|
bly. It provides a clearer and more desir-
able method for introducing tax legislation
in the General Assembly.
At present there are nine counties, and
in the future, with a smaller and reappor-
tioned General Assembly as we have al-
ready provided for, there will be even more
than nine counties without an individual
representative in Annapolis.
It will be difficult for those counties, if
not impossible, to attain from the General
Assembly those taxing powers necessary to
fund the newer, more extensive functions
and services which we hope the counties
will provide their citizens by virtue of the
entire local government article. That essen-
tially is the thrust of this article.
Moreover, the compromise proposal will
provide considerable visibility and responsi-
bility at the local level for the imposition
of local taxes. The people of the county
will have an opportunity to object to the
imposition of a new tax at the county
council level, before the General Assembly
is asked to pass upon the question.
The only expert witnesses presented to
the Committee on Local Government on
this particular question were Dr. Paul
Cooper, Director of the Fiscal Research
Corporation and Mr. Albert Ward, Asses-
sor of the Department of Taxes and Assess-
ments. Both came before our Committee
prepared to say that the tax powers should
be clearly exempted from the shared powers
concept, and that the General Assembly
should delegate tax powers to the counties.
When told of this compromise proposal,
and all of its ramifications, which are set
out in the memorandum attached to the
amendment. Dr. Cooper and Mr. Ward indi-
cated that they not only considered this an
acceptable proposal, but more desirable
than that which the Committee had rec-
ommended.
They recognized the advantage of retain-
ing in the counties the initiative and re-
sponsibility for deciding the advisability of
imposing these taxes. Moreover, there are
many local taxes, which are collected by
the State on behalf of the local subdivi-
sions, and this procedure would indicate to
the citizens of the county who actually was
imposing the tax.
I should say that my proposal also re-
tains the grandfather clause and the selec-
tive withdrawal clause, which is retained
in the committee recommendation.
This compromise proposal protects the
very thing that Delegate Proposal 387
|
seeks to protect: plenary power in the Gen-
eral Assembly over local tax matters, to be
certain that they will not be detrimental
to the surrounding jurisdictions, or to
business and industry or the excellent
credit rating of the State.
I, therefore, submit to this body that
this compromise proposal does all which
the Committee seeks for it to do, but re-
tains the initiative, advisability and the
workability of the shared powers concept
with the counties.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Moser to speak in opposi-
tion to the amendment.
DELEGATE MOSER: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen, I rise to oppose the
amendment proposed by Delegate Needle.
The Committee, as all of you are aware,
spent a great deal of time on the question
of how the power to tax should be handled.
The final vote in favor of continuing the
express grant of powers was adopted by a
ten to seven vote, with two abstentions.
This is contained in 7.05 of Committee Rec-
ommendation LG-1.
I will read it. Relevant language in lines
13 through 25, on page 3 of Committee
Recommendation is as follows: "a county
may exercise any power other than judicial
power, and power to tax," and in the last
sentence, beginning at line 20, "a county
may exercise such tax powers as may be
granted to it by law, and may continue to
exercise any tax powers granted to it prior
to the effective date of this article, unless
any of these powers is subsequently denied
to it by law."
This is what the Committee chose, after
several days of consideration.
I think that while there may be no harm
in Delegate Needle's proposal it is unneces-
sarily complicated and something that we
do not need in the new Constitution. I
therefore hope that the Committee of the
Whole will vote against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Marvin Smith.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: Mr. Chairman,
if Delegate Needle would yield for a ques-
tion, I may have a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Delegate Needle
yield to a question?
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Yes.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: I have some
|
