A payment in lieu of taxes, usually shortened to PILOT, is a payment made to a local government by an entity whose property is not on the tax rolls but still uses local services. Payments in lieu of taxes take three main forms: the federal government pays counties that contain national forests, parks, and other untaxable federal land; nonprofits like universities and hospitals negotiate voluntary payments with the cities they sit in; and private developers make reduced payments under economic development deals that pull their property off the regular tax rolls. The common thread is a property that generates no property tax revenue but still needs roads, fire protection, and police.
Why These Arrangements Exist
Local governments fund most day-to-day services through property taxes. When a large share of land in a jurisdiction is tax-exempt, the remaining property owners shoulder a bigger portion of the bill. In some cities with major universities, hospital systems, or federal installations, tax-exempt property can account for a third or more of total assessed value. That concentration creates real fiscal pressure, especially in smaller communities where a single campus or military base dominates the map.
Tax-exempt organizations still call the fire department, still need plowed streets, and still rely on water and sewer infrastructure. PILOTs bridge that gap. The mechanism varies by type. Congress created a statutory formula for federal land. Local nonprofit PILOTs are almost always negotiated one deal at a time. Economic development PILOTs work in the opposite direction, deliberately reducing a private developer’s tax bill to attract investment. All three share the label, but they solve different problems.
The Federal PILT Program
The largest and most structured program is run by the U.S. Department of the Interior under 31 U.S.C. §§ 6901–6907. Congress established it because the federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, none of which appears on a local property tax roll. Counties with large tracts of federal land would face serious revenue shortfalls without some form of compensation.1U.S. Department of the Interior. PILT Frequently Asked Questions
Eligible land includes acreage in the National Park System, National Forest System, Bureau of Land Management holdings, National Wildlife Refuge System withdrawals, federal water resource projects, Army Corps dredge disposal areas, and certain semi-active or inactive Army training installations.2Congress.gov. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program: An Overview
How the Federal Payment Is Calculated
The formula is set by statute and involves no negotiation. Interior calculates each county’s payment using the number of qualifying federal acres in the jurisdiction, a per-acre rate adjusted annually for inflation, and a population-based cap. In fiscal year 2025, the standard per-acre rate was $3.46, with a minimum alternative rate of $0.50 per acre. The population cap limits total payments by multiplying the county’s population (capped at 50,000 for calculation purposes) by a per-person rate ranging from about $93 to $233 depending on county size.2Congress.gov. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program: An Overview
If the per-acre calculation exceeds the population cap, the county receives the capped amount. When total appropriations fall short of authorized payments, every county receives a proportional reduction. In fiscal year 2025, Interior distributed $644.8 million to more than 1,900 local governments.3U.S. Department of the Interior. Interior Department Announces $644.8 Million in Payments to Support Vital Services
Payments go directly to the eligible local government, usually a county, unless a state has enacted legislation to receive and redistribute them. Counties do not apply; eligibility is automatic if federal entitlement land falls within their boundaries.1U.S. Department of the Interior. PILT Frequently Asked Questions
Nonprofit PILOTs
At the local level, a completely different kind of PILOT exists between municipalities and tax-exempt nonprofits. Every state exempts property owned by charitable organizations from local property taxes. Large nonprofits like private universities, hospital systems, and cultural institutions can own enormous amounts of real estate in a single city, and none of it generates property tax revenue.
These PILOTs are voluntary. Because the property tax exemption is typically rooted in state constitutional or statutory law, municipalities generally have no legal authority to impose property tax on a qualifying nonprofit. Courts have struck down attempts to deny zoning permits or building approvals as retaliation when a nonprofit refuses to pay.
Cities still have ways to apply pressure. Some formally request participation from nonprofits whose property exceeds a threshold assessed value. Others tie cooperation to smoother permitting or frame it as civic stewardship. Nonprofits, for their part, often argue that the community benefits they provide, such as charity care, scholarships, and free public programs, already offset the value of their exemption.
How Nonprofit PILOT Amounts Are Set
There is no standard formula. The most common approach is direct negotiation between the municipality and the institution. The resulting amount reflects the institution’s financial capacity, the assessed value of its exempt property, and the city’s fiscal needs. Some cities have adopted more structured programs that ask participating nonprofits to pay a fixed percentage of what their property tax bill would be if the property were taxable. A well-known framework sets that target at 25 percent, with credits allowed for community benefits the nonprofit already provides. Other agreements base the payment on estimated municipal service costs or settle on a lump sum both sides can live with.
The nonprofits most frequently involved are universities and hospitals, since they tend to own the most valuable tax-exempt property. Cultural institutions, large religious organizations, and human service providers also participate. Government-owned enterprises can be part of local PILOT arrangements as well; the Tennessee Valley Authority makes in-lieu-of-tax payments to states and localities to replace revenue it would otherwise owe.
Economic Development PILOTs
A third category works in the opposite direction. Instead of collecting revenue from a tax-exempt entity, the local government deliberately reduces a private developer’s property taxes to encourage construction, job creation, or redevelopment in a targeted area. These agreements are especially common for projects in blighted or underutilized neighborhoods where development would not pencil out at full tax rates.
How the Mechanism Works
The typical structure involves a public entity, often an Industrial Development Agency, that takes legal title to the property. Because the property is now owned by a government body, it comes off the regular tax rolls. The developer leases it back and makes reduced PILOT payments instead of full property taxes. At the end of the agreement, title reverts to the developer for a nominal fee.
Payments are commonly set at 10 to 15 percent of the project’s annual gross revenue, or as a percentage of total project costs. Terms typically run 10 to 30 years, with the payment schedule often escalating so the municipality gradually captures more revenue as the project matures. Tying payments to revenue lets the municipality share in the upside if rents increase.
Impact on School Districts
Economic development PILOTs are the most controversial of the three types, and school funding is the main flashpoint. When property is pulled off the regular tax rolls, school districts that rely on property tax revenue can lose out. Whether and how much PILOT revenue gets shared with schools depends entirely on the specific agreement and local policy. Some states have moved toward requiring municipalities to share a portion of PILOT revenue with school districts, but many agreements still direct most of the money to the municipality. Critics argue this imbalance turns economic development PILOTs into subsidies where the city gets the ribbon-cutting and schools absorb the cost.
What’s Inside a PILOT Agreement
Whether the deal involves a nonprofit or a developer, a formal PILOT agreement is a contract. The details vary, but most agreements address the same core issues.
- Duration. Some PILOTs are one-time payments, but multi-year terms of 10, 20, or 30 years are far more common, especially in economic development deals. Many include periodic review or inflation adjustments.
- Payment schedule. The agreement specifies whether payments are annual, quarterly, or on some other timeline, and whether amounts escalate over time.
- Calculation method. The contract spells out how the payment is determined, whether by a percentage of assessed value, gross revenue, project cost, or a flat negotiated amount.
- Scope and conditions. The agreement may restrict how the property can be used, specify which municipal services the payment supports, or include performance benchmarks the developer must hit.
- Revenue sharing. For economic development PILOTs, the agreement should state whether any portion of the payment goes to other taxing bodies like school districts or counties.
- Termination clauses. The contract outlines what happens if either party wants to exit early, if the developer misses job-creation targets, or if the property changes ownership.
Where the Criticism Lands
PILOTs draw fire from different directions depending on which type is in play.
For nonprofit PILOTs, the central tension is fairness. Supporters argue that nonprofits consume expensive public services and that the biggest tax savings flow to institutions with the most valuable property, not those providing the most community benefit. A large research university saves millions in property taxes each year, while a small housing nonprofit saves comparatively little, yet both enjoy the same legal exemption. Nonprofits counter that negotiations are often contentious and secretive, that similar organizations end up paying wildly different amounts, and that total PILOT revenue is usually a small fraction of a city’s budget.
For economic development PILOTs, the debate centers on whether the incentive actually changes behavior. Critics argue that many projects receiving PILOT benefits would have been built anyway, making the reduced tax payments a pure giveaway. Research on comparable incentive programs has found that only a small fraction of participating businesses genuinely needed the tax break to proceed. Proponents counter that without the incentive, developers would choose a different city or the project’s financing would not work, particularly for affordable housing or environmental remediation on contaminated sites.
The federal PILT program generates less controversy but is not immune to criticism. Because appropriations must be renewed and can fall short of the formula’s authorized amounts, rural counties that depend heavily on federal payments face budget uncertainty from year to year. The population cap also means counties with vast federal acreage but small populations receive less per acre than the formula would otherwise provide.