Gen. 177] 177 TAXA TI ON P UBLIC L IBRA RIE S

) C OUNTIES

) S TATE AND C ERTAIN L OCAL J URISDI CTIONS H AVE P OWER T O L EVY S PECIAL T AX OR C REATE B E NEFIT A SSESSME NT D IS TRICTS FOR THE B ENEFIT OF P UBLIC L IBRARIES

January 22, 1999

Mr. Jam es H. Fish Dire ctor, B altimo re C oun ty Public Library You have request ed our opini on on certa in lega l is sues rel ating to the fundi ng of

public libraries. On beha lf of th e M aryland P ublic Library Ad min istrato rs, yo u asked whether St ate l aw allows the State o r politica l subd ivision s to: 1. Levy a specia l tax, with the resul ting r evenues dedi cated to public libraries; or 2. Crea te a benefit

assess ment dist

rict to fundpub lic library services. It is our opinion that

the Sta te, as well as two countie s and Baltimore City, hav e the a utho rity to le vy a spec ial tax tha t could gene rate rev enu es d edic ated to p ubl ic lib rarie s. T he S ta te cou ld create spec ial asses sme nt districts to fun d pu blic libr ary servi ces by publ ic gen eral law . Cou nties w ith hom e rule a nd B altimo re City have the power to c reate such dist rict s. I n count ies w it

hou t h ome ru le , t he St at e c oul d c re at e s uc h di st ri ct s b ypub li c l oc al law. I Authority to Levy SpecialTax A. Au thority of Sta te The power to tax i s an inher entpower of the State, subje ct to the l imit ation s of

the S tate a nd fede ral C ons titutio ns. Ousler v. Tawes , 178 Md. 471 , 4 82, 13 A

. 2d 7 63 (1 940 ); Weaver v. Pri nce178 [84 O p. Att’y

1 The expe nditure of such funds would be subject to the appropriations process

s et fo rth in the Maryland Constitution. See Maryland Constitution, Article I II , §§32, 52.

2 If a subject is covered by the Express Powers Act for charter counties , Annotat ed Code of Mary land, Article 25A, §5, the General Assembly may not enact a local law for a charter c ounty

on this subj ect. Maryland Constitution, Article

XI-A, §4. Conversely

, if a subject

is not covered by t he Express Powers Ac

t, the General Ass embly

may enact a locallaw on tha

t subject f or a cha rter co unty just as it can enact a local law for a county

without home rule. Geo rge’s Co unty , 281 Md. 349, 356, 379 A.2d 399 (1977). One of these limi tati ons is t

hat “no ai d, tax, burt

hen or fees ought to be rate d or levie d, under any pretens e, without the c onsent of t he Le gisla ture .” Maryland Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 14. I f it chos e to do so, the GeneralAssembly c ould ex ercise th e State’s inherent

power to tax and could le vy a s pecialtax, with the resulti ng revenues dedicated to public libraries. 1 B. Au thority of C oun ties an d B altim ore C ity In additi on to d irectly levyin g taxes, the GeneralAssembly may deleg ate the power to l evy t axes to lo cal a uth oritie s. Mayor andCity Co uncil o f Baltim ore v . State , 15 M d. 376 , 467- 68 (1 860 ); Eastern Diversi fied Properties, Inc. v. Montgomery Co unty , 319 Md. 45, 49, 570 A.2 d 85 0 (19 90); Griffin v. An ne A rund el Co unty , 25 Md. App. 115, 126 , 333 A.2 d 61 2 (1 975 ). In this r egard, t he State has delegat ed to allco un tie s a nd B alt im or e C ity th e p ow er to lev y a prop erty tax. A nno tated C ode o f M aryland, T ax P rope rty Artic le , §6-202. However, there is no gener al law that del egat es to all counties, or even al l the c ha rt erhome rule counties, the S tate’s g eneral taxin g po we r. Mon tgomery Cou nty Board of Realtors v . Mon tgomery Co unty , 287 Md. 101 , 1 06-07, 41 1 A.2d 97 (198 0); Eastern Diversified Properties, 319 Md. at 49-50. Inste ad, the General Ass emb ly has gen erally enac te d locallaws authorizing particular

counties to levy

particular

taxes. 2 The General Assembly has enact ed locallaws conferring general t a xing powers on Baltimore Cit y, Balti more County and Mo ntgom ery Co unt y. See Balti more City Charter , Articl e II, §40;Gen. 177] 179 Baltimore C oun ty Co de, § 33- 1, an d M ont gom ery C oun ty Co de, § 52

- 17. Exerci sing these powers , any of these th ree jurisd ictions c ould levy a specia l tax, the reve n ue f ro m w hich w ould be de dicate d to pub lic libr aries . If t

he General Ass emb ly chos e to do so, it cou ld enactsimil ar authorizing s tatut es for other countie s. I n the case of countie s ha vi ng c ode hom e r ul e s uc h a law w ould have t o be a general law for al l code count ies of th e sa me clas s. See Maryland Constit ution, Article XI-F, §9; AnnotatedCo de of M aryland, A rticle 25B, §2. II Au thority to Crea te Ben efit Assessm ent D istricts A. Authorit

y of Stat e and Counties In the ex ercise o f its po we r of d elega ti o n, the General Ass emb lyhas e nacte d lo cal laws for co unties w ithout h om e rule establ ishi ng specialcommunitybenefit tax dis tri cts for

various purposes. Williams v. Anne Arundel Co unty , 334 Md. 109, 113- 14, 628 A.2d 74 (1994). Moreover, the General Assembly ha s enacte d a general law , the Express Pow ers Act, w hich con fers on the charte r home rule co unties th e auth ority to estab lish spe cial tax d istricts for vario us pub lic purposes, including the support of librari es. M aryla nd Cod e, Arti cle 25A, §5(0) . The counti es that have code home rule also have this power. Arti cle 25B, §13. The levy which is made within suc h a dist rict is a t ax which need not be ba sed on the value of prop erty but ca n be b ased on th e ben efit rece ived

. Williams , 334 Md. at 115 n.4, 117, 126. Alt hough such spec ial ben efit assess men ts hav e be en u se d t o fi nan ce c api ta l i mpr ove me nts, they ma yalso b e use d to fin ance pub lic servic es that a re ben eficial to pro per ty in an area . Williams , 334 M d. at 1 18. A cc or di ng ly, it is ouropi ni on t hat incount ie s wi th out

home rule, the S tate could create benefit assessment districts for l ibraries. In the co unties w ith home rule, the counties alread y have this pow er. B. Au thority of B altim ore C ity Although Balti more City has ch art er home rule stat us under Article X I-A of

th e S tat e C on sti tu tio n, i t d oe s n ot de riv e a ny o f it s pow ers from the Express Pow ers A ct fo r the charter counti es. Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp. , 287 Md. 595, 601, 607, 415 A.2d 255180 [84 O p. Att’y (1980). The refor e, Artic le 25A, §5(0) does not apply to Baltimore C ity. How ever, the exp re ss powers that have been enact ed for B altimore City and are co dified in A rticle II of the C ityCh arte r authori ze the City to establish si x comm unity benefit s distri cts. Chapter655, §63, Laws of Mary land 1997. Although the authori zati on does not specifically refer to the support of libraries, it states tha t “othe r servic es an d fu ncti ons” may be pr ovid ed if request ed b y a d istrict

management author ity and approved by

an ordinance of th e M ayor and City

Council. In our opi nion, “ other services and functions” could include support of libraries. III Conclusion In su m m ar y, it is our opinion that the Stat e could l evy a s pecial tax for the s upport of publ ic librari es, andth attwo countie s and Baltimore C ity a lre ad y have the au thority to do so. B y a public general law , the State c ould create spec ial asses sme nt districts to fund public l ibraries. Counties wit h home rule al ready

have such au th or ity. Balti more City may est ablis h up t o six b enefit districts and autho rize the m to supp ort pu blic libr aries . The Stat e could enact pub lic l ocal laws cr eatin g su ch d is tric ts incount ie s wi th out home rule

. J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral Richard E. I srael Assist ant Attorney General Ro bert N . Mc Do nald Chief Counsel Opinions and Advic e