|
they are both in effect, that the local gov-
ernments instead of the General Assembly
will then have jurisdiction over any intra-
county authorities, such as a metropolitan
district of something of that nature that
exists solely inside the boundaries of the
county? Would the county would then
have jurisdiction over the organization and
regulation of that authority rather than
the General Assembly?
Take the Howard or Harford County
metropolitan district as an example.
DELEGATE MOSER: It really would
depend again on the schedule or the interim
provisions.
Presumably, the structure of who does
what as between the General Assembly and
counties would be preserved. It would con-
tinue the way it is now. If the General As-
sembly handles that now, it probably would
continue to do under the interim provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Under the in-
terim provisions, once 7.05 and 7.06 are
both fully operative would any such dis-
trict established by public local law then
be subject to the jurisdiction of the county
government and not to the jurisdiction of
the General Assembly?
DELEGATE MOSER: I really cannot
answer the question without having a
couple of specific laws in front of me.
THE CHAIRMAN: It may be clearer to
Delegate Moser if you do not refer to pre-
viously existing authorities.
I take it your question is directed to au-
thorities hereafter created.
DELEGATE HANSON: No, my ques-
tion is directed to existing authorities which
were created by local legislation.
DELEGATE MOSER: I have answered
it. It depends on what happens with re-
spect to interim provisions. With respect
to creating new authorities of course, the
power lies with the county unless the legis-
lature acts.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Unless the
legislature would preempt the power of
counties to act?
DELEGATE MOSER: Yes.
DELEGATE HANSON: Under section
8.06, may the counties acting jointly do
everything that the State can do under
section 7.10 except to establish a popu-
|
larly elected regional government? In other
words, can they create an intergovern-
mental authority or other inter-county
agency of some sort?
DELEGATE MOSER: Yes, I think they
could.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, looking at section 7.03 and this sec-
tion which you previously explained as
meaning that one charter would be adopted
by the General Assembly for many possible
counties, am I correct in saying that even
though a county might be actively trying to
get a charter together or instrument of
government together, if it were not ac-
cepted by the county people voting that the
statewide charter would then become oper-
ative on July 1, 1972?
DELEGATE MOSER: If it were not
adopted by that time, yes.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Under
7.04, let us say that the charter that the
people are trying to get together and get
approved by their county people is a lot
different, maybe totally different, from the
standard form. Would the wording of sec-
tion 7.04, that is, an amendment to the in-
strument allow the county to adopt a
totally new charter, not just an amendment
to the State's form charter?
DELEGATE MOSER: They could amend
by adopting a totally new charter. The in-
tention is to make this as broad as possible,
but obviously some of the provisions would
be the same. They would have to be. The
amendment is intended to be given broad
meaning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
would not the right of amendment pro-
vided by section 7.04 make it unnecessary
to provide an optional mandatory instru-
ment on the July 1, 1972 date? In other
words, the charter which becomes effective
by reason of the county not having en-
acted one prior to that date could be
amended to conform to whatever that
county wanted?
DELEGATE MOSER: That is true.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: With respect
to the question that was asked by Delegate
Case in connection with section 7.08, where
he pointed out that a civil unit might be
granted taxing power by the county
whereas an intergovernmental authority
|
