Council hearing on payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes pilot draws broad testimony; sponsor, agencies and comptroller seek changes to task force language

Councilwoman Felicia Porter introduced a bill to create a Payment‑in‑Lieu‑of‑Taxes (PILOT) pilot task force to renegotiate voluntary contributions from Baltimore’s largest tax‑exempt hospitals and universities and to make the process more transparent and community‑focused.

Porter said the pilot would “educate and empower Baltimore” about the economic footprint of anchor institutions and described negotiated, stakeholder‑driven amendments that sponsor staff had circulated to proponents and some institutions. “Radical transparency is the crux of government efficiency,” she told the committee as she presented sponsor amendments developed with the mayor’s office of government relations and community stakeholders.

Agency witnesses offered generally supportive but cautious views. Hillary Ruley of the law department said the bill is “approved for form and legal sufficiency” but asked that language be edited to remove a conflict — the city solicitor should not serve as both the lawyer for the task force and a voting member of it. Bob Senamy, deputy director in the Department of Finance, explained background context: Maryland law exempts nonprofits from property tax, and roughly 27% of Baltimore’s taxable base is tax‑exempt property — substantially higher than the statewide average. Senamy said the city currently receives about $6 million per year under a voluntary agreement that expires at the end of fiscal 2026 and that a full tax treatment of those same parcels would yield well over $100 million annually; he urged a transparent process and noted the finance department is already studying standard formulas other cities use.

The Office of the Comptroller filed its own bill report and proposed amendments to the task‑force composition and rules. Casey Kelleher of the comptroller’s office told the committee the office supports a task force but urged narrowing the membership from 17 to nine voting members to mirror the Boston model, limiting professional lobbyists and ensuring the Board of Estimates receives the task‑force recommendations because BOE will be the body to approve any future pilot agreement. The mayor’s office of government relations and sponsor staff said they had circulated a package of sponsor amendments and were prepared to discuss the comptroller’s changes.

The hearing included two hours of public testimony from more than 50 speakers, including community organizers, nonprofit leaders, labor representatives and anchor‑institution staff. Testimony fell roughly into three camps: community and labor advocates and some nonprofit operators supporting a timely, transparent renegotiation with strong community and labor representation; anchor‑institution representatives and affiliated organizations asking the council to preserve the existing voluntary framework and to recognize the institutions’ current investments, grants and in‑kind services; and a range of nonprofit and neighborhood leaders asking for both accountability and clear mechanisms for community benefit.

Several witnesses described specific partnerships with anchor institutions that provide services to neighborhoods — for example, University of Maryland Medical Center’s community health partnerships, Johns Hopkins’ workforce and small‑business programs, LifeBridge Health’s support for a child advocacy center, and numerous nonprofit‑anchor partnerships for workforce training, food distribution and community safety programming. Other witnesses emphasized that the current voluntary agreement (negotiated in 2016) produces roughly $6 million a year while the institutions consume an estimated $47 million of city services, citing Comptroller‑office figures.

During committee Q&A the sponsor said she would accept some revisions and asked for more time to reconcile the comptroller’s package with the administration’s amendments; she stated on the record that she was willing to accept amendments 3 and 4 from the comptroller’s office and to reject 1 and 2 in that set. Law department counsel and finance staff also noted drafting edits generally needed for conflict‑of‑interest language and for staffing: the administration prefers finance to staff the task force rather than the comptroller’s office given resource needs.

No formal council vote was taken; the committee recessed after public testimony and scheduled further consideration. The hearing record shows broad agreement that a public, multi‑stakeholder process is warranted, but significant differences remain over composition, staffing, disqualification of lobbyists, and how recommendations would be delivered to the Board of Estimates for any future negotiations.