Feedback

A taxing tale of two Baltimore hotels

The Marriott Waterfront pays millions less in taxes than its crosstown rival thanks to a subsidy program criticized by a City Council task force.

buildings marriott hyatt

The Marriott Waterfront Hotel may be bigger and newer, but the city gets much more tax revenue out of the 30-year-old Hyatt.

Photo by: Fern Shen

  • Story Link
  • 13

Categories

There are two premier luxury hotels in Baltimore. One pays the city millions of dollars a year in profit sharing and rent, while the other gets millions of dollars of property taxes rebated under a program criticized by a City Council task force report.

The bottom line? According to the city’s own calculations, the bigger and newer Marriott Waterfront at Harbor East generated $24 million less in total revenues for Baltimore between 2002 and 2009 than the Hyatt Regency Hotel in the Inner Harbor.

What’s more, the Marriott’s low revenue stream will stay in effect until 2022 – over which period the hotel’s owner, John Paterakis Sr., will be excused from $40.5 million in property taxes based on the current assessed value of the hotel.

Different Structures, Different Outcomes

To see the property tax distortion that took place after the city started its PILOT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) program to spur commercial development in 1997, look no further than these two hotels.

Such a “side-by-side” comparison was conducted for the Public/Private Development Financing Task Force appointed by City Councilman Carl Stokes. The Brew obtained a copy of the February 2011 report, which was prepared by the Baltimore Development Corp. (BDC) at Stokes’ request.

Theoretically, the two hotels should be paying roughly the same in city taxes and other revenue.

The Marriott generated $48.6 million in total revenue (including hotel occupancy taxes, real estate taxes and parking garage taxes) while the Hyatt generated $53.9 million.

But fully $21 million in real estate taxes was rebated to the Marriott under the PILOT program, while the Hyatt got only $3 million abated through a PILOT grant for a more recently built parking garage. That – plus different profit-sharing agreements with the city – account for the gap in the revenue streams from the two properties.

City Got Equity Share of Hyatt

The Hyatt Hotel was conceived by the late Mayor William Donald Schaefer as a way to convert the Inner Harbor redevelopment district into a popular tourist zone.

The city owned the land on Light and Conway streets. Schaefer cut a deal with A.N. Pritzker, owner of the Hyatt chain, to lease the land and fund infrastructure costs in return for profit-sharing with the Pritzker family if the hotel was a financial success. In effect, the city became an equity partner in the hotel.

Opened in October 1981, the 488-room hotel was a roaring success. A $10-million federal UDAG grant was quickly paid off, and the hotel soon was generating up to $4 million a year in profit sharing for the city.

In contrast, the 752-room Marriott deal was the city’s first PILOT.

The theory behind PILOTs is to encourage development in districts that need major infrastructure improvements and have little chance of obtaining private financing.

The property at Harbor East was not owned by the city but by Paterakis, who had been amassing mostly derelict industrial land between his commercial bakery operation at Fells Point and the Inner Harbor.

Paterakis had ambitious plans to make the area the next big harbor development, but he wanted government assistance to help pay the bill. That’s when the city – led by BDC president M.J. “Jay” Brodie – seized upon a PILOT to “seed” the project, which was considered highly speculative.

Under the PILOT program, the Marriott Hotel's owner will pay only $1 a year in property taxes until 2022, although restaurants and other retail stores in the complex are required to pay property taxes. (Photo by Fern Shen)

Under the PILOT program, the Marriott Hotel's owner will pay only $1 a year in property taxes until 2022, although property leased to restaurants and other retail stores in the complex do pay property taxes. (Photo by Fern Shen)

100% Property Tax Forgiveness

Under a PILOT, a developer typically pays the original base property tax, plus 5% of the assessed value of the improved property, resulting in a 95% tax forgiveness.

But the PILOT negotiated by Brodie and approved in August 1997 by the Board of Estimates (under then-Mayor Kurt Schmoke) went a step beyond the normal structure.

It rebated fully 100% of Paterakis’ property tax, requiring his company, H&S Properties, to pay just $1 a year in real estate taxes for the next 25 years. The abatement included both the hotel and a 620-space parking garage. (Retail property was excluded from the PILOT abatement. It results in about $40,000-$50,000 in property taxes paid annually to the city.)

The BDC analysis found that the assessed value of the Marriott hotel and garage rose from $102 million in 2002 to $148 million in 2009. This actually increased the value of the tax rebate Paterakis receives under the PILOT program from $2,379,090 in 2002 to $3,349,967 in 2009.

10% vs. 66% Profit Sharing

The largest tax revenue stream from the Marriott currently comes from the city’s occupancy tax on hotel guests. It generated nearly $21 million in tax revenues between 2002 and 2009, the BDC reported.

The city also has a profit-sharing plan with Paterakis. The city receives $594,000 and 10% of the net cash flow after all expenses and debt service – a far cry from the 66% net cash flow the city gets from the Hyatt Regency.

Not surprisingly, the Marriott and Paterakis have paid substantially less under the profit sharing than the Hyatt and Pritzker family.

Whereas the city picked up $17.3 million in profit-sharing revenues from the Hyatt between 2002 and 2009, just $1,899,653 accrued from the Marriott profit-plan during the same period. (In fact, profit sharing came only in two years, 2006 and 2007.)

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and other city officials have stoutly defended the PILOT program, saying that without it, many city development projects in recent years would never have been built or rehabilitated.

But PILOTs and a related tax program called TIFs (Tax Increment Financing) have come under increased scrutiny.

Last week, protesters affiliated with Occupy Baltimore held a protest in front of the BDC offices, saying the agency was too willing to hand out “blank checks” to developers. On Sunday, more than 500 protesters marched on Harbor East calling on Paterakis to donate his tax rebates to help rebuild city schools and provide other services to those not living at affluent Harbor East.

Paterakis: Hard to Make a Buck

Michael Beatty, president of Paterakis’ real estate arm, H&S Properties Development Corp., did not respond to a phone call and voicemail message seeking comment yesterday.

But a delegation of the protesters from the group BUILD (Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development) spoke with Paterakis on Saturday, according to the group’s co-chair, Rev. Andrew Foster Connors.

Paterakis replied to their critique by noting his plan to give money to a charter school and a jobs program, and pointing out that the Marriott pays the hotel occupancy tax (as do all hotels in the city).

Paterakis also complained about how difficult it is to make a profit these days, according to Foster Connors.

“We listened carefully to him explain to us his hope that one day Harbor East would be profitable enough to provide for his own grandchildren.”

In addition to the Marriott Hotel, the Paterakis group received PILOTs from the city covering a large portion of three new buildings the group built at Harbor East – Legg Mason Office Tower, Laureate Office Building and Spinnaker Bay Apartments.

Last year, Paterkis was rebated $6 million in city property taxes through the PILOTs and paid $4.3 million in property taxes not covered by the tax savings mechanism.

By far, the largest tax rebate ($3,998,160) was made for the Legg Mason Tower, which was completed in 2009.

– Fern Shen contributed to this story.

Baltimore Brew is a moderated site that encourages the free and open exchange of ideas in a climate of mutual respect. We reserve the right - but do not assume any obligation - to delete or withhold the publication of comments that violate our standards. Comments that are obscene, libelous or defamatory, or include vicious personal attacks will not be published. Racist remarks, sexist remarks, disgusting stuff, blatant commercial self-promotion – you get the idea – if it crosses our line, we’re not going to run it.

  • Gerald Neily

    Yes, back in the ’90s, the Harbor East hotel plan was “highly speculative” – so speculative in fact that the city’s original plan was a far less ambitious medium density urban village designed by consultant Stan Eckstut, and the infrastructure had already been built to support that plan. At that time, the new hotel was instead supposed to be built in proximity to the Convention Center west of the Inner Harbor, but the city could not attract a developer, and eventually the city itself had to build it (the current Hilton at Camden Yards). 

    In the early 90s, downtown ended at the Jones Falls. Then the city reversed its planning process, approved the Paterakis hotel and ultimately the far denser Harbor East “new downtown” development that exists today. President Street had to be ripped up and reconfigured with upgraded utilities. Brand new Lancaster Street and East Falls Avenue were also ripped up to conf0rm to the revised plan. Since then, the city has had to confront all the issues resulting from the eastward migration of downtown away from its traditional more compact boundaries, such as poor transit, office vacancies, etc.

  • http://twitter.com/marciej marciej

    So glad you guys are covering this. Not the sexiest story in the world, but so, so important. Hope you stay on State Center, too.

  • GMan

    While interesting to see the side-by-side tax payments by both hotels, its hard to compare the actual development process of the projects. The late-70s and the late -90s are two different development eras, and I can’t imagine the federal gov’t throwing $10 million in loan money for urban hotel projects anymore. 

  • Joan Jacobson

    Great story. Also of note is that the ‘profit sharing’ from the Hyatt’s original Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) goes into the city’s Community Development Block Grant fund, so the money is likely to go toward community projects. —Joan Jacobson

    • Steve

      And if I remember, you and your Sun colleagues gave us a hard time over UDAG.  Although it was long enough ago my memory is going soft on me…

      Glad to see that at least that UDAG project worked out to our benefit.

  • http://profiles.google.com/daniel.lory.ewald Daniel E

    So Schafer was able to negotiate a deal with a big business which benefited both the city and the company. Meanwhile, the hotel that gets big tax breaks, generates less revenue in addition to getting a free ride. 
    And if PILOT is such a huge success, since “many city development projects in recent years would never have been built or rehabilitated”, why all the vacant rowhomes and buildings littering the rest of the city? 

    Maybe its not low taxes that entice a business to build or redevelop a neighborhood. Maybe it’s actually making a good quality neighborhood in which people will want to do business which is key to helping a local economy. But that requires leadership and hardwork which seems to have died with Schafer.

    • Gerald Neily

      Good points, Daniel. Schaefer’s federal funding request for Hyatt was greatly abetted by the fact that Bob Embry, having just left the city, was heavily involved in UDAG for the Carter administration. He was replaced as city housing commissioner by none other than M.J. Brodie.

      Taxes only need to be low enough so that they don’t curtail investment, not so low that they can seal the deal on someone’s oversized mega-project. The more grandiose the project, the more grandiose the tax giveaway needs to be. The Hyatt was the right sized project for its time and place, whereas Marriott and Harbor East were clearly excessive. There are lessons here for the Superblock, State Center, the Convention Arena, etc.

  • Ktrueheart

    Too bad our Mayor is not embracing the recommendations of the task force to implement improvements in the TIF and Pilot programs.   The recommendations are aimed at enhancing the economic benefits to all citizens and neighborhoods, not just downtown developers.  So my question to her is “WHY?”

  • Wilsonsmailbox

    So does this mean that after 10 more years they pay the full property tax on the building? If so, then I think Baltimore City will be around in 10 years, after which they have an entire high-end community to tax at full rate. Not a bad move by the city actually as long as they don’t need any short-term gains. If they used the same strategy in other areas this city may be well funded in 20 years.

    • Anonymous

      From B Brew: The 100% property tax abatement for the Marriott Waterfront under PILOT runs for 25 years, from July 1997 to July 2022. Then the hotel will presumably pay full taxes. So far, however, none of the PILOTs awarded in Baltimore (and there are 13) have reached their termination dates, so there is no example of a full restoration of property taxes taking place.

  • Anonymous

    We received this message from Bob Embry, a former city housing commissioner, who is a member of the “Task Force on Baltimore City Public/Private Development Financing Efforts,” a.k.a., the Stokes Committee.

    Mr. Reutter:
                 
    Thank you for your effort to educate the public on the complexities of TIF’s and PILOTS.  If you continue to analyze Inner Harbor East you might want to attempt to ascertain whether there have been any distributions to the investors in these projects (which you abbreviate by describing them as Paterakis).  At the heart of this discussion is whether the developers are being unjustly enriched or are they receiving a reasonable return as a result of the subsidy and therefore without the subsidy the project would not have been built.
            
    Further, a comparison of the new Hilton and the Marriott might be more instructive, as they are relatively contemporaries, than with the Hyatt that was built in a different market and received a grant of federal funds that represented the total equity in the project and only had to
    be repaid if the hotel’s profits exceeded expectations.  Further, the owner Mr. Pritzker was willing to build the hotel if he was not required to put up any cash expecting to be rewarded by the tax benefits and his hotel company being hired to manage the hotel. The Marriott, of course, is not managed by the hotel owners so they do not receive that benefit.  It is worth noting that no
    developer would build the Hilton even with a comparable PILOT.

    Lastly, Mayor Schaefer played no role in negotiating the Hyatt deal.  The work was done by the HUD UDAG staff and Gene Feinblatt and Marty Millspaugh for the City.

    Bob Embry

    Robert C. Embry, Jr.
    President
    The Abell Foundation

    • Anonymous

      From B Brew: 

      It is important to note that the city agency Baltimore Development Corp. (BDC) — not this website — compared the tax situation between the Hyatt Regency and Marriott Waterfront.

      The above article discloses the findings of this unreleased report dated Feb. 17, 2011. Since Mr. Embry is a member of the Stokes Committee that commissioned the report, he should probably address his concerns of its merits to the committee.

      If there was a comparison of the tax situation between the Marriott and city-built Hilton, we’d try to be the first in Baltimore to report it.  -MR

  • Anonymous

    We received this message from Bob Embry, a former city housing commissioner, who is a member of the “Task Force on Baltimore City Public/Private Development Financing Efforts,” a.k.a., the Stokes Committee.

    Mr. Reutter:
                 
    Thank you for your effort to educate the public on the complexities of TIF’s and PILOTS.  If you continue to analyze Inner Harbor East you might want to attempt to ascertain whether there have been any distributions to the investors in these projects (which you abbreviate by describing them as Paterakis).  At the heart of this discussion is whether the developers are being unjustly enriched or are they receiving a reasonable return as a result of the subsidy and therefore without the subsidy the project would not have been built.
            
    Further, a comparison of the new Hilton and the Marriott might be more instructive, as they are relatively contemporaries, than with the Hyatt that was built in a different market and received a grant of federal funds that represented the total equity in the project and only had to
    be repaid if the hotel’s profits exceeded expectations.  Further, the owner Mr. Pritzker was willing to build the hotel if he was not required to put up any cash expecting to be rewarded by the tax benefits and his hotel company being hired to manage the hotel. The Marriott, of course, is not managed by the hotel owners so they do not receive that benefit.  It is worth noting that no
    developer would build the Hilton even with a comparable PILOT.

    Lastly, Mayor Schaefer played no role in negotiating the Hyatt deal.  The work was done by the HUD UDAG staff and Gene Feinblatt and Marty Millspaugh for the City.

    Bob Embry

    Robert C. Embry, Jr.
    President
    The Abell Foundation

More of the Daily Drip »

Below the Fold

    • Yesterday, when Baltimore web developer and Ignite Baltimore co-founder Mike Subelsky tweeted that he was about to witness Nik Wallenda’s tightrope walk across the Inner Harbor, my ears perked up. Pix to come, Subelsky promised. Oooh, send them along I said! Recognizing his citizen journalist moment, Subelsky kindly agreed and sent along some great photos. [...]

Twitter

Facebook