Tax Inequities in Shore Counties

Peter Heck • December 12, 2023

Residents of towns in three Eastern Shore counties may not realize they’re paying for services they don’t receive. More precisely, they pay taxes to their counties for services they already pay for with their town taxes.

This shouldn’t happen. Legislation by the Maryland General Assembly in 1986 required nine counties to provide some sort of tax set-off for towns that provide their own services, such as police protection and highway maintenance, so that the counties don’t need to provide these services within town limits. This set-off can be a reduced county tax rate — a “tax differential” — for residents of those towns, or a payment to the towns to defray the cost of those services.

However, the other counties, mostly rural, including all counties on the Eastern Shore — the “may" counties as opposed to the “shall” counties, which are required to provide a set-off — were merely encouraged (not required) to compensate their municipalities for the services they provide.

The majority of “may” counties have accepted the responsibility to help their constituent towns cover the cost of police protection and the like, but if you live in a town in the counties of Kent, Worcester, or Wicomico, you’re out of luck. The county commissioners in these three counties have so far refused to provide any offset for the difference in services.

As Chestertown’s Mayor David Foster put it in a November interview with Common Sense, “If you go back in a 10-year history, those are the three counties that are at the bottom of the barrel,” referring to their commissioners’ refusal to provide any tax set-off for their constituent towns.

The amount at stake can be significant. For example, in Chestertown, the 2024 town budget laid out over $2 million for its police department and road repairs while the Kent County budget laid out roughly $8 million for law enforcement and highway maintenance. Chestertown residents pay county property taxes at the same rate as the rest of the county, but do not receive a proportionate share of the county’s law enforcement or highway repair expenditures.

To add to the confusion, Kent’s commissioners allocated a “grant in aid” of just over $100,000 annually to Chestertown until 2014, but in the wake of the 2008 recession, the county’s tax revenues sharply declined and the commissioners decided they could not spare the money from their budget. Chestertown’s mayor and council members protested, but to no avail. One Kent County commissioner at the time reportedly said in a candidates’ forum that he wondered if the town even needed a police force.

Foster says the three counties’ failure to provide compensation of some sort raises the issues of equity, economic development, and trust in elected officials. The equity issue is clear enough. Town residents pay county taxes for essential services that they do not receive from the county. Instead, the services are provided by the town and are paid for by town property taxes.

The trust issue is easy to understand as well, especially when surveys show that trust in government is already at an all-time low, Foster says. Given that county commissioners have promised several times over nearly 10 years to work with the towns to resolve the issue — then backed away from that promise — the lack of trust is likely to increase.

Economic development is an important issue on the Shore. Foster points out that Kent County’s population declined by 5% between 2010 and 2020, with the loss mostly in the under-40 age group, who leave in search of good jobs. To retain young wage earners — potential entrepreneurs, homeowners, and taxpayers — Shore municipalities need to attract businesses that can provide good jobs. Foster says it’s especially hard for “a high-tax town in a high-tax state” to compete with nearby “tax-free Delaware.”

In an August 2023 letter to the Maryland Municipal League, Foster expanded on the economic development issue. He wrote, “Not only does the current Maryland policy create a severe equity problem, but when municipalities are doubly taxed without compensation, this runs directly counter to the Maryland Smart Growth Policy of Priority Funding Areas, which seeks to direct future economic growth toward municipalities and other areas that have the infrastructure to support it. Furthermore, as median household income is frequently lower within the municipalities than in the surrounding areas and property tax ultimately burdens the home renter as well as the homeowner, the current policy is highly regressive. In fact, this often results in low-income residents being required to subsidize their higher-income counterparts living outside the municipal boundaries.”

In support of that assertion, Foster points to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, showing that median household income in 2017-21 in Chestertown was $44,665, compared to $64,451 in Kent County and $83,877 in the non-municipal areas of the county. Foster believes that removing the current inequitable taxes on Kent County’s municipal residents will ultimately improve Kent County’s economy and allow an increase in services without requiring higher taxes.

Foster has been in touch with the Maryland Comptroller’s office, focusing on the economic development implications of the tax differential questions.

Along with his two immediate predecessors, Foster has tried to persuade Kent County to join the town in sponsoring an independent study of the tax structure, although the current commissioners have so far balked. However, the National Center for Smart Growth, at the University of Maryland, is organizing a study of the fiscal relationships between several municipalities in Kent, Wicomico, and Caroline counties. “It should be objective and reliable data,” Foster says, and available early next year.

Foster has been working with the MML to promote the issue in the General Assembly, the only body with the power to require all counties to provide relief to town residents paying taxes for services they don’t receive.

Unfortunately, the Maryland Association of Counties opposes this, making it unlikely that the state legislators will take sides. However, Foster hopes that Gov. Wes Moore will recognize the statewide economic benefits of such a change and be persuaded to take a stand, possibly making it easier to get momentum for a tax relief measure in the legislature.

It’s time for residents of affected towns to tell their county officials that they don’t want to pay for services that they don’t receive. As Foster points out, failure to correct this inequity retards economic development and will hurt all residents of the counties that fail to provide some kind of tax relief for their municipalities. It’s something everyone should think about the next time their county officials are on the ballot — and make it clear their vote depends on how those officials plan to address the problem.

For additional information, see Property Tax Set-offs, Md. Department of Legislative Services, 2022.

Peter Heck is a Chestertown-based writer and editor, who spent 10 years at the Kent County News and three more with the Chestertown Spy. He is the author of 10 novels and co-author of four plays, a book reviewer for Asimov’s and Kirkus Reviews, and an incorrigible guitarist.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Mail

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Megan Outten Launches Campaign for Wicomico County Council, District 7

By Friends of Megan Outten • July 29, 2025

Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com

“Turtles All The Way Down”

By John Christie • July 29, 2025

Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

“Andy Harris Just Made the Most Dangerous Vote of His Career”

By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co • July 15, 2025

Marylanders will not forget this vote.

How Many Will Be Kicked Off Medicaid in MD-01 Because of Andy Harris?

By Jan Plotczyk • July 9, 2025

More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.

Six Reasons Why the House Budget Bill Will Hurt Rural America

By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser • May 21, 2025

Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

Who Will SNAP Cuts Affect in Maryland? On the Eastern Shore?

By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities • May 21, 2025

The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.