[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6083807,"mediaKeyId","2926898-0c83d75a7663c83a75ceb74b353e7281","parentId",2926898,"title","Kent County budget review highlights $5.7M shortfall, $23M projected year‑end fund balance and pressure from major capital projects","audioSeconds",901,"startMs",2299000,"endMs",3200000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2926898-0c83d75a7663c83a75ceb74b353e7281&start=2299&end=3200","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2926898-0c83d75a7663c83a75ceb74b353e7281/thumbnail_2299000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6083807/Kent-County/Maryland/Kent-County-budget-review-highlights-57M-shortfall-23M-projected-yearend-fund-balance-and-pressure-from-major-capital-projects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083807-86b0bca1e156aa9c5494a0c8d461a0a6/orig.mp4?Expires=1775703146&Signature=RoQCSYjDlOUhTz852MWBPhm7zYl7n4DigwgDkle2kHerWgsbguvNd7fZPZlSCBYt8iAzf1hVyGk91~Ipg9pswJ6PpPSoHwwrbtI-UWBbKmw05OTRLh3DspjonjuNCUtHCz7w3N96mVDE6tqfDC89vlUoWmqyH-LJC1auZKnJdf25K20b23jsmbfNyQBcwIESgyL5j1V2AjGgWQMLwj7NKUGg6wukGv~m9kB-Ei-OADNQN-jVCS2jgCdyctJWGOiqIhLNXDEK1FpK8o-UfeZgEWSgnvMzVE8JJQEhkHxZoP-xVLfZSe9gnLGY36gXWfk1bahYsnk9G4uNSrCAgnhQqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kent County, MD","date","2025-04-09T06:38:10Z","article","County finance staff told commissioners the FY26 expenditure request of about $72.736 million exceeds projected revenues by approximately $5.7 million and reviewed options for narrowing the gap, including examining allocations, capital requests and operating lines.

The presentation showed a projected year‑end fund balance of about $22.9 million, which staff said is roughly $18.183 million above the county’s stated target. Finance staff recommended beginning to reserve portions of that excess fund balance for large capital costs so future debt service would be lower: “The more you put down on it, the less your debt service is gonna be,” finance staff said.

Major capital questions: commissioners and staff focused on several high‑cost projects that would materially change recurring debt service and operating costs. Commissioners discussed a proposed new middle school, where presenters said a state contribution recently proposed for the next two fiscal years would total $4 million; staff said that scenario would still leave an approximate $30 million local share and a debt service obligation “over a million dollars a year.” Commissioners also discussed a regional jail concept; staff said Queen Anne’s and Caroline counties had not committed and the project is effectively on hold until operating‑cost contributions are resolved.

Allocations and department requests: staff reviewed allocation requests from the health department (noting state core‑funding formulas drive much of the increase) and the public library (which sought new positions and a 5% salary request). Commissioners resisted new position requests in several cases and discussed applying a hiring freeze on non‑public‑safety new hires. Staff noted prior one‑time FY25 items (for Rock Hall and Chestertown restroom projects) make comparative year‑to‑year allocation changes appear smaller than they are.

EMS and public safety staffing: commissioners reviewed emergency medical services staffing needs; presenters said EMS has struggled to fill part‑time positions and currently relies on overtime and shifting staff. County EMS representatives asked for additional EMT positions to ensure consistent 24‑hour coverage at several stations and discussed a Betterton facility renovation request of roughly $45,000 to make on‑site accommodations usable for paid staff.

Next steps: commissioners asked staff to proceed through allocations, capital and operating line‑by‑line in budget work sessions, and to schedule a closed session to discuss personnel requests. Commissioners suggested reserving some excess fund balance now for prioritized capital projects and indicated they expect to make tradeoffs among operations, allocations and large capital commitments before finalizing the FY26 budget.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","04.08.25 Budget Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","Finance staff reported a projected $5.7 million shortfall for FY26 and a projected year‑end fund balance near $22.9 million, and urged commissioners to consider reserving excess fund balance to reduce future debt service for large projects.","taxTitle","Kent County, Maryland","taxId",69327,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6083812,"Delmarva Community Services seeks $157,000 from Kent County; discusses mobility‑on‑demand and regional cost sharing",814,1316000,2130000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2926898-0c83d75a7663c83a75ceb74b353e7281&start=1316&end=2130","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2926898-0c83d75a7663c83a75ceb74b353e7281/thumbnail_1316000.jpg","/articles/6083812/Kent-County/Maryland/Delmarva-Community-Services-seeks-157000-from-Kent-County-discusses-mobilityondemand-and-regional-cost-sharing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083812-241773664b9829f151afe52c7b178036/orig.mp4?Expires=1775703146&Signature=ToDPdGqIokQwdMqSzbjjBlYfIIc5Pp9p5u5pSQA8YWfSTs1rkojACyhCCLJ88W2XoOXL~y92vBygzIukteRWHK7Fl45tEcRpv9OsGu9MCEyihG8QcLu6L9Qzi~uY~mm5NxQD0Y9CRN4~yG96fDdsGrtVkCUlJOwN9-KNTStISe2UQ2jDjLEwBrEB38IedUYLKW~DkEEpJ47gSFOqQc~JPyEOjQOevj~-9ZG710qZ6kt6y8MIVz6w~N3B54gd~0abBZ0KTXY~uXIhBNrs~EVZpoH-HKE4Dp6WdRLEx0QBG5Mwbw58jQu3zcHeF10R8oulKKt5kJdMiJTP9udOcckSxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Andy, a representative of Delmarva Community Services, asked Kent County commissioners for operating funding of $157,157 to maintain current rural transit service and to support planned expansion of a mobility‑on‑demand pilot the provider has been running informally.

Andy said the agency has been subsidizing rural routes and that grants and COVID/ARPA funds previously used to cover operating deficits are exhausted: “Rural transit simply does not make money,” Andy said, and Delmarva told commissioners it will need additional county support or route reductions. Andy also recommended smaller, wheelchair‑accessible vehicles for on‑demand service and described early local results: the county’s mobility‑on‑demand pilot performed about 1,405 trips without broad advertising and is already in limited use in parts of neighboring counties.

Henry, Delmarva’s transit director, said the county’s six existing routes delivered roughly 6,728 trips in the last reporting period with the busiest route generating 3,062 trips. He said mobility‑on‑demand increases customer satisfaction by offering door‑to‑door pickups and can be cheaper to operate per trip with smaller vehicles.

Funding and regional cost share: Andy argued that current upper‑shore cost sharing across Kent, Talbot and Caroline Counties is inequitable, with Kent paying the same flat share despite lower ridership and fewer routes. He urged commissioners to pursue a reallocation based on population or usage so Kent’s contribution could be reduced while Talbot’s share would increase.

Service implications: Delmarva said that without additional funding it may need to reduce routes. Andy and Henry presented mobility‑on‑demand as a potential operational redesign to serve dispersed rural areas more efficiently, but both cautioned the shift requires planning, advertising and possibly additional smaller vehicles.

Next steps: Commissioners said they will review the request as part of the FY26 budget process and noted competing budget priorities. Delmarva indicated a willingness to work with county staff on design and said it would return with fuller cost estimates if commissioners asked. No appropriation or formal vote was made at the meeting.","Delmarva Community Services requested roughly $157,157 in county operating support to maintain current transit routes and expand a mobility‑on‑demand pilot; the provider urged commissioners to consider smaller vehicles, service redesign and a regional cost‑share reallocation with Talbot and Caroline counties.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6083817,"Kent County staff present utility rate study recommending phased 4% annual increases and reserve targets",1175,0,1175000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2926898-0c83d75a7663c83a75ceb74b353e7281&start=0&end=1175","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2926898-0c83d75a7663c83a75ceb74b353e7281/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6083817/Kent-County/Maryland/Kent-County-staff-present-utility-rate-study-recommending-phased-4-annual-increases-and-reserve-targets","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083817-cee6cf1e73eeebcfa03700ded00c57c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775703146&Signature=Lp2WUws-wzUkO~jIRZOn8FH5ivgscU8xHjqgn6gMWp8XYWqted3CzqOg8Mm7gCrRAg-PCRIYVC3U0I4ZmAj5s9brSOFLG~5AklxBm-6SW1d0xtQeUuX42NaAFf5zG8d862nKhgf4XSY5BlzX~KlR-n4RR-YCbzPwRkSmTX2Byh7Gq4L50Gi8o5JU7yuiwa7PiRmmRkyGe8B9V7ZI6n1UAEPZ~fe49u7k8tlya2VT-OUZwhQjxCD9WREp4D0YEeCVVPHeM6bwmaU2C~C8UqoD4CjRLjdQupZ5pfL9zk8TA6DMswyKjGsq8j5WBP8liYszSjdnrzf3TrBGlQyl56~3DA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A consultant presented Kent County commissioners with a multi-year rate study that recommends phased annual increases of about 4% for user rates and a similar annual increase for one-time allocation fees to help fund water and wastewater capital needs and reserves.

The consultant said the study separates customer counts from per-customer usage and assumes conservatively low usage growth and roughly 3% annual escalation in operating and maintenance costs: “We’re just being conservative here using about a 3% escalation rate,” the consultant said. The study also recommends two reserve targets: an operating reserve equal to a minimum of 90 days or 25% of operating expenses, and a capital reserve sized at about 2% of the value of fixed assets.

Why it matters: the county faces several large capital needs over the next five years, and the study shows the largest near-term driver is a 2026 set of projects that would create a one‑year spike in revenue requirements unless funded by subsidy or debt. The sewer program in particular shows larger dollar needs, driven mainly by treatment-plant projects. The Millington wastewater treatment plant — a major project anticipated to allow Millington customers to join the system in 2028 — is shown in the study as a significant capital driver; the consultant called the chart a “worst-case scenario” if grants are not secured.

Top findings and assumptions: the study assumes about 2% annual customer growth for water and 1% for sewer, with a single larger customer addition in 2028 tied to Millington; it treats operating expenses as rate-funded and recommends that non-growth capital be funded by user rates while growth-related capacity costs be funded by allocation (one-time) fees where possible. The consultant noted risks if allocation fees are set below the cost of capacity: “If the allocation fees are set at less than the cost of that capacity… you really don't have a revenue source to charge,” the consultant said.

Reserve and subsidy numbers: the consultant recommended contributing roughly $3,035,000 per year toward the water capital reserve and about $130,000 per year for sewer to reach the 2% fixed-asset target over time. The study shows a general‑fund subsidy contribution to blunt rate increases in several years; commissioners and staff referenced roughly $1.3 million of subsidy for water in one model year and roughly $3 million for sewer when showing the spike driven by 2026 projects.

Rate options discussed: the consultant modeled a baseline 4% annual increase and an alternative 8% annual increase. The 4% scenario was presented as the study’s historical benchmark and as the consultant’s recommended phased approach; at 4% the county would still need subsidies in peak years but would avoid a single large upfront jump. Modeling an 8% annual increase would reduce future subsidy needs substantially through compounding; the consultant said an 8% path could lower required future subsidies by about 25% compared with the 4% path, but would increase customer bills faster now.

Customer impacts: the consultant showed sample quarterly bills under the 4% scenario. For a household using the presentation’s example of 12,000 gallons per quarter, the combined water and sewer bill would rise from about $340 to about $353 (approximately a $13.50 quarterly increase) under the 4% scenario.

Structure and local comparisons: Kent County’s current rate structure relies on a relatively high fixed charge that includes 12,000 gallons of usage; that contributes to Kent County being near the top locally for a typical residential bill using 12,000 gallons but comparatively low for commercial customers that exceed the included usage, because Kent County’s variable usage rates are relatively modest in the county’s commercial example.

Next steps: no rate ordinance or formal vote occurred at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to consider additional modeling scenarios and to use study outputs while finalizing the FY26 budget. The consultant noted the numbers should be revisited annually as capital plans, grant availability and customer counts evolve.","A consultant presented a multi-year water and wastewater rate study showing capital costs (including a planned Millington wastewater plant), proposed reserve targets and a recommendation to phase a 4% annual rate and allocation-fee increase; commissioners discussed options including an 8% scenario and the county’s sizable subsidy for utilities.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Kent County budget review highlights $5.7M shortfall, $23M projected year‑end fund balance and pressure from major capital projects

Delmarva Community Services seeks $157,000 from Kent County; discusses mobility‑on‑demand and regional cost sharing

Kent County staff present utility rate study recommending phased 4% annual increases and reserve targets