Frederick County Councilmen Phil Dacey (R) and Steve McKay (R), in their first term of office, are perhaps best known to keep a close eye on county spending, asking several questions to county staff about budget items.

And this year, both will attempt to again lower the county’s property tax rate to the constant yield — something both elected officials unsuccessfully attempted to do last year.

County Executive Jan Gardner (D) proposed an operating budget for fiscal year 2021 at about $665.8 million, which includes a tax rate of $1.06 per $100 of assessed value, the same as the last six budget cycles.

But Dacey and McKay, in order to provide relief to county taxpayers during the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, will argue for council members to adopt the constant yield tax rate of $1.0344 per $100 of assessed value. They both said they’ve gotten hundreds of emails from constituents and others statewide in favor of adopting the constant yield rate.

Budget Director Kelly Weaver said this week that if that rate were adopted, county officials would receive about $8.5 million less in property tax revenue.

Constant yield is the tax rate required to keep property tax revenue at the same level as the prior budget year. The state assesses about a third of the county’s properties each year.

Because many assessment values have gone up in recent years, residents may pay more in property taxes even though the property tax rate has remained the same, if their personal assessments increase.

Dacey said this week that no matter whether county residents view the uptick as a tax increase, he believed it was important to provide some financial relief for them due to the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The reality is more money is coming out of household budgets to pay for property taxes,” Dacey said. “However you want to semantically couch that, it’s more money.”

Gardner and Democratic members of the County Council have previously argued that the current tax rate, known as the constant rate, is needed to provide for an increasing demand for services in the county. Gardner repeated this argument in an email Thursday, noting the county’s population grew by about 4,000 people in the past year.

”During this health pandemic, there is an increase in demand for services while at the same time there are declining revenues,” Gardner said. “A reduction to constant yield would provide the average taxpayer with less than $4 a month [in] savings and most would not likely notice it.”

Council President M.C. Keegan-Ayer (D) said this week she was still leaning in toward the constant rate, but added further debate about the constant yield tax rate would happen at a public hearing next month and in further discussions between council members.

“I know there are some people who are hurting and hurting badly … [Council Vice President] Michael Blue is one of them so we get to hear how his business is doing every week,” Keegan-Ayer said about the current economy, alluding to the fact Blue owns an auto repair shop in Walkersville. “But the state and federal government is trying to plug those holes for people and make sure they’e compensated.”

In order to reduce the rate down to the constant yield, Dacey, McKay, Blue and Councilman Kai Hagen (D) have suggested keeping county employees’ salaries level for this year, but added they would like to review that option more with county budget officials.

That proposition is also complicated by the fact that some county employees are union employees and some are not, Weaver told council members this week.

No matter what tax rate the council adopts, McKay said that if residents disagree with work done by the State Department of Taxation and Assessments, they should contest those assessments.

He detailed one constituent in his district who contacted him last year. Upon further investigation, he found the resident’s property was overassessed for 13 years, as the state claimed the resident made improvements on his property that weren’t actually there.

”People should challenge their assessments, and it doesn’t mean, ‘I think you’re wrong,’” McKay said of the assessment process. “It just means you question it, and make the state show you in detail the basis for the assessment.”

Follow Steve Bohnel on Twitter: @Steve_Bohnel.

Steve Bohnel is the county government reporter for the Frederick News-Post. He can be reached at He graduated from Temple University, with a journalism degree in May 2017, and is a die-hard Everton F.C. fan.

(11) comments


How about spending less!?!? Ever eager to be seen as representatives of the unrepresented, and in a feeble attempt to satisfy their insatiable appetite for our money, liberals will do ANYTHING to get their hands on our wallets. Most believe in Modern Monetary Theory and thus think printing money and taxing others is the best/only answer. It is the the rare politician indeed that attempts to lower taxes and so I thank you Dacey (R) and McKay (R), we need more like you. Thank you for trying to do something completely antithetic to all liberals--spend less and LOWER my taxes.


The problem with the constant yield rate is that it gives a tax break to all the transplants that just got here (or are about to move here) while those same transplants are creating additional demands for more county services and infrastructure. If instead of changing the rate, all reassessments could be delayed by 1 year and the constant rates maintained, that would be more fair to all county residents. But if you cut the budget while people keep pouring in to the county, our roads, schools, and public services are going to deteriorate. It’s gonna start looking like West Virginia around here real quick.


I agree with Hay, this is not a good time to cut taxes. As to whether we are still paying for the Blaine gang, there can be little doubt about that.


This doesn't appear to be the time to do this. Keep the rate as is.


I agree with you, hayduke2. It's always easy for politicians to spend other people's money. Let's keep it in our pockets.


Good job Dacey and Mckay. The voters need more people like these two.


Is it possible property taxes are due to the Blaine gang making deals with developers so they didn't have to support the infrastructure their developments caused? If this is the case, all County residents continue to get "thrown under the bus". How many years will we have to pay for these very bad decisions? Six years is already 6 too much.


We will be paying for Blaine and the boys for years!


Just take a look at the so-called Jefferson Technology Park where the bannet proclaimed that you could live here, work here, shop here, dine here. All I see so far is live here.

Way to go Blaine The Pain.


God luck to Dacey and McKay, STARVE THE BEAST, but I doubt it !!


Stupid is as stupid does! Cutting taxes during a pandemic and throwing county employees who are on the front line during the pandemic under the bus to pander to their base is sad.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!