Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato's plan to spend excess drink tax revenue on roads and bridges could face a court challenge, legislative leaders said Thursday.
"Clearly this money was to go for the operating costs of mass transit and exclusively for things related to mass transit," said state Sen. Jane Orie, a McCandless Republican and Majority Whip.
Under the state's transportation funding law approved last year, the Legislature authorized the county to implement its 10 percent drink tax and a $2-a-day surcharge on rental cars specifically to generate money for the county's $27 million annual subsidy for Port Authority. Onorato says he is permitted to use excess drink tax revenue for expenses related to road and bridge work.
Onorato projects the taxes will generate up to $43 million -- about $16 million more than needed for Port Authority's subsidy. He recently proposed cutting the drink tax rate to 7 percent and using any extra money to help pay off debt incurred for road and bridge work.
"That's our position. That's what's in our budget and we believe that's the interpretation of the (law)," Onorato said.
A judge might have to answer the question of whether roads and bridges can be considered transit systems, said state Rep. Joe Markosek, D-Monroeville.
"I would suggest any definitive answers on this thing would ultimately have to come from the courts because you have different interpretations of that," said Markosek, who chairs the House Transportation Committee.
At the center of the dispute is a written opinion from the state Legislative Reference Bureau, an office that writes laws for the General Assembly. The bureau provided state Sen. Sean Logan, on Onorato's behalf, with a four-page letter in May on the issue.
The letter states the county's revenue may be used for items such as design and engineering work, road and bridge work, and debt service "as long as the costs are solely related to transit systems."
Onorato and Logan, both Democrats, believe the phrase "transit systems" authorizes the county to spend the money on any bridge, road or mass transit project.
"I think some people are interpreting the phrase 'transit systems' as buses," said Logan of Plum. "That's not how it's defined. Transit is the vehicles and the bridges and roads that they run on. Unless a court says, 'No,' I think Dan is on firm footing here."
Jeff Arndt, a research scientist at the Texas Transportation Institute, said the word "transit" typically does not include roads and bridges.
"Generically, I would always think in terms of transit as almost always a vehicle or device that conveys people," he said. "It's usually associated with a vehicle that carries numbers of people, typically on some type of regular basis."
State Sen. Barry Stout, D-Bentleyville, said Onorato's interpretation is too broad. The drink tax money may be spent on roads and bridges that are used by the Port Authority system -- but not all roads.
"It could be a road or a bridge project that is part of a mass transit system," said Stout, a member of the Senate transportation and appropriations committees.
The Allegheny County Transit Council, an advisory group to the Port Authority, last week wrote a letter questioning Onorato's proposed use of the money.
"Any monies that are in excess should not be used for the items that Dan's using them for," said state Rep. Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods. "It seems clear to me it exceeds the plain language of the statute itself. They're picking up a windfall here and it's not right."
The issue has captured the attention of County Council members, including Upper St. Clair Republican Charles McCullough, who said the Legislative Reference Bureau letter Onorato cites does not substantiate his position.
"I don't see anything in here that says he has the general right to take this and use this for costs associated with roads and bridges," McCullough said.
Larger text
Smaller text
Print this article
E-mail this article
