The following article is posted without permission of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, published on June 20, 1997.
Clarion's call to vote on sales tax unintended
By Paul R. Flora
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
It appears the Regional Renaissance Partnership cast a wider net than intended and Clarion County got caught.
Legislation backed by the partnership authorizes November referendums in which voters will be asked to accept an additional sales tax of 0.5 percent to fund stadiums, other attractions and local economic development projects. The taxable region included 10 southwestern Pennsylvania counties.
Or so the sales tax's backers thought.
A close inspection of the legislation reveals that Clarion County will join the intended 10 counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Mercer, Washington and Westmoreland.
How could this happen?
Pennsylvania's constitution prohibits writing laws that benefit a specific person or place by name.The Legislative Office for Research Liaison explained that prohibition by pointing to the "uniformity clause" in the constitution, which states: "All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws."
Legislators have routinely circumvented this legal prohibition by creating county classifications by size, then referring to classes of counties in their legislation. Philadelphia is the only first-class county in the state; Allegheny is the only second-class county.
But the partnership faced a unique problem. How to designate 10 counties in the southwest corner of the state that include second through sixth class classifications.
They began by including all counties of the second class, in other words, Allegheny County.
Then they included any counties with a boundary touching a second class county - even at a single point - adding Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland Counties.
Next they included counties of the fourth, fifth or six class that share common boundaries - of more than a single point - with two of the counties that touch a second class county. This definition added Fayette, Indiana and Mercer counties. It also added - with assistance from a detailed map and perhaps a magnifying glass and because the legislation doesn't define how big a "point" must be - Clarion County.
The confusion, as if more is needed, turns on one's point of view or line of vision.
"When you look at a map of the whole state, it looks like a point, but when you look at a larger scale you see this little line," Patrick McGreevy, an associate professor of geography at Clarion University, said of the common boundary between Butler and Clarion counties.
After McGreevy retrieved a map with a scale of 1 inch to 50,000 feet, he was able to definitely state that Butler and Clarion counties did abut for an estimated 1,500 feet along the Allegheny River.
"Unless they are defining a point in some other way. It's not like the four corners region of the west where four sites come together at a point," McGreevy said, referring to the spot where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah meet.
Oh yes, lest we gorget, Greene County was included by a clause that adds any sixth-class county that is south and west of the counties next to a second-class county.
The Regional Renaissance Partnership legislation was approved by Pennsylvania's general assembly last week, and Governor Ridge signed the measure Wednesday.
James Hamilton, general manager for public for USX Corporation, acknowledged the error yesterday.
"I guess technically, because of the way this was worded, Clarion County may, technically, be involved. But it is clear from the legislative record that that was not the intent," he said.
Clarion's political leaders were still seeking confirmation that their county was included in the region but were calm about the implications.
"Yes, it is a surprise to me," said Representative Fred McIlhattan, R-Clarion. "I'll be very candid. That was not the intent."
McIlhattan's district includes part of Armstrong, so he has already addressed this issue for others among his electorate.
"I'm going to stress very, very strongly, this [legislation] does not raise the sales tax. I support referendum," he said. "People have a right to listen to the debate. The fact that it extends to Clarion does not change my view."
Keith Martin, Democratic county commissioner, added, "I'm surprised that it reaches out this far. I support baseball, tourism and economic development, but we have our own tourist attractions. It's a beautiful area, Clarion County."
Martin concluded with the following position on the issue, "I would favor that people would make up their own minds and we will know in the fall."
A possible legal escape from the legislative net was offered by Harold Miller, managing director of the partnership and principal architect of the legislation.
"A formal legal determination is going to have to be made about whether Clarion County must adhere to the legislation," he said. "There can be different interpretations about the language and the legislative intent. I can't provide any independent judgement on that."
Mark Wolosik, director of Allegheny County's Election Department, said he thought that decision would fall to Clarion County's board of elections.
Failing such a legal rescue, Clarion County voters may find that they must extract them selves from a tax legislators never intended to toll.
Additional information regarding the constitutional aspects can be found on Voice PAC's "Five Keystones".