Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 State Auditor ReportCost Estimate of Payments in lieu of Taxes on Charitable Institutions and Hospitals A joint release of the Minnesota Budget Project and the Property Tax Study Project The Issue: Local fees /payments in lieu of taxes As part of the tax reform process, the Department of Revenue has investigated the idea of allowing local governments to require payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS) or "service fees" on nonprofits that own property but are exempt from property taxes. The argument is that local units of government want to diversify funding sources and that it is appropriate for nonprofits to help pay for the services local governments provide. Some exempt properties already do make payments in lieu of taxes to local governments on a voluntary basis. The Question: What Would It Cost? In the discussion of this proposal, the question of cost has often been raised. While a specific proposal has not been released, we have produced an estimate of the cost of PILOTS, given what we believe such a proposal might look like. We make the following assumptions: 1. The PILOT would be charged only to charitable institutions and hospitals. Other types of properties exempt from property taxes, such as government, churches, and colleges, would not be charged a PILOT. 2. For purposes of the PILOT, these tax - exempt properties would be given a class rate of 1`Yo. 3. The nonprofits subject to the PILOT would pay 38% of what their city property taxes would be were they not exempt. In other words, the PILOT would be calculated using the following formula: property value X 1% X 38% of the city tax rate. The 38% figure used is the amount of expenditures on public safety for cities with populations over 2,500, as reported to the Legislative Auditor. 4. These estimates were calculated using city tax rates from the 1999 assessment year (for property taxes payable in 2000). However, the estimated value of exempt property is from the 1998 assessment (for taxes payable in 1999), the most recent data available. Because of the year difference between the two data sets, we adjusted the exempt value data by assuming it grew by 8.4% from 1998 to 1999, which is the growth in total taxable market value in the state from the 3.998 assessment to the 3.999 assessment. Results Under these assumptions, we have calculated the estimated amount of revenue a PILOT would raise for each city and town in Minnesota and for the state as a whole. If applied in all cities and towns under the conditions described above, a total of $5.7 million would be raised. The revenue raised under such a proposal would not be equally distributed: • Of the approximately 2,700 cities and towns in Minnesota, only 595 have charitable institutions or hospital property that could be assessed a PILOT, based on information in the 1998 abstract of exempt property. • The amount of revenue raised varies greatly, ranging from the 62 cities and towns that would raise $10 or less per year in additional revenue, to the city of Minneapolis, which would raise over $1.3 million. • If we consider PILOTS to be new property taxes, for most cities and towns PILOTs would be an increase over existing property taxes of less than 1 %. In an additional 125 cities and towns, tax revenues would grow between 1% but less than 5 %. Only 17 cities would raise the equivalent of 5 to 10% of property taxes, and only 6 would raise over 10% property taxes. 500 430 400 Y 330 v 300 230 E200 3 Z 130 100 30 0 PILOTS Raised as a Percentage of Property Taxes Less than 1% 1% to 5% 5% to 10% Over 10% The PDF version of this document shows for each city and town in Minnesota that could collect a PILOT, the total estimated value of charitable institution and hospital properties based on the 1998 abstract of exempt property and the estimated revenue that would be raised in 2000 under the assumptions based above. It also expresses the additional revenue as a percentage of the city's total revenue base (property taxes plus state aids), as a percentage of the certified levy (property taxes), and as a percentage of the state aid program called HACA. An alternate assumption would be to make these calculations using a different class rate, for example, the 2.4% bottom -tier commercial - industrial rate. In that case, all the results regarding distribution of revenues would still hold, but all the dollar figures would need to be multiplied by 2.4. As Cities Seek Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Colleges Are Urged to Work Out Deals By Karin Fischer As the need for new revenue deepens, cash - strapped cities may be increasingly likely to turn to colleges, as well as other nonprofit groups, to make payments in lieu of the taxes on the property they use for educational purposes. However, municipalities and local nonprofits should work to hammer out payment plans that are transparent and predictable, according to a new report by a research organization based in Cambridge, Mass. The report, by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, acknowledges that such plans may not make sense for all communities, such as those in which nonprofit groups do not own large amounts of tax - exempt property. And the think tank suggests that state and local governments should consider alternatives to such compensation agreements, which are known as PILOTS, for payments in lieu of taxes. "PILOTS are not a panacea, not a blanket solution to all municipal financial problems," says Daphne A. Kenyon, one of the report's authors and a visiting fellow at the institute. Private colleges and other nonprofit organizations, such as hospitals, churches, and soup kitchens, are exempt from paying property tax in all 50 states. The forgone revenue from the property -tax exemption could total as much as $32- billion nationwide. But as municipal budgets have been stretched thin, mayors and local politicians have called on colleges and other such groups to compensate cities and counties more for the services they use. A survey by the Lincoln Institute found that PILOT programs have been used in 117 municipalities and 18 states since 2000. Many of those agreements, however, appear to be haphazard, secretive, and calculated in an ad hoc manner, the authors found. Even within the same city, payments can vary significantly. Harvard University, for example, pays Boston nearly $2- million annually, while Boston College contributes less than $300,000 through the program. What's more, payments in lieu of taxes typically generate relatively little revenue, as a share of overall municipal budgets, and often are not a reliable long -term source of funds. In the 2009 fiscal year, PILOT payments from tax - exempt nonprofits accounted for just 0.66 percent of Boston's total municipal budget. The plans also may not make sense in all communities, such as those that do not rely heavily on property taxes or that are not home to nonprofit groups with substantial real- estate holdings. A Minnesota study cited in the Lincoln Institute report found that while PILOT agreements could increase property -tax collections by more than 10 percent in six of the state's cities, such plans would yield "negligible" revenue in most Minnesota communities. Still, such programs can provide an essential source of funds to cities and help offset the costs of municipal services used by colleges and other nonprofit groups, the report states. Ms. Kenyon and her co- author, Adam H. Langley, a research analyst at the Lincoln Institute, argue that municipalities and nonprofit groups should work collaboratively to negotiate plans for payments in lieu of taxes that are transparent, equitable, and predictable. As a model, they cite a series of recommendations made this past spring by a Boston panel appointed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino that included representatives of nonprofit groups. Among the hallmarks of such plans, Ms. Kenyon and Mr. Langley write, are clearly articulated methods for deciding which nonprofit groups will make payments in lieu of taxes and for calculating PILOT amounts. Cambridge, for one, uses square footage to determine payments, while Baltimore bases such disbursements on an organization's annual operating income. The Boston panel proposed that the city seek payments equal to 25 percent of the property taxes that would be owed if the nonprofits' real- estate holdings were fully taxable. The authors also suggest that multiyear plans with escalator clauses can reduce uncertainty for both nonprofits and municipalities. And they say that cities should consider granting community- benefit tax offsets for public services, such as providing scholarships or job training, rendered by nonprofits that directly benefit local residents. There are alternatives to payments in lieu of taxes, the authors note, such as charging municipal- service fees to tax - exempt groups or levying special tariffs, such as tuition taxes, on groups that use nonprofit services. Such taxes and fees, however, are open to court challenges. Most recently, public officials in Pittsburgh backed away from creating what would have been the nation's first tuition tax after the city's largest nonprofit organizations, including Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, agreed to make voluntary payments. States, which create property -tax exemptions in the first place, also could reimburse cities and counties for a portion of lost revenue, as they do in Connecticut and Rhode Island. But in the current economic climate, Ms. Kenyon says, such reimbursement plans are unlikely to gain traction with state legislators. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAX - State of Minnesota "PILT" In 1979, the Minnesota Legislature enacted Payment In Lieu of Tax Legislation (Minnesota Statute 477A) to encourage retention of tax - forfeited land and to provide compensation to local taxing districts for loss in tax base as a result of this retention. Payments began in 1980 and were based, in each county, on the number of acres in public ownership. Tax relief is a primary objective; however, a portion of the payment is dedicated to intensifying the management and improvement of all the resources on tax - forfeited lands. The state of Minnesota also compensates local governments for state lands held for the purpose of "public hunting grounds" which includes game refuges and designated wildlife areas. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAX - Federal "PILT: Payments in lieu of taxes on national forest lands originate from a 1908 act of Congress that requires 25 percent of the revenues derived from national forest lands be paid to states for use by the counties in which the lands are situated for the benefit of public schools and roads, and a per acre payment for general tax relief. An Analysis of the Duluth City Council Proposed Ordinance to Impose Payment in Lieu of Taxes on Nonprofit Institutions Introduction Duluth is the first Minnesota municipality since 1980 to propose a partial property tax for buildings and land owned by charitable organizations. Eighteen years ago, Hubbard County unsuccessfully attempted to impose property taxes on camp facilities owned and operated by charitable organizations including the Boy Scouts, Camp Courage, and a number of area churches. The Duluth ordinance, which has been proposed by outgoing Councilor John Young, would establish a city board to determine which nonprofit organizations should no longer qualify for the property tax exemption as "institutions of purely public charity." Organizations identified by the board would be asked to pay a payment in lieu of tax (or "pilot ") equal to 40% of the city tax applicable to non - exempt property owners. In the event that an organization fails to agree to the payment in lieu arrangement, the City could challenge its current charitable tax exemption. Would imposing new taxes on Duluth nonprofits significantly reduce general property taxes? The proposed ordinance rationalizes the need for extending the property tax to nonprofit institutions by including in its findings the following statement: "That nonprofit institutions own 23.4% of the city's total property value;" The office of Duluth city assessor Lynn Duncan indicated that the 23.4% figure cited in the proposed ordinance represents the percentage of all tax - exempt property in the city, not just that owned by nonprofit institutions. This percentage would include all government buildings, schools and universities, all other public structures including downtown skyways, statutorily exempt buildings such as churches and buildings located within public cemeteries, in addition to buildings owned and operated by public charities and other nonprofit entities. A total of 925 parcels of property with building value located in the city of Duluth receive tax - exempt status. According to the city assessor, a "very small minority" of those properties are owned by nonprofit institutions who are not constitutionally exempt under Article X, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution. By comparison, there are over 25,000 taxable parcels of property in the city. The City of Duluth has a total taxable market value base of over $2.3 billion for taxes payable in 1997. This tax base provides a total tax levy of $8.14 million. Applying a conservative guesstimate based on discussions with the assessor, the number of tax exempt buildings that might be effected by the ordinance is no greater than 150 parcels. (Stated another way, the "Payment in Lieu of Taxes Board" created under the ordinance would identify 150 nonprofit organizations whose tax exemption is not statutorily guaranteed. These organizations would be assessed the new payment in lieu of tax.) The average market value of these properties tends to be relatively low, but assuming that they would each be valued at $200,000 and classified as commercial (which is taxed at a rate two or three times greater than homestead or apartment property), the resulting change in total taxable market value compared to current law is a relatively modest increase of $30 million, or just 1.3 %. Similarly, the additional tax burden that would be absorbed by these nonprofit organizations is also negligible when compared to the current law total tax levy. Again, assuming that all of the new value would be classified as commercial, and that each newly taxable parcel is valued at $200,000, the total additional tax collection under the terms of the ordinance is about $80,00011 , which represents well under 1 percent of the existing tax levy. (Because it is impossible to predict with any certainty which organizations would be affected by the ordinance, an estimate of its impact is difficult, at best. It is conceivable that some very large nonprofit institutions such as universities and hospitals would be subject to the PILOT. In this event, the tax implications would be greater than those suggested by the above analysis.) What effect would the ordinance have on Duluth area nonprofits and the people that they serve? While it is likely that the tax reductions resulting from spreading more of the tax burden onto nonprofit organizations would be negligible, the effects on nonprofits would be, in many cases, very significant. The following table illustrates for hypothetical organizations an estimate of the additional overhead cost associated with the new payment in lieu of tax. Table 1: Impact of Proposed Ordinance on Hypothetical Nonprofit Organization(1) Assessed Market Value "Tax Capacity "(2) "Initial Tax" (3) "Final Tax" (4) $50,000 $1,350 $296 $118 $70,000 $1,890 $414 $165 $100,000 $2,700 $591 $236 $150,000 $4,050 $888 $355 $200,000 $6,050 $1,325 $530 $300,000 $12,050 $2,640 $1,056 $500,000 $18,050 $3,956 $1,582 Notes: 1. This analysis assumes that all the hypothetical properties are to be classified as commercial properties. 2. Tax capacity is derived by multiplying the first $150,000 in value by 2.7%, and all remaining value by 4.0% and summing the two products. 3. The "initial tax" is the amount of the total tax liability if the organization were treated like an ordinary commercial property, i.e.; it is fully taxable rather than only 40 %. The initial tax is computed by multiplying the tax capacity for each parcel by the city's local tax rate, estimated in this example at 21.916% (the payable 1997 rate.) 4. The "final tax" is the final payment in lieu of tax that is computed by multiplying the initial tax by 40 %, as prescribed in the proposed ordinance. What authority does the City of Duluth currently have to raise additional revenues for general government purposes? It should be emphasized that Minnesota law currently allows local authorities to assess property taxes on certain buildings owned and operated by nonprofit organizations. The Minnesota Supreme Court established in Northstar Research vs. County of Hennepin (236 N.W. 2d 754) that a charitable exemption for both the local property tax and state and local sales taxes can only be granted if the organization meets "the preponderance" of the following six criteria: 1. Whether the stated purpose of the organization is to be helpful to others without immediate expectation of material reward 2. Whether the entity involved is supported by donations and gifts, in whole or in part 3. Whether the recipients of the charity are required to pay for the assistance 4. Whether the entity makes a profit 5. Whether the beneficiaries of the entity are restricted or unrestricted Whether dividends, in form or in substance, are available to private interests In fact, many nonprofit organizations in Duluth and throughout the state of Minnesota already pay both property taxes and sales taxes because they are involved in activities and operate facilities that do not meet the criteria established by the Northstar criteria. If the city finds that there are nonprofit institutions operating in buildings that do not meet the preponderance of the six point criteria established in the Northstar case, the city is completely within its rights to assess taxes on that organization. It should also be noted that the city of Duluth is the only city in Minnesota that is authorized under state law to impose an additional local sales tax to raise revenue for general government purposes. A handful of other cities are authorized to impose a local sales tax, but there are limitations on the uses of the revenues from the tax. (In general, revenues are dedicated to tourism or economic development projects.) Duluth was able to generate $9.2 million in general revenues from the tax in 1996. Does the City's present fiscal condition indicate that raising alternative revenue sources is absolutely necessary? Like many cities in Minnesota, Duluth's present fiscal condition as measured by its property tax levy and property tax rate is relatively strong. The table on the following page shows the trend over the last six years in the city's ability to generate additional property tax revenues without increasing their local property tax rate. Table 2: City of Duluth Property Tax Trends Year Tax Levy ($ in millions) Percent Change Local Tax Rate Percent Change 1992 $6.45 N/A 23.760% N/A 1993 $6.88 +6.6% 24.045% +1.2% 1994 $6.75 -1.8% 22.010% -8.5% 1995 $7.69 +13.9% 23.096% +4.9% 1996 $8.40 +9.2% 23.910% +3.5% 1997 $8.14 - 3.1% 21.916% - 8.3% Source: Payable 1997 Abstract of Tax Lists At least from the standpoint of city property tax revenues, the trends in both tax levies and tax rates in Duluth in recent years indicates that total property tax levy increases have been relatively steady, while the tax rate is the lowest it has been in five years. This suggests that the city has been enjoying steady property tax revenue growth due to increases in market value and new development, without having to raise property taxes on individual property owners. Endnotes (1) This estimate was computed as follows: Assume that the new Payment in Lieu of Taxes Board identifies 150 parcels of property that will be subject to the new tax. All 150 parcels have the same assessed market value: $200,000. The amount of the hypothetical tax liability is calculated by multiplying the amount of the value that receives the lower commercial tax rate of 2.7 %, which is the first $150,000 in value by the total number of parcels, which has been estimated at 150. The result, $22.5 million is the total taxable value of the amount of value under $150,000. Applying the tax rate of 2.7% in effect for taxes payable in 1997 yields a "tax capacity" of $607,500. To derive the actual tax collections for this portion of the taxable value, it is necessary to multiply the tax capacity by the local tax rate, which in this analysis is assumed to be the rate used in payable 1997: 21.916%. Multiplying the tax capacity by the tax rate yields an initial tax of about $133,000. This amount is further reduced since the ordinance requires the newly taxable properties to only be subjected to 40% of the tax that they would otherwise pay as ordinary commercial establishments, so the final PILOT for the share of value under $150,000 is just over $53,000. Next it is necessary to compute the share of the tax for the portion of value over $150,000 since that value is assigned a higher classification rate. Again, multiply the 150 parcels by the amount of the value in each parcel over $150,000, here assumed to be $50,000. The result is the assessed market value of for the value over $150,000, which is $7,500,000. To compute the tax capacity for this share of the value, multiply the assessed value by its classification rate, which is 4% for taxes payable in 1998. This results in a tax capacity of $300,000. Using the same procedure described in the paragraph above, multiply the tax capacity by the actual local tax rate of 21.916% to determine the initial tax liability ($65,748) and multiply that amount by 40% to determine the final PILOT due on the share of total value over $150,000 (just over $26,000). Finally, add the two PILOT amounts computed above to derive an estimate of the total PILOT due as a result of the proposed ordinance. The total is roughly $80,000. (Back to the text).