Northampton County managers outline water, sewer and solid-waste budgets; billing problems and collections drive solid-waste shortfall

County leaders reviewed enterprise fund budgets and operational issues during a budget work session focused on the county's water, sewer and solid-waste operations.

The county manager explained that enterprise funds must be kept separate from the general fund and be self-sufficient. For Fund 61 (water and sewer), staff presented budgeted enterprise revenue of about $3.9 million and matching expenses, with salary increases, new meter-replacement phases and an expected $35,000 outlay for new billing software. The county manager said the new software is proposed because of ongoing problems with the current billing vendor and that the county has received late or delayed bill mailings from that vendor.

The presentation said planned capital and operating changes include a phased meter-replacement project (phase 2), an anticipated $140,000 repair-and-maintenance budget for lines, a proposed $55,000 vehicle lease, and smaller items such as training and lease/rental of a lift. The manager said some software-support costs are expected to fall and that meter-read software would be part of the $35,000 estimate for new billing systems.

County staff said they received notice from the billing company that bills had been mailed late; the manager said the county would waive penalties and that no water services would be disconnected this month because of the vendor problem. "We're gonna do away with that. They have breached their contract," the county manager said when asked about the vendor relationship.

Garysburg's water and sewer fund (Fund 62) showed only modest changes year over year, with higher water revenue forecasts and increased utility and sewage-treatment costs tied to current trends. Staff noted planned pump replacements and a $30,000 budget for water meters as part of the meter replacement program.

Solid-waste operations drew particular scrutiny. Staff reported solid-waste revenues projected around $2.0 million but a large accounts-receivable balance — roughly $350,000–$380,000 — from unpaid solid-waste fees. The manager said the county currently includes solid-waste fees on the property tax bill and that the tax office applies partial tax payments on a pro rata basis; because property taxes and district taxes are larger charges, the smaller solid-waste fee is receiving the smallest share of partial payments under the current method. The manager called that proration method a major contributor to recurring deficits in the solid-waste fund and said staff would present recommendations on whether to change how the county applies payments or to move solid-waste billing to another mechanism (for example, a separate bill or billing through the water account).

The manager said curbside pickup costs were adjusted to $323,000 based on the new contract pricing and noted that solid waste currently has one filled position and one vacancy in the staffing pattern. He said staff are assessing fund balances and collection procedures and will return with recommendations before final budget adoption.

The county manager closed the enterprise-fund review by reiterating that state law requires proprietary funds to be self-sustaining and separately tracked from the general fund.

Less critical line-item changes and equipment purchases were left for follow-up and inclusion in the next budget worksheet.