Search News


Browse Archives

News

All Eyes on Pittsburgh

November 19, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl, just seven years out of college, is igniting ire with his plan to levy a 1 percent tax on tuition collected by the city’s 10 nonprofit colleges and universities.

Introduced as part of Ravenstahl’s 2010 budget less than a week after he won reelection on Nov. 3, the so-called “Fair Share Tax” would raise $16.2 million in annual revenue for the city, his estimates claim. “We value Pittsburgh’s nonprofit community,” he said as he announced the tax. “They are our major employers, and a big part of why our economy continues to be strong. However, we can no longer afford to provide city services to those who are not paying their fair share.”

Students would have to pay between $27 and $409 annually, depending on tuition, to their colleges and universities, which would then remit the money to the city. Students at the Community College of Allegheny County would pay the least and students at Carnegie Mellon University would pay the most.

The state-appointed Pittsburgh Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority -- which counts four university-affiliated panelists among its five members -- rejected the budget Tuesday on the grounds that it violates Pennsylvania tax law, but the mayor vows to fight on. Because the panel's decision hinged on the fact that it had never been approved by a city or state legislative body, the mayor is now pursuing the next logical move -- convincing the City Council to approve the tax. "I’m going to continue to fight for the residents, continue to fight for what’s fair,” he said Wednesday.

But to the administrators and students at Pittsburgh’s institutions of higher education, the proposal is anything but fair. “We’re opposing the principle of taxing tuition,” said Mary Hines, president of the Pittsburgh Council on Higher Education (PCHE), which represents the city’s 10 nonprofit accredited colleges and universities. “It’s the mayor’s attempt to try to tax us to make up for our property tax-exempt status."

Pittsburgh would direct $15.2 million of the projected tuition tax revenue to its ailing pension fund and the remaining $1 million to its library system to keep branches open. Hines said she finds it “convenient” that the p

rojected revenues fit so squarely with what would otherwise be the city’s budget deficit, especially since PCHE has “no idea what model the mayor used to come up with the $16 million estimate.”

The editorial boards of the student newspapers at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon have blasted the proposal, arguing that students do pay plenty of taxes to the city. The added cost “could prevent prospective students from coming to Carnegie Mellon and Pittsburgh would be missing out on some of the best talent from around the world,” read a staff editorial published Monday in The Tartan.

Ravenstahl’s press secretary, Joanna Doven, said the mayor is “a huge proponent of higher education and firmly believes that this 1 percent tax on tuition is not going to change a student’s mind” about enrolling in a college or university there. The University of Pittsburgh, she said, plans a 4 percent tuition hike next year. “A 1 percent tuition tax … is a small fraction of what that increase is going to be.”

Hines said the mayor was missing the fact that most students “are not paying the sticker price” and that tuition increases aren’t haphazard.

First in the Nation

A tuition tax in Pittsburgh would likely be the first in the nation, and much attention is focused on western Pennsylvania.

“As far as our research shows, there is no other city in the country that is taxing students’ tuition,” Hines said. Since Ravenstahl announced his proposal, “we’ve heard an outcry from institutions across the nation. We’re very sensitive to the fact that a lot of people out there are looking to us, to see what happens here in terms of what it could mean for them.”

Kim Griffo, director of the Clemson University-based International Town and Gown Association, said her group is watching carefully. “This is a hot topic across the country” that is “quietly brewing in university and college towns,” she said. “All eyes are on Pittsburgh to see how they handle this and whether it works.”

Other cities are trying to find some way of generating tax revenue from the thousands of students who study there each year. Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino launched a task force in January to standardize and increase voluntary payments coming from the city’s colleges and universities, as well as its hospitals. David N. Cicilline, mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, this spring proposed a $150 per semester tax on students at the city’s four private colleges.

The Association of American Universities (AAU) first warned its 62 member institutions of the coming wave of municipalities looking to tax higher education about 18 months ago, said M. Matthew Owens, an associate vice president for federal relations. “States and localities look to universities as a revenue source in tough times,” he said. “The greater the pain gets, the more likely the momentum.”

Robert M. Berdahl, AAU’s president and former chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, said Pittsburgh’s colleges and universities are facing a “perennial problem” of town-gown relations, where cities and towns search to find new ways of extracting revenue from the institutions that call them home. While he led Berkeley, he said, the city did “all kinds of studies” to try to find new sources of income from the university.

What Colleges Do Contribute

Beyond the challenges that municipalities face in trying to skirt tax-exempt status is the fact that many institutions do indeed make substantial contributions to their hometowns.

Colleges and universities, Berdahl said, don’t try to be free riders in their communities. Many “do contribute offset money for things like fire, police, sewage and so on …. They try to calculate their fair shares.”

In Pittsburgh, PCHE’s Hines said, the 10 colleges and universities pay $23 million annually in taxes to the city for payroll, parking, business privileges and any real estate not directly related to their educational missions.

Some also make voluntary contributions to the city’s public service fund, she said, although “fewer organizations are participating” than have in the past. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system has redirected a $10 million annual contribution from the fund to Pittsburgh Promise, a program created by Ravenstahl to fund college costs for the city’s top high school graduates. Others have backed out “for financial reasons, some for philosophical reasons.”

On Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported, a member of the Pittsburgh City Council proposed a bill that would authorize a study of the value of property held by tax-exempt institutions and the costs the city incurs from providing services to its students. Under the plan, colleges and universities would then enter into negotiations to figure out acceptable values for their voluntary contributions.

In addition to institutional payments, students already contribute substantially to the city, said Hines, who is also president of the predominantly female Carlow University, where more than a third of undergraduates are over age 25. Many of her students, and students at other institutions in the city, also live and work within its borders, paying income and property taxes that compensate for their “fair share” of city services.

“There’s always been a sort of town-gown animosity, the perception that the students don’t give, they just take,” she said. “Towns and cities think students are just these rich, privileged 18- to 21-year-olds who just take from the city and then leave once they graduate. They’re not and they don’t.”

The Community College of Allegheny County serves the city “many of them who would be affected by this are Pittsburgh residents and so are already contributing through their wage taxes, property taxes, etc.,” said David Hoovler, a spokesperson. “With the population we serve, in particular, there are many students who struggle to pay our tuition, already the lowest in the city.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on All Eyes on Pittsburgh

  • Interesting and disappointing
  • Posted by Jeff Senese , Vice President for Academic Affairs on November 19, 2009 at 8:00am EST
  • This effort, like that in Providence, does not recognize the incredible contributions that higher education institutions make to their communities and not just by adding life and culture. The multipliers from all the faculty, staff and student spending, not to mention parents and event attendees are generally substantial. There are few major business in any city in this country that can match the financial stability and contributions of most urban higher educational institutions. Can you imagine Pittsburgh without Pitt or Carnegie Melon? It is so politically easy for inept spendaholic politicians to "go after" higher education. Frankly, most of us at urban institutions believe in our cities and pay significant "in lieu of taxes" payments to our cities because it is the right thing to do and as the city does well so do we. That said, the more we pay the more we should have a say in how the city is operated and how budgets are executed. Perhaps we in higher education need to move toward hyper involvement in local politics to protect our interests and work to thwart mayorial candidates that do not see our value?

  • Wake up Academia!
  • Posted by Christine on November 19, 2009 at 9:45am EST
  • Is this not the "sharing the wealth?" and "redistribution of income" that idealists clamor for? Be careful what you wish for because it will affect you as well. Higher education is being very hard hit by this recession as a result of legislators who cannot balance their budgets while giving away everything to everyone who wants something. The money has to come from somewhere! Additionally in Pennsylvania, the four state-related institutions have STILL not received their state appropriation because Ed Rendell cannot balance his budget without table games legislation. What a great economic growth plan Ed! Wake up folks, get an ounce of economic literacy and support policies that are fiscally responsible!

  • Typical short-term thinking
  • Posted by Demosthenes on November 19, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • Mr. Mayor is smart enough to see a current-accounts deficit on the balance sheet, but is he capable of seeing the intangible asset that corporate accounting calls "goodwill?"

    What's Pittsburgh without Carnegie-Mellon? If its visionary founders had wanted to support an endowment for the city pension fund, they would have done that. Instead, they understood that great institutions can outlast political expediency. I'm willing to bet that this same mayor promotes Pittsburgh as "the home of great universities such as Carnegie-Mellon" at trade shows around the world and on his tourism website, while not giving that institution a dime for the use of its name and reputation.

    It would be cruel irony in particular for Mr. Mellon, patron of libraries everywhere, if someone manages to eviscerate Pittsburgh's future by pretending he's doing it to save some libraries.

  • Same Old Scheme
  • Posted by Idealist on November 19, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • Mayor Ravenstahl must have slept through his Econ classes. Apparently he missed the point of tax exempt status for non-profits. Has he figured out how to levy taxes on churches, the Salvation Army, Goodwill, or any other public service organizations for that matter? Once a politician figures out how to appropriate someone else’s money to fill a hole in the budget, there will be no end to the new holes created by poor management. The political strategy is always the same… Pick a group that generally can’t or won’t fight back; take their money under the guise of spreading the wealth for a greater public good; pit one group against another; and last but not least, place another organization in charge of collecting taxes at their own expense.

    If the voting public of Pittsburg rolls over and plays dead, then this idea will spread like noxious weeds. Politicians always justify taxes in other locations by pointing a finger at somewhere else and saying “they are doing it.” The economy in Pittsburg is in tough shape as everywhere else. If the people being taxed wish to levy taxes upon themselves, then so be it.

    Gather the voting strength of those in the educational theater and vote the bum out! Nothing says “pay attention” like getting ousted or the threat there of!!!

  • Yes, let's bitch about that one percent,
  • Posted by DFS on November 19, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • As long as we bitch even more about the future increase on everyone coming down from Reid/Pelosi/Obama soonest.

  • who does this affect
  • Posted by Skippy on November 19, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • Christine,
    This doesn't hurt people in academia :-) It hurts poor students struggling to better their lives. Taking even more from people trying to survive is not a redistribution of wealth! :-) Though I appreciate your mis-directed rage.
    Skippy P.S. Since we're being unreasonable, I think it's all those evil baby boomers destroying young people's futures for their fat retirements.. ho ho ho :-)

  • Posted by Christine on November 19, 2009 at 2:25pm EST
  • Idealist - The Pittsburgh economy has NOT taken the enormous hit that much of the country has because of its strong economic engine of higher education and healthcare - all not-for-profits. So your point is an excellent one; the mayor can now destroy those industries as well and cripple the region's economy.
    Skippy - ALL stakeholders in academia are impacted by this: staff, faculty, alumni, the public, and most of all students. If the students can't afford to attend an institution, the students, the institution, and eventually the local economy will feel the effects. Your pension comments are silly. Current employees have paid into a plan that is supposed to be appropriately managed, for years into the future, to provide for their retirement. It is not Social Security that has become current workers supporting retirees. Again economic and financial literacy are vital in these turbulent times!

  • The Destruction of The Amercian Dream
  • Posted by Lucifer , Student at Carnegie Mellon on November 19, 2009 at 4:00pm EST
  • I am a black student at Carnegie Mellon University. I am a Pittsburgh native and receive more than $15,000 in financial aid. The university was generous enough to give me $34,000 in grants this year to pay for tuition. I have made up the rest with loans. I cannot afford to go to this university on my own. My household pays tax for the public school district and tax for all the other amenities a citizen uses. If this tax goes through, we would have to pay a tax to go to a private institution that I earned to enroll in when we already contribute to the local community.

    $400 to me is a semester worth of books. The fact that I was given the opportunity to enroll at such an expensive prestigious university is because they gave me the money to do so.

    This tax would come directly out of my financial aid. That does not make very much sense. Financial aid is a community pool of money that is handed out to those unwilling to pay for higher education based on the truth that all should be able to obtain a higher education. This tax ignores that truth and instead denies it.
    This is the destruction of The American Dream.

  • Lucifer, you're right, but you aren't allowed to say that.
  • Posted by DFS on November 19, 2009 at 4:15pm EST
  • Just ask Scott McLemee. OMG, he might instead actually have to do something like actual research/thought, instead of reporting the 'company line' of the academy.

    Just saying.

  • Posted by Cat on November 19, 2009 at 11:00pm EST
  • As an academic I find Mayor Ravenstahl's move very problematic, but as a former resident of Pittsburgh I also see his point. Colleges and universities make up an incredible amount of the city's land base. Pgh is home to CMU, Pitt, Duquesne, Community College of Allegheny County, Park Point U., Robert Morris U., Carlow College, Chatham U., and the Art Institute of Pittsburgh. That doesn't even include the private K-12 institutions or the hundreds of churches in Pittsburgh that also do not pay property taxes.

    Having so much land exempt from property taxes is a huge problem for Pittsburgh. It is most certainly a tax burden on city residents. Residents pay a flat 3% tax to help make up for the fact that the city cannot depend upon property taxes to make ends meet. That flat tax hurts the city's poor far more than a 1% tutition tax would hurt college students--rich or poor.

    When I lived in Pittsburgh, I made very little money. In fact, I made so little money that it wasn't worth my time working only to see the city tax eat up my earnings. It was more cost effective for me to quit my part-time job, in light of the taxes I paid, than to continue working. The city tax, I have no doubt, encourages poor people to not take or to give up low-wage jobs, thus fostering unemployment in the city's poorest neighborhoods.

    The "American Dream," to which the CMU student above alludes, is out of reach for a large segment of Pittsburgh that would benefit if land owned by colleges and universities were subject to property taxes. Many of those people, like the CMU student, are not only black but also poor, while most students in Pittsburgh are white and middle class.

    I don't know if the 1% tax is the solution, for many of the reasons stated by the other commentators above, but I do know that the colleges' tax exempt status most certainly is a burden on the city. No question.

  • Why so surprised?
  • Posted by Thoroughly Amused Observer , Chair, Department of Unintended Consequences at School of Hard Knocks on November 20, 2009 at 7:45am EST
  • So funny. How does not one understand that the liberal mantra is "No Dollar Left Behind"?

    Hihger Ed has been supporting liberal causes and politicians for so long, you thought you were immune from their reach? It's OK for colleges and universities to raise tuition at 3X the rate of inflation for the past 25 years to give college presidents salaries that would make most private sector small business owners blush. But for an OUTSIDE entity to effectively raise the cost of attendance whithout you getting your cut, well, that's just WRONG.

    Compare this with the MA attempt to "tax" some of the endowments of Harvard and MIT. At least they are not attempting to grab that YET. Here they are giving you the "out" by allowing you to say "Don't blame us, it's the nasty city of Pittsburgh that's forcing us to collect this from you."

    Of course, if they let you keep 10% of the take as a handling fee, you wouldn't complain, now would you?

    Perhaps you might simply reconsider the causes you support. Welcome to reality.

    And I doubt that this comment will see the light of day. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

  • Posted by CMU grad on November 20, 2009 at 8:30am EST
  • I recently finished my PhD at CMU. It is interesting the mayor calls this the "fair share" tax. Do CMU students use more city services than Pitt students? They will be charged more simply because their school costs more to attend.

    What about students who live and work in the city? Property taxes are included in their rent prices, and they pay the same tax Cat mentions (3%) on any income they earn. Because Pittsburgh was my permanent residence, I even paid city income tax when I interned out of state. I see no place in the proposed tax that allows a deduction if the person paying it has already paid their "fair share."

    What about the other nonprofits that also are exempt from property tax, like the UPMC medical system? It's fairly obvious the city is placing the burdon for all non-profits entirely on students, who won't be around to vote them out in four years. What a wonderful way to recruit and retain youth in an aging city.

    Perhaps if the mayor were to forgo buying $1000 garbage cans with his name on them, and avoid actions that violate the state's whistleblower statutes and leave the city liable for the victim's legal bills and back pay, Pittsburgh might be able to balance its budget.

  • Wow
  • Posted by Tex Lovera , Civil Engineer at Taxpayer on November 20, 2009 at 8:30am EST
  • I am glad I saw this article this morning (via Instapundit). My daughter and I are headed to Pitt tomorrow to check out their Engineering school.

    I guarantee you, City of Pittsburgh, you will NEVER see one thin dime of my money going to this tax. If it passes, my daughter will NOT be attending Pitt. I will also be passing this news along to the parents of three other students who have also expressed an interest in Pitt.

    Sounds like you have an idiot for a Mayor. Gotta be a democrat. Based on this article alone, it explains a lot...

  • Why the surprise?
  • Posted by JAY on November 20, 2009 at 9:00am EST
  • Of course new taxes are coming! He's a democrat. I'm sure he was overwhelmingly supported by the institutions that he is now wanting to skin. Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs....let's just hope the congress doesn't see this and get the same idea for the whole country! Maybe some of the students should reconsider the TEA party.

  • Hardball Negotiations
  • Posted by Bob on November 20, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • It this "Alex Trebek" tax (double jeopardy) goes through, then I think the non profits should expect more from their "city services"! I know, free parking anywhere in the city for all employees and students attending the colleges without fear of parking tickets would be a good start. I am sure I can think of a few more...

  • Ugh
  • Posted by Mr L at Withheld on November 20, 2009 at 9:30am EST
  • I'm somewhat mystified how they can call a tax that transfers money from debt-burdened students to (frankly generous) public employee pensions 'Fair Share,' especially when Pennsylvania spends an average $500 to $1500 in annual administrative expenses per employee on the pension plan.

  • Posted by Lou Gots on November 20, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Those Pittsbuirgh politicians would do well to take some courses on Pennsylvania constitutional law and taxation.

  • Heh
  • Posted by Faith+1 on November 20, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Notice that the university passing the costs straight to the student (rather than, say, cut expenses somewhere like professor salaries) it is considered normal behavior? Why is it then that there an assumption that higher taxes on businesses and business owners will result in their tightening their belt and not passing the costs down to the customers?

    Higher taxes do not increase jobs or create wealth. It isn't even wealth re-distribution. It's just the government taking your money.

  • Mayor Bonehead seeks blood from a stone
  • Posted by ricardo , Professor of Political Science at Withheld in California on November 20, 2009 at 1:00pm EST
  • This mayor is a bonehead. College students are having difficulty getting the courses they need to graduate, looking forward in too many cases to a crushing level of debt, and going forth into a dismal job market. I think it is outrageous that anyone would think of adding this additional burden on them at this time in their lives.

  • Posted by 09bardie on November 20, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • Pittsburgh, despite its relatively low unemployment at the moment, is in a serious financial crisis. Due to the collapse of the steel industry, etc., the region has experienced roughly a 40% population decline since the end of World War II, and still hasn't bottomed out. The demographic structure is also extremely top-heavy. So pension liabilities are enormous relative to the tax base--which declines even in good years.

    "Nonprofits" are to be lauded for bypassing the waste of having shareholders, but when you look at the levels of executive compensation, and the revolving door between higher ed administration and the Democratic Party (admittedly not as serious an issue as it is further northeast), it's clear that there's a lot more going on than sheer altruism.

    @Demosthenes:

    "What's Pittsburgh without Carnegie-Mellon?"

    This is sort of a moot point, no? It's not as though this is going to drive CMU out of business. Nor is CMU about to pack up and move. Let's not forget that the CMU community is getting enormous de facto subsidies from the Pittsburgh area, in terms of its free occupancy of a central-city location, some of the cheapest urban real estate in the Northeast for its employees and off-campus students, the fact that Messrs. Carnegie, Mellon, and Mellon made their money off the Pittsburgh manufacturing center, etc.

    @Tex: Seriously? Something that, by definition, increases the cost of going to the school by less than 1% absolutely excludes it from consideration? Even if it's still cheaper and better than other schools? I feel sorry for your daughter. No real loss to Pitt or the City, though--there will be plenty of other applicants happy to take her place.

  • What would Pittsburgh be without the Steelers?
  • Posted by Ted on November 20, 2009 at 5:00pm EST
  • Don't the Steelers add $million$ of dollars a year to the the Pittsburgh economy? [Forget about the Pirates ... no one goes to see them :-}]

    Simply saying that the various Universities/Colleges add dollars to the economy won't convince anyone. Providers of all sorts of illicit services could say the same thing. "We drug dealers add millions to the economy. How DARE you tax US?"

    Unfortunately, this sort of thing is going to gain ground all over the country. I imagine that once Mayor Daley hears about this one he'll start taxing students at the schools in Chicago. While I think it is of dubious legality, I'm not sure the courts will agree. After all, someone has to pay the Judge's salaries too!

    Face facts people. Everything is going to cost more. All taxes are going to increase. It is inevitable. Why on earth do you expect people to volunteer and give up services just so us gownies don't have to pay our fair share?

  • Posted by Banzel on November 20, 2009 at 7:30pm EST
  • Iowa City is about to pass a 2% "franchise fee" on utilities. The gas/electric company has said it will pass the fee on to customers. The mayor has been quite forthright that the city is trying to pry money from the tax-exempt sector. While Pittsburgh's plan will directly hit only students, Iowa City's plan will hit state government (University of Iowa, Kirkwood Community College), county government, the largest private employer - ACT (of college testing fame), churches and other tax exempts, in addition to 20,000+ households. The IC council will be thrilled when it learns about Pittsburgh's angle on making "tax exempt" a meaningless concept. Why control spending when there's always another tax to levy?

  • Posted by 09bardie , underemployed BA on November 20, 2009 at 9:45pm EST
  • @Banzel: Whether the fee is nominally on the student or the institution doesn't really make any difference. Either way, prices are being renegotiated on a regular basis, and the need to pay 1% to a third party becomes something on the bargaining table. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence for a quick overview of how this works.

    And the City of Pittsburgh isn't expanding spending. It's trimming services, here and there, every year. The tax base is in decline, and the City has liabilities that were incurred decades ago--before Mayor Ravenstahl was even born.

  • Posted by Banzel on November 21, 2009 at 5:15pm EST
  • @ 09bardie: The institutional billing statements will most likely, and quite rightly, make it clear where that portion of the expenses arising from the new tax originate. If they modulate their tuition to try to offset the tax, then the tax is in effect being paid by the tax-exempt actor, which must adjust its budget accordingly. Pittsburgh is taxing the little people (students) which may result in the institutions vicariously paying the tax by reimbursing their students through somewhat lower tuition.

    Iowa City is taxing one set of institutions (utilities) with the overt understanding that the utilities' customers, including the tax exempt entities, will foot the bill. It is doing this to provide basic municipal services - staffing of a new fire station - without having made the slightest pretense of cutting back elsewhere in the budget. The public library recently announced online access to Lexis/Nexis. That is not a basic municipal function.

  • Posted by David on November 30, 2009 at 5:45pm EST
  • I think it's a brilliant tactical move. Enough of the empty promises and delay tactics to 'discuss' the issue further. This at least provides a real solution to react to. I also applaud the council's move to quantify the situation... I also think Fair Share is also the right branding. It's the heart of the issue.

  • Taxing the wrong people
  • Posted by AJ Polombo , future student at Pitt on December 13, 2009 at 7:00pm EST
  • The fact that students have to pay the school which then goes straight to the city is quite possibly the stupidest thing ive ever heard. Its obscene to make people who are actually pursuing a higher education to make themselves better and possibly further Pittsburgh's DEAD economy (minus medicine of course, the 123412321 old people here have to get sick and die) is retarded. Look at how much tuition is to begin with! Somehow, minimum wage has tripled since 1970 but tuition has gone up 12-fold. These schools are making a killing, have it taken directly out of the tuition paid to the school, but dont let the schools compensate the tuition cost for them. Pitt could fund itself with no tuition just using the revenue they get out of UPMC. Then just add the 27000 students in the system paying 13,000 (thats in-state mind you) and thats 351 million dollars a year. Over a third of a BILLION in tuition. But for some reason this should cost people taking out loans and putting themselves in debt to better their lives. Incredible.