Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gloucester County supervisors direct staff to present budget with proposed tax changes to fund schools and pay increases
Summary
Board members signaled consensus to bring a proposed budget to Thursday for adoption that would raise the real-estate rate and add a 2% meals tax to help fund a 2.8% cost-of-living increase and narrow the gap on the school division's request.
The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors on Monday directed staff to prepare appropriation and budget documents for possible adoption Thursday that reflect a proposed real-estate tax rate increase and a 2% meals tax intended in part to bolster school funding and cover a county 2.8% cost-of-living increase.
The move came after hours of discussion about how to pay for raises, continuing declines in state and federal school funding, and the impacts of a recent reassessment. Supervisors said the package under consideration would increase county support for the school division from the county’s proposed $32,051,000 to get closer to the school board’s request of about $34,155,000, with the meals tax and a portion of any increase proposed to go to utilities and school needs.
Miss Callaway, presenting the numbers, told the board the worksheet incorporates recent carryovers and that staff modeled the revenue impacts of the proposed tax changes. On the utility side she warned the board that the utilities fund includes roughly $8.5 million in debt-funded projects and carries a revenue covenant tied to debt service (she said "the net revenues of the utility must equal 120% of the debt service"), a constraint that factored into members' questions about where to place any new revenue.
Supporters of modest tax increases argued board-funded raises and school support are necessary to retain staff and protect core services such as public safety and social services. Opponents said raising the tax burden on the heels of a reassessment and recent increases would be hard on homeowners and small businesses and urged further review of line items and possible one-time capital reductions before increasing recurring taxes.
Board members compared neighboring localities’ tax choices and rates, discussed earmarking one penny of a proposed meals tax for utilities, and debated whether to convert certain revenue sources in future years (for example by considering an authority structure for utilities). Several supervisors asked staff to show the final numbers on Thursday so citizens and members can see the package the board will vote on.
No final adoption was recorded Monday; the board gave staff direction to prepare the documents for Thursday’s meeting where the board may vote on the resolutions and any associated rate changes.
