Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cumberland County holds public hearings as administrators propose no tax increase; residents press for full school funding
Summary
At an April 22 public hearing, county staff presented a recommended FY2026 budget and five‑year CIP while proposing to keep advertised 2025 tax rates unchanged; speakers from the school division and residents urged the Board to increase local school funding ahead of a vote April 29.
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cumberland County Board of Supervisors on April 22 opened public hearings on the advertised 2025 tax rates, the county administrator’s recommended fiscal 2026 budget and the proposed capital improvement program, with staff recommending no increase to advertised tax rates and members of the public urging the board to fully fund the school division.
County Administrator Derek Stating told the board the real estate tax rate “will remain as advertised, at 60¢ for 100,” and that other advertised rates would remain unchanged. Stating said the personal property rate is proposed at $4.50, machinery and tools at $3.75, heavy construction machinery at $3.75 and public service corporations at 60¢. He emphasized the session was a public hearing only and that the board will vote on the budget and tax rates at its April 29 meeting.
The administrator presented high‑level revenue and expenditure estimates for the recommended budget and said general fund revenue assumptions include a 97% collection rate for real estate taxes. Stating said total general fund revenues in the advertised document total approximately $21,159,680 and described the county as heavily dependent on property taxes, with almost 60% of local revenue coming from general property tax. He said the recommended budget uses prior‑year fund turnbacks and is conservative about future projects.
On expenditures, Stating said the recommended transfer to public schools is $5,594,459, below the school division’s revised request of about $6,000,000. He said the recommended county budget includes a 3% across‑the‑board pay increase and a 1.5% bonus aligned with guidance from the Virginia Compensation Board, and that the budget proposes staff share half of an anticipated 12%–13% increase in employee insurance costs. He outlined capital requests and contingencies: a recommended $450,000 seed amount for the elementary school roof (total estimate about $1,100,000), an ambulance replacement estimated at $406,296 with a 70% grant and approximately a $121,888 local match, and a general fund subsidy to the water and sewer fund of about $374,000.
Public commenters focused primarily on the school budget. Liz Jameson, a Cumberland resident, said the division cannot sustain services if local funding falls and warned that “it is unreasonable to expect that the division can continue to provide the same opportunities and services with reduced funding.” She told the board the division has already cut programs and faces teacher resignations; she also said the school paid about $400,000 this past year for maintenance and about $35,000 for snow removal after the county began charging those services back to the division.
A speaker identified as a school official (not named in the record) asked the board to “support fully funding our Cumberland County Public Schools budget,” saying inadequate local funding will make it difficult to retain staff and noting neighboring divisions are offering raises up to 7 percent. The official said the division’s revised local request is about $127,000 above the county administrator’s recommended school transfer and that that increase would help provide at least a 1.5% raise for school employees.
Amarillo Elementary principal Wendy Chez said the division has already cut its request and that the remaining $127,000 gap is “positions, programs, students,” and that failing to provide the local match will forfeit state funding. Multiple speakers described staff wearing multiple roles, relying on grants and using personal funds for classroom supplies.
Stating and other staff also reviewed the recommended five‑year capital improvement program (CIP). He said the county is pursuing grant and donation matches for multiple projects and may use targeted borrowing for courthouse design work. He described the CIP as contingent where noted on grant awards and donations and said staff had applied for roughly $2.6 million in grants and received about $850,000 to date.
No votes were taken on tax rates, the budget or the CIP at the April 22 meeting; the hearings remain open until the board’s April 29 meeting. The board’s deputy clerk, Diane Lynch, was listed as the contact for written or oral comments before the April 29 vote at (804) 492‑3625.
Procedural motions recorded during the meeting included approval of the agenda at the opening and a motion to adjourn at the close of the meeting; both passed by voice vote as shown in the record.

