MENU

Sections

  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Editors and Writers
    • Join our Mailing List
    • Letters to Editor Policy
    • Advertising & Underwriting
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy
    • Talbot Spy Terms of Use
  • Art and Design
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
    • Senior Life
  • Community Opinion
  • Sign up for Free Subscription
  • Donate to the Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy
  • Chestertown Spy

More

  • Support the Spy
  • About Spy Community Media
  • Advertising with the Spy
  • Subscribe
October 2, 2023

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Editors and Writers
    • Join our Mailing List
    • Letters to Editor Policy
    • Advertising & Underwriting
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy
    • Talbot Spy Terms of Use
  • Art and Design
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
    • Senior Life
  • Community Opinion
  • Sign up for Free Subscription
  • Donate to the Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy
  • Chestertown Spy
News News Homepage

St. Michaels Budget Set for Wednesday Night Public Hearing

May 11, 2021 by John Griep

St. Michaels will hold a virtual public hearing Wednesday night on a proposed $3.5 million budget that includes a cut to the property tax rate and a smaller reduction in marketing spending than originally suggested.

The Fiscal Year 2022 budget, proposed by St. Michaels Commissioner Tad DuPont and introduced by Commissioners David Breimhurst and Mike Bibb, would set the property tax rate at 49 cents ($0.49) per $100 of assessed value. The town’s current rate is 52.4 cents ($0.524) per $100.

DuPont, selected by the town commissioners as treasurer, said during a May 4 budget work session that the commissioners are elected by town residents and “it’s their interest that we need to look after.

“They’re the ones that pay significant portion of the bills, and it’s our duty to ensure public continuity and safety and look after their interest, as well as everybody else’s,” he said.

He said the budget was a compromise, with departments being adequately funded, but not getting everything they wanted.

“We listened to public works. They got most of what they asked for but they didn’t get it all. We listened to the police department. They got a lot of what they wanted, they got what they needed, but they also didn’t get everything that they’d like to have. The same thing happened with the administration office. They got some of what they wanted, but they didn’t get it all,” DuPont said.

“The other thing that we’ve been able to accomplish in this budget is we’ve been able to separate the water department…. The water department will stand on its own and it will be able to pay off its debts in roughly three years. The way it currently is budgeted, it will be approximately $71,000 to the plus … this year.

“So that all being said, I feel that the commissioners have done a great job in trying to balance everybody’s needs, everybody’s wants, including the taxpayer,” DuPont said.

Using the current rate and a projected tax base of $307.6 million, the town would have collected $1,611,824 in property taxes. The proposed 49-cent rate will bring in $1,507,240, reducing the town’s revenues by about $100,000.

With the lower rate, property owners would save $34 on a $100,000 property, $68 on a $200,000 property, $170 on $500,000, $340 on $1 million, $1,700 on $5 million, and $3,400 on a property valued at $10 million.

The minimal savings to individual taxpayers while the town commissioners are debating $50,000 in spending prompted Commissioner Jaime Windon to oppose the tax cut during a May 4 budget work session.

“A few weeks ago we had a kind of a general philosophical discussion about some people are of the mindset that we should always be working to reduce taxes and so that’s an admirable goal if that’s what your end result is.

“The problem for me and the reason that I’m so resistant to it after you know trying to look at it from all angles — and I promise you I have — is that it’s just that cut just doesn’t amount to that much for the individual taxpayer, even those who own a massive amount of property,” she said.

“And I just feel that we’re still debating hotly $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 decisions — which I’m not saying we shouldn’t debate every fiscal decision that comes before the town — but until we’re in a place where we have more than enough money to make all of those decisions that make this town a town that we’re all proud to live in, and that we all feel is thriving, then I don’t … personally feel motivated to make a tax cut, which is why I’m opposed to it,” Windon said.

Commissioner David Breimhurst said the budget included “safety valves” and “we’re still in the midst of a pandemic,” with restaurants required to maintain six-foot distancing.

“So, if worse comes to worse and things do look like they’re going down the drain, we still have the reserve and the ability to kick in,” he said. “(W)e’ve done a lot of hard work on this budget and it’s been painful … because we’ve really … sliced and diced it every which way we possibly can. And we’re trying to give something to everyone and if it’s three cents for the taxpayers, that’s great.”

The most controversial issue in the budget had been a proposal to cut the marketing spending from the $140,000 originally proposed to $40,000.

The money for marketing and advertising comes from two revenue sources — the accommodations tax and the amusement and admissions tax. The biggest portion comes from the accommodations tax, which is paid by guests staying at hotels, B&Bs, inns, and short-term rentals.

St. Michaels typically has used about 75% of the revenue from those two taxes to pay for town services related to tourism, including trash pickup and police. The town has used the remaining 25% for advertising and marketing and the $140,000 in the initial draft budget was about 23% of the expected accommodations and amusement taxes for FY22.

During the May 4 budget work session, numerous business owners spoke against any cuts to the marketing budget.

Kim Hannon, president of the St. Michaels Business Association, noted “the money that is used for advertising is from the accommodations and amusement tax…. (T)he accommodations tax and amusement tax is paying for this. So … if you cut that, you’re basically biting off the hand that feeds you. It just doesn’t make any sense to do that.”

Restaurateur Chris Agharabi said St. Michaels residents and businesses depend on tourism and the town should be spending more on marketing, not less.

With a budget of $3.5 million, the town is spending about 2.5% on marketing, much lower than the recommended 7 to 8%, he said.

“So, yeah, we’re all gonna save a couple hundred bucks on property tax, whoop-de-do. A couple hundred dollars. Terrific. Why don’t you take that money (and) put some flowers in front of my building that I paid for?” Agharabi said. “So get a grip, get control of your $3.5 million budget, think a little bit, stop worrying about two cents on $100 and do something productive ….”

The budget as introduced during that meeting provides nearly $91,000 for marketing, about 15 percent of the $610,000 revenue expected from the accommodations and amusement taxes.

The proposed budget includes another $64,000 reserved for marketing and/or trash services. If half of that reserve is approved for marketing during the fiscal year, the total spending for marketing would be $123,000, about 20 percent of the expected revenue from the two taxes.

The virtual meeting using Zoom begins at 6 p.m. Wednesday, May 12. If you have not used Zoom, please take a few minutes to download the free app to your computer or smart phone prior to joining the meeting.

Join meeting by computer or smart phone by clicking link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3264261778
Meeting ID: 326 426 1778

Join by phone with audio only:
1-301-715 8592
Meeting ID: 326 426 1778

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: accommodations tax, budget, cut, marketing, property tax, public hearing, rate, St. Michaels

Talbot Voters Back Tax Cap Changes, Keep Residency Requirement for Top Appointees

November 3, 2020 by John Griep

A campaign focused on supporting police officers, emergency medical services personnel, and other first responders was successful in getting Talbot County voters to adopt three changes to the county’s property tax revenue cap.

Unofficial results with votes from early voting, election day, and absentee ballots shows passage of Ballot Questions B, C, and D.

Question D, which would allow the county council to temporarily increase the property tax rate above the revenue cap by up to one cent per $100 of assessed value for five years only, was approved 59% to 41% against, based on unofficial results.

Question B, which corrects inaccurate language in the tax cap approved by voters in 1996, had the largest margin of support with 72% voting for the charter amendment and 29% voting against.

Question C, to eliminate a reference to CPI-U, had 68% support. The existing property tax revenue cap limits the annual increase in property tax revenues to 2% or CPI-U, whichever is less.

However, Talbot County voters rejected a proposed charter change that would have allowed a super-majority of the county council to waive a residency requirement for the county attorney, engineer, and planning officer.

Question A was rejected 57% to 43%, according to unofficial results.

The unofficial results posted late Tuesday night after ballots cast on election day were counted largely mirrored the percentages seen in early and absentee voting.

A large number of Talbot County voters opted to cast ballots during early voting or by absentee ballot, with a smaller percentage voting Tuesday on the traditional Election Day.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: absentee, ballot questions, charter, early voting, election, election day, property tax, Talbot County, tax cap, unofficial results

Early, Absentee Talbot Voters Back Tax Cap Changes

November 3, 2020 by John Griep

Talbot County residents who voted by absentee ballot or during early voting supported three changes to the county’s property tax revenue cap, but rejected a measure to allow the county council to waive the residency requirement for county attorney, engineer, and planning officer.

Question A to waive the residency requirement was opposed by nearly 57 percent of early and absentee voters.

Question B corrects inaccurate language in the tax cap, approved by voters in 1996.

About 73 percent of early and absentee voters supported the charter amendment.

Question C would amend the tax cap by eliminating a reference to the Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U). The existing property tax revenue cap limits the annual increase in property tax revenues to 2% or CPI-U, whichever is less.

Question C would eliminate CPI-U, which in some years has been less than 2%, further restricting the county’s ability to increase revenues to fund needed services and capital projects.

Early and absentee voters favored the amendment by 69% to 31%.

Question D would allow the county council to temporarily increase the property tax rate above the revenue cap by up to one cent per $100 of assessed value for five years only.

A one cent increase in the property tax rate would cost the owner of a home assessed at $250,000 an additional $25 annually; an additional $50 annually for the owner of a home assessed at $500,000.

Officials have pitched the one cent increase as a way for the county to catch up on lost revenue from the years when CPI-U limited the increase in revenue below 2% and as a way to help fund much-needed capital projects.

About 60% of early and absentee voters backed the temporary tax increase.


Talbot County Sheriff Joe Gamble and Emergency Services Director Clay Stamp had been leading the charge in seeking voter approval for Questions B, C, and D.

The public safety officials said the existing cap has limited the county’s ability to attract and retain deputies, paramedics, and other first responders.

Salaries and benefits for first responders are lower than in surrounding counties, the two have said, making it difficult to find new hires for open positions and leading to trained staffers leaving for better compensation packages elsewhere.

The county also needs to build a new office for the sheriff’s office and the county health department, as well as provide an additional substation for paramedics, officials have noted.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: absentee ballots, ballot questions, charter, early voting, election, property tax, Talbot County, tax cap

Talbot Voters Will Decide on Proposed Changes to Tax Cap

October 25, 2020 by John Griep

This video is about 17 minutes long.

Talbot voters will decide on two substantive changes to the county’s property tax revenue cap and a third measure that would correct faulty language in the current tax cap, which was approved by voters in 1996.

Talbot County Sheriff Joe Gamble and Emergency Services Director Clay Stamp have been leading the charge in seeking voter approval for the ballot questions.

The public safety officials say the existing cap has limited the county’s ability to attract and retain deputies, paramedics, and other first responders.

Salaries and benefits for first responders are lower than in surrounding counties, the two have said, making it difficult to find new hires for open positions and leading to trained staffers leaving for better compensation packages elsewhere.

The county also needs to build a new office for the sheriff’s office and the county health department, as well as provide an additional substation for paramedics, officials have noted.

Question B on the ballot for Talbot County voters is a charter amendment that would clarify how the county computes the property tax rate.

The current language, in Section 614 of the Talbot County Charter, identifies the properties included in the calculation as those “existing on the County real property tax rolls at the commencement of the County fiscal year.”

But that wording does not accurately reflect how the information is determined.

The county finance department actually uses the constant yield tax rate certification supplied by the state to determine the tax rate needed to comply with the tax cap.

Question B would amend the language to change it to those properties “included in the Constant Yield Tax Rate Certification prepared by the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation.”

According to the League of Women Voters (LWV) analysis in the voters’ guide at vote411.org:

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to clarify that the County would use the Constant Yield Tax Rate Certification supplied by the State when determining the property tax rate to be used in the new fiscal year.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the inaccurate wording would remain in the Charter.”

This video is about 20 minutes long.

Question C would amend the tax cap by eliminating a reference to the Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U). The existing property tax revenue cap limits the annual increase in property tax revenues to 2% or CPI-U, whichever is less.

Question C would eliminate CPI-U, which in some years has been less than 2%, further restricting the county’s ability to increase revenues to fund needed services and capital projects.

Since the current tax cap took effect in 1997, the increase in property tax revenues has been limited below 2% during nine fiscal years (with an average increase of 1%) and has been limited to 2% during 15 fiscal years (when CPI-U increased an average 2.78%), according to the LWV voters guide.

“This means that nine times the revenue cap has kept pace with the yearly national rate of inflation, but it has also been less than the national rate of inflation 15 times,” according to the League of Women Voters. “This resulting constriction of tax revenue leaves the County with insufficient revenue to fund all of the budget requests from County departments. While County services have continued to be funded, funding has not addressed all of the needs of the County and has left County departments with unfunded needs. Eliminating the CPI-U alternative would help County services over the long term keep pace with fixed costs and growing needs.

“County salaries and benefits, especially for public safety and emergency services employees, are not competitive with surrounding counties causing Talbot County the loss of valuable, trained personnel to those jurisdictions. For example, Talbot County loses several deputies every year, and it costs the County $97,482 for the first year of a newly trained deputy.”

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to eliminate the use of the CPI-U as an alternate to the 2% cap on tax revenue, leaving the cap on tax revenue at 2% going forward.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the CPI-U would continue as an alternate to the 2% cap on tax revenue.”

Question D would allow the county council to temporarily increase the property tax rate above the revenue cap by up to one cent per $100 of assessed value for five years only.

A one cent increase in the property tax rate would cost the owner of a home assessed at $250,000 an additional $25 annually; an additional $50 annually for the owner of a home assessed at $500,000.

Officials have pitched the one cent increase as a way for the county to catch up on lost revenue from the years when CPI-U limited the increase in revenue below 2% and as a way to help fund much-needed capital projects.

“Talbot County’s revenue cap is one of the most restrictive in the State of Maryland, making it extremely difficult for the County to raise sufficient revenue to fund certain initiatives, including key public safety projects, such as a new facility for the Talbot County Sheriff; additional equipment and personnel for the Talbot County Department of Emergency Services; and, a new facility to house the Talbot County Health Department,” according to the League of Women Voters.

In its voter guide, the LWV notes:

“The County Council is, therefore, asking the voters to give the Council authority to increase revenues above the revenue cap, but only temporarily and with a limit of up to one cent (1¢) per one hundred dollars of assessed value. The Charter Amendment would authorize the County Council to raise revenues above the revenue cap by up to one cent (1¢) per one hundred dollars of assessed value for five years only.

“Arguments in Favor: County tax revenues have not kept pace with the rise in County costs to fund the full functioning of all County departmental needs, nor to remain competitive with other counties in our region in attracting and retaining employees,” according to the League of Women Voters. “This means there are fewer dollars available to fund capital projects that this ballot question is meant to address.

“The ability to increase revenues temporarily above the revenue cap would allow the County Council to fund costs anticipated for near-future capital expenses, including the new Sheriff and Health Department buildings and equipment for emergency services. Any temporary rise in tax revenue above the cap would go toward these projects. Increasing revenue now would reduce the cost of borrowing money to fund these needs.

“Arguments Against: This measure is almost sure to be used by the County Council over the next five fiscal years resulting in property taxes that are higher than 2% over the previous year.

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to allow the Council the option of generating revenues above the revenue cap by up to one cent (1¢) per $100 of assessed valuation for the next five fiscal years.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the Charter would not be amended to allow an exception to the cap on tax revenue beyond the limit specified in the Charter.

The Talbot County Democratic Central Committee supports passage of all three tax cap measures, noting on its website:

“Question B will have no impact on property tax rate. This is a technical fix to reflect the way the assessable tax base is determined in the original charter.

“Question C is a permanent change to the way revenue is calculated. We currently use the Urban CPI or 2% whichever is lower. The Urban CPI does not accurately reflect the needs of a rural county.

“Question D is urgent for 2021 Fiscal Year for the County. Based on our population growth, we need more ambulance crews. Currently we cannot guarantee the twenty-minute minimum response time for an ambulance will be met, especially in the north part of the County without a fourth ambulance. This provision would also allow for more competitive pay for first responders.

“This amendment would allow a temporary increase of one penny per hundred dollars of assessed property value. It will provide the funds we need to meet the public safety needs of our citizens. The cost would amount to an annual increase of $25 for a property valued at $250,000 or $50 for a property valued at $500,000.

“The increase ends in five years.”

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: ballot questions, charter, clay stamp, election, Joe Gamble, league of women voters, property tax, revenue, Talbot, Talbot County, tax cap, voters guide

Copyright © 2023

Affiliated News

  • The Chestertown Spy
  • The Talbot Spy

Sections

  • Arts
  • Culture
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Mid-Shore Health
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Shore Recovery
  • Spy Senior Nation

Spy Community Media

  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Underwriting

Copyright © 2023 · Spy Community Media Child Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in