[{"_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",6568265,"mediaKeyId","3205913-7e3e0d17339835fdb550e9177f28d988","parentId",3205913,"title","County says spreading service‑area debt 'not feasible'; water/wastewater rate options draw resident concern","audioSeconds",92,"startMs",1744460,"endMs",1837380,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3205913-7e3e0d17339835fdb550e9177f28d988&start=1744&end=1837","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3205913-7e3e0d17339835fdb550e9177f28d988/thumbnail_1744460.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568265/Worcester-County/Maryland/County-says-spreading-servicearea-debt-not-feasible-waterwastewater-rate-options-draw-resident-concern","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568265-61306a472b46a25b633cc322c41448a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159534&Signature=igCV2Osdjq-71ETCr0dfYhrA7xAJdVHVU5uwvlwh01sKYoH~vt6NY8mxFL1Utb2kpRk3qfcXRKiZvzuhGkUiFBLUuSuSKpZGZuoeIaCNX0gxXGpwgx6CPe2IFWSUix9sz3gI3RIR68jPxrOV4OB8buxvbdQkK5-Da-X5srrGPFkbLNDr20Z~IB21LlLD-Muo7OFbju8WFiZWf8ZlAo7To9HODERgNHyUtGqd9OiMY0E1lEEY00OBSW02cVDWIjkLEyru0KS~ZjedcSry3K8Lo5BhaMtRiJQwqXc7Ci9NtGHdpvy9rWCbFI2sO5g9Bi21MqxuNHwbtYgG2~qcAJYIFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Worcester","date","2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","article","County staff presented four advertised options for balancing water and wastewater enterprise funds and the proposed FY2026 rates for about 18 service areas, then told the commissioners that the option that would have spread existing debts and deficits equally across all equivalent dwelling units (EDUs)—previously advertised as “option 3”—is not technically feasible.

Weston Young explained the enterprise funds include one solid‑waste fund and 11 water/wastewater service areas; the total enterprise budgets rely heavily on charges for services. He described four scenarios: a do‑nothing option with no rate changes; an option where each service area charges what it needs to be self‑supporting (which would produce very large quarterly bills for some small service areas); “option 3,” advertised earlier, that assumed spreading existing service‑area debt and deficits equally per EDU; and “option 4,” similar to option 3 but using a general‑fund loan to cover the deficit. Young told commissioners that since the budget was locked in March staff concluded spreading deficits and debts as contemplated would require code changes or bond counsel reservations, and therefore option 3 (and similarly option 4 in its advertised form) is effectively off the table.

Young outlined proposed rate changes: a uniform base fee per EDU, a uniform $5 per 1,000 gallons usage fee for baseline single‑family usage and $15 per 1,000 gallons for usage above the quarterly baseline (22,500 gallons), and a uniform accessibility fee for EDUs that are connected but not in service. He said some service areas that purchase water or sewer from third parties would simply pass through those third‑party rates.

Staff presented specific service‑area impacts. Examples from the presentation included Ocean Pines (about 9,200 EDUs; roughly $1,000,000 projected expense increase over FY25), Mystic Harbor (about 1,600 customers; $454,000 projected increase), Riddle Farm (over 600 customers; plants offline and costs for pumping and hauling), Assateague Point (500+ non‑metered trailers; $227,000 projected increase largely for capital), and Landings (about 300 customers; County said a wastewater plant cannot yet adequately dispose of effluent and the proposed self‑supporting rate would exceed $600 per quarter under one option).

Public commenters representing service areas and boards warned that the scale of potential rate increases would be cost‑prohibitive for many residents and urged commissioners to avoid spreading debt beyond the service areas where it originated. Jenny Mumford, speaking for the Newark service area, said enterprise funds should remain self‑supporting under law and warned against centralizing control; Richard Engleman and other Landings residents said a proposed option would add roughly $1,300 in annual cost per owner and urged alternatives; Elaine Brady and other Ocean Pines representatives asked for an audit of the enterprise funds and called for careful, fair solutions rather than rushing.

Young and commissioners said staff will return with alternative scenarios at the next budget work session. Commissioners and staff also noted that some previously‑advertised scenarios are infeasible without code changes or bond counsel approval, which affects timing and the legal authority to spread debt across service areas.

Ending: Staff scheduled further budget work sessions the week of May 13 to present revised enterprise‑fund scenarios and options for commissioners to consider prior to June adoption votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Worcester - Public Hearing - May 06, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","County staff told commissioners that distributing existing water/wastewater service‑area debt and deficits across all equivalent dwelling units—the previously advertised “option 3”—is not feasible, and staff presented alternative rate structures that residents said could sharply increase quarterly bills for some communities.","taxTitle","Worcester County, Maryland","taxId",53952,"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},6568269,"Worcester County presents FY2026 requested budget with roughly $2.3 million shortfall",1199,41890,1241590,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3205913-7e3e0d17339835fdb550e9177f28d988&start=41&end=1241","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3205913-7e3e0d17339835fdb550e9177f28d988/thumbnail_41890.jpg","/articles/6568269/Worcester-County/Maryland/Worcester-County-presents-FY2026-requested-budget-with-roughly-23-million-shortfall","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568269-c3f5306da27a37aa93e3a4d3446246ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159534&Signature=bTlDNbbmlm7Pd42wb~8L5HVy3aTUJwVIE8vvka2VgcWEAi7zbsrupWlqS8A7fgpgAXnBLmW26CVbzzqrGdpPk5igJKWQnVVhMag07QE2vn54UMdnyXAb7nxEeflDuLAY~pB~uY6HDKjrVgWEuCu6N~NpsjHfPp3KoWgW3ubNumm3FsWUNoo6jXwh6AGwpFJm6SM4I98DjSwv9TI24ynuXQWjobM7G6haUA6zrlzo6S8E9SG4DNgZueXaLbnQS4au-Uq3JmVdvSDnqFt1uN9bFAH1swfK85Mx00meLB7phMuRRbsg9DPPQGhu9aVnFUaM6SjPupShP~S6bDyabKIKCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Worcester County Chief Administrative Officer Weston Young on Tuesday presented the county’s fiscal year 2026 requested budget, saying estimated revenues total $284,574,909 while requested expenditures total $286,835,734, producing a shortfall of about $2.3 million.

Young told the Worcester County Commissioners that the county’s FY2026 revenue estimate of roughly $284.6 million is led by property taxes (about $192 million, roughly two-thirds of total revenues) and income taxes (about $53 million). He said the county’s real property assessable base is rising sharply—about $4.4 billion (23.8%) in the current three‑year cycle—while noting that the county’s real property tax rate of $0.845 is among the lower rates on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

The requested expenditures total $286.8 million, Young said, an increase of nearly $25 million over the FY2025 adopted budget. Major drivers include education (47.6% of the request, $136.5 million covering the Board of Education and Wor‑cester‑area community college contributions), public safety (20%, about $57.2 million), and increases in health‑department funding that the county says are state‑mandated. Young told commissioners the state now requires Worcester County to match 73% of core Health Department funding—a 113% increase from FY2025—and that the county has repeatedly requested justification for the calculation from the state without receiving a clear answer.

Young listed other fiscal pressures: a statewide structural deficit the county attributes to shifts of state obligations onto counties (including increased teacher‑pension contributions and a planned transfer of the State Department of Assessments and Taxation cost from 50% county funding to 90%), inflationary increases in utilities and health insurance, recruitment and salary pressure in public‑safety roles, and uncertainty in federal funding. He said the FY2026 revenue projection assumes $5 million in interest income and notes a projected $1 million drop in local impact grant (casino) revenue.

On expenditures, Young outlined department requests: a $10.4 million operating increase requested by the Board of Education, a $7.5 million increase in public‑safety requests (including reclassifications and replacement vehicles), a $6.4 million increase for the Health Department tied to the state mandate, and increases for public works, recreation, and municipal shared revenues. He said the county’s debt service remains essentially flat and that the requested budget currently is not balanced.

Young said the county will reconcile the shortfall by reducing requests, creating additional revenues, or a combination, and that the budget schedule includes additional work sessions with adoption of the general fund budget and the real‑property tax rate set for June 3 and adoption of enterprise fund budgets set for June 17.

The presentation closed with Young noting the county had advertised several enterprise‑fund rate options and that staff will return with additional scenarios at the next budget work session.

Ending: The commissioners held a public hearing immediately after the presentation and scheduled continued budget work sessions, beginning May 13, in advance of the June adoption dates.","County administrators presented a $286.8 million FY2026 requested budget and estimated $284.6 million in revenues, leaving an approximate $2.3 million gap; officials cited state funding shifts, rising health and public-safety costs, and enterprise fund stressors as drivers.",{"_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},6568260,"Long line of educators, parents and school leaders urge commissioners to fully fund Worcester County schools",2330,3666950,5997790,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3205913-7e3e0d17339835fdb550e9177f28d988&start=3666&end=5997","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3205913-7e3e0d17339835fdb550e9177f28d988/thumbnail_3666950.jpg","/articles/6568260/Worcester-County/Maryland/Long-line-of-educators-parents-and-school-leaders-urge-commissioners-to-fully-fund-Worcester-County-schools","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568260-bd0394e9233e929c5b1a66022984c35a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159534&Signature=noAuiPbWBw0adP78nb1VYJH9Be9N6aSxkKgLg4GgWuWMHa7S8tlhT6bM6Sldaokkj4M~Mgrgu8zxnPfQ9jGckFH4dLRwz7phStXQLB4j8QTmJdQucSxzMcIardVMWF5PJ7zSVYzw0VLUt-JnYhxIKq558gBM15XNaE5l~nRD00cewIerF3gtyuVqcZVxFGppOqlehqhK8kHScEiTZpeLM7x2ts4PSQBKwghFnoDj7J1yrA6e2acvxVyW9wNCQswtFp~Ni6jokko1xCefYMQnHsUjNEKHsofJLEM-lhRjthtxlAYUL2qfV2A6BskztUtiqhr3wlLOURnRPxmAlNry5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A steady stream of educators, parents and school leaders urged Worcester County commissioners during Tuesday’s public hearing to fully fund the Board of Education’s FY2026 budget request.

Lou Taylor, superintendent of Worcester County Public Schools, opened the education speakers’ remarks by thanking commissioners and urging full funding of the school system’s proposed budget. Taylor said the district’s request reflects the Board of Education’s priorities: competitive compensation for teachers and staff, small class sizes, equal access across the county and expanded supports for special education, multilingual learners and mental‑health services.

Multiple speakers—teachers, school counselors, parents and union representatives—reiterated those themes. Debbie Lambertson said Cedar Chapel Special School needs continued staffing and technology investment; Shanika Nichols and other Snow Hill area speakers said smaller class sizes and competitive teacher packages are essential. Beth Shockley Lynch, president of the Worcester County Teachers Association and a Snow Hill Middle School teacher, urged full funding and emphasized that teachers are the school system’s most valuable resource. Ivory Smith, president of the Worcester County Education Support Professional Association, spoke for bus drivers, secretaries, custodians and cafeteria staff and asked for compensation that reflects their essential work.

Speakers provided detail used by the school system to justify its request: the Board of Education asked for a $10.4 million operating increase; the county’s requested education segment totals $136.5 million (47.6% of the county’s requested expenditures); the school budget document contains more than 650 line items, the speakers said, and the Board incorporated grant awards and other adjustments since its original submission.

Community members asked commissioners to use budget stabilization reserves if necessary to close the countywide shortfall and to avoid cutting instructional materials, positions, and student supports. Several speakers noted that Worcester County’s schools rank highly in the state and argued that continued investment both sustains those results and attracts families and businesses to the county.

Ending: Commissioners did not take a vote on school funding at the hearing; staff and the Board will continue budget discussions in May work sessions before the formal adoption scheduled for June 3.","Dozens of teachers, school staff, parents and the superintendent urged commissioners during the FY2026 budget hearing to approve the Board of Education’s funding request, citing teacher retention, small class sizes, special education services and technology needs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County says spreading service‑area debt 'not feasible'; water/wastewater rate options draw resident concern

Worcester County presents FY2026 requested budget with roughly $2.3 million shortfall

Long line of educators, parents and school leaders urge commissioners to fully fund Worcester County schools