A Decade of Support and Still No Vote: The Politics Behind New Jersey’s PILOT Fight

On November 10, 2025 Senate Bill S-3915 was referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.  This bill, introduced most recently by Senator Troy Singleton, seeks to require municipalities to share PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) money with school districts, or to provide special projects for the schools.  The bill would also require mayors or CEOs to notify school districts when a PILOT application is received and approved.

The bill, which can be traced back to May 14, 2015, has at various times been sponsored by Democrats, Republicans, and as a bipartisan measure.  Each time, the bill has died in committee or in the chamber.  It has been referred to the Assembly Community Development and Affairs Committee and Women’s Affairs Committee over the years, as well as Budget and Appropriations. Why, with support from both parties for a decade now, does this bill keep dying?

One need look no further than the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.  Their claim is that requiring PILOT funds to be shared would have an adverse impact on economic development.  They say that PILOTs will need to increase in order for municipalities to be able to maintain services.  In addition, the League states that when municipalities authorize PILOT agreements, it is determined that the project would not be built if the PILOT were not offered, and that if the amount to be paid increases it jeopardizes building.  They call PILOTs the “single most powerful tool available to municipalities to encourage businesses and developers to make improvements to property or to locate a project in a distressed or blighted area”.

New Jersey Senate Democrats say the bill aims to ensure PILOTs don’t negatively impact school districts. According to Singleton, “PILOT agreements are a useful tool for local governments, playing an important role in the reinvigoration of distressed communities and the development of much-needed housing.  At the same time, they often have the negative side effect of depriving local school districts of the revenue that would normally come from property taxes.”  This is the very same reasoning used by the League when they argue that they need all the money in order to maintain services.

If a developer, municipality, and school district enter into an agreement for special projects under the bill, the superintendent or chief executive of the board of education would lead negotiations. In sharing PILOTs, the amount to be shared would depend on whether the property is residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential.  For residential, the amount would multiply the ‘base per pupil’ amount (determined by the Commissioner of Education in the previous year) by the number of school-aged children who reside at the property and attend a public school.  Annual audits would certify the number of children in residence.  Other types of properties would be subject to five percent of the PILOT or an in-kind contribution (project) of that amount.

One can’t help but wonder if PILOTs are always the best idea, as municipalities and schools struggle with finances, while developers cover themselves with the PILOT blanket and 80% market rate residential units.  Maybe what is needed is an overhaul of this program rather than trying to get this bill to become part of New Jersey legislation.

I’ll end this article with a bit of trivia.

Can you name two lobbying organizations that elected bodies use tax payer dollars to join?

Hint- one is mentioned in this article, and both lobbied to push through a law that turned NJ’s once heralded Open Public Records Law toothless.

That’s right – the New Jersey State League of Municipalities and the New Jersey School Boards Association.