Filed Date: 7/20/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ilan S. Schoenberger, Esq. County Attorney, Rockland
I am writing in response to your request for an Attorney General's opinion interpreting recent legislation (L 1986, chs 669, 670) which amended various provisions of the Public Authorities and Tax Laws and which permits the counties of Dutchess, Orange and Rockland to withdraw from the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District.
By way of background, prior to the enactment of chapters 669 and 670 the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District consisted of the City of New York and the counties of Dutchess, Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester (Public Authorities Law, §
Chapters 669 and 670 were enacted in order to address perceived inequities in the MTA. As noted in the Governor's approval memorandum:
"Elected officials and residents of these counties have said that they believe that there are inequities associated with the levels of transit service and the amount of taxes paid for this service. A recent study by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) indicated that these outlying counties in the district received relatively less service for their dedicated tax contributions than the other counties in the district. Since some of the benefits of transit service cannot be quantified, these bills will enable each county to evaluate its own situation and determine whether it is more desirable to remain in the district or provide its own service" (Governor's approval memorandum, July 26, 1986, Legislative Bill Jacket, L 1986, chs 669, 670).
Chapter 669 adds section 1279-b to the Public Authorities Law. This new section provides the counties of Dutchess, Orange and Rockland with the option to withdraw from the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District at specific times during 1987, 1988 and 1989. The legislation also specifies the conditions under which a county may withdraw, determines the rights and obligations of all concerned parties upon withdrawal and adjusts the structure of the MTA and related entities in the event of a withdrawal (see, July 28, 1986 letter from NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, Legislative Bill Jacket, L 1986, chs 669, 670).
In addition, chapter 669 provides for the reallocation of the sales, use and additional mortgage recording taxes normally payable to the MTA. Under section
With regard to the amount of sales tax which can be imposed by the county following its withdrawal from the District, section
"if the county of Dutchess, the county of Orange or the county of Rockland withdraws from the metropolitan commuter transportation district pursuant to section twelve hundred seventy-nine-b of the public authorities law, such county is hereby authorized and empowered, in the alternative, to adopt and amend local laws, ordinances or resolutions imposing such taxes at the rate of one-half, three-quarters, one, one and one and one-quarter, one and one-half, one and three-quarters, two, two and one-quarter, two and one-half, two and three-quarters, three or three and one-quarter percent if the revenues from a one-quarter percent rate of such tax are required by such local laws, ordinances or resolutions to be set aside for mass transportation purposes, such taxes to be administered, collected and distributed by the state tax commission as provided in subpart B of part III and in part IV of this article" (Tax Law, §
1210 ).
In answer to your question as to whether a withdrawing county may impose a sales tax of one-quarter of one percent, the statute does not permit a sales tax in that amount. The amendment authorizes a sales tax rate ranging from one-half of one percent to three and one-quarter percent, in one-quarter percent intervals. Furthermore, this alternate tax can be imposed by a withdrawing county only if one-quarter of one percent of the revenues are dedicated for mass transportation purposes.*
You have also asked whether Rockland County must use the additional mortgage recording tax revenue under section
By way of background, an additional mortgage recording tax is provided for in section
Tax Law, §
"with respect to the county of Dutchess or the county of Orange or the county of Rockland if any such county withdraws from the metropolitan commuter transportation district pursuant to section twelve hundred seventy-nine-b of the public authorities law and does not suspend the imposition of such additional tax [tax revenues are to be paid] to the county treasurer of such county if such county provides that the moneys shall be used for mass transportation purposes but, if any such county which so withdraws and which does not so suspend does not so provide, to the comptroller pursuant to clause (g) of this paragraph . . ." (Tax Law, §
261 [1][f]).
This section provides a county withdrawing from the district with the option of suspending imposition of the additional tax. If the county does not choose to suspend imposition of the tax, it can use the moneys for mass transportation purposes, or it can pay them to the State Comptroller (ibid.). A review of chapter 669's legislative history makes it clear that the intentions of the drafters was to allow counties withdrawing from the district to retain the extra revenue-producing mechanisms of the sales and use tax and the additional mortgage recording tax only in the event these extra revenues were to be used for mass transportation purposes. If the withdrawing county allows the tax to continue, the county may require that the (mortgage recording) revenues be dedicated to the implementation of its public transportation plan. If not so dedicated, the revenue would be utilized in the same way as in other counties which are outside New York City or are not part of a transportation district (July 28, 1986 letter from NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, Legislative Bill Jacket, L 1986 chs 669, 670).
Finally, you have asked whether the term "mass transportation purposes", as used in chapter 669 includes various proposed expenditures, e.g., improvement of bus or railroad facilities; purchase of bus or railroad capital improvements; and expenditures for the improvement of roads and bridges which are used by such buses.
A definition of "mass transportation purpose" is not found in chapter 669 or elsewhere in the Public Authorities Law. "Transportation facilities" are defined in the Public Authorities Law and this term may provide some general guidance:
"``Transportation facility' shall mean any railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation facility and any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation which owns, leases or operates any such facility or any other facility used for service in the transportation of passengers, United States mail or personal property as a common carrier for hire and any portion thereof and the rights, leaseholds or other interest therein together with routes, tracks, extensions, connections, parking lots, garages, warehouses, yards, storage yards, maintenance and repair shops, terminals, stations and other related facilities thereof, the devices, appurtenances, and equipment thereof and power plants and other instrumentalities used or useful therefor or in connection therewith" (Public Authorities Law, §
1261 [14] [see also, § 1261[8], [9] for definition of omnibus and railroad facilities]).
For your information, several cases have addressed the issue of whether a particular expenditure serves a mass transportation purpose (see, NYSSchool Bus Operators Ass'n. v Nassau County,
We conclude that a county withdrawing from the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District under section
"any city in this state or county in this state, except a county wholly within a city, acting through its local legislative body, is hereby authorized and empowered to adopt and amend local laws, ordinances or resolutions imposing in any such city or county the following taxes, at the rate of one-half, one, one and one-half, two, two and one-half or three percent . . .".