Gloucester County staff outline FY27 budget with $6.5 million gap; revenue, reserve and cuts proposed

Gloucester County staff presented a preliminary FY27 budget showing requested expenditures total “over $96 million” against projected revenues of roughly $89.5 million, leaving “an operating gap of $6.5 million,” the county administrator said.

The presentation reviewed the budget timetable and the sources of the shortfall: personnel cost increases (including a proposed 2.8% cost‑of‑living adjustment), the start of a sheriff’s step plan with an initial cost of about $150,000, career‑ladder salary adjustments and a forecasted health insurance increase that staff described as “a 30% forecast for health insurance increase,” which the administrator said could meaningfully widen the budget pressure.

The county administrator also summarized school budget requests. The superintendent’s proposed school spending totals include a local ask of about $2.9 million above current funds; the administrator said the superintendent’s recommended package includes a 2% COLA and that Dr. Vladu’s plan could remove up to 12 full‑time positions through attrition as enrollment declines.

On capital and reserves, staff identified a $1.3 million facilities maintenance, repair and replacement (FMRR) request and proposed using $750,000 of the FMRR fund balance to reduce immediate impact on operations, leaving an estimated balance of roughly $609,000.

To close the gap, staff presented a range of revenue options and tradeoffs rather than recommending a single path. Options discussed included joining an authority to impose a cigarette tax (staff warned of new administrative workload and operational costs), a boat tax or boat fee (staff estimated a $1 rate could yield about $622,000 in FY27 under current assumptions), raising the meals tax (examples ranged from 0.5% to 2% and staff estimated a maximal increase could bring roughly $1.8 million), targeted fee increases such as building permit fees (building permit revenue is estimated at $296,000 and staff showed incremental scenarios), and modest changes to property or personal‑property tax rates. Even combining low‑end changes across these categories, staff said the total generation would be only about $2 million.

Staff emphasized tradeoffs: using more unassigned fund balance would reduce near‑term pain but could affect policy targets or future bond capacity, while new taxes require policy and legal steps and bring administrative costs. The administrator closed by offering to provide the full Excel budget workbook, a school transfer history worksheet and a budget appendix for board review and by inviting additional questions and public input prior to adoption.

The board did not take formal votes during the presentation; staff sought direction on which revenue options or spending lines to research further and said additional work sessions, town halls and public hearings are planned before budget adoption.