Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Gloucester County utilities budget proposes 13% rate increase; board weighs meals tax earmark and reserve use

Gloucester County Board of Supervisors · March 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Utility staff presented a FY27 utilities budget that includes a proposed 13% water and sewer rate increase and a capital plan of about $4.755 million; staff and the administrator discussed using a meals‑tax penny to bolster utility reserves.

County utilities staff reviewed the FY27 utilities budget and recommended a rate package that would raise water and sewer rates about 13% to help cover capital needs and operating pressures.

Miss Leg, who reviewed the utilities figures, said the FY27 utilities budget is proposed at about $12.3 million, roughly $1.5 million above FY26, and that the capital plan for utilities currently sits at approximately $4.755 million. Using a 13% rate increase as presented, staff showed a typical 5,000‑gallon household water bill rising by about $7 per month.

The county administrator and utilities staff framed a related proposal to consider earmarking a one‑cent meals‑tax increment to support utilities and to restore/rebuild necessary reserves over multiple years. The administrator said such a change would provide a “little bit of a boost” to utilities’ ability to carry out capital projects without deferring work.

Staff emphasized alternatives and tradeoffs: postponing capital work risks higher future costs or failures, while borrowing increases interest expense; using reserves reduces near‑term rate pressure but lowers fund balance policies that support bond ratings. Staff offered to produce more focused options and return with estimated revenue, operational impacts and implementation steps.

No rate ordinance was adopted at the meeting; staff asked for board direction and additional research ahead of formal public hearings and a final rate decision.