In December 2010, the Mayor’s PILOT Task Force issued its final report recommending changes to Boston’s long-standing payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) program. This article examines the results for the first three fiscal years under the revised PILOT program. This is my third article covering the establishment of the Task Force and its recommendations and the ensuing implementation by the City of Boston Assessing Department. A PILOT agreement is one in which an organization that is otherwise exempt from property taxation under local and state law, agrees to voluntarily make payments in lieu of taxes to a municipality. The municipality typically justifies its need for the PILOT as compensation for foregone revenue when previously taxable property is purchased by a nonprofit that takes it off the tax rolls, as well as for providing basic public services such as police and fire protection.
Comments
Content
A Continuing Look at Boston’s Revised
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)
Program: Updated Version 2.0
ERIC A. LUSTIG∗
They were all in the room, and they all agreed to this. . . . You
made commitments; you gave your word. Is your word any
good?1
[E]veryone understood these were going to be voluntary
payments . . . . The City [of Boston] recognizes that these
organizations make contributions far above what the formula
might recommend in terms of community benefits—scholarships
to Boston residents, partnerships with the schools and
community centers, partnerships regarding athletic fields and
facilities and arts facilities.2
I
INTRODUCTION
n December 2010, the Mayor’s PILOT Task Force issued its final report
recommending changes to Boston’s long-standing payment in lieu of
taxes (PILOT) program.3 This article examines the results for the first
∗ Professor of Law and Director of Center for Business Law, New England Law | Boston.
The author thanks Barry Stearns for his continuing research assistance. The author also thanks
Adam Langely and Betsy Schmidt for their comments.
1 Matt Rocheleau, Many Colleges Not Paying Boston in Full for Services, BOSTON GLOBE (Oct.
27, 2014), https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/26/biggest-colleges-coming-short-
voluntary-payments-city/lV2JcTaoNsmbnZGNx7VOYI/story.html (quoting City
member Stephen Murphy who also was a member of the Boston PILOT Task Force).
Council
2 Id. (quoting Richard Doherty, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities in Massachusetts).
3 CITY OF BOSTON, MAYOR’S PILOT TASK FORCE: FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(2010), available at http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/PILOT_%20Task%20
Force%20Final%20Report_WEB%20_tcm3-21904.pdf. For an analysis of the Task Force’s work
and recommendations, see Eric A. Lustig, The Boston City PILOT Task Force: An Emerging Best
Practice, 44 NEW ENG. L. REV. 601, 601 (2010) [hereinafter Lustig, The Boston City PILOT Task
Force].
1
2
New England Law Review On Remand
Vol. 50 | 1
three fiscal years under the revised PILOT program. This is my third article
covering the establishment of the Task Force and its recommendations and
the ensuing implementation by the City of Boston Assessing Department.4
A PILOT agreement is one in which an organization that is otherwise
exempt from property taxation under local and state law,5 agrees to
voluntarily make payments in lieu of taxes to a municipality.6 The
municipality typically justifies its need for the PILOT as compensation for
foregone revenue when previously taxable property is purchased by a
nonprofit that takes it off the tax rolls, as well as for providing basic public
services such as police and fire protection.7
Among the PILOT Task Force’s goals were two specific concerns with
Boston’s long-standing program. The first concern was to increase the
overall contribution by Boston’s nonprofit community. 8 The second was to
improve the fairness of contributions among the Boston nonprofits.9
The key recommendations of the PILOT Task Force were the following:
• The PILOT program should remain a voluntary program. The
Task Force considered and rejected the alternative of seeking a
legislative change to the property tax exemption.10
• The PILOT program should be expanded from the existing
base of largely educational and medical institutions to also
include secondary schools, cultural institutions, and other
significant nonprofits.11
• Full participation in the PILOT program should be expected
from those institutions with a property above a threshold
assessed value of $15 million.12
The Task Force recommended the following methodology for
determining and implementing the revised PILOT program:
4 See generally Eric A. Lustig, The Boston PILOT Task Force One Year Later: Proposed Change
and Its Aftermath, 46 NEW ENG. L. REV. ON REMAND 14 (2011) [hereinafter Lustig, The Boston
PILOT Task Force One Year Later]; Lustig, The Boston City PILOT Task Force, supra note 3
(discussing Boston’s PILOT program since its inception).
5
Lustig, The Boston PILOT Task Force One Year Later, supra note 4, at 14–15.
6
Id.
7 See Ronald W. Rakow, Payments in Lieu of Taxes: The Boston Experience, LAND LINES 5 (Jan.
2013), http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2186_Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes--The-Boston-
Experience.
8
CITY OF BOSTON, supra note 3, at 9.
9
See id.
10
Id. at 11.
11
See id.
12
Id.
2015
Boston’s Revised PILOT Program
3
The requested PILOT would be based on 25% of the tax that
would be payable if the nonprofit were fully taxable,13 with the
first $15 million of value exempt from this computation.14
• A credit of up to 50% of the requested PILOT should be
permitted for community benefits provided by the nonprofit.15
• The full requested PILOT contribution would be phased in
over a transition period of at least five years.16
The Boston Assessing Department began implementing the revised
PILOT program by advising the forty-eight institutions falling within the
program’s parameters (i.e., with assessed property in excess of $15 million)
of their proposed PILOTs and inviting them to discuss the requested
PILOTs.17 Formal notices for PILOTs due were then sent out semiannually.18
•
I.
Analysis of Results Through Third Year of Implementation
Fiscal year 2012 was the first year in which the revised program was
implemented. Fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 also represented the first
three years of the planned five-year transition or ramp-up.19 The following
charts compile selected data reported on the Boston City Assessor’s
website. The analysis focuses on the requested contributions net of the
credits for community benefit and other taxes paid.20 Tables 1, 2, and 3 set
forth the data on contributions requested and paid for the three sectors
(educational, medical, and cultural) over the first three years of
implementation (fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014) with fiscal year 2011
13
See id.
14
CITY OF BOSTON, supra note 3, at 11.
15
Id. at 11–12.
16
Id. at 12.
17
Lustig, The Boston PILOT Task Force One Year Later, supra note 4, at 17.
18
Id.
19
See supra note 17 and accompanying text.
20
Virtually all institutions were allowed the full community benefit credit of up to 50% of
the requested PILOT contribution. See CITY OF BOSTON ASSESSING DEP’T, PILOT REQUESTS FOR
FY 2012 (2012), available at http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/FY12%20Second
%20Half%20PILOT%20Status%20Report%20for%20Web_tcm3-33007.pdf [hereinafter BOSTON
PILOT FY 2012 REQUESTS]; CITY OF BOSTON ASSESSING DEP’T, PILOT REQUESTS FOR FY 2013
(2013), available at http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/FY13%20Second%20Half
%20PILOT%20Status%20Report%20for%20Web_tcm3-39568.pdf [hereinafter BOSTON PILOT
FY 2013 REQUESTS]; CITY OF BOSTON ASSESSING DEP’T, FY 2014 PILOT RESULTS (2015), available
at http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/FY14%20Second%20Half%20PILOT%
20Status%20Report%20for%20Web%20-%20Updated%207-7-2015_tcm3-50146.pdf [hereinafter
BOSTON PILOT FY 2014 RESULTS].
4
Vol. 50 | 1
New England Law Review On Remand
used as a baseline for comparison. Tables 4 and 5 provide comparative
data sector by sector. Table 4 compares participation by number of
institutions in each sector. Table 5 compares full participation sector by
sector as well as percentages of amounts paid to amounts requested.
Table 1
Requested Cash PILOTs and PILOTs Paid FY 2011–2014: Educational
Institutions
Educational Institutions
Inst.
FY11 PILOT
FY12
FY12
FY13
FY13
FY14
FY14
Paid21
Requested
PILOT
Requested
PILOT
Requested
PILOT
Cash
Paid23
Cash
Paid25
Cash
Paid27
PILOT22
Berklee
PILOT24
PILOT26
$151,331
$212,702
$213,070
$273,056
$182,436
$332,807
$166,960
-0-
$3,148
$3,148
$6,296
$6,296
$9,444
$9,444
Bos. College
$297,571
$582,689
$309,405
$861,436
$315,332
$1,150,028
$317,888
Bos. College
-0-
$9,449
$5,000
$18,898
$5,000
$28,347
$5,000
-0-
$6,285
-0-
$14,913
$6,285
$22,370
-0-
$5,082, 079
$5,329, 937
$5,329, 936
$6,043, 373
$6,043, 373
$6,534, 368
$6,043, 376
-0-
$1,360
-0-
$2,721
-0-
$4,081
-0-
$141,591
$288,292
$141,591
$434,994
$141,591
$581,696
$141,592
-0-
$107,186
$50,000
$214,372
-0-
$366,576
-0-
-0-
$20,263
-0-
$43,176
-0-
$64,764
-0-
College
Bos. Architect
College
H.S.
Bos.
Conserv.
Bos.
Univ.
Catholic
Memorial
Emerson
College
Emmanuel
College
Fisher College
21
BOSTON PILOT FY 2012 REQUESTS, supra note 20.
22
Id.
23
Id.
24
BOSTON PILOT FY 2013 REQUESTS, supra note 20.
25
Id.
26
BOSTON PILOT FY 2014 RESULTS, supra note 20.
27
Id.
2015
Harvard
5
Boston’s Revised PILOT Program
$2,109, 293
$2,855, 575
$2,121, 894
$3,601, 795
$2,160, 288
$4,347, 776
$2,217, 281
$242,252
$266,976
$266,976
$291,700
$291,700
$316,474
$316,474
-0-
$7,811
$7,811
$15,622
$15,622
$23,432
$23,432
NE Conserv.
-0-
$12,903
-0-
$25,805
$6,000
$38,708
$19, 354
Northeastern
$30,571
$847,721
$886,000
$1,681, 281
$886,000
$2,548, 560
$886,000
-0-
$29,356
-0-
$58,711
-0-
$88,067
-0-
$123,084
$119,958
$119,958
$116,832
$116,832
$113,707
$113,707
$15,000
$108,790
$108,790
$202,581
$108,790
$296,371
$108,790
$378,979
$468,983
$390,000
$558,987
$401,700
$661,728
$413,750
$223,975
$297,582
$300,000
$362,188
$375,000
$426,794
$425,000
$31,504
$166,025
$166,024
$299,691
$299,692
$433,785
$333,785
-0-
$30,773
-0-
$61,546
-0-
$92,319
-0-
-0-
$20,396
-0-
$40,793
-0-
$61,189
-0-
$8,827, 230
$11,794,160
$10,419,603
$15,230,767
$11,361,937
$18,543,391
$11,541,833
University
Mass.
College of
Pharmacy
NE College
of Optometry
Univ.
Roxbury Latin
School
Showa
Institute
Simmons
College
Suffolk
University
Tufts
University
Wentworth
Institute of
Tech.
Wheelock
College
Winsor
School
Total
6
Vol. 50 | 1
New England Law Review On Remand
Table 2
Requested Cash PILOTs and PILOTs Paid FY 2011–2014: Medical
Institutions
Medical Institutions
Inst.
FY11
FY12
FY12
FY13
FY13
FY14
FY14
PILOT
Requested
PILOT
Requested
PILOT
Requested
PILOT
Paid28
Cash
Paid30
Cash
Paid32
Cash
Paid34
PILOT29
Beth
PILOT31
PILOT33
$167,000
$752, 949
$752, 949
$1,338, 898
$1,338, 898
$1,924, 846
$1,924, 846
$111,921
$451,434
$451,434
$774,971
$774,971
$1,066, 925
$1,066, 925
$137,625
$226,396
$226,396
$315,081
$315,081
$403,747
$403,747
$1,538, 506
$1,823, 270
$1,823, 270
$2,108, 033
$2,108, 034
$2,394, 321
$2,394, 321
$99,972
$260,893
$260,892
$421,813
$421,814
$582,733
$582,733
-0-
$114,071
$114,071
$228,141
$228,142
$342,212
$342,212
-0-
$27,472
-0-
$54,944
-0-
$82,416
-0-
Israel
Deaconess
Bos.
Children’s
Hosp.
Bos.
Med.
Ctr.
Brigham
and
Women’s
Dana
Farber
Cancer
Inst.
Faulkner
Hosp.
Franciscan
28
BOSTON PILOT FY 2012 REQUESTS, supra note 20.
29
Id.
30
Id.
31
BOSTON PILOT FY 2013 REQUESTS, supra note 20.
32
Id.
33
BOSTON PILOT FY 2014 RESULTS, supra note 20 (referring to the Medical Institutions
table).
34
Id.
2015
7
Boston’s Revised PILOT Program
Hosp.
Harvard
$294,886
$309,511
$309,511
$324,136
$324,136
$338,761
$338,761
-0-
$14,751
$7,500
$29,501
$7,500
$44,252
$7,500
-0-
$55,324
-0-
$110,648
-0-
$165,972
-0-
-0-
$78,129
$78,500
$156,258
$156,258
$234,386
$234,386
$2,668, 355
$3,508, 707
$3,508, 707
$4,350, 602
$4,350, 602
$5,191, 726
$5,191, 726
-0-
$92,718
$92,718
$185,436
$185,436
$278,154
$278,154
-0-
$70,692
-0-
$141,383
-0-
$212,075
-0-
$78,919
$116,969
$116,969
$231,907
$231,907
$308,401
$308,401
$910,720
$1,119, 694
$950,124
$1,228 ,537
$1,039, 228
$1,263, 000
$990, 265
$6,007, 904
$9,022, 980
$8,693, 041
$12,000,289
$11,482, 007
$14,833, 927
$14,063, 977
Vanguard
Hebrew
Rehab.
Ctr.
Joslin
Diabetes
Ctr.
Mass.
Eye
and
Ear
Infirmary
Mass.
General
Hosp.
New
England
Baptist
Shriners
Hosp.
Spaulding
Rehab.
Hosp.
Tufts
Med.
Ctr.
Total
8
Vol. 50 | 1
New England Law Review On Remand
Table 3
Requested Cash PILOTs and PILOTs Paid FY 2011–2014: Cultural
Institutions
Cultural Institutions
Inst.
FY11
FY12
FY12
FY13
FY13
FY14
FY14
PILOT
Requested
PILOT
Requested
PILOT
Requested
PILOT
Paid35
Cash
Paid37
Cash
Paid39
Cash
Paid41
PILOT
PILOT
36
PILOT
38
40
Bayridge Center
$17,844
$25,783
$17,884
$33,681
$17,884
$41,580
$17,884
Bos. Symphony
$84,976
$78,983
$78,983
$72,990
$72,990
$66,997
$66,997
-0-
$12,439
-0-
$24,877
-0-
$37,196
-0-
-0-
$17,198
-0-
$34,396
-0-
$51,594
-0-
MASCO
$133,778
$134,917
$134,917
$136,056
$136, 058
$137, 196
$137, 196
Museum of
$66,220
$259,443
$56,316
$452,460
$57,601
$645, 667
$60,399
-0-
$15,445
-0-
$30,890
-0-
$46,335
-0-
-0-
$42,817
-0-
$85,633
-0-
$128,450
-0-
WGBH
-0-
$47,478
$51,763
$54,169
$54,169
$81,253
$81,253
Total
$302, 818
$634, 503
$339, 863
$925, 152
$338, 702
$1,236, 268
$363, 729
Orchestra
Children’s
Museum
Institute of
Contem.
Art
Fine Arts
Museum of
Science
New England
Aquarium
35 BOSTON PILOT FY 2012 REQUESTS, supra note 20 (referring to the Cultural Institutions
table).
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
BOSTON PILOT FY 2013 REQUESTS, supra note 20.
39
Id.
40
BOSTON PILOT FY 2014 RESULTS, supra note 20.
41
Id.
2015
9
Boston’s Revised PILOT Program
Table 4
Comparative Participation by Sector for Fiscal Years 2011–2014
Overall Participation by Sector
Sector (Number of
Number (%) of
Institutions)
Number (%) of
Number (%) of
Number (%) of
Institutions
Institutions
Institutions
Institutions
Contributing in FY11
Contributing in FY12
Contributing in FY13
Contributing in FY14
Educational (23)42
12 (52.2%)
16 (69.6%)
17 (73.9%)
16 (69.6%)
Medical (16)43
9 (56.3%)
13 (81.3%)
13 (81.3%)
13 (81.3%)
Cultural (9)
4 (44.4%)
5 (55.6%)
5 (55.6%)
5 (55.6%)
44
Table 5
Comparative Percentages of Full Participation by Sector for Fiscal
Years 2011–2014
Overall Participation by Sector by Amounts Paid
Sector
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Insts. Fully
Amount Paid
Insts. Fully
Amount Paid
Insts. Fully
Amount Paid
Paying the
to Amount
Paying the
to Amount
Paying the
to Amount
Requested
Requested
Requested
Requested
Requested
Requested
Amount for
for FY12
Amount for
for FY13
Amount for
for FY14
FY12
FY13
FY14
Educational45
43.4%
88.3%
30.4%
74.6%
17.4%
62.2%
46
Medical
68.8%
96.3%
68.8%
95.7%
68.8%
94.8%
Cultural47
33.3%
53.6%
33.3%
36.6%
33.3%
29.4%
42
See supra Table 1.
43
See supra Table 2.
44
See supra Table 3.
45
See supra Table 1.
46
See supra Table 2.
47
See supra Table 3.
10
Vol. 50 | 1
New England Law Review On Remand
Table 6
Comparative Cash PILOTs and Percentages of Amounts Paid to
Amounts Requested for Fiscal Years 2012–2014
Sector
Cash PILOT
Percentage of
Cash PILOT
Percentage of
Cash PILOT
Percentage of
FY12
Amount Paid
FY13
Amount Paid
FY14
Amount Paid
to Amount
to Amount
to Amount
Requested for
Requested for
Requested for
FY12
FY13
Educational
$10,419,603
88.3%
49
Medical
$8,693,041
96.3%
55
Cultural
$339,86360
48
48
54
53.6%61
$11,361,937
FY14
74.6%
51
$11,541,833
$11,482,007
95.7%
57
$14,063, 977
94.8%59
$338,70262
36.6%63
$363,72964
29.4%65
50
56
52
58
62.2%53
See supra Table 1 (referring to “FY12 PILOT Paid”).
49
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Amount Paid to Amount Requested for
FY12”).
50
See supra Table 1 (referring to “FY13 PILOT Paid”).
51
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Institutions Fully Paying the Requested
Amount for FY13”).
52
See supra Table 1 (referring to “FY14 PILOT Paid”).
53
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Amount Paid to Amount Requested for
FY14”).
54
See supra Table 2 (referring to “FY12 PILOT Paid”).
55
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Amount Paid to Amount Requested for
FY12”).
56
See supra Table 2 (referring to “FY13 PILOT Paid”).
57
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Amount Paid to Amount Requested for
FY13”).
58
See supra Table 2 (referring to “FY14 PILOT Paid”).
59
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Amount Paid to Amount Requested for
FY14”).
60
See supra Table 3 (referring to “FY12 PILOT Paid”).
61
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Amount Paid to Amount Requested for
FY12”).
62
63
See supra Table 3 (referring to “FY13 PILOT Paid”).
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Amount Paid to Amount Requested for
FY13”).
2015
Boston’s Revised PILOT Program
11
The results from the first three years provide an interim assessment of
the revised Boston PILOT Program. More importantly, these interim results
can be examined against the expressed concerns driving the creation of the
Boston PILOT Task Force.
With respect to the first stated concern of increasing the overall
contribution of the nonprofit sector, the revised program appears to have
easily achieved this goal. As Tables 1, 2, and 3 reflect, the revised program
has resulted in a greater aggregate contribution from the nonprofit
community. The total contributions for each sector have increased each
year, albeit at different rates for each sector. Without further detail, it is
impossible to conclusively attribute the increases in overall contributions to
any particular cause. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that some combination
of the very strong public push for increased participation,66 as well as the
PILOT Task Force process and methodology bear a strong causal
connection to the increased contributions.
While the overall nonprofit PILOT contributions have increased since
the revised program was implemented, it remains less clear at this point
whether the second concern over relative fairness has been accomplished.
As Table 4 reflects, the medical sector has a greater overall participation
than the other sectors for FY 2011 and FY 2012 through 2014. Moreover,
Table 5 shows the medical sector has a significantly greater percentage of
institutions fully participating (i.e., paying the full requested PILOT
payment). And as further provided in Table 5, the medical sector has paid
in the aggregate an overwhelmingly higher percentage of the requested
payments than the other sectors.
Indeed, the percentage of fully
participating institutions and percentage of requested contributions paid
for the education sector has gone down since FY 2012.
From a sector based approach, the significantly higher relative
contribution by the medical sector appears unfair relative to other sectors.
That is, the medical sector is bearing a higher relative burden. Perhaps
there are reasons why the medical sector has been more responsive to the
64
See supra Table 3 (referring to “FY14 PILOT Paid” ).
65
See supra Table 5 (referring to “Percentage of Amount Paid to Amount Requested for
FY14”).
66 See Lawrence Harmon, Cultural Institutions Need to Pay Up, BOSTON GLOBE, Jan. 12, 2013,
available at 2013 WLNR 856102; Matt Rocheleau, College Agrees to Partial Payment, BOSTON
GLOBE, Mar. 2, 2015, available at 2015 WLNR 6175647; Andrew Ryan, City Asks Exempt Sector
for Help, BOSTON GLOBE, Apr. 6, 2010, at A1; Editorial, Walsh Should Confront Colleges That
Refuse to Pay Fair Share, BOSTON GLOBE, Nov. 3, 2014, available at 2014 WLNR 30737697;
Standing Up, Sitting Down, and Crossing the Street, BOSTON PUB. RADIO (July 22, 2015)
http://wgbhnews.org/post/bpr-standing-sitting-down-and-crossing-street.
12
New England Law Review On Remand
Vol. 50 | 1
requested PILOT payments than other sectors. On a national level,
hospitals’ property tax exemptions have come under scrutiny in several
states due to practices involving indigent and low income patients.67 This
might make the medical sector more sensitive to challenges to its state and
local property tax exemption. Moreover, one think tank has suggested that
cultural nonprofits are under different constraints than educational and
medical institutions and the PILOT program should be more flexible with
respect to the cultural institutions.68 Cultural nonprofits are more
susceptible to economic conditions because they are generally more
dependent on tourism and admission revenues than endowments.69
Notwithstanding that some external factors discussed above might be
behind some of the differences between the levels of contributions among
the nonprofit sectors and within each sector, some of these differences are
undoubtedly attributable to the voluntary structure of the Boston PILOT
Program. As the exchange set forth at the beginning of this article
illustrates, the program remains by design (and perhaps by legal necessity)
a voluntary one in which participants might be pressured to participate but
cannot be compelled to do so.70 This seems to be the ultimate limitation of
the effectiveness of the program in terms of participation and contributions
raised.
Perhaps this is best illustrated by recent events concerning
Northeastern University. Northeastern University came under fire in the
past year [2014] for initially contributing nothing during 2014, prompting
the college to make a retroactive payment. “But the amount was still far
less than the city requested, and in letters accompanying the payment and
a subsequent payment . . . the university said that it does not believe the
amount[s] . . . it requests are fair.”71
67 See DAPHNE A. KENYON & ADAM H. LANGLEY, PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES: BALANCING
MUNICIPAL AND NONPROFIT INTERESTS 15 (2010), available at https://www.lincolninst.edu
/pubs/dl/1853_1174_PILOTs%20PFR%20final.pdf.
68
BOSTON MUN. RESEARCH BUREAU, SPECIAL REPORT: BOSTON’S NEW PILOT PROGRAM
COMPLETES FIRST YEAR 13 (2013), available at http://bmrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/
sr131PILOT.pdf.
69
Id.
70
In a recent article examining Massachusetts PILOT payments, the authors conclude that
the PILOT receipts correlate with local property tax rates and “function as informal low-rate
substitutes for property taxes.” Fan Fei et al., Are PILOTs Property Taxes for Nonprofits? 2 (Nat’l
Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 21088, 2015), available at
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21088. As such, PILOT programs might lead to results that are
also characteristic of property taxes such as discouraging the ownership and use of property.
Id.
71
Matt Rocheleau, Many Colleges Missing Mark on Voluntary Payments to City, BOSTON
2015
Boston’s Revised PILOT Program
13
CONCLUSION
The initial rollout and first three years of the revised Boston PILOT
Program has led to increased and broader contributions from the Boston
nonprofit community. The voluntary basis of the program, as well as the
non-monolithic nature of the nonprofit community, suggests limitations to
the ultimate effectiveness of the program as designed. Yet the revised
program still provides a good model as PILOT programs continue to be
implemented in the northeast and around the country.
GLOBE (July 21, 2015), available at http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/21/manyboston-colleges-fall-short-voluntary-payments-city/D8jVTjEKrPkMOZq8N4q83M/story.html.