Laserfiche WebLink
SACB � Project Plan far Development of PILOT for tho City of Springfield i'age 2 <br />Massachusetts malces small partial payments to local communities for some categories of <br />state-owned park and conservation land, and for some privately held land that i s held for <br />conservation purposes. The Department of Revenue values the state owned land every <br />five years and communities receive small partial reimbursements �ata� year with the <br />annual distribution of state aid. Under Chapter 61 communities also receive a partial <br />reimbursementfor land privately owned and maintained for forestp�,u�nses after the <br />owners agree to �e��s the land in active forest use of 10 year intervals. <br />Additionally the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), thorough the NIDC <br />Division of Watershed Managementpays corn��,u�.i�ies directlyfor MWRA property held <br />for drin.lcizig water protection purposes. However in Massachusetts, un��ice Connecticut <br />there is no state reimbursement for large state institutions liZce colleges, or for private tax <br />exemptinstitutions.The reimbursementis essentiallylimited to apartialpaymentfor <br />land. In 1997 the Massachusetts legislature rejected a Connecticut style reimbursement <br />program. <br />Federal Programs <br />The federal gav�rnrne�t makes contributionsto counties n 49 states and the Districtof <br />Columbia for tax-exempt, federally managed land. Those payments �cn..c�vv� as �'Si,'C` <br />payments) considerthe amount of federally managed land in the county (not including <br />officebuildings, militaryfacilities or correctional facilities), the county's populationand <br />other revenue shared with the county. These govemnent-sponsored payments face <br />criticism, however, for being insufficiently funded. Since these programs are subj ectto <br />annual appropriation, the total amount of funds a�ailable to �vc�l governments is <br />determined each year. Funding rarely if ever approaches authorized levels, and local <br />govemnent groups argue the payments are insufficientcompensation for the loss of <br />taxable property. <br />Other types of PILOT programs: In some cases PILOTs are used for other purposes, such <br />as economic developmenttax incentives. In this case, �'II.O�'s can provide for a <br />negotiated reduction n property taxes for a business. However, these arrangements <br />involve private, for-profitbusinesses that are not normally exempt fro� taxes, are <br />typically established by local industrial or economic development agencies and result in <br />lost revenue, not additional revenue. The Cities of Memphis and Knoxville, Tennessee <br />are well known for utilizing PILOTs to encourage investment into their downtowns. <br />These types of PILOTs are similarto the Chapter 121f�. conceptutilized in <br />Massachusetts. <br />No statistics are keut nationallv on the number of PILOTs in local iurisdictions. or on the <br />amounts collected. There are occasional regional studies conducted on the subject, but <br />suiprisin$Iy no national municipal or state organizations (Intemational Cit_y Mana�ers <br />A�.��.i:di�nr GovemmentFiv�u�� Officers Association, U.S. Conference t������'nr�� <br />National League of State Legislators, etc.) or academic institution or association collects <br />the information on a regular basis. However, there is ample evidence that some <br />jurisdictionsha�e been more aggressive in soliciting PILOTs from local nonprofit <br />organizations over the past 20 years — particularly as the fiscal plight of many urban <br />communities has worsened. <br />�.�`. Ryan Associates, Ine. September 16,2005 <br />