VETOES

consideration for any other transfer. The authorizations are in the
disjunctive and hence are not cumulative. The rates are the max-
imum rates which may be imposed.

Senate Bill 429 would delete the section imposing the first of the
above-specified rates, specifically with respect to the property which
has been devoted to farm or agricultural use. It retains the other
two classes of transfer taxes. There is and has been in effect in
Montgomery County for a number of years a graduated transfer tax
under the authority for the one percent levy. The Council has
enacted a six percent transfer tax which would go into effect on
July 1st under the first of the above classes, that relating to farm
assessment property.

This authority to levy six percent transfer tax on farm land
assessment property was granted to the Council by Chapter 633 of
the Acts of 1968. It was the Council's understanding that it was
granted in lieu of enactment of any revisions in the Farm Land As-
sessment Law designed to eliminate, reduce, or recoup substantial
losses of local tax revenues by operation of the preferential farm
land assessments.

It was the understanding of the Council when Senate Bill 429
was introducted that it was for the purpose of repealing the au-
thority in event that a Farm Assessment Law was passed providing
an alternate source of revenue for the County Government. Senate
Bill 139 was enacted and signed by you, making certain revisions
in the Farm Land Assessment Law and providing for a rollback on
property taxes not to exceed a period of three years nor five percent
of the "full cash value" at the time of sale.

This Act, by its very terms, cannot provide any alternate source
of revenue for the Council prior to Fiscal Year 1971. Beginning in
that year it can provide one-third of the maximum contemplated
under the Act, with an additional one-third the following year, and
full potential in the third year.

It is the opinion of the Council that they should retain their
authority to levy the transfer tax on this class of property in order
that, if there is to be any loss of potential revenue, it can be a deci-
sion of the Council and not that of the General Assembly. As you
are well aware, this County and all of the political subdivisions of
the State are faced with tremendous expenditure requirements with
narrowing revenue sources. If we are to retain a sound fiscal pro-
gram, we must not lose potential sources of revenue before receiving
the benefits of the new sources.

The Council requests that you veto Senate Bill 429 thereby re-
taining the present authorization permitting the Council to make
the decision about this local taxation.

I enclose herein a copy of a memorandum to the County Council
from the County Manager dated February 7, 1969 transmitting
analysis of the Director of Finance of House Bill 358. This shows
the projected revenues under the six percent transfer tax (addi-
tional five percent). I am advised by the Director of Finance that
the estimated revenues under House Bill 358 are valid for Senate Bill
139. In any event, it is clear that there will be no revenue