In what Allegheny County officials said was a massive blow to this year's budget, a judge ruled yesterday that excess receipts from the county's drink and car rental taxes can only be spent on the Port Authority.

Common Pleas Judge Judith F. Olson granted a preliminary injunction to County Councilman Charles McCullough and three local restaurateurs, who filed suit against the county last month claiming that spending the excess revenue on roads and bridges is illegal.

In their first year, the drink and car rental taxes netted about $44 million for the county, well more than the $27.5 million needed as matching funds for the Port Authority.

The county budgeted the surplus for debt service on capital expenditures by the Port Authority and on road and bridge projects. The county also earmarked $4.6 million of its 2009 drink and car rental tax receipts for that debt service.

The ruling, according to County Solicitor Mike Wojcik, will block the expenditure of $12 million to $22 million from the 2008 and 2009 budgets that would have gone toward road and bridge projects.

Although the injunction is not final, it could force tough choices for county lawmakers.

"Either massive layoffs or increased property taxes," said Council President Rich Fitzgerald. "There's no other solution to that."

Mr. Fitzgerald said council will not scramble to reopen the budget because the appeal process must play out first.

"I would continue this fight," he said. "I wouldn't surrender to the judicial activism we saw today."

Since its controversial birth, the 10 percent drink tax -- which has been reduced to 7 percent this year -- has been labeled by county lawmakers as an alternative to raising property taxes, which County Executive Dan Onorato has pledged not to do.

Mr. Onorato, who was out of town and unavailable for comment, issued a brief statement, acknowledging the hole in the budget and saying he'd review the 25-page opinion over the weekend.

The ruling was met with glee by the plaintiffs, some of whom waged an unsuccessful legal and political battle against the tax itself.

"This was a courageous decision by the judge," said Kevin Joyce, owner of The Carlton restaurant, Downtown, and board member of the group Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation.

Mr. Joyce blamed the drink tax for what he said was a $100,000 decline in beverage sales at The Carlton in the first 10 months of 2008, while food sales rose. He said the restaurateurs' next move will be to try to reduce the tax to 2 percent.

In her decision, Judge Olson said the language of Act 44, as written by the state Legislature, clearly applied only to the Port Authority. The act, which authorized the county to impose the levies, said the money must go to "financial support for transit systems."

Judge Olson said she considered the problems caused by throwing a wrench into the county's budget, but wrote, "The citizens of Allegheny County are best served by having a governing body spend its revenues in accordance with the law."

The county argued that the expenditures were legal because roads and bridges can be broadly defined as transit systems.

"I think the judge got it completely wrong," Mr. Wojcik said. "If this stands, it will likely lead to a property tax increase."

Mr. Wojcik said he would appeal the decision Monday in Commonwealth Court and ask for an expedited review.

When asked about the budgetary consequences, Mr. Wojcik responded, "Since this is Councilman McCullough's lawsuit as well, I'm sure he'll have some solutions for us."

To fill a $12 million to $22 million gap with property taxes, the county's 4.69-mill rate would have to be increased by 0.2 to 0.4 mills, which would add $20 to $40 to the tax bill of a $100,000 home, a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette analysis determined.

But with Mr. Onorato's pledge not to raise the property levy, such a scenario is unlikely.

The court proceeding once again pitted Mr. McCullough, R-Upper St. Clair, against the county's Democratic establishment.

Mr. McCullough, who argued the case on his own behalf Monday, was brief in his remarks as he exited the courtroom, expressing personal pride in the victory.

"I've been looking for a year for county government to do what is right and address this misuse of money," he said. "This has finally given me some vindication."