Supervisors debate 3% cuts, COLA and use of one‑time funds as residents press for water and sewer spending

At a Gloucester County Board of Supervisors work session, staff presented department budgets and the board debated proposed cuts, cost‑of‑living adjustments and whether to use one‑time revenue to cover recurring needs. Public commenters urged prioritizing water and sewer infrastructure over other spending.

During public comment multiple residents told supervisors the county’s water and sewer systems require immediate attention if growth follows the planned removal of the George P. Coleman Bridge toll. Speakers said repairs could cost “between $60 million and $80 million” (public comment) and pressed the board to prioritize the utilities budget over discretionary projects. Several commenters urged caution on tax increases and questioned recent spending choices.

County budget staff presented mechanics of a proposed 3% cut. They said 3% of the entire general fund equals about $2.6 million; when narrowed to only county departments (excluding schools, debt service and constitutional offices) the 3% target falls to roughly $1.07 million. When further excluding constitutional and state offices, the net 3% of the remaining departments was about $572,000. Staff reported a first pass exercise identified roughly $397,000 in potential cuts from 17 departments, primarily requiring personnel reductions, because operating budgets are already lean.

Supervisors debated whether the board should require a 3% cut to departmental budgets. Supporters of the idea said private industry routinely uses headcount reductions and process reviews to control costs; opponents warned that a 3% across‑the‑board cut would force layoffs, reduce core services and damage morale. Several supervisors suggested an alternative approach: examine process improvements and efficiencies over the next year rather than immediate position cuts.

Compensation was another major topic. The proposed budget includes a 3% cost‑of‑living allocation estimated at about $837,000 (including Department of Social Services). Staff described three choices: implement the COLA July 1 as budgeted, delay the COLA until January and save an estimated $232,000 in the current fiscal year (or $70,000 if only delayed one month), or adopt a different mix of COLA and targeted implementation tied to a compensation study.

The county had budgeted roughly $700,000 for partial implementation of a recent compensation study; staff said full implementation would be larger. Separately, there was discussion about a possible state bonus (a proposed 1.5% state bonus) and whether to use FY25 vacancy savings to pay a one‑time staff bonus.

School requests were also on the table. The school division asked the board to fund universal breakfast and lunch countywide and to begin a device replacement cycle for student Chromebooks. The superintendent’s office estimated an additional roughly $526,240 for a Chromebook device replacement tranche (approximately one‑third of devices) and said feeding programs are estimated at roughly $450,000; staff noted state funding changes could offset some school requests and that the General Assembly action had not yet been fully quantified at the local level.

Board members discussed how to handle expected additional revenue tied to a proposed property tax increase and the calendar timing of collections. Staff called the additional receipts a one‑time “manna” for planning purposes and recommended earmarking any extra receipts for capital or other one‑time investments (for example Chromebook replacement) rather than for recurring operating costs.

Supervisors scheduled follow‑up work sessions to continue budget deliberations and directed staff to provide breakdowns of: personnel earning over $90–100k, specific training line items per department, and detailed Chromebook replacement scenarios (one‑third/one‑half/total replacement costs). The board also approved administrative scheduling adjustments for future budget meetings.

—END—