Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enterprise Funds Water Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worcester County commissioners back short-term general-fund support for struggling water and wastewater systems
Summary
Commissioners gave consensus to move forward with a plan that would use general-fund support to cover FY26 shortfalls for multiple small water and wastewater systems while staff develops a multi-year strategy to make the systems self-sustaining.
Get email alerts on the Enterprise Funds Water Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worcester County commissioners on May 13 gave consensus to proceed with a plan that would use general-fund support to cover FY2026 shortfalls across several small water and wastewater systems, while staff develops a multiyear plan to make those systems self-sustaining.
Budget Officer Kim Reynolds and staff presented two options for the enterprise funds. Under “Option 1,” the county would provide general-fund assistance to cover deficits in systems that include Assateague Point, Verdeletown, Edgewater, Landings, Mystic Harbor, Newark, Riddle Farm and River Run. Reynolds said Option 1 would require $1,478,741 in general-fund support for FY26. She noted West Ocean City would instead pull $154,000 from its reserves and that other systems such as Lighthouse Sound and Ocean Pines projected surpluses that would be carried to their reserves.
The action matters because enterprise funds are intended to be self-supporting through rates and fees. Commissioner Bertino asked whether the general-fund subsidies would recur year to year and whether staff planned to present a timeline. Reynolds said the county’s intention is to develop a strategy to transition systems to self-supporting operations over a longer horizon, noting staff hoped to present more detailed work later this year: “As we get new data, we can revise our strategy and go forward,” she said.
Commissioners debated whether the county assistance should be structured as grants or loans that could be repaid later. Several commissioners, including Commissioner Regina, said a grant was preferable for the first year to help systems “get back on their feet,” while leaving repayment or loan options open for later discussion. Commissioner Bunting asked whether repayment could be structured later; Reynolds replied that repayment remains a possibility and that any loan structure could be discussed in follow-up planning.
The board indicated consensus for Option 1 as a grant so staff could prepare final documents and budget language; the clerk recorded the decision as 6–0 in favor with Commissioner Matrisek absent. Staff and commissioners emphasized the decision was a short-term step to avoid sharp immediate rate increases for customers while staff develops a plan to align rates with costs over time.
Staff will return with more detailed financial modeling and a timeline for moving systems to self-supporting status. Commissioners asked that the staff work on a plan that minimizes sudden rate shocks for ratepayers and that shows projected years to full cost recovery for each system.
