CleverTiger9474 (2026)

19/10/2026

POST #34: ZERO-BASED BUDGETING, A 1970s TOOL IN A 2026 COUNTY

"Zero-based budgeting" keeps coming up this election season. Calvert County says it uses it. It's a budgeting method from the 1970s that the federal government tried and dropped within four years.
⠀
WHAT IT IS?!

Each department starts from zero every year and justifies every expense, instead of taking last year's budget and adjusting it.

Calvert introduced it with the FY2026 budget.

Source: https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2025/04/30/calvert-budget-proposal-focuses-on-core-services-fiscal-stability/

Its FY2028 budget page says it continues to use it.

Source: https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/4107/Fiscal-Year-2028-Budget-Development

⠀
WHERE IT CAME FROM

Peter Pyhrr developed it at Texas Instruments in 1969 and wrote about it in the Harvard Business Review in 1970. Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter read the article and hired him to bring it to Georgia's state budget.

Source: https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1976/october/yesterday-tl-tomorrow-the-us/

Carter brought it into the federal government as president in 1977.

Source: https://patimes.org/time-to-revisit-zero-based-budgeting/

A study of its first federal year found no significant cost savings in agencies' 1979 budgets, though it did shift money toward higher priorities. Most agencies said it took excessive time and effort.

Source: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.26.8.750

The Reagan administration dropped it in 1981. Budget Director David Stockman said it had proved cumbersome and had not helped control spending.

Source: https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0811/081122.html

⠀
HOW CALVERT HAS USED IT

The budget starts as a staff recommended budget, prepared by the Department of Finance & Budget and sent to the commissioners by the County Administrator. The commissioners hold hearings, make changes and adopt the final budget.

FY2026, the first year: prepared under Finance Director Bruce Miller (p. 2), cover letter signed by then-County Administrator Julian M. Willis (p. 5). Every general fund department shows the same amount "Requested" and "Recommended." The budget balanced with one summary line: "Unspecified Budgetary Reductions," minus $15,384,967, with no detail on what it would cut (p. 16).

Source: https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/48610/FY2026-SRB

The FY2027 staff budget uses the same format: each department page is a short table of spending categories with no written explanation.

Source: https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53761/FY-2027-Staff-Recommended-Operating-and-Capital-Improvement-Budget

⠀
HOW BUDGETING HAS MOVED ON

Zero-based budgeting is a paper exercise: a fresh set of justifications every year. Counties now use data to track whether spending works, all year long.

Montgomery County has had CountyStat since 2007, a performance management and data analytics team that tracks county services and publishes department dashboards.

Source: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/office-management-budget/countystat

Montgomery's "Outcome Based Budgeting" sorts every department's measures into three questions: How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off?

Source: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/office-management-budget/countystat/department-performance-dashboards

Calvert has taken a step this direction. The FY2027 adopted budget book added department objectives and performance measures, split into outputs and outcomes (framework on p. 26). They appear in the final book, after adoption, not alongside the requests.

Source: https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56895/FY-2027-Adopted-Operating-Budget

⠀
WHAT IT ISN'T: A CHECK OR A BALANCE

Zero-based budgeting is a planning method. It doesn't check anything.

The department justifies its own request. No one independent reviews the justification.

It happens before the money is spent. It doesn't ask whether the money worked.

Money can move after adoption. In Calvert, a change over $150,000 needs a resolution and a public hearing. Smaller changes don't need a resolution.

Source:https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/fnotes/bil_0009/hb0729.pdf

It can be worked. San Diego's Independent Budget Analyst noted in 2016 that managers who don't buy in may try to "game" the system.

Source:https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/ibareport16-16.pdf

As of October 18, 2026, I haven't found a county document that reports what zero-based budgeting has saved since it started.

⠀
QUESTIONS WORTH ASKING

What has zero-based budgeting saved since FY2026, and where is that reported?

Who reviews a department's justification besides the department?

After a request is funded, who checks whether it delivered?

Zero-based budgeting isn't built to answer those. Other tools are.

This is the first in a short series explaining terms you're hearing, using public documents.

Up next: What is an inspector general?

Zero-based budget: can you justify the receipt?
Missing step: did we get what we paid for? 👀

21/09/2026

POST #33: A COMPANY THAT WITHDREW ITS SITE PLAN IS STILL IN OUR ZONING TEXT

TA 26-23 is the county's proposed set of rules for data centers: water, noise, generators, setbacks, who pays for infrastructure. The board takes it up Tuesday.

Back in February, while the county was drafting those rules, an attorney for Amazon sent the director of Planning & Zoning a marked-up copy with the changes his client wanted. It became public only through a Public Information Act request. I covered that markup in Post #15.

Amazon withdrew its site plan in August. The changes didn't withdraw with it. Whatever the board adopts applies to whoever files next.

Source: https://smnewsnet.com/archives/563524/aws-withdraws-proposed-calvert-county-data-center-project-new-public-meeting-on-data-centers-moratorium-aug-18-2026/

The markup made three changes. Two of them are still in the draft.

I put the February markup and the September 22 draft side by side for each change. See the comparison pictures below.

Source, TA 26-23 Exhibit A, on the Sept. 22 agenda: https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09222026-5228

⠀
STILL IN: THE GENERATOR CARVE-OUT

Data centers run rows of diesel generators for backup power. The county's draft required all of them to meet the EPA's strictest emission standard, Tier 4 Final. The markup added "server rooms," limiting that to generators serving the server rooms and leaving the rest of a site's generators outside the requirement. A margin comment called the standard "economically burdensome."

The September draft reads: "All stationary diesel generators serving the development's server rooms."

⠀
STILL IN: WHO DECIDES WHAT THE DEVELOPER PAYS FOR

A project this size needs road, water and power work to serve it. The county's draft made the applicant pay for those improvements "as determined by the County." The markup cut that phrase and tied payment instead to whatever a statute or regulation requires.

The September draft keeps the change.

⠀
GONE: THE GROUNDWATER BAN

The county's draft barred drilling a well to cool a data center. The markup struck that sentence. The September draft puts it back and goes further: no well for cooling, humidification or heat rejection, and groundwater and public drinking water limited to sanitary use and fire protection.

⠀
WHAT TO ASK TUESDAY

• Why does the clean-air standard apply only to generators serving the server rooms, and not to the rest of a site's generators?

• Why was "as determined by the County" removed from who decides what infrastructure a developer pays for?

• Staff put the groundwater ban back after the markup deleted it. What made that change worth reversing, when these other two were left in?

Nothing is final. TA 26-23 is on Tuesday's work session at 11:50 a.m. Public comment is at 2:00 p.m.

17/09/2026

POST #32

WHAT THE STATE ACTUALLY REQUIRES

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want to know what the future looks like for the children of Calvert County. Who is making sure they have what they need to build their own.

That question comes down to resources. What the schools are given, who decides how much, and whether anyone is asking hard questions about it.

We hear a lot that the state keeps pushing costs down onto the county, and that when it comes to schools, the Blueprint is the reason. So I went looking for the number. What does the Blueprint actually require Calvert to spend?

The state publishes it every year. Here is what it says.

WHAT WAS SAID

On April 10, 2026, Commissioner President Todd Ireland recorded a message to residents about the county's finances. Speaking about schools:

"With the cost that the blueprint for Maryland has pushed to our county, we have invested more than $40 million in our schools over the past four years."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1g5fBfJfHw&t=498s

HOW THE REQUIREMENT ACTUALLY WORKS

Two separate rules decide what a Maryland county must give its schools.

The first is maintenance of effort. It is a state law from 1984. Each county must appropriate at least as much per pupil as it did the year before. A county that cannot meet it has to ask the State Board of Education for a waiver.

Source: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=ged§ion=5-235&enactments=false

The second is the Blueprint for Maryland's Future, passed by the General Assembly in 2021. It sets a required local share across its funding formulas.

Source: https://blueprint.marylandpublicschools.org/

A county has to fund whichever of those two numbers is bigger. That is the whole rule, and it is written in the state's own footnote: the required minimum effort is the greater of local share, accounting for relief provisions, and the per pupil maintenance of effort result.

Every year the Department of Legislative Services publishes both numbers for all twenty-four counties in a table called Local Education Effort.

WHAT THE TABLE SAYS ABOUT CALVERT

Fiscal 2024. Blueprint combined local share: $82.3 million. Maintenance of effort: $137.8 million.

Fiscal 2025. Blueprint combined local share: $111.9 million. Maintenance of effort: $152.3 million.

Fiscal 2026. Blueprint combined local share: $95.8 million. Maintenance of effort: $163.0 million.

Three years. Maintenance of effort was the larger number every single time, by $55 million, then $40 million, then $67 million.

Which means the Blueprint's formulas have never set Calvert's required contribution. The 1984 law did.

Source, page 43:https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2024fy-budget-docs-operating-R00A02-MSDE-Aid-to-Education.pdf

Source, page 45:https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2025fy-budget-docs-operating-R00A02-MSDE-Aid-to-Education.pdf

Source, page 54:https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2026fy-budget-docs-operating-R00A02-MSDE-Aid-to-Education.pdf

THE REQUIREMENT WENT DOWN

The same table shows the change in Calvert's minimum from the prior year.

Fiscal 2024: down $3.5 million. Fiscal 2025: down $2.5 million. Fiscal 2026: down $1.7 million.

Three consecutive years, the minimum the state required of Calvert County got smaller.

That is not a mystery. Maintenance of effort is calculated per pupil, and Calvert's enrollment has been falling. Full-time equivalent enrollment was 14,851 in fiscal 2025, 14,494 in fiscal 2026, and 14,333 in fiscal 2027.

Fewer students, smaller requirement.

I am not saying the county has not spent more on schools. It has. I am saying that in the state's own table, for three years running, the Blueprint did not raise what Calvert was required to spend, and the floor the county was meeting was getting lower.

WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING PUSHED DOWN

There is a real cost shift, and it is in the same documents.

The state is moving a share of teacher retirement costs onto counties. Calvert's share of the normal cost was $6,601,917 in fiscal 2023, $6,613,485 in fiscal 2024, and $6,724,349 in fiscal 2025.

Source:https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2025fy-budget-docs-operating-R00A02-MSDE-Aid-to-Education.pdf

That is a real cost. It is not $40 million.

WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD DID

In August 2023, all five county commissioners signed a letter proposing a performance audit of the school system, including a review of procurements.

At the school board's September 14, 2023 meeting, board member Dawn Balinski called the proposal broad and suggested county government be included in it. Board members Lisa Grenis and Jana Post supported asking the commissioners for clarification, but did not support including county government's own procurement in the review. Grenis said the commissioners do not answer to the board.

"I think we should stay in our own lane."

Board president Inez Claggett responded that the conversation could go both ways, and that the commissioners have a responsibility to fund the school system. Board member Antoine White said it was the board's job to do it.

The motion to ask for clarification and to include county government passed on a three to two vote.

Source: https://www.somdnews.com/recorder/news/local/on-a-split-vote-calvert-school-board-responds-to-commissioners-over-audit/article_75dbabb4-5400-11ee-bbf8-a3f2b879772e.html

On February 27, 2025, the school board approved its proposed budget for the next school year. In moving to approve it, Grenis stated the school board will not be asking for additional money from the county commissioners. The anticipated county funding was the same amount budgeted for the current fiscal year. The county then funded schools at maintenance of effort for fiscal 2026.

Source: https://www.somdnews.com/recorder/news/local/proposed-calvert-school-system-budget-increased/article_20fc9322-f622-11ef-85c6-af9b84b93553.html

WHERE THE FY2027 INCREASE CAME FROM

The staff recommended budget funded schools at $163,046,853. The adopted budget funded them at $169,794,696. The difference is $6,747,843.

Maintenance of effort for fiscal 2027 was $160,553,731, so the adopted amount is roughly $9.2 million above the floor.

No tax rate changed between those two documents. What changed was the revenue estimate. Property taxes were revised up $1,598,798. Income taxes up $2,777,178. Service charges up $593,006. Transfers up $2,022,113. Fund balance up $2,097,420.

The county's explanation is that the State Department of Assessments and Taxation provided revised data in late March, after the staff budget was prepared.

Source: https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53761/FY-2027-Staff-Recommended-Operating-and-Capital-Improvement-Budget

Source: https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56895/FY-2027-Adopted-Operating-Budget

HOW THE COUNTY ESTIMATES REVENUE

In fiscal 2025, the county budgeted $118,100,000 in income tax revenue. It collected $137,548,976. That is $19,448,976 more than budgeted, which the county describes as 16.47 percent over.

Total revenues came in $14,636,574 over budget. Fund balance grew to $142,518,519.

Source: https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/52063/FY25-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report-ACFR

The separate $22.5 million the school system lost in state aid came from the end of the Cove Point payment in lieu of taxes agreement, not from the Blueprint. I covered that in Post #17.

Somebody said that out loud at the time.

At the fiscal 2025 budget hearing, Dona Ostenso, then president of the Calvert Education Association, called the proposed school budget insufficient and said it was time to stop blaming the school system for the state's cut based on the yield from the Cove Point plant.

Source: https://www.somdnews.com/recorder/news/local/calvert-school-board-seeks-10-million-more-from-commissioners/article_fd3af2c8-e30b-11ee-9af8-634e3147a4f7.html

WHAT THIS ADDS UP TO

To be fair, funding at maintenance of effort is legal. Counties do it. And the retirement shift is a genuine cost the state moved down.

But in the state's own table, for three consecutive years, the Blueprint's local share requirement for Calvert came in tens of millions below the number that was already binding. The requirement that was binding went down all three years.

Residents can decide for themselves what a nineteen million dollar revenue gap means in a year the schools were told there was nothing above the floor.

I know this was long but the kids need all of us to understand what these things mean. Please share!

11/09/2026

Someone sent me this today. I've read it four times since.

It's chapter 66 of the Tao Te Ching — roughly 2,500 years old — and it says something I keep running into in county records: the strongest position is the low one. Rivers don't rule the valleys by standing above them. Authority that has to announce itself isn't authority.

I don't hold office. I don't sit on any board. All I have is documents and the patience to read them. Most weeks that feels like very little. Some weeks it doesn't.

Translated by J.H. McDonald.

02/09/2026

POST #31: WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE MARYLAND DATA CENTER STUDY?
⠀
Maryland's data center study was due September 1. It didn't come out.
⠀
Counties across Maryland paused data center development in part to wait for that report. It has not been delivered, and no agency has announced a new date.
⠀
This is not only a Calvert County question. Jurisdictions across the state are holding decisions open while they wait. Here is what the law requires, who voted for it, who is waiting on it, and what to ask.
⠀
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
⠀
Senate Bill 116, the Data Center Impact Analysis and Report, was sponsored by Senators Karen Lewis Young and Justin Ready. A cross-filed version, House Bill 270, was sponsored by Delegate Brian M. Crosby.
⠀
The law requires the Maryland Department of the Environment, the Maryland Energy Administration, and the University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business to analyze the environmental, energy, and economic impacts of data center development in Maryland. The Department of Legislative Services coordinates those assessments into a final report.
⠀
The deadline written into the law is on or before September 1, 2026, to the Governor and the General Assembly.
⠀
Source: Senate Bill 116, Maryland General Assembly
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/sb0116?ys=2025RS
⠀
WHAT THE STUDY IS SUPPOSED TO COVER
⠀
The Department of the Environment assesses potential impacts on the state's natural resources, including air and water quality, the state's ability to meet Chesapeake Bay restoration goals, and available mitigation technologies.
⠀
The Maryland Energy Administration assesses data center energy requirements, impacts on energy demand and supply, infrastructure needs, and the state's ability to meet greenhouse gas reduction commitments.
⠀
The University of Maryland School of Business assesses economic and fiscal impacts, including the likely effect on state and local revenues and expenditures, and the jobs likely to be created through construction and operation.
⠀
The Department of Legislative Services may request information from the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Assessments and Taxation, the Department of Commerce, and the Public Service Commission.
⠀
Source: Senate Bill 116, enrolled text
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/bills/sb/sb0116e.pdf
⠀
HOW IT BECAME LAW
⠀
Governor Wes Moore vetoed the bill on May 16, 2025. His veto message stated that the three studies in that package would cost at least $1.28 million and would require coordination across numerous agencies and institutions. This study was budgeted at approximately $502,000.
⠀
Source: Technical.ly, veto override coverage
https://technical.ly/civics/maryland-data-center-impact-study-veto-override/
⠀
Source: Governor's veto letter, Senate Bill 116
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/veto_letters/sb0116.pdf
⠀
The General Assembly overrode the veto on December 16, 2025. The Senate voted 44-0. The House voted 109-21.
⠀
Both versions became law. Senate Bill 116 is Chapter 10 of the 2025 Special Session. House Bill 270 is Chapter 3.
⠀
Source: House Bill 270, Maryland General Assembly
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB0270?ys=2025RS
⠀
The override did not change the deadline. The chaptered text still reads September 1, 2026.
⠀
Source: Senate override vote, December 16, 2025
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025S1/votes/Senate/0006.pdf
⠀
Source: House override vote, December 16, 2025
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025S1/votes/House/0035.pdf
⠀
THE VOTE RECORD
⠀
There were five recorded floor votes on this bill.
⠀
The Senate never recorded a single no vote at any stage. Third reading March 14, 2025: 46-0. Third reading April 7, 2025: 46-0. Override December 16, 2025: 44-0.
⠀
Source: Senate third reading vote, March 14, 2025
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/votes/senate/0507.pdf
⠀
Source: Senate third reading vote, April 7, 2025
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/votes/senate/1194.pdf
⠀
The House passed the bill 134-5 on April 7, 2025. The five no votes were Delegates Arikan, Fisher, Grammer, Nawrocki, and Szeliga.
⠀
Source: House third reading vote, April 7, 2025
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/votes/house/1282.pdf
⠀
The House override passed 109-21 on December 16, 2025. Comparing the two House roll calls, fifteen delegates voted for the bill in April and against the override in December.
⠀
HOW CALVERT'S DELEGATION VOTED
⠀
Delegate Jeffrie E. Long Jr., District 27B: yes on passage, yes on the override.
⠀
Delegate Todd B. Morgan, District 29C: yes on passage, yes on the override.
⠀
Delegate Mark N. Fisher, District 27C: no on passage, no on the override.
⠀
Both of Calvert's senators voted yes on the override, as did every senator present.
⠀
Source: Maryland Manual, delegates by district
https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/hsedist.html
⠀
Source: House third reading vote, April 7, 2025 (roll call)
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/votes/house/1282.pdf
⠀
Source: House override vote, December 16, 2025 (roll call)
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025S1/votes/House/0035.pdf
⠀
These are the numbers as they appear on the roll call sheets.
⠀
WHO IS WAITING ON IT
⠀
Jurisdictions across Maryland paused data center development in part to wait for this report.
⠀
Frederick County: County Executive Jessica Fitzwater signed an executive order on July 1, 2026 pausing new applications through December 31, 2026.
⠀
Source: Maryland Matters, counties respond to data centers
https://marylandmatters.org/2026/08/10/counties-scramble-to-respond-to-data-centers-setting-moratoriums-a-ban/
⠀
Baltimore City: one-year pause effective July 16, 2026. The Mayor's office said it looked forward to reviewing the final state report.
⠀
Source: Baltimore data center pause coverage
https://technical.ly/civics/baltimore-pauses-data-centers-to-study-grid-impacts/
⠀
Baltimore County: moratorium approved February 2026, scheduled to run through January. Its own Planning Board report is due October 1, 2026. The County Council is considering an extension through June 2027.
⠀
Source: Baltimore County Planning, Data Center Study
https://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/departments/planning/data-center-study
⠀
Howard County: pause in place until new zoning rules are adopted, the county completes comprehensive rezoning, or no later than November 2027.
⠀
Prince George's County: permits and applications paused pending an impact study.
⠀
Anne Arundel County: pending legislation, with a County Council hearing scheduled for September 21, 2026.
⠀
Harford County: permanent ban, approved unanimously by the County Council in June 2026 and signed by County Executive Bob Cassilly.
⠀
Source: FOX45/WBFF, local data center rules across Maryland
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/maryland-data-center-debate-intensifies-as-local-rules-diverge
⠀
Calvert County: six-month moratorium on data center site plan approvals, adopted August 18, 2026.
⠀
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DEADLINE
⠀
On August 31, 2026, FOX45/WBFF reported that the study would not be delivered on time. Senator Lewis Young said she now expects the report before the next legislative session, which convenes in January 2027, and that she is drafting data center legislation regardless.
⠀
Source: FOX45/WBFF, August 31, 2026
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/maryland-wont-have-data-center-study-by-sept-1-why-a-lawmaker-remains-hopeful
⠀
As of September 2, 2026, no revised delivery date has been announced by the Department of the Environment, the Maryland Energy Administration, the University of Maryland, the Department of Legislative Services, or the Governor's office.
⠀
HOW TO CHECK FOR YOURSELF
⠀
Reports submitted to the General Assembly are cataloged by the Department of Legislative Services Library. That catalog is the official record of whether a mandated report has been submitted, and it is public.
⠀
Source: Department of Legislative Services, Mandated Reports
https://dls.maryland.gov/library/mandated-reports/
⠀
WHAT TO ASK
⠀
This report belongs to every county in Maryland, not just the ones with a project in front of them. Four questions have not been answered publicly:
⠀
When will the report be delivered?
⠀
Which of the three agency assessments are complete and which are not?
⠀
Will the report arrive before the General Assembly convenes in January 2027?
⠀
Will it arrive before local moratoriums expire?
⠀
The entities responsible are the Maryland Department of the Environment, the Maryland Energy Administration, the University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business, and the Department of Legislative Services. Anyone can also ask their own senator and delegates, who are the recipients of the report under the law.
⠀
Source: Maryland General Assembly, find your representatives
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Members/District
⠀
WHERE THIS LEAVES US
⠀
A study required by two chapters of Maryland law, budgeted at roughly $502,000, passed both chambers without a single senator voting against it. Its statutory due date has passed. Local moratorium clocks are running, and several expire before or during the next legislative session.
⠀
Maryland has neither the analysis nor a date for it.

31/08/2026

POST #30: I READ THE TAX BILL
⠀
In April 2026, Commissioner Earl F. "Buddy" Hance explained how the county notified residents about the zoning ordinance update that added Data Center as a permitted use: "We even put a notice in everybody's tax bill." I covered that in Post #18.
⠀
So this year, I read the tax bill. Front and back. Then I checked it against what the county actually adopted.
⠀
I found five things wrong. None of them changed what anyone owes. All of them are printed on an official tax document mailed to every property owner in Calvert County.
⠀
WHAT THE COUNTY ADOPTED
⠀
Calvert has two incorporated towns, North Beach and Chesapeake Beach. Residents there pay a reduced county rate, because the towns provide services the county otherwise would.
⠀
On June 9, 2026, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 15-26 by a 5-0 vote. That resolution is what legally sets the tax rates for the year. It levies $0.967 per $100 outside the towns, and $0.605 per $100 inside both towns, down from $0.631.
⠀
Source: Calvert County Resolution No. 15-26, adopted June 9, 2026, recorded Liber KPS No. 79, Folio 274.
https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/57041/15-26
⠀
The same rates appear in the adopted budget's rate tables.
⠀
Source: FY 2027 Adopted Operating Budget, Fees and Tax Rates, pages 325-326.
https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/57122/FY-2027-Adopted-Operating-Fees-and-Tax-Rates
⠀
The Town of North Beach separately adopted its own municipal rate of $0.4859 per $100 on June 8, 2026, down from $0.5016.
⠀
Source: Town of North Beach.
https://www.northbeachmd.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/58
⠀
ONE: THE ONLINE BILL SHOWS LAST YEAR'S RATES
⠀
The county's online tax portal displays a county rate of 0.631000 and a town rate of 0.501600 on North Beach parcels. Both are last year's numbers.
⠀
The amounts charged use the correct rates. On a parcel assessed at $171,100, the county line computes at 0.6050 and the town line at 0.4859. On a second parcel assessed at $1,258,333, the same two rates apply. The totals are right. Nobody was overcharged. The rates printed beside those totals are not the rates that were adopted.
⠀
The state line, 0.112000, displays correctly. It is the only one of the three rates that did not change for FY2027.
⠀
I am not posting anyone's tax bill, including my own. Anyone can check this. The portal is public and searchable by address. Pull up any North Beach address, open the charges page, and compare what is shown to the adopted rates above.
⠀
Source: Calvert County online tax portal.
https://calvertcountymd.munisselfservice.com
⠀
TWO: THE PAPER BILL SHOWS NO TOWN RATE AT ALL
⠀
The printed bill lists a state rate and a county rate. There is no town rate on it.
⠀
A resident holding the paper bill has nothing to check against. A resident checking online sees a number the town did not adopt. Two governments lowered rates this year and neither reduction is visible on the document that reports them.
⠀
THREE: THE PROPERTY TAX FORMULA IS PRINTED WRONG
⠀
The definitions panel on the back prints: "Property Tax Formula: Property Tax = (Assessed Value x Tax Rate) + 100."
⠀
It should be divided by 100. The paragraph directly above it says so correctly, instructing the reader to multiply the assessed value by the tax rate and then divide that amount by $100.
⠀
FOUR: THE SCHOOL FUNDING NUMBERS DO NOT AGREE
⠀
The front of the bill carries a note stating that $16.39, or 39 percent, of the annual county tax is designated to fund the Calvert County Public School System.
⠀
On a bill with $4,201.62 in county tax, 39 percent is $1,638.63. Divide that by 100 and you get $16.3863. The printed dollar figure is the correct percentage calculation divided by 100 a second time, the same error as the formula above it.
⠀
FIVE: THE COUNTY RATE IS LABELED AS THE TOWN'S
⠀
The bill's Property Tax Rate Notice reads: "For properties located within the towns of Chesapeake Beach and North Beach, the municipal rate decreased from $0.631 to $0.605 per $100."
⠀
That is not the municipal rate. It is the county rate charged inside the towns, levied by Resolution 15-26. North Beach's municipal rate is $0.4859. The adopted budget's own rate table repeats the same error, heading that column "North Beach Approved Tax Rate."
⠀
ONE MORE THING WORTH KNOWING
⠀
The back of the bill also states that to produce the same real property tax revenues as last year, the rate would be $0.9231. The county adopted $0.967 and held it there.
⠀
That gap is $0.0439 per $100, roughly $176 on a home assessed at $400,000, and about $6.2 million across the county's assessable base outside the towns. That last figure is my own calculation from the adopted base.
⠀
Nothing about that is improper. The rate did not go up. But holding the rate flat while assessments rise does raise revenue, and the only place that appears is small print on the back of a bill.
⠀
WHY I AM POINTING THIS OUT
⠀
Property taxes are the county's largest single revenue source, $228,603,736 in FY2027, more than half of all general fund revenue.
⠀
Source: FY 2027 Adopted Operating Budget, page 31.
https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56895/FY-2027-Adopted-Operating-Budget
⠀
I am not trying to nitpick a tax bill. But this is a tax document, and those are budget documents, and together they are how the county tells residents what it is collecting and why. Five errors on one page is a proofreading problem. It is also a reason to look harder at the documents that do not come in the mail.
⠀
First installment is due September 30, 2026. Look at your bill.

CleverTiger9474

19/10/2026

21/09/2026

17/09/2026

11/09/2026

02/09/2026

31/08/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request