Drink tax foes will submit a petition to the Allegheny County board of elections today, setting the stage for dueling ballot referenda in November on the controversial levy.

Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation amassed far more than the required 23,006 signatures to get its measure on the ballot, said the group's attorney, Cris Hoel. The referendum, if approved by county voters, would mandate that the tax on poured alcoholic drinks be reduced from 10 percent to no more than 0.5 percent.

County Chief Executive Dan Onorato and his allies on County Council oppose such a measure, saying that reducing or eliminating the drink tax -- which, along with a $2-per-day rental car tax, helps fund the Port Authority -- would require a property tax hike to compensate.

So in response to the high-profile efforts of FACT, council approved a ballot measure of its own last week that asks voters, "Shall the county enact an ordinance to increase real estate taxes in order to repeal the alcoholic drink tax?" That referendum is due today as well.

In addition, drink tax supporters have threatened to challenge the FACT referendum in court, saying it would create an unbalanced budget in the county.

"It's easy to offer to remove a tax," said council President Rich Fitzgerald. "It's just as easy to offer to give things away. We would love to have free health care for everyone in Allegheny County, and I'm sure a ballot measure for that would pass. But you've got to pay for things, so we have to be realistic."

Mr. Fitzgerald said he would consult with the county solicitor about if and how the referendum could be challenged. The FACT referendum must first be approved by the board of elections -- which will examine the legitimacy of the signatures and the ballot question -- a process that should take about two weeks. After that, a court challenge must be filed within seven days.

If both measures make it to the voting booth, another conflict could arise if the council measure fails and the FACT measure passes. That would leave the county without a drink tax and without a way to recoup its revenue. Such a result likely would be mediated in court.

FACT, a lobbying group representing several county bars and restaurants, has spent plenty of resources to oppose the tax, first in council hearings and more recently with the petition drive. For a theatrical flourish, the group plans to have waiters and waitresses deliver the 18-inch stack of papers to the board of elections today.

"It's unfortunate that FACT was required to devote so much time and effort to collect so many signatures," Mr. Hoel said. "But it is heartening that tens of thousands of voters were eager to put their name on the dotted line and express their opposition."