The City of Pittsburgh appears to be taking a different approach to tax-exempt organizations under Mayor Corey O’Connor. Rather than continuing to rely heavily on challenges to real estate tax exemptions, the city seems to be focusing more on voluntary contributions tied to specific public needs.
For nonprofit organizations with property in the city, this is a welcome shift, but it does not mean exemption risk has gone away.
Under former Mayor Ed Gainey, nonprofit property taxation was a significant policy focus. His administration reviewed tax-exempt parcels and challenged properties it believed did not meet Pennsylvania’s requirements for purely public charities or were not being used for charitable purposes. That approach was framed around fairness to city residents and the view that large tax-exempt institutions should contribute more toward city services.
Mayor O’Connor’s administration has taken a different tone. Instead of focusing primarily on exemption challenges or broad demands that nonprofits “pay taxes,” the city appears to be asking major institutions to support defined priorities, such as public safety, parks, neighborhood investment and infrastructure. That distinction matters. A voluntary contribution for a specific public purpose is very different from a required property tax payment.
Several concrete steps have already been taken. The city has begun withdrawing many pending tax-exemption appeals. UPMC announced a $10 million contribution to help the city purchase at least 10 new ambulances, and city officials indicated that the gift would also free up funds for additional public works vehicles. The University of Pittsburgh agreed to contribute $5 million over five years for parks, business corridor development and public safety. Carnegie Mellon University also announced a $3 million commitment over five years to support education and infrastructure initiatives, including the city’s Rec2Tech program and neighborhood infrastructure projects.
For tax-exempt organizations, the practical takeaway is that the city may be more open to partnership than litigation, at least for now. Organizations may have an opportunity to shape any contribution around mission, budget, visibility and community impact. A contribution that supports emergency services, public spaces, youth programming or neighborhood needs may be easier to explain to boards and stakeholders than a general payment characterized as a substitute for taxes.
At the same time, nonprofits should not treat the withdrawal of appeals as a permanent safe harbor. Real estate tax exemption remains a separate legal determination based on ownership and use of property. Organizations should continue to document how each parcel supports their exempt purposes, pay close attention to leased or mixed-use space, and be prepared to explain how any voluntary contribution aligns with their mission, resources and broader community benefit.
For now, this shift gives nonprofits an opportunity to engage constructively with the city while preserving the distinction between voluntary support and required tax payments. Organizations should review their exemption support, consider how they would respond to contribution requests and ensure board leadership understands the related legal and public relations considerations.
About Schneider Downs Not-for-Profit Services
Our Not-for-Profit industry group is committed to providing exceptional service and expertise to a community of clients who serve our regions tirelessly each day. We provide valuable insight to not-for-profit organizations of all sizes and their boards through our assurance, tax, advisory and technology consulting services and not-for-profit fund accounting software.
To learn more, visit our Not-for-Profit Industry Group page.
