Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato looked for ways to spend excess drink tax money even before the tax was enacted in January.
Some critics and lawmakers say a November letter seeking legal advice on how to spend revenue remaining after satisfying Port Authority's subsidy shows Onorato projected a surplus a year ago and was planning to spend the money for nontransit purposes.
In November, state Democratic Sen. Sean Logan of Plum said he asked the Legislative Reference Bureau -- on Onorato's behalf -- about how the county could spend revenue from the 10 percent drink tax and $2-per-day car rental tax. The bureau writes laws for the General Assembly.
Onorato said Wednesday he didn't know how much money the taxes would generate and wanted to know if he could apply some of the excess toward Port Authority-related debt.
"We had no idea if we were going to bring in more," Onorato said. "Obviously, we were saying, 'What if we do?' "
State lawmakers, who approved the taxes in July 2007, say Onorato, who has proposed spending the excess on road and bridge improvements, was not upfront with them. The Act 44 transportation law authorizes the taxes and requires the county to pay Port Authority a $27 million annual subsidy.
"We were definitely getting the sense that we were barely giving Onorato what he thought he needed to cover the public transit payment," said Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware.
"The bottom line is 'transit' means 'transit,' " Arneson said. "At no point during the negotiations or discussion of the bill that became Act 44 did we have any sense that there would be an effort to use funding for something like this. Our clear understanding is that it would be dedicated to public transportation."
Onorato projects the drink and car-rental taxes will generate around $43 million this year -- $16 million more than the transit subsidy. Paying it triggers $183 million in state funding.
The county plans to pay the authority's $27 million local match when the authority and its drivers' union reach a deal. Another $5 million would go toward Port Authority's capital budget for construction work and buying buses.
Onorato said that leaves about $10 million. He proposes spending as much as $7 million on roads and bridges not related to mass transit and about $3 million on county debt borrowed for Port Authority projects. He did not break down those figures in previous interviews with the Tribune-Review.
Onorato has proposed cutting the drink tax to 7 percent.
Logan and Onorato argue the county can use the money to pay for road and bridge work that assist in the "transit" of people across the county, whether they're riding in buses or driving personal vehicles.
"(Onorato) never brought up to me anything that they anticipated more money," said state Rep. Joe Markosek, D-Monroeville, the House Transportation chairman. "When you give them an option like that, you don't know what you're going to get.
"I think they erred on the side of reason, keeping in mind they could ratchet it down. I think they acted in a pretty reasonable and responsible way."
Critics say Onorato's proposal is misguided.
"For Onorato to seek the opinion as early as November, I think that speaks volumes about what his plans were all along," said restaurateur Kevin Joyce, a member of the anti-drink tax group Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation. "This was not about Port Authority. It really was about the county's fiscal deficit and his attempt to erase that without raising property taxes."
During debate about Act 44 last year, Sen. John Pippy, R-Moon, questioned the amount of money that would be generated by the taxes. "I didn't support it because it was significantly more money than was needed to meet the mass transit local match," said Pippy, whose district includes car rental businesses serving Pittsburgh International Airport.
Larger text
Smaller text
Print this article
E-mail this article
