Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sussex County presents $285.1 million FY2026 budget; RTT and sewer capital drive increase
Summary
County staff introduced a $285.1 million proposed operating budget for fiscal year 2026 that holds a revenue‑neutral property tax rate, relies more on realty transfer tax and a large sewer capital program, and proposes modest fee increases for water and sewer service.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sussex County Council on May 20 heard a budget introduction from county staff that recommends a $285,100,000 fiscal year 2026 operating budget and introduces the ordinances needed to begin the public process.
The proposed FY2026 budget, presented by staff, is $19,400,000 higher than FY2025 and the increase is being driven primarily by one‑time capital expenditures in the sewer capital fund, including upgrades at inland bays and the Wolfneck regional wastewater facilities. County staff said the recommended property tax rate is revenue neutral at 2.14 cents and that realty transfer tax (RTT) revenue is budgeted $2,000,000 higher than FY2025.
The presentation highlighted why the budget matters: RTT is identified as the county’s single largest revenue source and funds public safety, economic development, public works and other core services. County staff said they used cautious revenue projections because building activity appears to be leveling off. The county also expects to rely on $11,200,000 of general‑fund reserves and $12,600,000 of capital reserves in the recommended plan; American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds remaining total about $9,900,000 and must be spent by Dec. 31, 2026.
Staff framed the budget as conservative but responsive to the new council’s priorities. They proposed several targeted adjustments, including a $1,000,000 increase for farmland preservation (a 100% increase over last year), anticipation of ongoing reassessment costs (estimated at $10,000,000 every five years), and additional planning and zoning funds for land‑use review and consulting. The county emphasized it is keeping ongoing operational spending “lean” while funding capital needs.
On revenue and fee proposals, staff said RTT is expected to provide a larger share of funding this year; grants are up by about $1,300,000 largely to support the county’s paramedic program; and interest income was budgeted significantly higher given current rates. Staff proposed modest utility fee changes: a $33 annual increase in water rates, a $12 annual increase in sewer rates, raising unmetered water to $450 and unmetered sewer to $352, and a proposed connection‑fee increase of about $3,000 (bringing connection charges into a range cited by staff of roughly $7,700 to $10,700, depending on the district).
The presentation also outlined the five‑year capital plan and major projects: a $25,000,000 administrative annex, airport projects (largely FAA‑ and state‑funded), planned EMS stations (Milton, Lincoln and Roxanna) budgeted at about $7,500,000, and substantial treatment‑plant and septic‑elimination work within the water and sewer capital program. Staff said roughly 65% of the water/sewer five‑year capital total is for treatment plant improvements and roughly 26% is for septic elimination projects.
The budget presentation closed with public process steps: staff introduced the required ordinances and said a public hearing on the budget ordinances is scheduled for June 17 at 10:15 a.m.; written comments may be sent to budget@sussexcountyde.gov. No final adoption vote occurred during the May 20 meeting; council members introduced the ordinance and asked follow‑up questions.
The presentation and slides were delivered by county staff, who summarized departmental accomplishments, building permit trends and the drivers of the recommended budget. Council members asked clarifying questions about library fees tied to mobile home placement, the destination of connection‑fee revenue for sewer treatment expansions, and the county’s credit rating (a council member noted the county’s strong rating during discussion).
