. Miss Steele said the proposed 4.3¢ tax increase does not fully cover the projected debt costs for the fire projects and that one option to fund fire department borrowing would phase small rate increases in 2027 and 2028.

Board questions and discussion

Supervisors pressed for timing and funding details: when construction on the new fire station would begin (Miss Steele said borrowing and interest-only payments could allow construction to start as soon as late fall or early next calendar year); how the utilities rate structure reflects typical household consumption (staff said the average single-family home uses roughly 4,000–5,000 gallons and that 90% of residential meters are 5,000 gallons or less, while some meter groupings skew averages); and the county’s current development fund balance (Miss Steele: “It would be 1.3.”).

Several supervisors urged closer attention to utilities staffing and retention, noting recent departures and the need for experienced field technicians to avoid repeat repairs. Miss Steele and utility staff said technology upgrades (inventory and GIS) were underway to improve operating efficiency.

Process items and next steps

Miss Steele asked the board how it wishes to proceed and reminded members the board will hold a joint meeting with the school board the following evening to discuss the schools’ request; she said the superintendent’s additional $495,729 request is not included in her base budget but will be discussed at that meeting. She reiterated that advertising a higher rate preserves options: “I’m recommending that the board advertise a 6¢ increase,” she said.

Formal actions recorded in the transcript

The transcript records a motion taken near the meeting’s close that was moved, seconded and approved; the motion text is not specified in the record provided.

What was not decided

No final tax rate adoption or final utility-fee decision appears in the transcript. Miss Steele’s presentation and the board’s questions set the issues and numbers for upcoming budget work sessions and the joint meeting with the school board.

Ending

Miss Steele closed the presentation asking board members to review the appendix and identify department heads or program areas they want supplemental briefing on. She said staff will provide requested breakdowns and follow-up detail before adoption hearings.