Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Amusement Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Freedom council votes to prepare repeal of 2013 amusement tax after solicitor flags constitutional risk
Summary
Council directed the solicitor to draft and advertise an ordinance repealing the boroughs 2013 amusement (patron) tax after legal review suggested the ordinances seven-day exemption may violate Pennsylvania uniformity rules; the measure passed and will return for final consideration next meeting.
Council members on Thursday directed the borough solicitor to draft and advertise an ordinance that would repeal New Freedoms 2013 amusement tax, following solicitor advice that the ordinances duration-based exemption could be vulnerable to challenge under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Solicitor Walt (Borough Solicitor) told council his legal research found court precedent undermining classifications that hinge solely on an events duration and said that, as written, the seven-day exemption creates a distinction courts have struck down elsewhere. He recommended that the borough either "cure" the ordinance or repeal it to avoid potential litigation and associated financial exposure. The council voted to have staff and the solicitor prepare and advertise a repeal ordinance for public consideration at the next meeting.
The decision followed hours of public comment and internal debate. Residents and civic groups urged different outcomes: some urged repeal, calling the ordinance legally risky and unfair to nearby households; others, including nonprofit organizers, warned that repealing the exemption would tax short-term community events and could harm volunteer-run programs. Steve Lanigan of SYC Youth Club described his organization as "100% volunteer" and asked council to exempt nonprofits from any future tax changes.
Council members discussed the budgetary impact if the borough were to forgo the revenue. Finance staff noted that the 2025 amusement-tax receipts totaled approximately $35,000 and that loss of that revenue would increase pressure on the general fund; one council member said the amount equated to roughly $6to $22 per household depending on the parcel count used in the calculation. Others emphasized that the legal risk from the current ordinance could create larger liabilities than the foregone revenue.
Procedurally, the motion instructs the solicitor to draft and advertise a repeal ordinance; advertising is required before final consideration, and the mayor indicated he may veto a repeal if adopted. The vote to direct the solicitor passed on a council voice vote; the item will return for formal consideration at the next properly advertised meeting.
Provenance: topicintro: SEG 034; topfinish: SEG 3555.
