|
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: It is a
departure from the present practice to the
extent that the present practice does not
require tho General Assembly to levy any
now tax.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: They are re-
quired to levy an additional real estate tax.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Dole-gate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes. The
board of public works then has to fix a
higher rate. Is that correct?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: That is right.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: One last
question: I would be interested in hearing the Committee's thought which produces
the result that the General Assembly may
increase the budget for capital expenditures
but may not increase the budget for op-
erating expenditures.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: The General
Assembly may increase the budget for op-
erating expenditures by a supplementary
appropriation bill which carries with it the
tax to finance it and fund it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Does anyone else wish to ask a question of
Delegate Sherbow?
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: First, let me say in
answer to — I am really supposed to be ask-
ing a question, but it may be helpful for
the record to let me answer Delegate Bam-
berger's question, if I may.
What you have to realize here is that all
bond bills are considered to be supple-
mentary appropriation bills, and they are
not always as you stated. In other words,
the governor can send down a capital bill
having a number of items, or he can send
down one bill. The legislature can put in
one bill.
In any case, the legislature has the right
to increase it, but it has to find the tax.
The tax it finds traditionally has been real
estate tax, by increasing the rate, but it is
not limited to that. It can find any other
tax it wants and put it on.
This provision you have been talking
about in effect continues that, but spot-
lights it. Up to this point it has bean
pretty easy sometimes for capital improve-
ments to go on a budget bill in cookbook
|
phraseology which would include the tax
as just automatically increased. Under
this procedure, the Committee thinks it is
an added safeguard. Under this procedure
the finding of the new tax will, at least, be
spotlighted, whether it be the real estate
tax or any other tax. That is what I wanted
to say to you.
Delegate Sherbow, the question is still a
little fuzzy in this area. You will recall
Delegate Willoner asked you about section
4.14, veto by the governor, and 4.15, item
veto, which has already been passed by the
Committee.
Am I not correct in stating for the rec-
ord that the word "supplementary appro-
priation bill," which the governor is given
the right to item veto, is the same "supple-
mentary appropriation bill" which our
Committee dealt with in section 6.10 and
section G. 11?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Exactly cor-
rect.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Are there any further questions?
The Chair recognizes Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Judge Sher-
bow, I would like to get back to make sure
I understand the mandatory appropriation
provided in the judicial sections.
As I understand it, the appropriations of
the Chief Judge of the Superior Court or
Court of Appeals, or however that is worked
out, will have to be included in the budget
bill. But when that budget bill comes to the
floor, the budget bill in regard to the judi-
cial branch can be reduced under section
(J. 07, is that correct?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow ?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, they can-
not reduce the judicial budget.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: The way this
reads is, the General Assembly may amend
the budget bill by increasing any item re-
lating to the legislative or judicial branches
or reducing or striking out any item, with
the two exceptions of the bonds and school
system.
Do you intend that the General Assembly
cannot amend the budget bill in regard to
the judicial or legislative branch by reduc-
ing it?
|
