Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Do Allegheny County Voters Have Protection Against New Taxes?
Under the state’s new transportation bill, Act 44, Allegheny County has the permission to levy new taxes on poured alcohol and vehicle rentals to fund mass transit. The taxes are optional, so Council does not have to enact them, and, if they do, can levy them at rates lower than the maximum allowed (10% on drinks, $2 per day on rentals). Bills concerning the taxes are pending in Council committees.
Council has also produced one piece of legislation, and is considering another, that would give taxpayers protection against the imposition of the taxes. Ordinance 3344-07 would require a 2/3 vote of the seated members of Council (10 out of 15) to levy “a new tax”, which would include the Act 44 options. This would extend the same degree of protection County taxpayers have on County property taxes. The County Executive has yet to take action on this ordinance, which Council passed 15-0.
Another bill, 3415-07, which has been assigned to Council’s Special Committee on Government Reform, would mandate a voter referendum on the Act 44 taxes. A simple majority vote of the electorate to the affirmative would authorize taxes for mass transit funding (it would apply to any new tax or changes to the rate of taxation).
In addition, there is a petition drive currently under way that would allow the electorate to direct the Council to put the issue on the ballot for a vote.
What happens with any referendum—whether by ordinance or petition—hinges upon what the Executive does with the legislation before him. Approval could be viewed as an extension of the same protection taxpayers have now under the Charter, but would require him to convince 10 Council members to hold firm on authorizing new taxes. It could dampen the petition drive. A veto could be viewed as a slap at the charter, essentially treating these two taxes as special cases and not worthy of a super-majority requirement. Or it could be looked at as the Executive’s way of pushing for a referendum, although this seems doubtful in light of the fact that the Executive has pushed for the new taxes.
Council has also produced one piece of legislation, and is considering another, that would give taxpayers protection against the imposition of the taxes. Ordinance 3344-07 would require a 2/3 vote of the seated members of Council (10 out of 15) to levy “a new tax”, which would include the Act 44 options. This would extend the same degree of protection County taxpayers have on County property taxes. The County Executive has yet to take action on this ordinance, which Council passed 15-0.
Another bill, 3415-07, which has been assigned to Council’s Special Committee on Government Reform, would mandate a voter referendum on the Act 44 taxes. A simple majority vote of the electorate to the affirmative would authorize taxes for mass transit funding (it would apply to any new tax or changes to the rate of taxation).
In addition, there is a petition drive currently under way that would allow the electorate to direct the Council to put the issue on the ballot for a vote.
What happens with any referendum—whether by ordinance or petition—hinges upon what the Executive does with the legislation before him. Approval could be viewed as an extension of the same protection taxpayers have now under the Charter, but would require him to convince 10 Council members to hold firm on authorizing new taxes. It could dampen the petition drive. A veto could be viewed as a slap at the charter, essentially treating these two taxes as special cases and not worthy of a super-majority requirement. Or it could be looked at as the Executive’s way of pushing for a referendum, although this seems doubtful in light of the fact that the Executive has pushed for the new taxes.
