City Council voted 4-3 yesterday to obey the law.

Three council members voted against… City Council voted 4-3 yesterday to obey the law.

Three council members voted against lowering the city’s parking tax even though state Act 47, which was passed in 2004 to help Pittsburgh’s financial situation, mandates the city to lower the parking tax in five percent increments from 50 percent until it reaches 35.

The opposing council members wanted to freeze the tax because lot owners did not reduce rates when the tax first dropped to 45 percent last year, meaning the consumers did not benefit.

Councilman Jim Motznik was a leading force in the bill’s opposition.

“The reason the state legislature wanted us to lower the tax was to benefit the public, and it’s not,” Motznik said at yesterday’s meeting.

“What we’re doing is giving away $30 million over four years to the private owners,” he argued. “If the public would benefit I’d be the first one to vote for lowering the parking tax.”

Councilwoman Tonya Payne said it was more a matter of compliance than anything else.

“When we entered into Act 47, we said we would comply with it, and I’ll be voting affirmative,” she said.

Motznik received two new votes for his position from councilwoman Darlene Harris and councilman Jeff Koch, making the vote 4-3. Harris and Koch agreed that that tax shouldn’t go down until the decrease benefits the public.

The tax will be lowered – effective Jan. 1 – in all garages, including those in Oakland such as the Forbes-Semple Garage and the metered lot located at the corner of Center Avenue and Craig Street in Oakland, which are owned by the city. Whether or not the garages will lower their prices remains to be seen.

Also regarding Act 47, Council president Doug Shields was among one of five members who proposed to send a letter to the state oversight board and ask it to reassess Act 47 and the city’s budget status.

The bill to change the act received a preliminary vote of 6-1 yesterday.

“We got into Act 47 because the city was essentially without money,” Shields said.

“In 2003, then mayor Tom Murphy asked the state to consider us for Act 47,” he said. “The conditions that led to Act 47 no longer exist.”

Shields stated that cuts including a reduced operating budget, $17 million in reduced health benefits and a 27 percent cut in the work force should make Pittsburgh eligible for Act 47 status to be removed.

Councilman Bill Peduto disagreed.

Peduto said he was a part of the unpopular decision in 2004 when the Council voted to enter into Act 47 but it was necessary at the time for the budget.

“The councilman’s vote in 2004 was a tough vote that involved laying off a number of city employees because our back was against the wall and the city was headed towards bankruptcy,” Dan Gilman, spokesman for Peduto, said.

“The mayor’s own predictions, which were the most positive predictions, show expenditures ahead of revenue by 2011. To say that we’re in a strong financial position because of one year’s balance ignores where we’re headed in five years.

“We still have the highest spending per capita on debt. We spend almost a quarter of our budget on debt when the norm is about 10 percent, and we have serious health care issues,” Gilman said.

At the meeting, Peduto said he said he didn’t want to rush a decision before making sure all necessary plans were made for securing a future budget.

“When you fail to plan, you plan to fail,” he said.

In 2004, then councilman Luke Ravenstahl, councilman Lon Bodack and Motznik all voted against Act 47. They are now supporting the measures being taken to rid the city of the bill’s provisions along with Shields, who voted for the recovery bill in 2004.

The Council also unanimously agreed to reduce its tax on non-profit performing arts to zero percent at yesterday’s meeting.

The tax was another provision under Act 47 but Mitch Swain, CEO of Greater Pittsburgh Arts Council said it has been an issue for a number of years because Pittsburgh was one of the few cities where the amusement tax applied to non-profits.

“There are many communities that have an amusement tax but they give exemption to non-profits,” he said.