Study Suggests How to Advance Fairness, Predictability of “Payment in Lieu of Taxes” Programs Aimed at Nonprofits

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

BOSTON – Pioneer Institute calls for increased transparency over the basis for payment in lieu of taxes (“PILOT”) agreements between municipal governments and nonprofit organizations, while also encouraging nonprofits to publicize and expand the community benefits they provide, in a new white paper published today.

In recent years, an increasing number of cities have turned to private schools, hospitals, and other charitable organizations to fill perennial budget gaps, especially in parts of the country that are heavily reliant on property taxes. In 2010, Massachusetts alone was home to over 70 percent of the municipal PILOT programs in the United States.

“The danger with PILOT programs is that the politics can get in the way of meaningful efforts to serve the public,” said Andrew Mikula, who co-authored PILOT Agreements: Nonprofits’ Fair Portion or Government Extortion? with Nina Weiss. “A more systematic approach to PILOT agreements at the local level can help tie payment amounts more explicitly to services provided, adding legitimacy to the process.”

Often, PILOT agreements are negotiated one at a time, with significant discretion on the part of municipal officials and nonprofit boards alike. The result is often a lack of parity between similar organizations. For example, Clark University pays Worcester 20 percent of the equivalent property tax it would pay if it were a for-profit entity under its PILOT agreement, amounting to over $300,000 in fiscal year 2019. Meanwhile, the better-endowed College of the Holy Cross pays a flat fee of $80,000 per year.

A complicating factor is that some nonprofits buy up residential properties to house staff and students, thus taking properties off the tax rolls. Some municipal officials have questioned the precedent of tax exemption for all nonprofit-owned real estate in an era in which many schools and hospitals have billion-dollar endowments and substantial power in state and local politics.

Among the most successful examples of a formulaic, standardized PILOT program is in Boston. The city seeks voluntary annual payments corresponding to commercial tax levies on 25 percent of the value of real estate and personal property owned by nonprofits, exempting the first $15 million of property and deducting up to 50 percent for community benefits provided. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, nonprofits met 79 percent of Boston’s PILOT payment requests, the same as in fiscal year 2019.

However, the efforts of smaller cities to replicate Boston’s program have been less successful. Experts have argued that Boston’s collection of 25 percent of would-be property tax levies from nonprofits is too high to justify the costs of providing services to those organizations, and the cost of public safety and public works in most Massachusetts cities is far lower than in Boston.

Northampton’s PILOT program set property tax exemption amounts at $1 million, compared to Boston’s $15 million, with the result that many smaller organizations simply refused to participate.

Pioneer’s report also catalogues some advice for nonprofit boards in handling PILOT requests. A series of releases from the National Association of Independent Schools suggests that proactively cultivating better relationships with municipal officials and investing in community services and outreach may give nonprofits more political leverage in PILOT agreement debates.

“Local officials should know that PILOT programs are not a substantial solution to long-standing fiscal troubles in municipal governments,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “But finding a fair middle ground for large nonprofits to subsidize at least a portion of the cost of local services could help relieve the tax burden on residents and small businesses.”

About the Author

Andrew Mikula is an Economic Research Analyst at Pioneer Institute. Mr. Mikula was previously a Lovett & Ruth Peters Economic Opportunity Fellow at Pioneer Institute and studied economics at Bates College.

Nina Weiss is a Roger Perry Research Intern at the Pioneer Institute. Research areas of particular interest to Ms. Weiss include education and transportation. She is currently a student at Johns Hopkins University studying Sociology and International Relations.

About Pioneer

Pioneer’s mission is to develop and communicate dynamic ideas that advance prosperity and a vibrant civic life in Massachusetts and beyond.

Pioneer’s vision of success is a state and nation where our people can prosper and our society thrive because we enjoy world-class options in education, healthcare, transportation and economic opportunity, and where our government is limited, accountable and transparent.

Pioneer values an America where our citizenry is well-educated and willing to test our beliefs based on facts and the free exchange of ideas, and committed to liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.

Get Updates on Our Economic Opportunity Research

Related Posts:

Pioneer Institute, The Immigrant Learning Center Co-Produce New Weekly Podcast

Pioneer Institute is pleased to announce the launch of JobMakers, a new weekly podcast that explores the world of risk-taking immigrants who create new products, services, and jobs in New England and across the United States. JobMakers is produced in collaboration with The Immigrant Learning Center (ILC) of Malden, MA.

New Study Warns Graduated Income Tax Will Harm Many Massachusetts Retirees

If passed, a constitutional amendment to impose a graduated income tax would raid the retirement plans of Massachusetts residents by pushing their owners into higher tax brackets on the sales of homes and businesses, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The study, entitled “The Graduated Income Tax Trap: A retirement tax on small business owners,” aims to help the public fully understand the impact of the proposed new tax.

Study: Graduated Income Tax Proponents Rely on Analyses That Exclude the Vast Majority Of “Millionaires” to Argue Their Case

Advocates for a state constitutional amendment that would apply a 4 percent surtax to households with annual earnings of more than $1 million rely heavily on the assumption that these proposed taxes will have little impact on the mobility of high earners. They cite analyses by Cornell University Associate Professor Cristobal Young, which exclude the vast majority of millionaires, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Report Contrasts State Government and Private Sector Employment Changes During Pandemic

Massachusetts state government employment has been virtually flat during COVID-19 even as employment in the state’s private sector workforce remains nearly 10 percent below pre-pandemic levels, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The study, “Public vs. Private Employment in Massachusetts: A Tale of Two Pandemics,” questions whether it makes sense to shield public agencies from last year’s recession at the expense of taxpayers.

Study Finds Massachusetts Graduated Income Tax May Be a “Blank Check” and Not Increase Funding for Designated Priorities

Advocates claim a proposed 4 percent surtax on high earners will raise nearly $2 billion per year for education and transportation, but similar tax hikes in other states resulted in highly discretionary rather than targeted spending, according to a new policy brief published by Pioneer Institute. That same result or worse is possible in Massachusetts because during the 2019 constitutional convention state legislators rejected — not just one, but two — proposed amendments requiring that the new revenues be directed to these purposes.

Report: Proposed Graduated Income Tax Might Not Increase State Education and Transportation Spending

While supporters of a state constitutional amendment that would impose a 4 percent tax rate hike on annual income over $1 million claim additional revenue from the surtax will fund public education and transportation needs, the amendment in no way assures that there will be new spending on these priorities. In fact, without violating the amendment, total state education and transportation funding could stay the same or even fall, according to a new review published by Pioneer Institute.