|
As you point out, the sentence really
specifies those procedures, as I recall, by
this early action. The Committee did not
regard this enumeration as absolutely es-
sential.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, did
I understand from your earlier answer that
in addition to the procedures as outlined
by Delegate Raley, "procedures" could in-
clude alternate forms of charter?
DELEGATE MOSER: This was my un-
derstanding when I first answered the
question, but I think that what it means,
and it is limited by Committee construc-
tion, is what the commission draft provides.
Section 7.03 means just what Delegate
Raley stated that it meant.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mentzer.
DELEGATE MENTZER: My question
is on section 7.11. I wondered why you were
giving to intergovernmental authorities the
powers to collect these service and benefit
charges. I wonder if you give powers to
borrow money, how they may be controlled.
DELEGATE MOSER: Exactly as they
are controlled now. Those basically are the
power authorities and they are controlled
by law, I suppose by the General Assembly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mentzer.
DELEGATE MENTZER: In the case of
the Washington Suburban Sanitary Com-
mission which has benefit charges collected
by the county, you are not setting up any
separate collection agency. I see this as
giving some sort of constitutional collection
agency to these intergovernmental authori-
ties. Their bonds also are approved by the
county commissioners and by General As-
sembly, and I do not see where this ar-
rangement continues under this wording.
DELEGATE MOSER: That is the way
they operate, but the Maryland Port Au-
thority operates in a different way. If this
is your question, this provision is not in-
tended, to change the procedure that is
utilized by the Sanitary Commission. The
same thing would occur there. The existing
arrangement is permitted to conform. Thus
is not intended as a change from existing
law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hostetter.
DELEGATE HOSTETTER: Chairman
Moser, I refer to the second sentence in
section 7.06, line 40 on page 3 of the Com-
mittee Recommendation. In granting the
exercise of a power or performance of a
function for one county that may be de-
nied to another county or counties, would
|
the act of the legislature setting forth this
grant be subject to referendum?
DELEGATE MOSER: It would be sub-
ject, as I understand it, to a statewide
referendum. Under what has been before us
in the Committee of the Whole up to now,
it would not be subject to a local refer-
endum as a law of the General Assembly
locally referred, as provided in Article XIII
of the present Constitution.
It is an enabling law. It is not an affirma-
tive act. This local option arrangement is
not effective in doing anything until the
county acts. When the county acts, its
charter would provide for local referendum
at that point. All county charters do this
today. They vary a little bit. Some ordi-
nances just like state laws, cannot be re-
ferred, but I understand they do provide
for referendum, which is the point; you
provide for local referendum.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: I would like to
continue on this same point as you indi-
cated before. Most local charters do not
permit tax measures to be referred. If you
permitted an individual county to have a
particular taxing power, then the exercise
of that power by the county would prob-
ably not be the occasion to petition the
county's action to referendum.
Therefore, the only time when such a
bill could be petitioned would be the time
when the General Assembly acted to grant
the authority. Would you feel that that act
by the General Assembly should be referred
only as a statewide bill would be referred?
DELEGATE MOSER: What do you pro-
vide in the present referendum provision
fpr the state laws? Do you provide that
state tax laws are subject to be referred?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: No, but that is
an exercise of the taxing power, not a ques-
tion of a grant to the authority.
DELEGATE MOSER: I fail to see why
you would impose a referendum on the en-
actment of a local tax, if I understand your
question correctly, whereas you prohibit a
referendum in case of a state tax.
Put more directly, I think you are lead-
ing toward a suggestion that the enable-
ment should be subject to local referendum.
Possibly so. The point is that if people in a
county want their tax laws to be referred,
then they will provide for that. It is strictly
a matter for them to take care of in their
|
