The Allegheny County solicitor yesterday dealt a blow to drink tax opponents who are seeking to put a referendum on the ballot that would allow voters to sharply cut the controversial levy.

Solicitor Mike Wojcik issued a legal opinion that the petition by the group Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation, comprising restaurateurs and bar owners, is legally insufficient.

The group is seeking to cut the county drink tax from 10 percent to 0.5 percent.

Mr. Wojcik said in his ruling, however, that the petition should not be allowed on the ballot in November because the referendum question does not offer an alternative source of revenue if the drink tax is reduced. Approval of the question would reduce county revenues by as much as $30 million, he said.

His legal opinion will be passed on as a recommendation to the county Board of Elections, which will meet Tuesday to determine whether that referendum question and another question on the drink tax from County Council may appear on the ballot.

The drink tax was implemented this year together with a $2-a-day tax on car rentals to fund the county's share of mass transit. The group FACT collected 44,598 signatures this summer on a petition asking county voters to cut the tax at a November referendum.

But in a move to counter that effort, County Council, which approved the drink tax in December, granted itself authority to put another referendum question on the ballot.

Council then submitted to the county elections office an alternative referendum question, one that critics have said was phrased to ensure its defeat.

The question reads: "Shall the county enact an ordinance to increase real estate taxes in order to repeal the alcoholic drink tax?".

FACT gathered more than double the 23,006 signatures needed to get its measure on the ballot. Mark Wolosik, head of the county's Elections Division, determined that 40,302 of the 44,598 petition signatures submitted by FACT were "facially complete."

As part of the process, Mr. Wojcik's office was required to review the petition.

Mr. Wojcik also ruled that council's referendum question can be placed on the ballot, noting that council's proposal offers an alternative source of revenue.

"It is not surprising to anyone who has observed [county Chief Executive Dan Onorato's administration's] procedural gymnastics that the administration has apparently commissioned a political statement, instead of a legal analysis," said Cris Hoel, an attorney for FACT.

"This latest effort to disenfranchise the voters is an insult to the thousands of voters who signed the petitions, and everyone who is entitled to vote on the drink tax," he said.

Mr. Wojcik said he's preparing for a protracted legal fight.

"Theoretically, I expect [the certification of the drink tax referenda] could go all the way to the Commonwealth or state Supreme Court," said Mr. Wojcik.

All three members of the elections board -- Mr. Onorato and at-large County Council members John DeFazio, D-Shaler, and Chuck McCullough, R-Upper St. Clair -- have taken public positions in the drink tax debate and, as a result, have removed themselves from handling the referenda issue.

Common Pleas President Judge Joseph M. James named Common Pleas Judges Christine Ward, Jill E. Rangos and Dwayne Woodruff as temporary members.