Frederick County delays final tax-rate decision after reassessment figures, schedules follow-up budget work sessions

The Frederick County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 22 delayed finalizing an advertised real‑property tax rate after staff presented preliminary results from the county’s biennial reassessment and highlighted uncertainties in other revenue streams.

The meeting, intended to determine what the public notice about the county’s reassessment would say about potential tax impacts, ended with the board directing staff to return with more budget detail before the board files the official advertisement and holds a public hearing. The advertised rate establishes the maximum rate the board may adopt later; the board may lower the rate when it adopts the budget but cannot increase it beyond the advertised amount.

The reassessment presented to the board shows an estimated total real‑estate assessment (the "book") of about $18,600,000,000 and an anticipated revenue figure of $95,254,103 for fiscal year 2026 if the rate is left unchanged. Derek (Staff member representing the Commissioner of the Revenue) told supervisors the personal property book used for projecting motor‑vehicle and business‑equipment taxes currently sits around $2,100,000,000 and that the office continues to await final values from the vendor; those values are expected to be effective Jan. 1 and available in mid‑February. "We don't have any estimated values. Real estate, we create the values, we set those up when they become effective January 1," Derek said.

County staff and several supervisors noted that other major revenue streams are not trending as high as in prior years. Cheryl (Staff member) summarized advertising and legal timing constraints and clarified procedural options: "The reassessment does not require 30 days. It requires 7," she said, referring to the separate public notice schedule for reassessment advertising versus the 30‑day notice typically used for budget advertisements.

Board members pressed staff for more granular revenue and spending estimates before committing to a final advertised rate. Supervisors and staff discussed a previously cited "revenue neutral" real‑property rate of roughly 42.57¢ (cited last month) and a revised estimate near 42.04¢ after updates. At the same time, the board was told leaving the rate at the current level (about 51¢ in the discussion) would mean many taxpayers could face a 17–21% increase in their tax bills because assessed values rose in the reassessment cycle. As one supervisor put it, if the board leaves the rate unchanged “we're telling the public they may face the full cost of their assessment increases.”

County Administrator Mike (County administrator) said he could prepare budget scenarios using assumptions about potential revenue shortfalls and recommended cuts: "If need be, I can always come in with assumptions with the budget at this amount and these should be the recommended cuts," Mike said, describing the sort of options staff can provide for the board to consider if it chooses a lower advertised rate.

The board also discussed uncertainty at the state level. Mister Mulhofer (Staff member) summarized the general assembly conversation about reducing or eliminating the personal‑property (car) tax, saying, "from what I've read and seen it, I think most people do not believe they'll be able to get rid of it. But if they do ... that's a lot of revenues that would have to be made up for." Several supervisors said they would prefer more information before the county commits to an advertised ceiling that could constrain the budget.

Rather than set an advertised rate at the meeting, the board agreed to continue the discussion at upcoming budget work sessions and to publish the reassessment advertisement on an updated schedule. Staff outlined a timeline the board discussed: a summary overview sent to supervisors before the Jan. 22 work session, distribution of full budget notebooks on Jan. 22, a budget work session on Jan. 24, and a public hearing on the reassessment/advertised rate near the mid‑February budget schedule (the board discussed a public hearing on "the twelfth"). Cheryl reiterated the distinction between the advertisement and the final budget vote: advertising shows the maximum the rate could be and gives the public an opportunity to comment; the board can lower the rate when it adopts the budget.

Next steps: staff will produce a concise summary of projected revenues and new cost items (including the planned additions to fire and rescue staffing, master deputy pay scales for the sheriff’s office, and potential transportation matches) and run scenarios at commonly discussed advertised rates so supervisors can evaluate tradeoffs ahead of the Jan. 22 and Jan. 24 work sessions.

The board did not take a formal vote during the meeting on an advertised rate.