One week after the Cumberland County Board of Education voted to close Manchester and J.W. Coon elementary schools ahead of the 2026–27 school year, county commissioners sought answers on what comes next.
During a joint meeting Tuesday between the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners and the school board, commissioners Chair Kirk deViere pressed school leaders on a central question: How does the district plan to schedule and fund hundreds of millions of dollars in school construction, maintenance, and consolidation projects—and when will those projects move forward?
The discussion unfolded against two major funding conversations facing county leaders. The school district’s proposed $671 million budget for 2026–27 includes a request for roughly $110.3 million in county funding, a $6.5 million increase from the current year. The district also has a long-term facilities plan involving $300 million in maintenance funding, $160 million for school construction, and an additional $150 million request for future projects.
But throughout the meeting, commissioners repeatedly pressed district officials for a clearer timeline on school construction, deferred maintenance projects, and long-term funding priorities—particularly how and when previously approved projects would move forward.
Out of seven county commissioners, only deViere and Pavan Patel attended, along with county officials including County Manager Clarence Grier. Board of Education Chair Judy Musgrave and board member Jackie Warner were not in attendance.
‘We Are Trying to Build an Ecosystem’
District officials spent much of Tuesday’s meeting explaining the financial pressures behind recent school closures and the district’s broader facilities strategy.
Jay Toland, associate superintendent of business operations, began by emphasizing the portion of the school’s district budget that county commissioners directly influence—arguing that local funding flexibility is central to maintaining staffing stability and student support services.
“What’s important to understand is that we’re trying to build an ecosystem plus high-performance education and being the best school district in the state,” Toland said. “And to do that, the data says we’ve got to feed the children, we have to transport the children, and then we teach the children.”
He argued that competitive compensation remains key to retaining employees and reducing classroom disruptions caused by vacancies—particularly as county funding helps support local salary supplements and certain staff positions not fully covered by the state.
“If we are one of the top districts in the area as far as compensation, that leads to retention,” Toland said. “And then if we do have a vacancy, we can hire quickly, so that way our children can see familiar faces and qualified faces.”
District leaders also outlined several financial pressures shaping the district’s proposed 2026–27 budget, including enrollment declines, rising operational costs, and the expiration of federal dollars from the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER).
Cumberland County Schools is down 1,242 students, a decline district leaders said translates to roughly $9.93 million less in state funding.
Presentation slides also pointed to a projected $5 million budget deficit, districtwide enrollment operating at roughly 82% capacity, and declining cash reserves as additional pressures shaping the district’s financial outlook.
ESSER dollars—temporary federal funding distributed to school systems nationwide during and after the coronavirus pandemic—helped the school district fund additional student support positions.
While those federal dollars have now expired, district leaders said the school system is using its budget to temporarily sustain some positions originally supported by ESSER as the district phases out those positions through attrition.
According to district projections, Cumberland County Schools plans to use about $9.1 million in reserves to fund its 2026–27 budget, including roughly $3.78 million for staffing costs previously supported through ESSER and another $5.3 million for other staff and non-payroll expenses.
District leaders said phasing out positions originally supported through temporary ESSER funding is expected to be completed during the 2026-27 school year.
Toland also said anticipated salary increases and bonuses for school employees would place additional pressure on the district’s budget, particularly for staff funded through county dollars rather than state allocations. The district’s proposed budget raises the local salary supplement for classified employees from 6% to 10%.
Using a classified employee making $30,000 annually as an example, district leaders said the increase would raise that employee’s local supplement from $1,800 to $3,000—a $1,200 increase.
deViere later questioned how the district’s declining cash reserves and the expiration of temporary funding sources could affect staffing and positions in future years.
Toland said recent school closures were approved, in part, to avoid deeper staffing reductions.
“I told the board that if we don’t close schools, we will have to make cuts somewhere else,” Toland said. “So if we don’t do something to address it in the next two to three years, close more schools or something in that nature, then we will be forced to cut.”
Toland said district analysis shows each school closure saves between $475,000 and $630,000 annually in recurring operational expenses, savings he said are critical to addressing the district’s structural deficit while preserving positions.
Commissioners Seek Construction Timeline
As the discussion continued, deViere said commissioners needed a clearer project schedule from the district showing when maintenance, renovations, and new construction projects are expected to move forward.
The request comes after county commissioners last year approved what district leaders described as a historic school facilities investment package, including $300 million for school facility maintenance and another $160 million for future school construction over the next seven years.
Though commissioners approved the long-term funding framework last year, Tuesday’s discussion made clear district and county leaders are still working through how those dollars would be phased into specific projects—including what funding methods would be used and when construction could begin.
Much of the district’s facilities strategy stems from recommendations made by MGT, the consulting firm it hired in September 2023 to conduct a districtwide facilities assessment.
Tuesday’s discussion highlighted several examples of how future construction sequencing could work, including a possible rebuilding plan for E.E. Smith High School. District leaders discussed temporarily relocating students to Reid Ross Classical School during demolition and reconstruction.
Earlier this year, the school board approved a request for an additional $150 million in county construction funding specifically to build a new E.E. Smith High School on the school’s current campus. The district has said the project is one of the district’s top long-term facilities priorities.
The district’s facilities planning process has also evolved over time. In March, the school board rescinded an earlier vote to demolish the former Pauline Jones Elementary School and transfer the property to Cumberland County, instead opting to continue using the campus as part of revised consolidation plans.
Which Comes First—Funding or Timeline?
deViere questioned district leaders on how future school construction projects would actually be financed—and whether the district or county should establish timelines first.
Matthew Johnson, the school district’s executive director of operations, told commissioners and school board members that construction timelines are heavily dependent on the funding method for each project.
“We have to know what type of funding before we can bring anything,” Johnson said. “Knowing the funding, especially for the larger projects, is going to be paramount on our side to go forward.”
During the discussion, county and school leaders referenced several financing methods, including general obligation (GO) bonds, and limited obligation bonds (LOBs).
GO bonds are typically backed by property taxes and require voter approval, often making them a longer-term but lower-interest financing option. LOBs do not require voter approval and are repaid through existing county revenues, allowing governments to move more quickly on projects but often at higher borrowing costs.
Johnson said the funding structure affects nearly every phase of a project, including engineering, design timelines, bidding requirements, and legal review.
Johnson said financing approvals, engineering work and the request for qualifications process all influence how quickly school construction projects can move forward.
“So what you’re telling us,” deViere responded at one point, “is the board has approved the schedule, and now you’re asking us to go back and decide how we are going to fund against that based on estimated costs?”
Johnson said different funding methods would shape how projects move forward and when construction could realistically begin.
“Some of it’s going to be LOB’d and some of it’s going to be banked, some of it’s going to be GO,” Johnson said.
Superintendent Eric Bracy said district and county staff will continue discussions surrounding project schedules and funding structures.
“We appreciate your guidance and look forward to further conversations,” Bracy said.
deViere later suggested the possibility of a more formal agreement between both boards to help maintain long-term funding consistency as the district moves through its facilities overhaul.
“I will offer up that we could have a conversation about there being an agreement between the two boards to ensure everything is set in place so we can meet you all at this level of funding,” deViere said.
