Commentary: Up in the Air? PILOTs, SILOTs, and Politicians

• Author: Paul Helmke
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12670
• Published date: 01 November 2016
• Date: 01 November 2016

964 Public Administration Review • November | December 2016

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 76, Iss. 6, pp. 964–965. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12670.

Paul Helmke is professor of practice in

Indiana University ’ s School of Public and

Environmental Affairs. Previously he served

as mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, from 1988

to 2000; president of the U.S. Conference

of Mayors for the 1997–98 term; and

president of the Brady Campaign and the

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence from

2006 to 2011.

E-mail: phelmke@indiana.edu

Commentary

W hen I was mayor of Fort Wayne,

Indiana, in the mid-1990s, we decided

to implement a stormwater fee to help

pay for clean water obligations required by the

Environmental Protection Agency and to be good

stewards of the three rivers that came together in our

city. The fairest way to assess this fee, in our opinion,

was to measure the impermeable surface areas in all

of the real estate parcels in our area and charge the

owners a share of the cost based on their percentage

of the total area.

This approach met some opposition when an

association of churches in the city realized that church

parking lots, which were often fairly large, met our

definition of impermeable surface area and might

add a not-insignificant amount to their monthly

expenses. While I was a strong supporter of our faith

community personally and in my position as mayor,

my frustrated response to the protest was that if they

could get the Almighty not to rain on the parking lots,

I could easily get them exempted from the stormwater

fee. Otherwise, I felt that all members of the

community contributing to the runoff needed to pay

their share of the costs of handling that stormwater.

The fee was adopted, the churches survived, and our

relationship stayed friendly.

As a former local official, I found the article by

Kellie McGiverin-Bohan, Kirsten Grønbjerg (my

colleague in Indiana University ’ s School of Public and

Environmental Affairs), Lauren Dula, and Rachel

Miller addressing these types of conflicts to be very

insightful and thought-provoking. It made me want

to see more research into how nonprofit leaders and

politicians work together in times of tight budgets,

limited resources, and increasing needs.

Using data from approximately 400 local elected

government officials in Indiana who responded to

a 2010 survey, as well as county-level economic,

political, and nonprofit information from that same

year, the authors tested 15 hypotheses about what

might lead elected officials to support or oppose

payments or services in lieu of taxes (PILOTs and

SILOTs) from charities, focusing specifically on

hospitals, universities, and churches. Of particular

interest to the study were local elected officials’

opinions about and experiences with nonprofits.

Not surprisingly, counties that have greater economic

distress, are more urban, and have used tax increment

financing districts are significantly more likely to have

local government officials (LGOs) who favor PILOTs.

With regard to equity issues, the authors conclude

that LGOs respond more positively to vertical equity

(ability to pay, as measured by total nonprofit assets

in the county) than horizontal equity (fairness, as

measured by the proportion of nonprofit property

value to total county net assessed property value and

previous implementation of PILOTs). The finding that

there is an unanticipated marginally significant negative

connection between university land/equipment values

and PILOT support by LGOs may demonstrate the

political clout of these entities and concerns by electeds

about angering the voters they employ.

After analyzing voter turnout and finding, as expected,

that there is more support for PILOTs in politically

active counties, the authors also attempt to draw

conclusions from the one-quarter of the survey sample

consisting of county-level officials. The reason for this

segmentation is the thought that these elected county

auditors and county council members are “more likely

to support PILOTs because of their administrative and

budgetary responsibilities.” The results of this analysis

are less conclusive, however, and show “that being a

county-level official moderates other predictors.” The

problem here may be the apparent exclusion of county

commissioners (Indiana ’ s combined county executive-

legislative entity) from the survey and the inclusion of

county auditors (a more administrative than policy-

making office).

The most interesting parts of this article deal with

LGOs’ personal attitudes toward and involvement

Paul Helmke

Indiana University, Bloomington

Up in the Air? PILOTs , SILOTs , and Politicians