Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Town hears county explanation of tax-differential; council to attend April 29 meet-and-confer
Loading...
Summary
Charles County staff explained the county's formula for the tax-differential credit to La Plata's council, which centers on audited county costs and a five-year average of sheriff calls. Councilors agreed to attend the county's April 29 meet-and-confer, signaled support for the proposed 0.118 rate, and preferred the credit remain on residents' bills rather than as a town grant.
La Plata's town council heard a step-by-step explanation from Charles County finance staff on how the county calculates the annual tax-differential credit applied to town property tax bills, and agreed to attend the county's April 29 meet-and-confer to discuss the number.
Jake Dyer, identified in the meeting as the county's director of fiscal administrative services, told the council the calculation is intended to offset duplicated services town residents receive from county government (for example, police, roads, parks and permitting). Dyer said the method dates to the 1980s, uses audited prior-year costs and the state's assessable base for La Plata, and includes a five-year averaging approach to smooth spikes such as those caused by the COVID period.
Dyer said the county's proposed figure for the current year is 0.118 per $100 of assessed value; the prior year was 0.126. He estimated the average town resident would see a change of roughly $34 to $36.48 on their property tax bill as a result of the calculation. "This is not any monies that goes to the town of La Plata," Dyer told the council, saying the differential is a credit handled by the county treasurer.
Council members pressed Dyer on what specifically was driving the increase. He identified two broad categories: changes in county program costs (including the sheriff's office) and the town's assessable base relative to the county. On public safety, Dyer said the calculation relies on a sheriff's-office tally of calls for service in the town and that the county uses a five-year average of those calls to reduce year-to-year volatility. Dyer also noted duplicate-cost assumptions for permitting/planning, parks and county-maintained roads.
Several councilors said they were not persuaded to accept the numbers without further detail. One councilor asked whether a focused work session could be scheduled with county staff'including the police chief'to review calls-for-service methodology before the April 29 meet-and-confer. Town staff said that can be arranged, but time is limited because the meet-and-confer precedes the county commissioners' planned adoption date of May 12.
Councilors also discussed whether the town should accept the equivalent value as a lump-sum grant to the town general fund. The council coalesced around the view that the credit should remain on taxpayers' bills so residents see the direct offset, rather than converting the amount into a town disbursement. "I would give that back," one member said in support of retaining the credit for residents.
The council voted earlier in the special meeting to approve the agenda and later adjourned at 5:46 p.m. Next procedural steps are a town presentation or comments at the county meet-and-confer on April 29 and the county commissioners' final action, which county staff said is expected on May 12.
Town staff said they will attempt to coordinate communications so residents understand how the change affects their bills and will pursue a follow-up work session if councilors want more granularity from county police and finance staff.
