It’s been a long-standing argument. If Governor Dan Malloy and the Connecticut Legislature really want to provide an immediate financial infusion to the state’s largest city, fully compensate Bridgeport for its tax-exempt properties under the state’s PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) Program. Democratic State Senate candidate Marilyn Moore argues it’s the fairest way to assist city residents squeezed out of their homes from higher taxes. Moore says the state’s payment in lieu of taxes program is a burden on citizens of distressed communities especially senior citizens and single women.
“The state has misplaced priorities, especially when it comes to distressed communities such as Bridgeport,” says Moore. “The state just spent $16 million of taxpayer money for a failed recruitment of a hedge fund while our citizens are having trouble staying in their homes because of high taxes. We need a fairer reimbursement to municipalities of tax-exempt properties and that starts with fully funding communities that provide services for an entire region.”
Moore announced on Tuesday she will support legislation to fully fund communities currently receiving a fraction for tax-exempt properties under the state’s reimbursement rate.
Under Connecticut’s PILOT reimbursement program, municipalities receive some funds to cover revenue lost due to state tax exemptions for colleges, hospitals and state property, but the reimbursement is just a fraction of the revenue generated if those properties were not exempt. The state reimbursement to municipalities is but a fraction of what it used to be for tax-exempt properties.
“For those who say how do you pay for it, the solution is simple, let’s stop engaging in corporate welfare and focus on the long-suffering taxpayers who will benefit from fair distribution,” says Moore. “The state is paying out hundreds of millions of dollars on corporate giveaways, but doesn’t have the will to do what’s right and fair on behalf of local taxpayers.”
This is just not a Bridgeport issue. Other communities face it as well.
Mayor Bill Finch, who’s supporting the reelection of State Senator Anthony Musto, speaks often about the need to fully reimburse the city for tax exempt properties. In his six years in the State Senate, the issue has not been a priority for Musto. Moore is challenging Musto in an August 12 Democratic primary.
According to the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, the effective reimbursement to communities for colleges and hospitals is 33 percent and 20 percent for state properties.
In Bridgeport, according to assessment records, $3.1 billion of property located in the city is tax exempt. The assessed value of colleges and hospitals is roughly $600 million. Based on the city’s mil rate 42.198, full PILOT reimbursement to the city for colleges and hospitals would be $25 million.
The assessed value of state properties is approximately $300 million. Full reimbursement would represent $12.5 million.
“In Bridgeport we bear the largest costs for serving the needy while providing institutional services for the region,” says Moore.
Under legislation that was considered in the last session of the General Assembly cities could assess colleges and hospitals for full taxes, then let the institutions receive reimbursement from the state.
“We must reform the PILOT program because we are facing an unsustainable tax burden,” says Moore. “This has a major impact on all taxpayers but particularly seniors and single women who are forced to sell their property because they can no longer afford the taxes.”
Still have not heard a peep from Musto regarding why he deserves our votes. Why? Is he going to attempt to pull off an AB operation in Bridgeport? Why cant he just campaign? He is out of touch with voters. He needs to go. Now.
Bond Girl, you got the AB part right; what’s stopping Moore from doing the same? Perhaps Bob Walsh should spend more time getting AB applications to voters than attacking Maria Pereira on the blog.
I think Marilyn has a few AB’s up her sleeve, Joel.
In … cum … bent means you don’t have to make a peep, Bond Girl. Of course that puts a lot of faith in old momentum and name recognition. If alternative candidates appear who raise real concerns of taxpayer voters, you leave yourself open to a charge of being out of touch. And if the waves you created since your last election have a number of people feeling your legislative voting record already proves you out of touch, that might indicate mortal self-wounding. Time will tell.
You know new development is one thing but a change with the PILOT program will help Bridgeport much faster. Bill Finch had his chance to push for change when he was a state senator but he didn’t.
I recently received a mailer documenting some of the projects he’s supported.
Yeah, Musto supporters were walking the North End 134th this weekend. I have the same mailer.
Steven Auerbach, Ms. Moore has stated her position, now what is your guy’s, State Senator Anthony Musto, position?
Not for me to espouse. Let his handlers. I am not wasting my breath on a blog that is anti-Musto.
Is that any way to stand by your man? 😉
He has my vote. I am not his spokesperson. He has an office to call for any information.
I was interviewed years ago by a reporter for the CT Post and told him fully funding PILOT would benefit Bpt and other communities more than other economic incentives. But the figures above aren’t clear–what would be the revenue increase if PILOT were fully funded? $16.7 million for Hospitals/Universities and $10 million for state properties?
Good point. Yes, about $27 million more.
The Mayor’s budget listed $2,849,740 for State properties, an increase of $437,788 from the 2014 year just closed. Tax Free Hospitals were listed at $7,958,258 an increase of $1,169,983 from last year. Nice increases by themselves but certainly short of full funding that might produce nearly $27 Million from the State.
Would City Hall decrease property taxes across the board if such a windfall were to become practical? Or would they say their hands are tied and plug the State revenue into more government employment, services and highly paid administrators? Time will tell.
A legislative effort for more State funding (as the law specifies) may be viewed more favorably if the mayor of Bridgeport were willing to reduce expenses. We know the Finch/McCarthy administration is not up to the task. Will a mayoral challenger be willing to declare intentions to reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary city functions? The problem is most of those unnecessary functions are done by loyal Democrats who work on campaigns and have a voice in who the DTC endorses.
All this is mostly irrelevant. As in it does not matter. Pilot is not going to work if they pay 100% or 0%.
This is the problem. The nonprofits pay nothing either way. If the state pays nothing as well (0 pilot), all the loss falls on the city that ‘supports’ the nonprofit in property tax. They want the state to pay more for hospitals, colleges and state properties. The state will have to get that money from somewhere. The state gets money from income taxes and sales taxes. The state will have to raise one of those taxes (political suicide) or cut programs. This will not help BPT. If you own a house your property tax will go down. But this means you work. Your income tax will go up. Some will win (a little) and some lose (a little) most will be a wash.
People think BPT gets screwed because of HCC, BU, BPT Hosp and St. V’s. All the hospitals in CT have centers and clinics in every town. There are more hospitals in FFLD County per capita than anywhere in the country. Bpt has large visible hospitals but all the little clinics multiplied by the high property values in surrounding towns will dilute the benefit to BPT. I am sure you all think BPT will get the money for the two hospitals and the people in the surrounding towns will pay the income tax but that is not necessarily true. Fairfield has Fairfield U, Brick Walk Medical Center, Sacred Heart. If these meet or exceed $600 million the payment of the income tax burden will shift to BPT residents paying to support these institutions in Fairfield. I.e., Bpt will get $600 million for their tax-exempt properties and property taxes will fall (unless Finch finds something to spend that on) accordingly but income tax goes up. If Fairfield gets $700 million in new property tax income from their institutions their property tax will go down more than BPT’s but their income tax will go up the same. So let us say the property tax in BPT falls by $400/yr and income tax goes up $400/yr for the average taxpayer. Remember, although the average income in BPT is small, most people in BPT would be excluded when you talk about the average taxpayer. The average taxpayer in BPT makes about the same as the average taxpayer in Fairfield does. In Fairfield the property tax goes down $500/yr and income tax still goes up only $400/yr.
The loss of property tax would also affect your state property tax exemption and your federal property tax deduction. This may not affect a lot of people but it will dilute or negate the gain to some.
You would have to do more analysis to see if this would help, hurt or do nothing for BPT and how much that would be. Regardless of where the tax money comes from (none, some or most could come from you), if the city does not live within its means it is all for naught.
The City living “within its means” is of critical importance, obviously. Nice of you to mention it at the end of your post.
But when a governmental level decides it is responsible for something and then fails in that task, or only does a part of the job, it is equally critical to observe that. When delinquency continues and indeed increases, that is also a critical factor.
Legislators find it 99% easier to get a photo taken with something big, new, and expensive (as if they were solely responsible) than hanging around to be sure the project or initiative is funded well, administered and effective so they can take a bow at the end.
So PILOT assistance from the State, grants of different kinds to provide justice in education to City youth, and unrealistic assumptions for earning rates for long-term retiree health and retirement plans create serious additional stresses on taxpayers, today and into the future. Perhaps we should tax incumbents for every picture taken while they are in office and use those funds to make up shortfalls in PILOT payments, retirement funding and educational cost sharing practice. Time will tell.
www .dir.ct.gov/opm/towngrants/default.asp
I have been hearing a lot of good things about this release and this post. GO MARILYN!!!
The 22nd Senatorial District Needs Moore Not Less!
Electing Moore Over Musto Equates to Addition by Subtraction.
I’ve always stated there should be a surcharge or fee to residents of other towns when using a hospital or other non-taxable entity. It wouldn’t have to be done through legislation, I believe this could be accomplished through an agreement with the entity and the city. The Mayor would have to be a strong no-nonsense type a la Mandanici or Paoletta, not sure these SOFT TYPES could pull it off.
So hospitals and universities would become “toll collectors” in addition to their other duties? So you are in favor of STRONG, NO NONSENSE rather than SOFT TYPES? What type of toilet paper do you use? Perhaps you could get strong and soft, using common sense.
As for other non-taxable entities, what about a middle tax rate for organizations clustered in the center City that would ask them to step into a graded contribution schedule over a 10-year period that would end up taxing them at about 50% of what for-profit businesses and residents pay. My logic is all of these entities receive City services that assist their offices and their clients, but they send no one for an education that is approximately 50% of the City budget.
Gradual increases from nothing to 50% will cause these folks to evaluate whether the City is the best place for them as well as to understand the unfairness of going along with no payment towards the tax burden in the City. Gradual increases can be managed. Time will tell.
Let us take BPT hospital for an instance.
Option 1 – If the city can’t afford it, just close it. BPT Hospital has a grade ‘A’ trauma ER. Do you suppose that is for all the people who get shot in Fairfield? What about BPT mental health? That would be for all the mentally ill Westport people who decide to NOT go to Silver Hills? Bpt is an ‘aging city.’ All those old people can go somewhere else. The hospital is the #3(?) employer in the city. Some of those jobs have to go to city residents. Then you have the ancillary jobs like the milk delivery guy, paper supplier, water, electricity. Then you have the fringe benefits. A nurse or doctor may rent a nearby apartment to stay in for those double shift nights. Eat at local restaurants. Buy gas and a soda on the way to work. The hospital donates money and free medical services. They sponsor a Health magnet program in the schools. I think considering only the property tax benefit of the hospital is shortsighted. But closing the hospital is always an option. Maybe Bass Pro would like to open a shop on that property. Places like that are tripping over themselves to move into BPT (not). After all, BPT paid a decade’s worth of property tax revenue to get Bass Pro to move here and gave them another decade of free property tax once they come.
“Let us take BPT hospital for an instance.
Option 1–If the city can’t afford it, just close it.”
What are the other options? Are you under the impression the City runs, owns or manages Bridgeport Hospital? Since you mention budget controls I believe you and I are in agreement, we have more City expenses represented in our City budget annually than we have quality necessary efficiently run services. Would you review your first two lines and explain your point? Time will tell.
Option 1 was to illustrate what would happen if the hospital chose to move. By ‘the city can’t afford it’ I meant the city can’t afford to have the hospital on that piece of property and not paying taxes. Like some other business would move in and pay taxes. I wanted to show, in this economy, the city needs the hospital because it is better than nothing.
BOE SPY, please, stay on the topics you are getting paid for and leave issues like this to others. You are like a fish out of water and I don’t think the mayor and those who give you your talking points want you out there freelancing.
Ron, don’t tell me you are falling for this ‘make the state pay more pilot’ scam and you think this will ‘save’ BPT and not cost you. Please. It is like stealing money from your right pocket to make your left pocket richer. Regardless of what tax the city gets money from, the money is still paid by you.
Hector, can I have some of what you are smoking?
Andy, I’m smoking Arturo Fuentes and I would be happy to share if you can provide the Grand Marnier (100 year old) or a nice single malt …
JML funny you posed that question. The only thing I prefer soft is my toilet paper. Most assuredly not my “leaders.”
The real problem is the governments, city, state and federal are spending more than they can afford. Regardless of what kind of ‘scam’ you or they come up with to make it appear as if it will not cost YOU anything, eventually it will. Think about this. Say we do away with property tax altogether. Pilot will pay 100% of everyone’s property tax and give each city what the state sees as ‘fit.’ Consider what this would mean to your income tax or sales tax or gas tax. One way or another, they are going to pick your pocket to buy what they want, then try to convince you it is what you want as well.
The other problem is the hospitals and universities are some of the ‘more worthy’ tax-free intuitions we have. Not only do they add to the health, wealth and welfare of the city and the people, they pay more of their fair share than most nonprofits and some for-profits. Plenty of nonprofits do little to nothing for the city or its residents. Will the hospitals and universities feel as charitable toward BPT if they became for-profit entities?
The people who voted year in and year out allowed the city to spend its way into a hole. Now to get elected, they offer a painless way to dig their way out. How painless will this be is the question. Taxes are taxes, this is not revenue. Cutting spending is closer to being revenue than some kind of taxation shell game.