DETERMINANTS OF PROPERTY TAX BURDEN IN NEW JERSEY – 2013

Ernest C. Reock, Jr. Professor Emeritus

Center for Government Services Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

May, 2016

Determinants of Property Tax Burden in New Jersey – 2013 Ernest C. Reock, Jr.

Executive Summary

This is an up-date of a paper on the same subject that was completed and issued in September, 2013, dealing with property taxes in 2008. The approach used in the earlier paper has remained essentially unchanged, but new data reflect changes that have occurred in the ensuing five years, Property tax burden is measured in two ways. First, for all taxpayers- residential, commercial, industrial, and other - the burden is measured by the net tax rate of a municipality; that is, the total amount of taxes levied, minus State tax rebates, divided by the total amount of taxable property. Second, tax burden is measured by property taxes as a percentage of the personal income of residents, The two measures are combined in a property tax burden index.

Statewide Property Tax Trends: 2003 to 2015

The statewide property tax burden index was declining in the early part of the 21st century because, while the tax levy was growing rapidly, both property values and personal incomes were growing even more rapidly. The recession caused significant reductions in property values and personal income. Although local officials reduced spending and legislation imposed limits on tax levy growth, both property values and personal income declined even more sharply, and the State tax burden index began to increase in 2008. More recently, personal incomes have started to grow again, but property values have lagged behind, and the statewide tax burden index continues to increase slowly.

Determinants of Property Tax Burden

The property tax burden varies widely from place to place. Twelve factors in four major areas have been examined to measure their effect on the property tax burden in each municipality and the degree to which they have changed between 2008 and 2013. Each municipality has its own unique mix of these determinants. I – Local Financial Resources 1. Low level of the property tax base - The equalized valuation per capita of taxable property declined in 2013: 2008 - $141,968 2013 - 118,812 ( - 16.3%).

2

2. Low level of personal income - Personal income per taxpayer (and dependents) rose in 2013: 2008 - $ 38,024 2013 - 40,397 (+ 6.2%) 3. High percentage of residential property A high percentage of residential property causes more burden on residential property taxpayers. The percentage rose in 2013, as it has for many years: 2008 - 79.4% 2013 - 80.0 (+ 0.8%) 4. Low level of other municipal revenue Non-property tax municipal revenue reduces reliance on the property tax. In 2008, municipalities anticipated $412 per capita from local miscellaneous revenue; in 2013 the figure was less. 2008 - $ 412 2013 - 370 (- 10.2%) 5. Low level of other school revenue Similarly, non-property tax miscellaneous school revenue reduces property taxes. In 2013, the statewide average is small -- $63 per pupil. No comparable data were gathered in 2008. 2008 - --- 2013 - $ 63 II – Expenditures 6. High level of municipal budget Higher municipal budgets require higher taxes. The average municipal budget per capita rose 5.6% from 2008 to 2013. 2008 - $ 1,247 2013 - 1,317 (+ 5.6%) 7. High level of school costs Similarly, higher school costs mean higher taxes. The average school budget, on a per pupil basis, increased to $16,351 in 2013 2008 - $ 15,776 2013 - 16,351 (+ 3.6%) 8. High level of county taxes County taxes are part of the tax burden in every municipality. Average county taxes grew to $489 per capita in 2013. 2008 - $ 458 2013 - 489 (+ 6.8%)

3

III – Demographics 9. High level of public school enrollment High school enrollments increase the burden on local taxpayers. The percentage of the population enrolled in the public schools declined in 2013. 2008 - 14.0% 2013 - 13.5 (- 7.1%) IV – State Aid 10. Low level of State municipal aid State aid to municipalities directly lowers the property tax burden. Such aid per capita declined between 2008 and 2013. 2008 - $168 2013 - 141 (- 16.1%) 11. Low level of State school aid State aid to school districts directly lowers the property tax burden. Such aid per pupil declined from 2008-09 to 2013-14 2008-09 - $6,047 per pupil 2013-14 - 5,873 (- 2.9%) 12. Low Level of State tax rebates State tax rebates provide direct property tax relief through reductions on the property tax bill. Tax rebates per capita declined sharply between 2008 and 2013. 2008-09 - $191 2013-14 - 62 (-67.5%)

The Most Tax-Burdened Municipalities

The 30 most tax-burdened municipalities include a few of the larger urban places – East Orange, Irvington, Orange, Trenton, and Paterson -- but mainly relatively small communities, particularly in Camden (7) and Passaic (5) counties. At least one municipality from 12 different counties is among the 30 most burdened. Many of the 30 were on the same list in 2008.

The Urban Municipalities

While some urban places are among the most burdened communities, the two major cities of the state – Newark and Jersey City are not. Changes since 2008 have increased the property tax burden in most places, but in 2013, relatively low percentages of residential property, high municipal miscellaneous revenue, low county taxes, and high

4

municipal aid and high State aid to schools have alleviated the property tax burden in these two major centers. In 2013 Newark’s property tax burden index ranked 324th in the state, and Jersey City was 497th.

The Relative Importance of Determinants

A quick estimate of which determinants tend to increase a community’s property tax burden and which reduce that burden can be obtained from Appendix 2 by comparing the data for the community with state average data for each determinant. A more precise measure of each determinant’s impact can be found by using the Excel spreadsheet contained in the paper, which reflects the interaction of all 12 determinants in any community. When the state average value for a determinant is substituted for the actual value of that determinant in a community, it is possible to calculate the degree of the impact of that determinant in that place. This procedure has been applied in the paper to the 30 most heavily-burdened places. The leading cause of high property tax burden in 24 of these 30 places is simply a lack of property tax ratables. In three other communities, the low personal income of the residents is the leading cause of their high property tax burden. In two relatively suburban communities, State aid for schools does not compensate adequately for relatively high school costs, and is the major factor in their tax burden. And, finally, in one municipality out of the 30, the City of Trenton, a high municipal budget level is the leading cause of the high property tax burden. The same procedure can be applied to any community, using the spreadsheet contained in the report, the values of the determinants for that place, and the state averages for each determinant.

Conclusion

The level of the property tax burden in any community depends on a complicated web of factors – varying local resources, both in terms of the amount of taxable property and the income of local taxpayers; the expenditure levels for municipal, school and county services; the amount of assistance received from the State government; and even the varying demographics among the local population. No single aspect of a community provides a complete explanation. Probably, no two communities have exactly the same explanation for their property tax burden. In the most-burdened places, the lack of local resources – taxable property and personal income – clearly are the major factors, and property values have not fully recovered from the effect of the recession. Excessive expenditure levels occasionally, but rarely, contribute to the burden. State aid to local governmental units is an obvious remedy – but only if it compensates for local deficiencies; State school aid does this; State aid to municipalities only rarely, and direct State aid in the form of tax rebates has been cut sharply since 2008.

5

One factor that has the potential for more equal implementation of the property tax is a shift in governmental responsibilities from the municipal to the county level, so long as the present system of apportioning county costs on the basis of tax ratables is maintained.

Appendices Appendix 1 shows the 2013 Property Tax Burden Index, and its components, for every municipality. Appendix 2 shows the 12 determinants of property tax burden for every municipality and the state average.

Determinants of Property Tax Burden in New Jersey – 2013

Ernest C. Reock, Jr.

This is an up-date of a paper on the same subject that was completed and issued in September, 2013, dealing with property taxes in 2008. The approach used in the earlier paper has remained essentially unchanged, but new data reflect changes that have occurred in the ensuing five years. The year 2013 may seem ancient history at this point. However, the availability of personal income information at the municipal level, which is gathered from State income tax returns, always lags at least two years behind property tax levy data. A decision has been made to use the latest tax and income information for a common period – 2013 in this case – rather than trying to appear more current by combining data for two different years.

The Property Tax in New Jersey

New Jersey generally is recognized as having one of the highest property taxes in the country. In 2016, the Tax Foundation listed New Jersey with the highest 2013 property taxes per capita -- $2,989, compared with a national average of $1,4391. Within the state the tax is administered through 565 separate municipal taxing jurisdictions, and its burden varies widely from place to place. Some communities are heavily burdened by their property taxes; others may be only lightly impacted, though the burden of the property taxes is perennially decried. The purposes of this paper are: (1) to demonstrate a method for measuring the property tax burden in New Jersey municipalities, (2) to identify statewide changes in the property tax burden that have taken place over recent years (3) to apply the suggested measurement method to New Jersey municipalities in order to determine those with the greatest tax burden, and (4) to explore the reasons why substantial variations exist among communities in property tax burden. The Equalized Net Tax Rate

Two different ways usually are suggested for calculating the burden of the property tax.

The most common approach is to use the property tax rate as an indicator of burden. General property tax rates, under New Jersey constitutional provisions, must be applied uniformly to

1Tax Foundation. Facts & Figures, How Does Your State Compare? 2016, Table 32.

2

all taxable properties within a municipal taxing district2. Thus, they become a burden on the property in the municipality, usually without regard to its ownership or use3.

In order to make comparisons among municipalities, corrections must be made wherever

possible for variations in tax assessment practices, so that the true value of their taxable property can be gauged by some common measure. The equalized valuation calculated annually since 19 54 by the State Division of Taxation makes such an adjustment and will be used to provide a common basis for measuring a municipality’s tax base. The equalized tax rate used in this paper is the total amount of property taxes levied within the taxing district (municipality) for county, municipal, and school purposes as a percentage of the total value of taxable property. This tax rate becomes a net tax rate when all tax rebates made to residents of the municipality by the State of New Jersey are deducted from the levy

The Property Tax as a Percentage of Personal Income

The equalized property tax rate often is assumed to indicate the burden on the resident taxpayers, and it is in most cases. However, if the taxpayers have very large or very small personal fiscal resources, a high or low equalized property tax rate may not accurately reflect the tax burden borne by the residents of the community. A second method used for measuring property tax burden in a community is the percentage that the property tax levy paid by the residents of a municipality takes from the personal income of the residents.

Property taxes paid by the owners of vacant land, commercial, industrial and non-

homestead farm property relieve the tax burden of a community’s residents. In order to find the portion of the total tax levy paid by the residents of a municipality, either directly or through their rent, the total levy first has been multiplied by the percentage of the total assessed valuation of the taxing district that is classified as residential, apartment, or farm residence property. This gives the amount of the total tax levy paid on residential property.

A second adjustment is made to eliminate taxes paid on residential property used only on

a seasonal basis by non-residents. In order to calculate the portion of the tax levy paid by residents, the tax levy paid on residential property has been multiplied by the percentage of dwelling units found by the Bureau of the Census to be occupied on April 1, 2010, a date well prior to summer rentals.

Third, the tax levy paid by residents has been reduced by subtracting the amount of State tax rebates paid to residents of the community.

The resulting net tax has been divided by the reported personal income of the residents to

find the estimated percentage that the net property tax forms of the personal income of the residents.

2 Constitution of New Jersey, Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1. 3 Other provisions of the Constitution authorize exemptions from taxation for certain specified uses of property, but differential valuations or tax rates are not permitted.

3

An Index of Property Tax Burden The analysis must face the problem of reconciling in a single index number two different measures of property tax burden – the tax rate and the tax as a percentage of personal income, which may be considered equally important, but are quite different in magnitude, Tax rates in recent years in New Jersey have averaged from about 1.5 to 2.5% of equalized property value. During the same period, property taxes have averaged from about 5.0 to about 6.0% of resident personal income. Simply adding or averaging the two percentages to obtain an index number would give much greater weight to the personal income factor. Three goals have been sought in developing the property tax burden index: (1) in the absence of any rationale for preferring one measure over the other, the two measures should be given equal weight in the index. (2) the index should lend itself to measuring tax burden over a period of time, (3) the index should give linear results; for example, a 10% increase in each component should result in a 10% increase in the index. All three of these goals are met by multiplying the two measures and taking the square root of their product. The index of property tax burden, therefore, has been calculated as: the square root of the product of: the Equalized Net Property Tax Rate of the municipality, and the Net Property Tax as a Percentage of the Average Personal Income of the Residents

Statewide Property Tax Trends: 2003 to 2015

The Early Years Property taxes were growing very rapidly in New Jersey during the early part of the 21st century, with the tax levy showing an annual increase of more than 6% every year from 2004 through 2006 (See Table 1). However, these rapid increases in taxes were accompanied by even higher rates of growth for the tax base – the Equalized Valuation – which is regarded as the best estimate of the total true value of taxable property. Moreover, substantial distributions of State tax rebates during those years further ameliorated the impact of the

4

Table 1. New Jersey Statewide Equalized Net Property Tax Rate, 2003 to 2015.

Total Prop. Tax Levy

(Bil-

Lions)

Annual %

Chg.in Total Tax Levy

State Tax

Rebates

(Bil- Lions)

Net Prop. Tax Levy

(Bil- lions)

Annual %

Chg.in Net Tax Levy

Total Equal-ized

Value

(Bil- Lions)

Annual %

Chg.in Total

Equal- ized

Value

Net Prop. Tax Rate

Annual Change

in Net Tax Rate

2003 17.3 - 0.8 16.5 824 2.00 2004 18.4 + 6.5 - 1.6 16.8 + 2.2 940 + 14.1 1.79 - 0.21 2005 19.6 + 6.5 - 1.2 18.4 + 9.4 1,084 + 15.3 1.70 - 0.09 2006 20.9 + 6.9 - 1.1 19.8 + 7.6 1,240 + 14.4 1.60 - 0.10 2007 22.1 + 5.8 - 2.2 19.9 + 0.6 1,324 + 6.8 1.51 - 0.09 2008 23.2 + 4.9 - 1.8 21.4 + 7.3 1,360 + 2.8 1.57 + 0.06 2009 24.0 + 3.6 - 1.3 22.8 + 6.4 1,334 - 1.9 1.71 + 0.14 2010 25.0 + 4.0 - 0.4 24.6 + 8.2 1,281 - 4.0 1.92 + 0.21 2011 25.6 + 2.5 - 0.6 25.0 + 1.7 1,239 - 3.3 2.02 + 0.10 2012 26.1 + 1.6 - 0.6 25.4 + 1.6 1,187 - 4.2 2.14 + 0.12 2013 26.5 + 1.7 - 0.6 25.9 + 1.8 1,160 - 2.3 2.23 + 0.09 2014 27.1 + 2.3 - 0.6 26.5 + 2.5 1,166 + 0.5 2.28 + 0.05 2015 27.7 + 2.0 - 0.6 27.1 + 2.3 1,185 + 1.7 2.28 + 0.01

Sources: All tax levy data are from county abstracts of ratables reported on the New Jersey Division of Local Government Services (DLGS) website.

Homestead Rebate data provided by the New Jersey Department of the Treasury.

higher property tax levies, and the statewide average net tax rate declined in every year from 2004 through 2007 (See Table 1 and Chart 1).

During these early years of the century, the total personal income of New Jersey

residents also grew rapidly, exceeding 8% per year in 2003 and 2004, and rising more than 10% in 2008. (See Table 2 and Chart 1). The result was a virtual stabilization of property taxes as a percentage of personal income, even though the total tax levy increased every year. The Recession Years In 2008, however, the bottom dropped out of the economy, and the personal income of New Jersey income taxpayers changed from a 10.3% increase in 2007 to a 2.9% decrease in the next year. With State tax rebates being reduced also, property taxes as a percentage of personal income rose to 4.95%.

5

Table 2. New Jersey Net Property Tax as a Percentage of the Personal Income of Residents, 2003 to 2013

Sources: As in Table 1, plus: All Personal Income data are from the New Jersey the Department of

the Treasury via the Department of Education; see FN 5, p.3. Net Property Taxes as a Percent of Personal Income are calculated as shown on p.2..

As the state entered the recession years in 2008, county, municipal and school governing bodies reduced their demands on the property tax and the annual growth in the tax levy dropped back below 5%. However, property values also declined sharply, with the result that the net tax rate began to rise. Personal incomes were impacted by the recession for two years, resulting property taxes taking a larger share annually. However, by 2010, total personal income had renewed its growth pattern, but at a lower rate.

Total Prop. Tax Levy

(Bil-

Lions)

Annual

% Chg.in Total Tax Levy

State Tax

Rebates

(Bil- Lions)

Net

Prop. Tax Levy

Bil-

lions)

Annual

% Chg.in

Net Tax Levy

Total Personal Income

(Bil- Ions)

Annual % Chg.

In Personal Income

Net Property Tax as % of

Personal Income

Annual Change in Net

Property Tax % of Personal Income

2003 17.3 - 0.8 16.5 220.8 5.19 2004 18.4 + 6.5 - 1.6 16.8 + 2.2 239.4 + 8.4 4.86 - .33 2005 19.6 + 6.5 - 1.2 18.4 + 9.4 260.5 + 8.8 4.98 + .12 2006 20.9 + 6.9 - 1.1 19.8 + 7.6 279.3 + 7.2 5.04 + .06 2007 22.1 + 5.8 - 2.2 19.9 + 0.6 308.2 + 10.3 4.53 - .51 2008 23.2 + 4.9 - 1.8 21.4 + 7.3 299.1 - 2.9 4.95 + .42 2009 24.0 + 3.6 - 1.3 22.8 + 6.4 279.3 - 6.6 5.73 + .78 2010 25.0 + 4.0 - 0.4 24.6 + 8.2 291.0 + 4.2 6.03 + .30 2011 25.6 + 2.5 - 0.6 25.0 + 1.7 302.4 + 3.9 6.02 - .01 2012 26.1 + 1.6 - 0.6 25.4 + 1.6 317.6 + 5.0 5.70 - .32 2013 26.5 + 1.7 - 0.6 25.9 + 1.8 322.1 + 1.4 5.69 - .01 2014 27.1 + 2.3 - 0.6 26.5 + 2.5 2015 27.7 + 2.0 - 0.6 27.1 + 2.0

6

Table 3. New Jersey Property Tax Burden Index, 2003 to 2013

State Average

Equalized Net

Property Tax Rate

Net Property Tax As Percent

of Personal Income

State

Property Tax

Burden Index

Annual Change

in Property Tax

Burden Index

2003 2.00 5.19% 3.22 2004 1.79 4.86 2.95 - 0.27 2005 1.70 4.98 2.91 - 0.04 2006 1.60 5.04 2.84 - 0.07 2007 1.51 4.53 2.62 - 0.22

2008 1.57 4.95 2.79 + 0.17 2009 1.71 5.73 3.12 + 0.33 2010 1.92 6.03 3.40 + 0.28

2011 2.02 6.02 3.49 + 0.09 2012 2.14 5.70 3.49 0 2013 2.23 5.69 3.56 + 0.07 2014 2.28 2015 2.28

The Recovery Years In 2010, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed Chapter 44 of the Laws of that year, imposing much greater restrictions on the growth in the tax levy. At the same time, however, State tax rebates to local property taxpayers were cut back. In the most recent five years, the annual increase in the tax levy has averaged about two percent per year. The property tax base – equalized valuations – remained stagnant after the recession, showing no growth until 2014. Total state personal income recovered more quickly, exceeding its pre-recession peak by 2012; but its annual growth since then has been at only about half the earlier annual rate. Table 3 and Chart 1 show the statewide property tax burden index: declining steadily in the early years of this century, rising sharply during the recession, and less rapidly in the post-recession years but, by 2013, reaching a higher level than at any time in the most recent eleven years.

7

Chart 1-New Jersey Property Tax Burden Index, 2003 to 2013

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Equalized Net Tax Rate Net Property Tax % of Personal Income State Property Tax Burden Index

8

Application to Individual Municipalities

Equalized tax rates and taxes as a percentage of personal income have been calculated for each New Jersey municipality in 2013, with the exception of a few that are so small, or their ownership patterns so specialized, that the data may be unreliable4. The two components of the Property Tax Burden Index – equalized net property tax rate and net taxes as a percentage of personal income – generally work in tandem: when one measure is high, the other measure is high also. However, there are exceptions. Many seashore resorts – Seaside Heights, Ocean Gate, Ventnor – have very low property tax rates because they have large amounts of taxable property, but those tax rates impose well above the average burden on the relatively low personal income of the year-round residents. The reverse is true for some urban places, such as Jersey City and Hoboken, where a relatively high tax rate is combined with a lower average burden on personal incomes. Table 4 shows the Property Tax Burden Index, and its components for the 30 most heavily tax-burdened municipalities in 2013. The list is very similar to its predecessor in 2008. Small, older, residential municipalities predominate, with the six most-burdened places being on the list in both years. The only places of any substantial size to make this list are East Orange and Irvington in both years and Trenton and Paterson only in 2013. Twelve of the 21 counties have a municipality on the list, with Camden (7) and Passaic (5) most frequently.

Determinants of Property Tax Burden Property tax burden may have multiple causes, including limited local resources, high levels of expenditures, below-average assistance from State government, and even some elements of local demographics. Table 5 shows a classification of the primary determinants that have been examined, together with commonly used scales for measuring the level of each determinant. Only “primary determinants are considered here; that is, the determinants having a direct impact on the property tax. For example, a high municipal budget per capita is considered a primary determinant of property tax burden. However, a low tax collection rate, which would trigger a high reserve for uncollected taxes, causing a larger municipal budget per capita, would be considered a “secondary” determinant of property tax burden. Secondary determinants are not within the scope of this paper.

4 Teterboro, Audubon Park, Pine Valley, Tavistock, Walpack, and Winfield.

9

Table 4. Property Tax Burden Index: 30 Most Heavily Burdened New Jersey Municipalities, 2013

Index Rank

Municipality

County

Equalized Net Tax Rate

Net Tax as % of Personal Income

2013 Property

Tax Burden Index

Rank

In 2008

1 Woodlynne Camden 6.27 9.61 7.76 1 2 Roselle Union 4.46 10.14 6.73 2 3 East Orange Essex 4.03 9.31 6.12 13 4 Laurel Springs Camden 4.34 8.61 6.11 8 5 Haledon Passaic 3.71 9.44 5.92 12 6 Prospect Park Passaic 4.05 8.63 5.91 14 7 Irvington Essex 4.10 8.46 5.89 24 8 Salem City Salem 4.01 8.01 5.67 3 9 Pine Hill Camden 3.97 8.07 5.66 34 10 Beverly Burlington 3.93 8.11 5.65 45

11 Egg Harbor City Atlantic 3.75 8.49 5.64 126 12 National Park Gloucester 3.76 8.35 5.60 35 13 Penns Grove Salem 4.01 7.83 5.60 15 14 Bloomingdale Passaic 3.52 8.83 5.57 22 15 Orange Essex 3.97 7.82 5.57 9

16 Hillside Union 3.72 8.19 5.52 5 17 Lawnside Camden 3.35 9.05 5.51 6 18 Swedesboro Gloucester 3.71 8.05 5.46 109 19 Woodbury Gloucester 3.86 7.70 5.45 4 20 Trenton Mercer 4.41 6,72 5.45 111

21 Pompton Lakes Passaic 3.48 8.47 5.43 27 22 Newton Sussex 3.58 8.22 5.42 23 23 Clementon Camden 3.56 8.24 5.42 54 24 Pleasantville Atlantic 3.42 8.54 5.40 227 25 Mount Ephraim Camden 3.82 7.59 5.38 28

26 Washington Bor. Warren 3.64 7.72 5.30 29 27 Willingboro Burlington 3.35 8.30 5.28 25 28 Hi-Nella Camden 3.93 7.05 5.26 123 29 Paterson Passaic 3.36 8.15 5.24 188 30 North Plainfield Somerset 3.34 8.12 5.21 16

10

Table 5. Determinants of Property Tax Burden.

Nature of Determinant

Primary Determinant

Measurement Scale

Local Financial Resources

1 Low level of property tax base Equalized valuation per capita

2 Low level of personal income Personal income per taxpayer plus dependents.

3 High level of residential property.

Percentage of residential property

4 Low level of other municipal revenue.

Local municipal miscellaneous revenue per capita

5 Low level of other school revenue

School surplus per resident pupil.

Expenditures

6 High level of municipal budget.

Municipal budget per capita

7

High level of school costs School costs per resident pupil

8 High level of county taxes County tax levy per capita

Demographics 9 High level of public school enrollment

Resident school enrollment as percentage of total population

State Aid

10 Low level of State municipal aid

State municipal aid per capita

11 Low level of State public school aid

State aid to schools per resident pupil

12 Low level of State tax rebates

State tax rebates per capita

Special Data Treatment “Expanded” Population Data Many of the determinants are measured on a per capita basis – equalized valuation, municipal non-property tax revenue, municipal budgets, county taxes, state municipal aid, and tax rebates. In order to compensate particularly for the special conditions in the seashore resorts – large non-resident summer populations and low year- round occupancy – the observed resident population of every municipality has been divided by the percentage (expressed as a decimal) of dwelling units found by the Bureau of the Census to be occupied on April 1, 2010. The result is called the “expanded” population figure, which may more reasonably represent the total number of persons for whom services must be provided. Thus, for example, Sea Isle City, with an estimated resident population of 2,096, but with only 15.09% of its dwelling units occupied on April 1, 2010, is treated as though it

11

had a year-round population of 13,890. The same calculation has been made for every municipality in the state, although the impact is on a much smaller scale in non-resort places. The resulting “expanded” state population is 9.7% higher than the official 2013 state population estimates. School Data Two problems are encountered in combining the financial data of school districts and municipalities. One is that the geographic jurisdictions of the units do not always coincide. Where there is a school district that offers a full K-12 curriculum or where the school district operates only a K-6 or K-8 system and sends its high school students to another district on a tuition basis, there is no special problem because all resident students will be counted in the home district coinciding with the municipality, and all of their costs will be in the local school budget. However, where there are regional or consolidated school districts that cover more than one municipality, special steps are necessary to correlate the data. Public school enrollment data have been aggregated by municipality, using information supplied by the New Jersey Department of Education on the municipal origin of students enrolled in regional and consolidated school districts. However, the financial data of the regional school districts -- budgets, budgeted school surplus, and state aid – have been apportioned among the constituent municipalities in each case on whatever basis has been used by the school boards and the county boards of taxation in apportioning the tax levies of the regional districts. These bases vary – sometimes in proportion to tax ratables, sometimes to resident enrollment, and sometimes a combination of the two. School financial data – budgets, budgeted school surplus, State aid – have been presented on a per pupil basis, primarily because this is the most commonly used and understood terminology. Part of the school data – State aid and school surplus -- are for the 2013-14 school year, resulting in some disconnect when combined with tax and other data presented on a 2013 calendar or tax year basis. The second problem is that the fiscal years of the school districts and the municipalities do not coincide. Whereas the property tax is levied on a calendar year basis, school data, including state aid, is available only on a hyphenated school year basis. No neat solution is apparent. Therefore, school district financial data for 2013-14 has been combined with municipal data for 2013, and the term school “costs”, rather than school “budgets”, has been used. Income Data Personal income data have been presented in relation to the total number of individual State income tax taxpayers and their dependents, thus approximating a per capita basis. This obviously results in an undercount of population and income where there are persons below the tax-paying threshold. In 2013 the total number of income taxpayers and their dependents comprised 89.6% of the total estimated population and 82% of the “expanded” population described above. Comparison to State Averages Each primary determinant has been measured by the scale indicated in Table 5. The data for the 30 municipalities having the highest tax burdens in 2013 are shown in Table 6. Shading in Table 6 highlights the value of determinants that contribute unusually to a community’s property tax burden.

D

EM

O-

GR

AP

HIC

SD

eter

min

ant

12

34

5X

67

8X

9X

1011

12Lo

w L

evel

Low

leve

lH

igh

Low

Lev

elLo

w L

evel

XH

igh

Hig

h H

igh

XH

igh

XLo

w L

evel

Low

Lev

elLo

w L

evel

ofof

Per

cent

age

of O

ther

of

XLe

vel o

fLe

vel o

fLe

vel o

fX

Leve

l of

Xof

Sta

teof

Sta

teof

Sta

teP

rope

rty

Per

sona

lR

esid

entia

lM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

XM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Cou

nty

XS

choo

lX

Mun

icip

alS

choo

lT

axT

ax B

ase

Inco

me

Pro

pert

yR

even

ueS

urpl

usX

Bud

get

Cos

tsC

osts

XE

nrol

l.X

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

X

`X

X

Per

sona

lP

erce

ntag

eLo

cal

Gen

eral

XC

ount

yX

Res

iden

tX

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

teE

qual

ized

Inco

me

ofM

unic

ipal

Fun

dX

Mun

icip

alS

choo

lT

axX

Sch

ool

XM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Pro

pert

yV

alua

tion

per

Tax

paye

rT

ax B

ase

Mis

c.B

alan

ceX

Bud

get

Cos

t pe

rLe

vyX

Pup

ilsX

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Tax

Pro

pert

ype

rpl

usR

esid

entia

lR

even

ueA

ppro

p.X

per

Res

iden

tpe

rX

as %

of

Xpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Bur

den

Mun

icip

ality

Tax

Cap

itaD

epen

dent

sP

rope

rty

per

Cap

itape

r P

upil

XC

apita

Pup

ilC

apita

XP

op.

XC

apita

Pup

ilC

apita

Inde

xB

urde

nX

X

XR

ank

Sta

te A

vera

geIn

dex

118,

812

40,3

9780

.037

063

X1,

317

16,3

5148

9X

13.5

X14

15,

873

62

X

X

X

1

Woo

dlyn

ne

7.76

20,5

0813

,491

91.4

242

-966

X85

713

,984

182

X18

.2X

5711

,613

592

Ros

elle

6.

7356

,301

23,8

0685

.129

6-5

54X

1,68

616

,929

292

X11

.7X

106

8,7

6483

3E

ast O

rang

e6.

1239

,931

18,3

6183

.739

866

9X

1,82

520

,691

229

X13

.3X

297

17,

943

284

Laur

el S

prin

gs

6.11

61,8

1728

,187

90.3

262

190

X1,

320

13,9

3453

6X

17.0

X15

85,

511

149

5H

aled

on

5.92

61,3

1921

,541

84.1

249

-522

X1,

084

13,8

1744

3X

15.5

X78

6,91

674

6P

rosp

ect P

ark

5.91

42,0

1818

,059

88.4

244

126

X94

012

,552

269

X18

.7X

547,

916

527

Irvi

ngto

n 5.

8939

,046

18,0

2180

.426

221

4X

1,55

718

,616

205

X11

.4X

186

15,6

8724

8S

alem

City

5.67

34,8

9915

,366

68.3

431

-431

X1,

343

18,7

1235

1X

16.1

X22

81

6,60

943

9P

ine

Hill

5.

6642

,501

24,5

6793

.723

4-4

03X

735

16,6

4636

2X

14.2

X79

10,1

2179

10B

ever

ly5.

6542

,459

22,7

6092

.343

2-4

69X

1,13

618

,539

171

X12

.2X

104

10,9

4783

11E

gg H

arbo

r C

ity5.

6451

,231

20,8

2681

.125

5-3

61X

1,23

214

,532

257

X15

.2X

102

9,11

589

12N

atio

nal P

ark

5.60

51,2

2224

,529

93.8

158

-119

X76

716

,070

356

X14

.5X

137

7,66

413

513

Pen

ns G

rove

5.60

27,9

5414

,610

78.4

338

-67

X1,

037

5,73

329

9X

19.7

X22

23

,857

3914

Blo

omin

gdal

e5.

5796

,461

37,7

5786

.921

5-2

97X

1,26

219

,142

678

X10

.8X

68

2,21

412

515

Ora

nge

5.57

41,6

8020

,324

78.7

311

-349

X1,

708

16,8

2821

2X

14.8

X25

214

,958

3116

Hill

side

5.52

72,3

6627

,456

78.5

346

362

X1,

797

16,3

5137

5X

12.8

X18

77,

121

8517

Law

nsid

e 5.

5176

,582

23,8

3264

.511

6-3

89X

1,15

819

,005

633

X13

.1X

379

9,1

0273

18S

wed

esbo

ro5.

4664

,120

24,8

8479

.524

034

X87

311

,408

441

X18

.5X

923,

548

5819

Woo

dbur

y5.

4559

,284

27,1

3572

.827

368

X1,

221

17,0

5935

7X

13.3

X13

08,

140

6720

Tre

nton

5.45

23,6

2615

,349

70.7

834

1,74

1X

2,04

119

,553

157

X14

.0X

452

16,7

2722

21P

ompt

on L

akes

5.43

97,7

0937

,435

87.8

138

7X

1,07

816

,883

684

X13

.7X

912

,438

115

22N

ewto

n5.

4272

,768

28,6

1768

.930

5-1

80X

1,33

116

,242

385

X12

.5X

118

5,35

073

23C

lem

ento

n5.

4250

,129

21,8

8283

.125

0-3

14X

968

16,8

2043

4X

11.5

X80

10,2

2683

24P

leas

antv

ille

5.40

43,4

6613

,628

70.5

267

-579

X1,

263

19,4

3220

6X

16.6

X96

17,5

2334

25M

ount

Eph

raim

5.38

58,3

1228

,523

86.7

209

-142

X98

615

,346

514

X12

.6X

846,

344

133

26W

ashi

ngto

n B

or

5.30

64,2

9927

,182

82.2

211

-207

X1,

061

13,2

8444

2X

13.9

X83

4,88

063

27W

illin

gbor

o5.

2853

,632

23,4

0091

.818

625

6X

1,17

616

,667

193

X11

.9X

110

9,61

585

28H

i-nel

la5.

2639

,912

20,4

1090

.238

5 -

X

958

14,7

9134

0X

11.4

X86

7,76

961

29P

ater

son

5.24

43,1

7314

,199

73.0

411

-152

X1,

559

16,1

3029

0X

17.1

X20

91

4,81

926

30N

orth

Pla

infie

ld5.

2165

,651

24,2

8083

.716

5-4

6X

988

16,0

0125

4X

14.3

X66

7,37

759

ST

AT

E A

IDT

able

6. D

eter

min

ants

of

Pro

per

ty T

ax B

urd

en, 2

013

- 30

Mo

st H

eavi

ly B

urd

ened

Mu

nic

ipal

itie

sE

XP

EN

DIT

UR

ES

LO

CA

L F

INA

NC

IAL

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

13

For example, the fact that the equalized valuation per capita in Woodlynne is far below the state average, contributes to that municipality’s high tax burden, so these data for Woodlynne are shown shaded. Determinants that reduce, rather than increase, the property tax burden of a municipality are shown unshaded. For example, the percentage of residential property in Trenton is below the state average, so it is shown unshaded. Determinant #1 – Low Level of Property Tax Base Clearly, a low level of property tax base is a major factor in the property tax burden of the 30 most impacted places. Every one of these municipalities had an equalized valuation per capita well below the state average of $118,812 per capita in 2013, often far below that statewide average. The statewide equalized valuation per capita has declined in recent years. In the 2008 report it was $141,968 per capita. By 2013 the lingering effect of the recession on property values, combined with five years of population growth and, possibly, the impact of Hurricane Sandy, had reduced the average state property tax base per capita by more than 16%. In general, the highest levels of taxable property per capita are found in many of the seashore resorts, even when expanded population figures are used5, and in isolated communities in Bergen, Essex, Morris, Somerset and Monmouth Counties. Lower property tax bases are more the norm throughout South Jersey, except for the seashore strip. Determinant #2 – Low Level of Personal Income A low level of 2013 personal income per taxpayer or dependent was found universally in the 30 most tax-burdened communities. Here, while the state average equalized valuation per capita declined between 2008 and 2013, average personal income per capita increased from $38,024 to $40,397. This still left every one of the 30 most burdened municipalities behind, however, A few seashore municipalities – Rumson, Mantoloking, Sea Girt, Deal, and Spring Lake – reported high personal incomes per capita, but in many other ocean-front communities the year-round population was far less affluent. Atlantic City and Wildwood ranked 555th and 554th, for example, in 2013 personal income per capita, North and Central Jersey communities, with the exception of the older central cities and suburbs, generally had higher personal income levels that the municipalities South of Trenton. A factor to consider is that communities having large numbers of very low income persons, who are below the taxpaying threshold for the New Jersey income tax , may not have their income included in the statewide data; however, expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit program may act as a corrective here. 5 See p. 10.

14

Determinant #3 – High Level of Residential Property Municipalities that are heavily residential start with a handicap in terms of property tax burden, since they do not have many commercial, industrial or other non-residential taxpayers to help carry the load. Property taxes would be even more burdensome if it were not for the non-residential properties in Trenton, Orange, Hillside, Paterson and a few others on the high-burden list in Table 6. Long-term property classification data show a steady trend in New Jersey toward higher percentages of residential property every year. Statewide, the percentage of residential property grew from 79.4% in 2008 to 80.0% in 20136. Most municipalities in the state are heavily residential, Determinant #4 – Low Level of Other Municipal Revenue The relative absence of non-property tax local miscellaneous revenue in a municipality means that a higher property tax must be imposed. Only six of the 30 most burdened municipalities have substantial non-property tax income. These are three of the most urban places – East Orange, Trenton and Paterson – and three much smaller municipalities in South Jersey. Local municipal miscellaneous revenue has declined statewide from an average of $412 per capita in 2008 to $370 in 2013. Determinant #5 – Low Level of School Surplus Similar to municipal revenue, the availability of school general fund balance (or surplus) affects the level of property taxes that have to be raised. This variable could have been of substantial impact in past years. However, the accumulation of free balance by school districts has been severely curtailed in more recent times. The data available are shown as either a use of free balance to reduce property taxes (shown as a positive number per pupil) or the generation of operating surplus (shown in parentheses). Statewide, the data for all of the school districts just about balances out, but it may be significant in particular communities (This source of data was misinterpreted in the 2008 report and should be ignored), Expenditures Three primary expenditure determinants have been evaluated in each municipality. These are the municipal budget per capita, school costs per resident pupil, and the level of county taxes per capita apportioned to the municipality. The results are shown in Table 6.

6 In 1999, residential property comprised only 72.3% of the state’s property tax base. This long-term trend is a hidden cause of complaints about the increasing burden of New Jersey’s property tax.

15

Determinant #6 – High Level of Municipal Budget The level of the municipal budget has an obvious impact on both the tax rate and the property tax as a percentage of personal income. Municipal budget data have been taken from the county abstracts of ratables, and consist of the tax levies for local municipal purposes (Col.12Cii(a)), for municipal open space (Col, 12 Cii(b)), and for the municipal library tax (Col.12Cii(c)), plus the total municipal miscellaneous revenue (Col. 14D), minus all State municipal aid (from the Division of Local Government website). The resulting budget figure has been divided by the estimated expanded 2013 population to find Determinant #6. The resulting state average municipal budget per capita for 2013 is $1,317, an increase of 5.6% over the 2008 figure of $1,247. Fewer than half of the most tax-burdened municipalities shown in Table 6, ten out of 30, can trace their high level of property taxes to excessive municipal budgets. As might be expected, several of these are the larger, more urban places: East Orange, Trenton, Irvington, Orange, and Paterson, but some small, older communities also are included: Roselle, Laurel Springs, Hillside, Salem City, and Newton. Determinant #7 – High Level of School Costs School expenditures clearly have an impact on both the tax rate and the property tax as a percentage of local resident income. School costs used here are the sum of: (1) all State formula aid to a school district; (2) the school district budgeted general fund balance, or school surplus, used to balance the school budget’ with both items obtained for 2013-14 from the State Department of Education website and (3) the school tax levy reported in the county abstract of ratables for (a) the local district school tax levy (Col.12CI(a); (b) the regional and consolidated school district tax levy (Col.12CI(b)), and (c) the school tax levy in the municipal budget (Col.12CI( c)). Data for municipalities in regional or consolidated districts have been apportioned among their constituent municipalities on the same basis that is used by county boards of taxation in apportioning regional or consolidated district tax levies. The term “school costs” is the equivalent of a school budget per pupil in school districts with K-12 responsibilities. In the constituent municipalities of a K-12 regional or a

16

regional high school district, the per pupil cost to each municipality is influenced by the method used to apportion the regional tax levy among the municipalities. If that apportionment is on the basis of tax ratables, it is quite possible for a poor municipality to receive educational services at a substantially reduced cost per pupil. Finally, the total school cost figure has been divided by the total number of public school pupils from the municipality in all school districts involved. County vocational district expenditures and pupils have been ignored, since costs not included in the budgets of the individual school districts that send pupils to the vocational schools will be included in the county tax levy. The state average school cost per pupil in 2013-14 was $16,351, an increase of 3.6% since 2008-09. Fifteen of the high-burden municipalities had above-average school costs in 2013-14. These included most of the “Abbott” school districts included in the high-burden group: East Orange, Irvington, Salem City, Orange, Trenton, Pleasantville, and Willingboro. Paterson fell just below the state average cost per pupil. In addition, a number of non-Abbott communities also had high school expenditures: Roselle, Pine Hill, Beverly, Bloomingdale, Lawnside, Woodbury, Pompton Lakes, and Clementon. Determinant #8 – High level of County Taxes Taxes for county purposes apportioned to the municipalities are identified as Determinant #8. Here, the source of information again is the county abstract of ratables, and the data include the net county taxes less municipal budget state aid (Col.12A5)7, county library taxes (Col.12Ba), county health taxes (Col.12Bb), and county open space taxes (Col.12Bc). Expanded population figures are used to calculate the per capita data. The county tax levy in 2008 averaged $458 per capita. By 2013, this figure had grown to $489, an increase of 6.8%. Only five of the 30 most tax-burdened places have above-average county taxes per capita. All of them are relatively small places in either Camden or Passaic Counties – Laurel Springs, Bloomingdale, Lawnside, Pompton Lakes, and Mt.Ephraim . County taxes are one of the few property tax determinants that protect the poorest, most tax-burdened municipalities of the state, because they are apportioned on the basis of municipal resources – the tax base of the municipality.

7 This particular state aid to municipalities is almost extinct. Only Walpack received such aid in 2013, amounting to $200.

17

Summary of Expenditure Determinants High expenditure levels occur much less frequently as tax burden determinants than low resources among the 30 most burdened communities. While some aspect of high expenditures – high municipal budgets, high school costs, or high county taxes -- can be blamed, at least partially, for the property tax burden in some of the 30 high-tax places, there are ten small communities where all of their expenditures – for municipal services, for school services, and for county services – are well below the state average. These are: Woodlynne, Haledon, Prospect Park, National Park, Egg Harbor City, Penns Grove, Swedesboro, Washington Borough, Hi-nella, and North Plainfield. These places have among the highest property taxes, while also having among the lowest expenditure levels.

Demographics

Determinant #9 One demographic determinant of property tax burden has been examined – the percentage of a municipality’s population that is enrolled in the public schools. More children in school mean more expenditures. In 2008. public school enrollment comprised 14.0% of the state’s expanded population. By 2013, this figure had dropped to 13.5%. The percentage of a community enrolled in the public schools is affected by at least four factors: the age make-up of the community; the income level of the population, which could facilitate private school enrollment; the reputation of the public schools; and the availability of non-public schools, either religious or secular. Data on resident enrollment has been supplied by the New Jersey Department of Education. Some communities are relatively young, with large numbers of school-age children in proportion to adults. Woodlynne, Prospect Park, Penns Grove, and Swedesboro, all have more than 18% of their population enrolled in the public schools, in contrast to the state average of 13.5%. All have recently experienced large in-migrations of Hispanic residents with young children. A low personal income level of the residents also may prevent the residents of some communities from participating in private school education. This is a factor in many of the municipalities shown in Table 6. In contrast, there are a number of municipalities that have large public school enrollments which probably are due to the high reputation of their schools These include places like Mountain Lakes, Glen Ridge, Tenafly, Millburn, and Chatham. This kind of community will not be found in Table 6, because it usually has a high level of property and personal income resources and a low tax burden.

18

Finally, there may be different patterns of private school availability. Hudson County, for example, has had a strong tradition of Catholic parochial schools, with a consequent reduced public school enrollment. Different traditions and enrollment patterns may prevail in other parts of the state. State Financial Assistance

` There are several forms of financial aid from the State government that affect the property tax burden in local communities. This assistance has been provided in two different ways – by grants to municipalities and school districts that reduce their property tax levies and by rebate payments directly to qualified taxpayers. Determinant #10 – Low Level of State Aid to Municipalities In 2013-14, State formula aid to municipalities amounted to $1.373 billion8, broken down as follows: Final CMPTRA9………………………………..$ 250,693,971 Energy Receipts Tax Distribution……………… 1,113,665,410 Garden State Trust……………………………… 6,482,677 Watershed Moratorium Offset……………………. __ 2,217,648 Total Formula Aid $ 1,373,059,706 Aid is apportioned to municipalities by a variety of formulas. When aggregated in 2008-09, total formula aid came to an average of $168 per capita. By 2013-14, this average had been reduced to $141 per capita, Low per capita levels of State municipal aid are common among the 30 most heavily-burdened municipalities in 2013. Twenty of the 30 places shown in Table 6 received below-average amounts of such assistance per capita. The larger urban places – East Orange, Irvington, Orange, Trenton and Paterson – did reasonably well, as did some smaller urban places – Salem City and Hillside, and a handful of other municipalities – Lawnside, Laurel Springs, and Penns Grove, However, a majority of the most property tax-burdened municipalities received below-average amounts of State municipal aid. Determinant #11 – Low Level of State Aid to Schools In January, 2008, Governor Corzine signed into law the School Funding Reform Act of 200810, which substantially changed the distribution of State aid to local school districts. All districts were brought within a single package of State aid formulas, although some

8 Data from website of the Division of Local Government Services website. 9 Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Act 10C.260, L.2007.

19

provisions of the law were designed to hold the “Abbott” districts11 harmless for the immediate future. Total State aid for schools in 2008-09 rose to $8,289 billion, or $6,047 per resident pupil, an increase of 13.7% over the prior year. As in the past, the new formulas provided compensatory treatment for both a low value of taxable property in the community and a low level of personal income among the residents. By the time the next State budget was being formulated, the recession was in full swing, and the growth of State aid for schools was limited to 2.8% for 2009-10. In the following year – 2010-11, a new administration was in control in Trenton, and State school aid was actually cut by 12.3% to $5,462 per pupil. Since then, it has increased modestly to $5,873 in 2013-14, with little use of the formulas enacted in earlier years. However, the pattern of State aid distribution resulting from the 2008 law remains the starting point for more recent aid laws. In contrast to the municipal aid formulas, which give little weight to the financial resources of a community, major portions of the State school aid formulas do try to compensate for low resource levels. Large amounts of State school aid per pupil go to the “Abbott” communities—East Orange, Irvington, Salem City, Orange, Trenton, Pleasantville, Willingboro and Paterson, and similar, though smaller, grants go to other low resource municipalities. Only a few of the most heavily burdened places -- Laurel Springs, Penns Grove, Bloomingdale, Swedesboro, Pompton Lakes, Newton and Washington Borough – fail to receive substantial amounts of State school aid. Determinant #12 – Low Level of State Tax Rebates Tax rebates made by the State to local property taxpayers have been a staple of New Jersey government since 197712. While relatively stable for many years, during the 2000s tax rebates have fluctuated considerably. In 2008, a total of $1.827 billion -- $191 per capita – was distributed under the tax rebate program. By 2013, tax rebates averaged only $62 per capita. As with State aid to schools and municipalities, State tax rebates were reduced after 2008. Tracing the flow of tax rebates is difficult, because they have been changed from direct payments to local property taxpayers to credits given to municipalities to cover the cost of reduced quarterly tax payments by individual property owners. Moreover, reimbursements to municipalities to cover the reduced local tax payments have been shuffled between State fiscal years to compensate for cash flow problems. In this paper an effort has been made to count tax rebates in the year in which they would be felt by the local property taxpayer. The amount of State tax rebates received within a municipality is affected by the degree of home ownership and the diligence exhibited by property owners in filing the forms required. In general, urban communities, such as East Orange, Irvington, Trenton, and Paterson do poorly on a per capita basis; more suburban places, such as Laurel Springs,

11“Abbott” school districts serve urban communities having high concentrations low income school children and limited property tax resources. 12 C.260, L.2007.

20

National Park, Bloomingdale, Pompton Lakes, and Mount Ephraim receive higher per capita amounts. Summary of State Aid Determinants State Aid was significant in 2013 in helping the most tax-burdened communities in the state to maintain at least minimal levels of public services. Only one place in Table 6 – Swedesboro - received below the state average on all forms of State aid. Two communities – Hillside and Lawnside – received above-average benefits from all three kinds of State aid –municipal aid, school aid, and tax rebates. On the other hand, the level of State aid was cut sharply between 2008 and 2013. Total State aid to municipalities dropped from $168 per capita to $141 (-16%). State aid for schools was reduced from an average of $8,289 per pupil statewide to $6,047 (-27%), and State tax rebates per resident taxpayer fell from $191 to $62 (-68%). Summary of Property Tax Determinants Even a cursory examination of the shaded data in Table 6 will confirm that there is a heavy concentration of deficiencies in local financial resources among the 30 most heavily-burdened places in New Jersey. High levels of public school enrollment and limited State aid appear less frequently, although they are significant for many places. While high local expenditure levels are important in some cases, they appear to be the least significant kind of property tax burden determinant.

The Relative Importance of Determinants

Preceding sections describe the determinants of property tax burden among the 30 most heavily burdened places on a frequency basis. However, the relative importance of each determinant in the final Property Tax Burden Index of individual municipalities is not always apparent. Property Tax Burden Profiles The data base compiled to describe the significant determinants of property tax burden can be used to prepare an analysis of the determinants in any municipality. Table 8 shows the entries on an Excel spreadsheet that uses all 12 determinants to calculate a Property Tax Burden Index for any individual community. By changing each determinant for a municipality to the state average figure, one by one13, while holding all other determinants constant at their actual value, a municipality’s Property Tax Burden Index can be recalculated to identify how much of a change can be attributed to that determinant.

13 And converting the entries from formulas to values; the original formulas must be restored before moving on to the next determinant.

21

Table 8. Spread Sheet Layout for Evaluation of the Impact of Each Property Tax Burden Determinant in a Municipality for 2013.

A – Name of Municipality B – County C – Estimated 2013 Total Population Input D – 2010 Census Percentage of Occupied Units Input E – Expanded 2013 Total Population (C/D) *100 F – Number of Taxpayers and Dependents Input G – Determinant 1 – Equalized Valuation per Capita (Expanded) Input H – Equalized Valuation (G * E) I – Determinant 2 – Personal Income per Taxpayer and Dependents Input J – Total Personal Income of Taxpayers and Dependents (F * I) K – Determinant 6 – Municipal Budget per Capita (Expanded) Input L – Municipal Budget (E * K) M – Determinant 4 – Local Municipal Miscellaneous Revenue Per Capita (Expanded) Input N – Local Municipal Miscellaneous Revenue (E * M) O – Determinant 10 – State Municipal Aid per Capita (Expanded) Input P – State Municipal Aid (E * O) Q – Municipal Tax Levy (L – N – P) R – Determinant 9 – Resident Pupils as % of Expanded Population Input S – Determinant 7 – School Costs per Resident Pupil Input T – Total School Costs (E * R *S)/100 U – Determinant 5 – Budgeted School Surplus per Pupil Input

22

V – Total Budgeted School Surplus (E * R * U)/100 W - Determinant 11 – State School Aid per Resident Pupil Input X – Total State School Aid (E * R * W)/ Y – School Tax Levy (T – V – X) Z – Determinant 8 – County Tax Levy per Capita (Expanded) Input AA – County Tax Levy (E * Z) AB – Determinant 12 – State Tax Rebates per Capita (Expanded) Input AC – Total State Tax Rebates (E * AB) AD – Net Tax Levy (Q + Y + AA–AC) AE – Equalized Net Tax Rate (AD/G) * 100 AF – Determinant 3 – Percentage of Tax Base Residential Input AG – Total Tax Levy (Q + Y + AA) AH – Estimated Tax Paid by Residential Property (AF * AG)/100 AI – Estimated Tax Paid by Municipal Residents (AH * D) AJ – Estimated Net Tax Paid by Municipal Residents (AI – AC) AK – Estimated Net Tax as % of Resident Personal Income (AJ/J)* 100 AL – Property Tax Burden Index SQRT(AE*AK)

The accompanying Flow Chart reflects Table 8, and shows the way in which each determinant affects the calculation of the equalized net tax rate and the property tax as a percent of personal income. Appendix 2 to this paper shows the value of each property tax burden determinant in 2013 for every municipality in the state14. 14 Except six; see FN5.

`

Expanded Population

Mun. Budget per Capita

Mun. Misc. Revenue per Capita

State Mun. Aid per Capita

County Tax per Capita

School Costs Per Pupil

Tax Rebates

Municipal Tax Levy

County Tax Levy

Municipal Misc. Revenue

% Tax Base Res.

Tax Paid on Res. Prop.

Equalized Valuation Per Capita

Tax Rebates Per Capita

Resident Pupils as % of Expanded Pop.

Resident Pupils

State Aid per Pupil

Municipal Budget

Census Population

% Occupied Housing Units

School Surplus Per Pupil

State Municipal Aid

Total School Costs

Total School Surplus

Total State Aid

School Tax Levy

Total Tax Levy

Net Tax Levy

Equalized Valuation

Equalized Net Tax Rate

% Occupied Housing Units

Tax Paid by Residents

Net Tax Paid by Residents

Personal Income of Residents

Prop.Tax % of Income

Personal Income Per Capita of Residents

24

No single determinant explains the variation in property tax burdens within the state. Property tax burden profiles have been calculated using Table 8 for the 30 most heavily burdened municipalities. Four different property tax determinants show up as the leading factor in the tax burden for at least one of these places (See Table 9), and an example is shown for each pattern. For most of these communities, the principal cause of the heavy tax burden is the lack of an adequate tax base. Twenty-four of the 30 places have a low equalized valuation per capita as the single most important cause. Woodlynne, with the highest 2013 Property Tax Burden Index, is shown as an example. Two places, Paterson and Lawnside, have low personal incomes of their taxpayers as the most important factor in their high tax burden, with Paterson being the illustration. A low level of State school aid is the primary cause of the high property tax burden in two other places, Bloomingdale and Pompton Lakes, with the data for Bloomingdale shown as the example. Finally, one community among the 30 highest-burden places, the City of Trenton, is on that list primarily because of a high municipal budget per capita, in addition to other unfavorable determinants.

Property Taxes in the Urban Municipalities

Five years ago, in 2008, rather low Property Tax Burden Index rankings for many urban municipalities, especially Newark (#476 statewide) and Jersey City (#524) came as some surprise, given the common belief that property taxes are excessive in New Jersey’s urban areas. Property tax rates really were high in those places until the late 1990’s. After that time, however, taxes in the state’s two largest cities and in many other urban communities dropped sharply. By 2005, the equalized net tax rate in Jersey City was below the state average, and in 2007 the same thing happened in Newark. Why the change? The major reason was the implementation of the court decision in the Abbott v. Burke school funding case. When the first substantive decision in the case occurred in 1990, the remedies ordered at that time required only increased expenditures in the urban districts, but without imposing a mandatory burden on the State of New Jersey to provide major new funding. By 1997, however, the case had proceeded further, and the Supreme Court ordered ‘…that the State provide increased funding to the twenty-eight districts identified …as ”Abbott districts” to “assure that each of those districts has the ability to spend an amount per pupil in the school year 1997-98 that is equivalent to the average per-pupil expenditure in the DFG I & J (high wealth) districts…”15 . The court order was interpreted initially to require that all additional expenditures must be provided by the State. The result was that while expenditures rose rapidly, the increased spending was supported almost entirely by State. 15 Abbott v. Burke, IV, 149 N.J. 145.; emphasis added.

25

Table 9. Leading Property Tax Burden Determinants: 30 Most Heavily Burdened New Jersey Municipalities. 2013

Number

Municipalities Property Tax

Burden Profile Shown

Low Equalized Valuation Per Capita

24

Woodlynne Roselle Laurel Springs East Orange Haledon Prospect Park Irvington National Park Pine Hill Beverly Egg Harbor City Salem City Penns Grove Orange Hillside Clementon Mt.Ephraim Woodbury Swedesboro Newton Willingboro Washington Borough HiNella North Plainfield

Woodlynne

Low Personal Income

3

Lawnside Pleasantville Paterson

Paterson

Low School

Aid

2

Bloomingdale Pompton Lakes

Bloomingdale

High Municipal

Budget

1

Trenton

Trenton

26

Property Tax Burden Profile

Woodlynne (Property Tax Burden Rank #1) Actual 2013 Property Tax Burden Index 7.76 ___________________________________________________________________________ Determinants Changed Revised Percentage to State Average Property Tax Change Burden Index in Index Determinants Causing High Tax Burden Low Property Tax Base 3.23 - 58.4 Low Personal Income 4.49 - 42.1 Low Other School Revenue 6.63 - 14.1 High School Enrollment 6.82 - 12.1 Low Other Municipal Revenue 6.98 - 10.1 High Percentage of Residential Property 7.23 - 6.9 Low State Municipal Aid 7.26 - 6.4 Determinants Having Minimal Effect on Tax Burden State Tax Rebates 7.75 - - Determinants Reducing Tax Burden Low County Taxes per Capita 9.63 + 24.1 Low School Costs per Pupil 10.37 + 33.6 Low Municipal Budget per Capita 10.55 + 36.0 High State School Aid 14.10 + 81.7 Woodlynne Woodlynne is a tiny residential borough (0.2 sq,mi.) on the border of the City of Camden. It was incorporated in 1901 from a portion of Haddon Township. The community has very limited financial resources, both of taxable property and of personal income. Substantial recent population change has brought a high enrollment in the public schools. With mostly residential properties, the municipality and school district have few local financial resources other than the property tax. State aid to the municipal government is low, and state tax rebates have had a minimal impact. However, the taxpayers of the community have been helped financially by low county taxes per capita, and the local governing bodies of the municipality and the school district have kept budgets low. A high level of State aid to the schools is tremendously important.

27 Property Tax Burden Profile

Paterson (Property Tax Burden Rank (#29) Actual 2013 Property Tax Burden Index 5.24 ___________________________________________________________________________ Determinants Changed Revised Percentage to State Average Property Tax Change Burden Index in Index Determinants Causing High Tax Burden Low Personal Income 3.10 - 40.8 Low Property Tax Base 3.16 - 40.0 High Municipal Budget 4.36 - 17.0 Determinants Having Minimal Effect on Tax Burden School Enrollment 5.05 - 3.6 State Tax Rebates 5.08 - 3.1 Other School Revenue 5.10 - 2.7 School Costs 5.37 + 2.5 Other Municipal Revenue 5.38 + 2.7 Determinants Reducing Tax Burden High State Municipal Aid 5.48 + 4.6 Low Percentage of Residential Property 5.49 + 4.8 Low County Taxes 5.96 +13.7 High State School Aid 10.77 +105.5

Paterson Paterson, one of the old central cities of New Jersey, has an estimated population of 130,000. In 2008, it ranked 188th in terms of property tax burden, However, its tax burden has risen sharply in the most recent five years. The community suffers from low levels of taxable property and low personal incomes among its residents. A high municipal budget per capita contributes significantly to its tax burden. Many other community measures are near the statewide average, and have only a small impact on the property tax burden. Above-average State municipal aid and substantial non-residential properties reduce the burden on the resident property taxpayers, but the most significant factors in limiting the tax burden are low county taxes per capita and very substantial amounts of State school aid.

28

Property Tax Burden Profile Bloomingdale (Property Tax Burden Rank #14) Actual 2013 Property Tax Burden Index 5.57 ___________________________________________________________________________ Determinants Changed Revised Percentage to State Average Property Tax Change Burden Index in Index Determinants Causing High Tax Burden Low State School Aid 4.92 - 11.7 Low Property Tax Base 5.02 - 9.9 High School Costs 5.07 - 9.0 High County Taxes 5.26 - 5.6 Determinants Having Minimal Effect on Tax Burden Other Municipal Revenue 5.31 - 4.7 Percentage of Residential Property 5.33 - 4.3 Level of Personal Income 5.38 - 3.4 Level of State Municipal Aid 5.45 - 2.2 Level of Other School Revenue 5.51 - 1.1 Level of Municipal Budget 5.66 + 1.6 State Tax Rebates 5.69 + 1.4 Determinants Reducing Tax Burden Low School Enrollment 6.34 +13.8 Bloomingdale Bloomingdale is a small community in upper Passaic County, with a population of about 8,000 persons. It spends above-average amounts per pupil on its K-8 school system and in tuition for the high school students that it sends to other school districts. State aid for schools fails to compensate for these costs. With some older sections, the borough has a relatively low base of taxable property and, as a medium-wealth community in a county with large low-wealth cities, it pays a substantial county tax bill. Many other property tax determinants in Bloomingdale are near state average levels and have only minimal relative impacts on the Property Tax Burden. The one determinant that benefits Bloomingdale is its low public school enrollment.

29

Property Tax Burden Profile

Trenton (Property Tax Burden Rank #20) Actual 2013 Property Tax Burden Index 5.45 ___________________________________________________________________________ Determinants Changed Revised Percentage To State Average Property Tax Change Burden Index in Index Determinants Causing High Tax Burden High Municipal Budget 1.64 - 69.9 Low Property Tax Base 2.43 - 55.4 High School Costs 3.09 - 43.3 Low Personal Income 3.36 - 38.3 Determinants Having Minimal Effect on Tax Burden State Tax Rebates 5.17 - 5.1 School Enrollment 5.41 - 0.7 Percentage of Residential Property 5.81 + 6.6 Determinants Reducing Tax Burden Other School Revenues 6.68 + 22.6 High State Municipal Aid 7.08 + 29.9 Low County Taxes 7.19 + 31.9 High Other Municipal Revenues 7.89 + 44.8 High State School Aid 13.44 +146.6 Trenton Another of the older central cities of the state, Trenton budgeted very high in 2013 for municipal services -- $2,041 per capita versus a state average of $1,317. In addition, the city has very limited tax ratables and its residents have comparatively low personal incomes. As an Abbott school district, Trenton’s school costs per pupil are very high, but they are balanced by substantial State aid funds. State tax rebates provide only minimal tax relief and school enrollment is near the state average. More than average non-residential tax ratables reduce the tax burden somewhat. Trenton’s property tax burden is ameliorated by the combination of substantial non-residential ratables and significant municipal non-property tax revenue. Low county taxes per capita and above-average State municipal aid help reduce the property tax. State aid for schools is a major factor in keeping the city’s property tax burden from becoming even higher.

30

appropriations. In many cases, local school taxes were frozen for a number of years in the Abbott school districts.. This practice was continued for several years, before being partially phased out, starting in 2006-07. With the phase-out, property taxes began to rise again in the urban school districts. New data for 2013 show that the additional State aid for the so-called “Abbott” school districts has dwindled and tax burdens in the “Abbott” communities are rising rapidly. Trenton moved from 111th place in statewide tax burden in 2008 to 20th in 2013; Paterson went from 189th place to 29th , Elizabeth went from 268th to 82nd and Burlington City from 301st place to 108th.

Conclusion

The level of the property tax burden in any community depends on a complicated web of factors – varying local resources, both in terms of the amount of taxable property and the income of local taxpayers; the expenditure levels for municipal, school and county services; the amount of assistance received from the State government; and even the varying demographics among the local population. No single aspect of a community provides a complete explanation. Probably, no two communities have exactly the same explanation for their property tax burden. In the most-burdened places, the lack of local resources – taxable property and personal income – clearly are the major factors, and property values have not fully recovered from the effect of the recession. Excessive expenditure levels occasionally, but rarely, contribute to the burden. State aid to local governmental units is an obvious remedy – but only if it compensates for local deficiencies; State school aid does this; State aid to municipalities only rarely, and direct State aid in the form of tax rebates has been cut sharply since 2008. One factor that has the potential for a more equal implementation of the property tax is a shift in governmental responsibilities from the municipal to the county level, so long as the present system of apportioning county costs on the basis of tax ratables is maintained.

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Absecon City 182 Atlantic 2.61 6.83 4.22Atlantic City 46 Atlantic 2.42 10.42 5.02Brigantine City 298 Atlantic 1.54 9.29 3.79Buena Borough 96 Atlantic 2.95 7.34 4.65Buena Vista Township 289 Atlantic 2.16 6.78 3.83Corbin City 474 Atlantic 1.66 5.19 2.94Egg Harbor City 11 Atlantic 3.75 8.49 5.64Egg Harbor Township 226 Atlantic 2.57 6.44 4.07Estell Manor City 377 Atlantic 1.98 6.18 3.50Folsom Borough 479 Atlantic 1.74 4.73 2.87Galloway Township 256 Atlantic 2.44 6.43 3.96Hamilton Township 291 Atlantic 2.45 5.94 3.82Hammonton Town 372 Atlantic 2.35 5.31 3.53Linwood City 162 Atlantic 2.96 6.21 4.29Longport Borough 493 Atlantic 0.82 9.21 2.75Margate City 453 Atlantic 1.31 7.27 3.09Mullica Township 290 Atlantic 2.36 6.20 3.83Northfield City 105 Atlantic 2.88 7.40 4.61Pleasantville City 24 Atlantic 3.42 8.54 5.40Port Republic City 368 Atlantic 2.02 6.23 3.55Somers Point City 128 Atlantic 2.66 7.54 4.48Ventnor City 102 Atlantic 2.04 10.47 4.62Weymouth Township 434 Atlantic 2.12 4.93 3.24Allendale Borough 430 Bergen 2.16 4.88 3.25Alpine Borough 559 Bergen 0.60 1.91 1.07Bergenfield Borough 82 Bergen 3.03 7.44 4.75Bogota Borough 48 Bergen 3.08 8.17 5.01Carlstadt Borough 427 Bergen 2.07 5.15 3.26Cliffside Park Borough 342 Bergen 2.01 6.57 3.63Closter Borough 322 Bergen 2.10 6.56 3.71Cresskill Borough 414 Bergen 2.11 5.28 3.34Demarest Borough 410 Bergen 2.05 5.46 3.35Dumont Borough 72 Bergen 2.84 8.17 4.82East Rutherford Borough 166 Bergen 1.86 9.78 4.27Edgewater Borough 550 Bergen 1.46 2.20 1.79Elmwood Park Borough 183 Bergen 2.54 6.99 4.22Emerson Borough 214 Bergen 2.28 7.38 4.10Englewood City 407 Bergen 2.26 4.99 3.36Englewood Cliffs Borough 548 Bergen 0.91 3.67 1.82Fair Lawn Borough 127 Bergen 2.73 7.37 4.49Fairview Borough 92 Bergen 2.60 8.43 4.68Fort Lee Borough 408 Bergen 1.97 5.68 3.35Franklin Lakes Borough 534 Bergen 1.49 3.30 2.22Garfield City 252 Bergen 2.41 6.51 3.96Glen Rock Borough 225 Bergen 2.49 6.65 4.07Hackensack City 97 Bergen 2.98 7.26 4.65Harrington Park Borough 242 Bergen 2.32 6.93 4.01Hasbrouck Heights Borough 158 Bergen 2.55 7.25 4.30Haworth Borough 227 Bergen 2.28 7.26 4.07Hillsdale Borough 192 Bergen 2.31 7.53 4.17Ho-Ho-Kus Borough 489 Bergen 1.76 4.42 2.79

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Leonia Borough 153 Bergen 2.52 7.44 4.33Little Ferry Borough 171 Bergen 2.44 7.41 4.25Lodi Borough 52 Bergen 3.01 8.25 4.99Lyndhurst Township 262 Bergen 2.48 6.18 3.92Mahwah Township 500 Bergen 1.57 4.72 2.72Maywood Borough 218 Bergen 2.46 6.78 4.08Midland Park Borough 175 Bergen 2.48 7.25 4.24Montvale Borough 445 Bergen 1.83 5.41 3.14Moonachie Borough 469 Bergen 1.72 5.18 2.98New Milford Borough 132 Bergen 2.69 7.42 4.46North Arlington Borough 152 Bergen 2.74 6.84 4.33Northvale Borough 155 Bergen 2.28 8.22 4.32Norwood Borough 356 Bergen 2.12 6.10 3.60Oakland Borough 239 Bergen 2.34 6.91 4.02Old Tappan Borough 462 Bergen 1.80 5.06 3.02Oradell Borough 302 Bergen 2.37 5.99 3.77Palisades Park Borough 370 Bergen 1.65 7.64 3.55Paramus Borough 473 Bergen 1.54 5.60 2.94Park Ridge Borough 351 Bergen 2.14 6.10 3.61Ramsey Borough 350 Bergen 2.14 6.09 3.61Ridgefield Borough 423 Bergen 1.74 6.23 3.29Ridgefield Park Village 86 Bergen 2.89 7.76 4.73Ridgewood Village 419 Bergen 2.22 4.96 3.32River Edge Borough 133 Bergen 2.60 7.62 4.45River Vale Township 244 Bergen 2.32 6.88 3.99Rochelle Park Township 348 Bergen 1.99 6.60 3.62Rockleigh Borough 555 Bergen 0.99 2.64 1.61Rutherford Borough 200 Bergen 2.49 6.87 4.13Saddle Brook Township 308 Bergen 2.15 6.53 3.75Saddle River Borough 558 Bergen 0.90 1.97 1.33South Hackensack Township 223 Bergen 2.26 7.36 4.08Teaneck Township 184 Bergen 2.77 6.40 4.21Tenafly Borough 415 Bergen 2.12 5.25 3.34Upper Saddle River Borough 488 Bergen 1.68 4.70 2.81Waldwick Borough 126 Bergen 2.48 8.13 4.49Wallington Borough 297 Bergen 2.33 6.15 3.79Washington Township 343 Bergen 2.01 6.56 3.63Westwood Borough 274 Bergen 2.15 6.96 3.86Woodcliff Lake Borough 476 Bergen 1.90 4.43 2.90Wood-Ridge Borough 258 Bergen 2.40 6.48 3.95Wyckoff Township 485 Bergen 1.73 4.60 2.82Bass River Township 411 Burlington 1.71 6.54 3.35Beverly City 10 Burlington 3.94 8.12 5.65Bordentown City 173 Burlington 2.88 6.28 4.25Bordentown Township 278 Burlington 2.49 5.97 3.85Burlington City 89 Burlington 3.07 7.23 4.71Burlington Township 248 Burlington 2.62 6.03 3.98Chesterfield Township 307 Burlington 2.24 6.32 3.76Cinnaminson Township 281 Burlington 2.57 5.77 3.85Delanco Township 208 Burlington 2.56 6.60 4.11Delran Township 170 Burlington 2.84 6.36 4.25

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Eastampton Township 238 Burlington 2.58 6.29 4.03Edgewater Park Township 357 Burlington 2.08 6.22 3.60Evesham Township 327 Burlington 2.50 5.41 3.68Fieldsboro Borough 217 Burlington 2.72 6.14 4.09Florence Township 334 Burlington 2.35 5.69 3.66Hainesport Township 450 Burlington 1.99 4.83 3.10Lumberton Township 398 Burlington 2.21 5.23 3.40Mansfield Township 235 Burlington 2.36 6.89 4.04Maple Shade Borough 284 Burlington 2.46 5.99 3.84Medford Lakes Borough 157 Burlington 2.73 6.79 4.31Medford Township 295 Burlington 2.65 5.45 3.80Moorestown Township 463 Burlington 2.09 4.35 3.02Mount Holly Township 232 Burlington 2.67 6.13 4.05Mount Laurel Township 399 Burlington 2.21 5.22 3.40New Hanover Township 501 Burlington 1.82 4.05 2.72North Hanover Township 502 Burlington 1.87 3.91 2.71Palmyra Borough 142 Burlington 2.90 6.66 4.40Pemberton Borough 530 Burlington 1.46 3.81 2.36Pemberton Township 417 Burlington 2.04 5.43 3.33Riverside Township 99 Burlington 3.05 7.07 4.65Riverton Borough 197 Burlington 2.87 6.00 4.15Shamong Township 389 Burlington 2.26 5.25 3.45Southampton Township 309 Burlington 2.20 6.39 3.75Springfield Township 206 Burlington 2.51 6.75 4.11Tabernacle Township 333 Burlington 2.29 5.84 3.66Washington Township 533 Burlington 1.40 3.54 2.22Westampton Township 413 Burlington 2.10 5.31 3.34Willingboro Township 27 Burlington 3.35 8.30 5.28Woodland Township 400 Burlington 1.95 5.90 3.40Wrightstown Borough 456 Burlington 2.49 3.80 3.08Audubon Borough 137 Camden 2.97 6.61 4.43Barrington Borough 38 Camden 3.44 7.54 5.09Bellmawr Borough 42 Camden 3.35 7.70 5.08Berlin Borough 148 Camden 2.80 6.75 4.35Berlin Township 54 Camden 3.33 7.40 4.97Brooklawn Borough 245 Camden 3.02 5.25 3.98Camden City 374 Camden 2.88 4.32 3.53Cherry Hill Township 195 Camden 3.10 5.56 4.16Chesilhurst Borough 39 Camden 3.12 8.32 5.09Clementon Borough 23 Camden 3.56 8.24 5.42Collingswood Borough 131 Camden 3.10 6.44 4.47Gibbsboro Borough 80 Camden 3.12 7.32 4.77Gloucester City 138 Camden 3.22 6.09 4.43Gloucester Township 106 Camden 3.24 6.52 4.60Haddon Heights Borough 165 Camden 2.83 6.46 4.28Haddon Township 110 Camden 2.97 7.03 4.57Haddonfield Borough 204 Camden 2.83 5.98 4.12Hi-nella Borough 28 Camden 3.92 7.04 5.26Laurel Springs Borough 4 Camden 4.34 8.61 6.11Lawnside Borough 17 Camden 3.36 9.05 5.51Lindenwold Borough 53 Camden 3.83 6.45 4.97

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Magnolia Borough 37 Camden 3.63 7.18 5.11Merchantville Borough 73 Camden 3.42 6.78 4.81Mount Ephraim Borough 25 Camden 3.82 7.58 5.38Oaklyn Borough 45 Camden 3.40 7.42 5.02Pennsauken Township 120 Camden 3.09 6.58 4.51Pine Hill Borough 9 Camden 3.97 8.07 5.66Runnemede Borough 71 Camden 3.33 6.99 4.83Somerdale Borough 33 Camden 3.57 7.36 5.13Stratford Borough 49 Camden 3.59 6.98 5.01Voorhees Township 243 Camden 3.00 5.34 4.00Waterford Township 59 Camden 3.22 7.49 4.91Winslow Township 93 Camden 3.10 7.02 4.67Woodlynne Borough 1 Camden 6.27 9.61 7.76Avalon Borough 553 Cape May 0.50 6.25 1.76Cape May City 494 Cape May 0.85 8.91 2.75Cape May Point Borough 544 Cape May 0.54 7.02 1.95Dennis Township 486 Cape May 1.48 5.38 2.82Lower Township 441 Cape May 1.45 6.89 3.16Middle Township 457 Cape May 1.63 5.72 3.05North Wildwood City 504 Cape May 1.10 6.67 2.70Ocean City 536 Cape May 0.82 5.89 2.20Sea Isle City 547 Cape May 0.65 5.28 1.85Stone Harbor Borough 549 Cape May 0.55 5.93 1.80Upper Township 522 Cape May 1.50 4.06 2.47West Cape May Borough 496 Cape May 1.08 6.98 2.74West Wildwood Borough 451 Cape May 1.31 7.33 3.10Wildwood City 111 Cape May 2.08 10.00 4.57Wildwood Crest Borough 492 Cape May 1.19 6.44 2.77Woodbine Borough 525 Cape May 1.47 4.07 2.45Bridgeton City 63 Cumberland 4.20 5.70 4.89Commercial Township 282 Cumberland 2.28 6.51 3.85Deerfield Township 254 Cumberland 2.69 5.84 3.96Downe Township 305 Cumberland 2.02 7.00 3.76Fairfield Township 382 Cumberland 2.13 5.64 3.47Greenwich Township 283 Cumberland 1.91 7.73 3.85Hopewell Township 319 Cumberland 2.44 5.65 3.72Lawrence Township 332 Cumberland 2.34 5.75 3.66Maurice River Township 279 Cumberland 2.18 6.79 3.85Millville City 280 Cumberland 2.66 5.58 3.85Shiloh Borough 363 Cumberland 2.51 5.10 3.58Stow Creek Township 240 Cumberland 2.48 6.52 4.02Upper Deerfield Township 310 Cumberland 2.48 5.66 3.74Vineland City 452 Cumberland 2.19 4.37 3.10Belleville Township 56 Essex 3.21 7.57 4.93Bloomfield Township 32 Essex 3.32 8.01 5.16Caldwell Borough 328 Essex 2.34 5.77 3.68Cedar Grove Township 409 Essex 1.98 5.68 3.35East Orange City 3 Essex 4.03 9.31 6.12Essex Fells Borough 483 Essex 1.95 4.17 2.85Fairfield Township 443 Essex 1.96 5.07 3.15Glen Ridge Borough 163 Essex 2.97 6.18 4.28

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Irvington Township 7 Essex 4.10 8.46 5.89Livingston Township 458 Essex 2.17 4.24 3.03Maplewood Township 107 Essex 3.16 6.65 4.58Millburn Township 537 Essex 1.81 2.67 2.20Montclair Township 234 Essex 2.88 5.66 4.04Newark City 324 Essex 2.72 4.99 3.69North Caldwell Borough 475 Essex 2.05 4.19 2.93Nutley Township 121 Essex 2.86 7.10 4.51Orange City 15 Essex 3.96 7.82 5,57Roseland Borough 455 Essex 1.88 5.06 3.08South Orange Village 122 Essex 3.14 6.46 4.51Verona Township 264 Essex 2.52 6.08 3.91West Caldwell Township 354 Essex 2.20 5.93 3.61West Orange Township 36 Essex 3.49 7.50 5.11Clayton Borough 95 Gloucester 3.14 6.90 4.66Deptford Township 270 Gloucester 2.63 5.72 3.88East Greenwich Township 260 Gloucester 2.65 5.83 3.93Elk Township 124 Gloucester 2.80 7.23 4.50Franklin Township 191 Gloucester 2.69 6.49 4.18Glassboro Borough 57 Gloucester 3.30 7.33 4.92Greenwich Township 269 Gloucester 2.50 6.07 3.89Harrison Township 339 Gloucester 2.54 5.20 3.63Logan Township 484 Gloucester 1.89 4.24 2.83Mantua Township 228 Gloucester 2.79 5.92 4.06Monroe Township 88 Gloucester 3.12 7.15 4.73National Park Borough 12 Gloucester 3.76 8.35 5.60Newfield Borough 151 Gloucester 2.68 7.02 4.33Paulsboro Borough 74 Gloucester 3.12 7.41 4.81Pitman Borough 67 Gloucester 3.41 6.91 4.85South Harrison Township 317 Gloucester 2.58 5.37 3.72Swedesboro Borough 18 Gloucester 3.71 8.05 5.46Washington Township 185 Gloucester 2.92 6.06 4.21Wenonah Borough 75 Gloucester 3.23 7.14 4.80West Deptford Township 326 Gloucester 2.54 5.34 3.68Westville Borough 31 Gloucester 3.61 7.38 5.16Woodbury City 19 Gloucester 3.85 7.70 5.45Woodbury Heights Borough 41 Gloucester 3.56 7.27 5.09Woolwich Township 115 Gloucester 3.13 6.59 4.54Bayonne City 123 Hudson 3.16 6.40 4.50East Newark Borough 246 Hudson 2.65 6.00 3.98Guttenberg Town 47 Hudson 3.14 8.00 5.01Harrison Town 181 Hudson 3.12 5.72 4.22Hoboken City 545 Hudson 1.30 2.92 1.95Jersey City 497 Hudson 2.31 3.24 2.74Kearny Town 69 Hudson 3.14 7.46 4.84North Bergen Township 209 Hudson 2.77 6.09 4.11Secaucus Town 480 Hudson 1.98 4.15 2.87Union City 129 Hudson 3.26 6.15 4.48Weehawken Township 401 Hudson 2.08 5.48 3.38West New York Town 403 Hudson 2.78 4.11 3.38Alexandria Township 337 Hunterdon 2.20 6.05 3.65

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Bethlehem Township 194 Hunterdon 2.63 6.57 4.16Bloomsbury Borough 273 Hunterdon 2.43 6.19 3.87Califon Borough 85 Hunterdon 2.98 7.52 4.74Clinton Town 186 Hunterdon 2.75 6.43 4.21Clinton Township 386 Hunterdon 2.35 5.08 3.46Delaware Township 454 Hunterdon 2.09 4.55 3.08East Amwell Township 404 Hunterdon 2.00 5.69 3.38Flemington Borough 231 Hunterdon 2.70 6.09 4.05Franklin Township 276 Hunterdon 2.19 6.81 3.86Frenchtown Borough 179 Hunterdon 2.70 6.64 4.23Glen Gardner Borough 303 Hunterdon 2.47 5.75 3.77Hampton Borough 101 Hunterdon 2.76 7.79 4.64High Bridge Borough 35 Hunterdon 3.35 7.83 5.12Holland Township 360 Hunterdon 2.11 6.08 3.58Kingwood Township 313 Hunterdon 2.04 6.83 3.74Lambertville City 467 Hunterdon 1.78 5.00 2.99Lebanon Borough 437 Hunterdon 2.11 4.76 3.17Lebanon Township 390 Hunterdon 2.15 5.51 3.44Milford Borough 61 Hunterdon 3.03 7.93 4.90Raritan Township 371 Hunterdon 2.35 5.31 3.53Readington Township 338 Hunterdon 2.30 5.77 3.64Stockton Borough 189 Hunterdon 2.11 8.33 4.20Tewksbury Township 482 Hunterdon 1.87 4.40 2.87Union Township 355 Hunterdon 2.29 5.68 3.61West Amwell Township 293 Hunterdon 2.20 6.62 3.82East Windsor Township 145 Mercer 3.05 6.23 4.36Ewing Township 76 Mercer 3.39 6.75 4.79Hamilton Township 335 Mercer 2.42 5.51 3.65Hightstown Borough 51 Mercer 3.59 6.95 4.99Hopewell Borough 230 Mercer 2.53 6.51 4.06Hopewell Township 367 Mercer 2.46 5.12 3.55Lawrence Township 365 Mercer 2.40 5.29 3.56Pennington Borough 331 Mercer 2.39 5.62 3.66Princeton 465 Mercer 1.97 4.55 3.00Robbinsville Township 190 Mercer 2.76 6.34 4.18Trenton City 20 Mercer 4.41 6.72 5.45West Windsor Township 384 Mercer 2.40 5.00 3.46Carteret Borough 213 Middlesex 2.80 6.01 4.10Cranbury Township 508 Middlesex 1.79 3.97 2.67Dunellen Borough 94 Middlesex 3.00 7.24 4.66East Brunswick Township 255 Middlesex 2.45 6.39 3.96Edison Township 396 Middlesex 2.23 5.22 3.41Helmetta Borough 249 Middlesex 2.46 6.41 3.97Highland Park Borough 140 Middlesex 2.96 6.59 4.42Jamesburg Borough 114 Middlesex 2.90 7.13 4.55Metuchen Borough 288 Middlesex 2.42 6.07 3.84Middlesex Borough 150 Middlesex 2.66 7.10 4.34Milltown Borough 219 Middlesex 2.46 6.79 4.08Monroe Township 340 Middlesex 2.15 6.13 3.63New Brunswick City 321 Middlesex 2.15 6.39 3.71North Brunswick Township 233 Middlesex 2.70 6.05 4.04

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Old Bridge Township 393 Middlesex 2.15 5.47 3.43Perth Amboy City 134 Middlesex 2.80 7.06 4.45Piscataway Township 315 Middlesex 2.41 5.78 3.73Plainsboro Township 412 Middlesex 2.36 4.74 3.34Sayreville Borough 325 Middlesex 2.31 5.88 3.69South Amboy City 205 Middlesex 2.48 6.84 4.11South Brunswick Township 433 Middlesex 2.05 5.10 3.24South Plainfield Borough 397 Middlesex 1.98 5.85 3.40South River Borough 373 Middlesex 2.09 5.96 3.53Spotswood Borough 147 Middlesex 2.70 6.99 4.35Woodbridge Township 222 Middlesex 2.66 6.26 4.08Aberdeen Township 267 Monmouth 2.37 6.41 3.90Allenhurst Borough 541 Monmouth 0.59 7.07 2.04Allentown Borough 149 Monmouth 2.72 6.95 4.35Asbury Park City 418 Monmouth 1.99 5.53 3.32Atlantic Highlands Borough 362 Monmouth 1.99 6.42 3.58Avon-by-the-Sea Borough 524 Monmouth 0.98 6.17 2.46Belmar Borough 507 Monmouth 1.26 5.71 2.69Bradley Beach Borough 471 Monmouth 1.39 6.28 2.95Brielle Borough 461 Monmouth 1.63 5.59 3.02Colts Neck Township 529 Monmouth 1.59 3.52 2.36Deal Borough 535 Monmouth 0.68 7.21 2.21Eatontown Borough 378 Monmouth 2.16 5.65 3.49Englishtown Borough 361 Monmouth 2.20 5.83 3.58Fair Haven Borough 491 Monmouth 1.86 4.16 2.78Farmingdale Borough 420 Monmouth 2.05 5.36 3.32Freehold Borough 177 Monmouth 2.49 7.21 4.23Freehold Township 391 Monmouth 2.11 5.60 3.44Hazlet Township 304 Monmouth 2.39 5.94 3.76Highlands Borough 202 Monmouth 2.37 7.17 4.12Holmdel Township 459 Monmouth 1.93 4.74 3.03Howell Township 316 Monmouth 2.29 6.05 3.72Interlaken Borough 521 Monmouth 1.25 4.97 2.50Keansburg Borough 68 Monmouth 2.96 7.93 4.85Keyport Borough 257 Monmouth 2.40 6.52 3.96Lake Como Borough 306 Monmouth 1.73 8.19 3.76Little Silver Borough 439 Monmouth 1.88 5.32 3.16Loch Arbour Village 66 Monmouth 1.98 11.87 4.85Long Branch City 268 Monmouth 1.86 8.15 3.89Manalapan Township 444 Monmouth 1.89 5.23 3.14Manasquan Borough 503 Monmouth 1.26 5.79 2.70Marlboro Township 436 Monmouth 1.99 5.09 3.18Matawan Borough 220 Monmouth 2.74 6.08 4.08Middletown Township 421 Monmouth 2.02 5.38 3.30Millstone Township 366 Monmouth 2.22 5.67 3.55Monmouth Beach Borough 531 Monmouth 1.20 4.40 2.30Neptune City Borough 265 Monmouth 2.42 6.31 3.91Neptune Township 352 Monmouth 1.95 6.70 3.61Ocean Township 392 Monmouth 2.01 5.88 3.44Oceanport Borough 432 Monmouth 1.82 5.78 3.24Red Bank Borough 387 Monmouth 1.98 6.02 3.45

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Roosevelt Borough 83 Monmouth 2.92 7.70 4.75Rumson Borough 538 Monmouth 1.40 3.45 2.20Sea Bright Borough 526 Monmouth 1.15 5.09 2.42Sea Girt Borough 552 Monmouth 0.73 4.31 1.78Shrewsbury Borough 426 Monmouth 2.04 5.24 3.27Shrewsbury Township 154 Monmouth 2.98 6.27 4.32Spring Lake Borough 554 Monmouth 0.67 4.20 1.68Spring Lake Heights Borough 511 Monmouth 1.30 5.18 2.60Tinton Falls Borough 481 Monmouth 1.73 4.74 2.87Union Beach Borough 212 Monmouth 2.40 7.01 4.10Upper Freehold Township 320 Monmouth 2.18 6.33 3.71Wall Township 431 Monmouth 1.86 5.66 3.25West Long Branch Borough 347 Monmouth 2.02 6.49 3.63Boonton Town 178 Morris 2.57 6.98 4.23Boonton Township 464 Morris 1.95 4.67 3.01Butler Borough 198 Morris 2.43 7.07 4.14Chatham Borough 512 Morris 1.66 4.02 2.59Chatham Township 532 Morris 1.56 3.32 2.28Chester Borough 395 Morris 2.41 4.84 3.41Chester Township 449 Morris 2.15 4.47 3.10Denville Township 388 Morris 2.07 5.73 3.45Dover Town 336 Morris 2.13 6.27 3.65East Hanover Township 514 Morris 1.46 4.58 2.58Florham Park Borough 523 Morris 1.51 4.03 2.47Hanover Township 505 Morris 1.63 4.49 2.70Harding Township 551 Morris 0.97 3.29 1.78Jefferson Township 271 Morris 2.39 6.30 3.88Kinnelon Borough 349 Morris 2.35 5.55 3.61Lincoln Park Borough 207 Morris 2.47 6.85 4.11Long Hill Township 346 Morris 2.27 5.80 3.63Madison Borough 516 Morris 1.64 4.04 2.57Mendham Borough 513 Morris 1.82 3.66 2.58Mendham Township 509 Morris 1.90 3.62 2.62Mine Hill Township 188 Morris 2.41 7.31 4.20Montville Township 435 Morris 2.00 5.08 3.19Morris Plains Borough 440 Morris 1.86 5.38 3.16Morris Township 510 Morris 1.76 3.85 2.61Morristown Town 446 Morris 2.19 4.50 3.14Mount Arlington Borough 312 Morris 2.19 6.39 3.74Mount Olive Township 174 Morris 2.92 6.18 4.25Mountain Lakes Borough 470 Morris 2.13 4.14 2.97Netcong Borough 119 Morris 2.73 7.47 4.51Parsippany-Troy Hills Towns 394 Morris 2.16 5.39 3.41Pequannock Township 406 Morris 1.95 5.85 3.37Randolph Township 383 Morris 2.37 5.07 3.47Riverdale Borough 478 Morris 1.64 5.06 2.88Rockaway Borough 292 Morris 2.27 6.44 3.82Rockaway Township 141 Morris 2.68 7.21 4.40Roxbury Township 229 Morris 2.57 6.40 4.06Victory Gardens Borough 358 Morris 2.46 5.26 3.60Washington Township 369 Morris 2.30 5.48 3.55

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Wharton Borough 221 Morris 2.60 6.42 4.08Barnegat Light Borough 539 Ocean 0.78 6.05 2.17Barnegat Township 201 Ocean 2.30 7.39 4.13Bay Head Borough 518 Ocean 0.78 8.13 2.52Beach Haven Borough 515 Ocean 0.96 6.92 2.58Beachwood Borough 425 Ocean 1.95 5.47 3.27Berkeley Township 314 Ocean 1.79 7.77 3.73Brick Township 359 Ocean 1.90 6.79 3.59Eagleswood Township 329 Ocean 2.41 5.60 3.68Harvey Cedars Borough 542 Ocean 0.91 4.48 2.02Island Heights Borough 416 Ocean 1.68 6.59 3.33Jackson Township 376 Ocean 2.03 6.09 3.52Lacey Township 428 Ocean 1.72 6.18 3.26Lakehurst Borough 287 Ocean 2.25 6.55 3.84Lakewood Township 261 Ocean 2.04 7.56 3.93Lavallette Borough 543 Ocean 0.80 4.97 1.99Little Egg Harbor Township 299 Ocean 2.03 7.05 3.79Long Beach Township 517 Ocean 0.85 7.49 2.52Manchester Township 379 Ocean 1.99 6.09 3.48Mantoloking Borough 546 Ocean 0.61 6.18 1.94Ocean Gate Borough 70 Ocean 2.12 11.04 4.83Ocean Township 429 Ocean 1.67 6.35 3.25Pine Beach Borough 466 Ocean 1.73 5.18 3.00Plumsted Township 447 Ocean 1.90 5.20 3.14Point Pleasant Beach Boroug 487 Ocean 1.16 5.98 2.63Point Pleasant Borough 438 Ocean 1.89 6.72 3.56Seaside Heights Borough 118 Ocean 1.70 12.00 4.52Seaside Park Borough 468 Ocean 1.17 7.59 2.98Ship Bottom Borough 520 Ocean 0.92 6.80 2.50South Toms River Borough 241 Ocean 2.31 6.98 4.01Stafford Township 380 Ocean 1.96 6.18 3.48Surf City Borough 527 Ocean 0.85 6.81 2.41Toms River Township 506 Ocean 1.53 4.76 2.70Tuckerton Borough 296 Ocean 2.06 6.97 3.79Bloomingdale Borough 14 Passaic 3.52 8.82 5.57Clifton City 143 Passaic 2.64 7.28 4.38Haledon Borough 5 Passaic 3.71 9.44 5.92Hawthorne Borough 103 Passaic 2.77 7.72 4.62Little Falls Township 187 Passaic 2.46 7.19 4.20North Haledon Borough 167 Passaic 2.41 7.56 4.27Passaic City 116 Passaic 3.01 6.82 4.53Paterson City 29 Passaic 3.37 8.15 5.24Pompton Lakes 21 Passaic 3.48 8.47 5.43Prospect Park Borough 6 Passaic 4.05 8.63 5.91Ringwood Borough 100 Passaic 2.86 7.53 4.64Totowa Borough 237 Passaic 2.37 6.86 4.03Wanaque Borough 55 Passaic 2.95 8.30 4.95Wayne Township 159 Passaic 2.64 6.99 4.30West Milford Township 40 Passaic 3.14 8.24 5.09Woodland Park Borough 113 Passaic 2.63 7.85 4.55Alloway Township 318 Salem 2.33 5.93 3.72

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Carneys Point Township 224 Salem 2.62 6.34 4.08Elmer Borough 247 Salem 2.54 6.25 3.98Elsinboro Township 210 Salem 2.58 6.54 4.11Lower Alloways Creek Town 557 Salem 0.83 2.24 1.37Mannington Township 285 Salem 2.56 5.76 3.84Oldmans Township 301 Salem 2.31 6.17 3.78Penns Grove Borough 13 Salem 4.01 7.83 5.60Pennsville Township 81 Salem 3.18 7.09 4.75Pilesgrove Township 275 Salem 2.57 5.81 3.86Pittsgrove Township 364 Salem 2.65 4.79 3.57Quinton Township 250 Salem 2.30 6.84 3.97Salem City 8 Salem 4.01 8.00 5.67Upper Pittsgrove Township 311 Salem 2.36 5.93 3.74Woodstown Borough 156 Salem 2.90 6.42 4.31Bedminster Township 540 Somerset 1.21 3.58 2.09Bernards Township 498 Somerset 1.83 4.07 2.73Bernardsville Borough 528 Somerset 1.70 3.42 2.41Bound Brook Borough 62 Somerset 3.07 7.79 4.89Branchburg Township 442 Somerset 2.03 4.90 3.16Bridgewater Township 472 Somerset 1.82 4.75 2.94Far Hills Borough 556 Somerset 1.24 1.65 1.43Franklin Township 402 Somerset 2.17 5.27 3.38Green Brook Township 294 Somerset 2.34 6.22 3.81Hillsborough Township 422 Somerset 2.09 5.20 3.30Manville Borough 98 Somerset 2.67 8.09 4.65Millstone Borough 253 Somerset 2.30 6.83 3.96Montgomery Township 405 Somerset 2.30 4.94 3.37North Plainfield Borough 30 Somerset 3.34 8.12 5.21Peapack-Gladstone Borough 495 Somerset 1.78 4.22 2.74Raritan Borough 353 Somerset 2.32 5.62 3.61Rocky Hill Borough 499 Somerset 1.90 3.89 2.72Somerville Borough 108 Somerset 3.12 6.73 4.58South Bound Brook Borough 125 Somerset 3.11 6.49 4.49Warren Township 490 Somerset 1.90 4.08 2.79Watchung Borough 477 Somerset 2.00 4.19 2.89Andover Borough 168 Sussex 2.41 7.53 4.26Andover Township 144 Sussex 2.85 6.71 4.37Branchville Borough 330 Sussex 1.96 6.88 3.67Byram Township 90 Sussex 3.03 7.34 4.71Frankford Township 286 Sussex 2.11 6.97 3.84Franklin Borough 84 Sussex 3.19 7.03 4.74Fredon Township 193 Sussex 2.56 6.77 4.16Green Township 112 Sussex 2.75 7.51 4.55Hamburg Borough 64 Sussex 3.13 7.62 4.88Hampton Township 251 Sussex 2.45 6.42 3.97Hardyston Township 272 Sussex 2.26 6.65 3.88Hopatcong Borough 146 Sussex 2.54 7.43 4.35Lafayette Township 196 Sussex 2.31 7.47 4.16Montague Township 199 Sussex 2.46 6.96 4.13Newton Town 22 Sussex 3.58 8.22 5.42Ogdensburg Borough 60 Sussex 3.14 7.67 4.91

Appendix Table 1. Property Tax Burden Index. All New Jersey Municipalities: 2013

2013 2013 2013EstimatedNet Tax

Property Equalized as % of PropertyTax Net Resident Tax

Burden Tax Personal BurdenMunicipality Rank County Rate Income Index

Sandyston Township 300 Sussex 2.07 6.91 3.79Sparta Township 161 Sussex 2.75 6.71 4.29Stanhope Borough 65 Sussex 3.17 7.47 4.87Stillwater Township 203 Sussex 2.48 6.85 4.12Sussex Borough 104 Sussex 2.97 7.17 4.61Vernon Township 172 Sussex 2.68 6.75 4.25Wantage Township 216 Sussex 2.46 6.80 4.09Berkeley Heights Township 424 Union 2.03 5.30 3.28Clark Township 259 Union 2.31 6.71 3.94Cranford Township 263 Union 2.36 6.49 3.91Elizabeth City 79 Union 3.26 7.00 4.78Fanwood Borough 176 Union 2.58 6.96 4.24Garwood Borough 169 Union 2.49 7.30 4.26Hillside Township 16 Union 3.72 8.19 5.52Kenilworth Borough 160 Union 2.52 7.31 4.30Linden City 50 Union 3.05 8.19 5.00Mountainside Borough 460 Union 1.80 5.08 3.03New Providence Borough 375 Union 2.25 5.49 3.52Plainfield City 34 Union 3.35 7.85 5.13Rahway City 58 Union 3.15 7.67 4.91Roselle Borough 2 Union 4.46 10.14 6.73Roselle Park Borough 44 Union 3.34 7.62 5.04Scotch Plains Township 323 Union 2.42 5.65 3.70Springfield Township 236 Union 2.75 5.92 4.03Summit City 519 Union 1.86 3.38 2.51Union Township 117 Union 2.86 7.14 4.52Westfield Town 448 Union 2.06 4.74 3.13Allamuchy Township 341 Warren 2.37 5.58 3.63Alpha Borough 136 Warren 2.91 6.76 4.43Belvidere Town 87 Warren 3.61 6.19 4.73Blairstown Township 344 Warren 2.12 6.23 3.63Franklin Township 78 Warren 2.99 7.65 4.78Frelinghuysen Township 266 Warren 2.29 6.67 3.91Greenwich Township 345 Warren 2.41 5.47 3.63Hackettstown Town 135 Warren 2.83 6.95 4.44Hardwick Township 277 Warren 2.39 6.24 3.86Harmony Township 381 Warren 2.12 5.68 3.47Hope Township 77 Warren 2.57 8.91 4.78Independence Township 211 Warren 2.55 6.61 4.11Knowlton Township 180 Warren 2.62 6.83 4.23Liberty Township 130 Warren 2.85 7.02 4.47Lopatcong Township 215 Warren 2.69 6.22 4.09Mansfield Township 164 Warren 2.91 6.31 4.28Oxford Township 91 Warren 3.02 7.35 4.71Phillipsburg Town 109 Warren 3.11 6.71 4.57Pohatcong Township 43 Warren 3.20 7.99 5.05Washington Borough 26 Warren 3.64 7.72 5.30Washington Township 139 Warren 2.85 6.89 4.43White Township 385 Warren 1.98 6.06 3.46

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Abs

econ

City

Atl.

4.22

8,40

194

.58,

893

90

,669

29

,201

79.5

172

(6

6)

1,11

3

13,0

20

37

5

10.6

851,

586

91

Atla

ntic

City

Atl.

5.02

39,5

5177

.551

,054

295,

623

13

,885

17.1

855

79

2

4,88

2

23,2

47

64

4

13.2

123

2,59

0

25

Brig

antin

e C

ityA

tl.3.

799,

406

46.6

20,2

01

17

4,80

8

33,0

76

96

.120

5

(40)

1,

338

22

,735

784

4.

333

2,60

8

56

Bue

na B

orou

ghA

tl.4.

654,

626

92.9

4,98

0

53,4

28

21,1

81

85

.617

1

634

78

2

14

,239

278

15

.384

8,11

2

71

Bue

na V

ista

Tow

nshi

pA

tl.3.

837,

595

92.6

8,20

0

77,5

95

25,5

88

84

.115

0

909

55

2

20

,434

366

13

.887

11,6

44

88

Cor

bin

City

Atl.

2.94

493

87.3

565

91,1

28

27,6

77

84

.247

3

-

875

18,3

05

46

4

11.7

181

10,5

65

75

Egg

Har

bor

City

Atl.

5.64

4,24

691

.84,

627

51

,231

20

,826

81.1

255

(3

51)

1,

232

14

,532

257

15

.210

29,

115

89

Egg

Har

bor

Tow

nshi

pA

tl.4.

0743

,872

93.3

47,0

28

92

,631

27

,322

74.8

214

(3

42)

79

3

14

,539

416

16

.312

85,

215

59

Est

ell M

anor

City

Atl.

3.50

1,73

792

.01,

889

90

,844

29

,693

88.0

201

(7

77)

54

5

17

,305

437

13

.016

88,

440

67

Fol

som

Bor

ough

Atl.

2.87

1,87

396

.01,

952

92

,735

29

,145

76.0

242

(3

48)

64

9

14

,141

437

26

.095

10,9

44

55

Gal

low

ay T

owns

hip

Atl.

3.96

37,6

4692

.540

,714

76,0

23

28,5

48

85

.411

1

(8)

591

16,8

58

35

9

12.6

637,

827

59

Ham

ilton

Tow

nshi

pA

tl.3.

8226

,752

93.1

28,7

42

82

,637

28

,028

73.6

191

(5

93)

89

7

14

,578

395

14

.899

7,93

0

50

Ham

mon

ton

Tow

nA

tl.3.

5314

,799

94.6

15,6

39

84

,180

28

,258

75.5

163

18

4

733

12,4

64

41

6

17.0

815,

632

62

Linw

ood

City

Atl.

4.29

7,07

394

.87,

460

13

6,88

3

56,2

63

85

.937

4

(74)

1,

543

17

,211

606

17

.377

3,12

7

10

2

Long

port

Bor

ough

Atl.

2.75

880

28.4

3,10

1

619,

915

67

,721

94.9

521

-

2,

446

20

,502

2,93

9

1.

739

1,74

5

40

Mar

gate

City

Atl.

3.09

6,34

244

.414

,296

269,

116

56

,662

95.9

424

(2

27)

2,

040

24

,080

1,17

9

3.

653

1,03

5

54

Mul

lica

Tow

nshi

pA

tl.3.

836,

176

91.3

6,76

7

72,3

42

27,1

62

89

.225

2

(63)

81

6

15

,230

369

13

.473

8,48

5

63

Nor

thfie

ld C

ityA

tl.4.

618,

620

96.7

8,91

5

102,

360

32

,727

77.8

484

(2

)

1,

459

14

,342

452

16

.571

4,08

5

10

4

Ple

asan

tvill

e C

ityA

tl.5.

4020

,520

92.3

22,2

39

43

,466

13

,628

70.5

287

(5

79)

1,

263

19

,432

206

16

.696

17,5

23

34

Por

t Rep

ublic

City

Atl.

3.55

1,12

393

.51,

201

10

7,84

3

35,1

66

94

.224

7

720

82

8

15

,013

529

14

.814

75,

605

74

Som

ers

Poi

nt C

ityA

tl.4.

4810

,785

83.8

12,8

72

90

,440

26

,371

75.4

242

64

1,05

5

16,6

64

46

8

11.6

755,

715

60

Ven

tnor

City

Atl.

4.62

10,6

3058

.718

,123

132,

493

28

,888

95.1

426

(4

31)

1,

553

18

,657

620

6.

134

1,87

8

56

Wey

mou

th T

owns

hip

Atl.

3.24

2,71

694

.52,

874

55

,193

25

,869

84.6

154

59

7

475

17,8

74

26

3

8.9

989,

227

33

Alle

ndal

e B

orou

ghB

erg.

3.25

6,70

493

.67,

160

23

0,21

6

89,2

73

87

.135

0

98

1,

771

17

,653

525

19

.014

940

3

67

Alp

ine

Bor

ough

Ber

g.1.

071,

895

91.2

2,07

8

1,11

6,52

7

36

0,38

6

90

.71,

066

(1,3

84)

2,79

5

22,6

09

2,

518

11.6

198

574

28

Ber

genf

ield

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

7527

,191

96.2

28,2

60

90

,614

33

,057

87.6

174

46

5

1,24

2

16,5

61

21

3

12.4

703,

036

83

Bog

ota

Bor

ough

Ber

g.5.

018,

284

96.0

8,62

8

83,0

74

29,1

75

88

.013

4

102

1,

047

17

,351

187

13

.179

4,94

4

78

Car

lsta

dt B

orou

ghB

erg.

3.26

6,21

495

.36,

520

29

1,33

0

32,9

68

26

.435

3

496

3,

324

21

,369

671

12

.815

849

8

71

Clif

fsid

e P

ark

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

6325

,209

93.3

27,0

26

10

6,91

8

38,4

70

93

.234

4

293

1,

265

13

,893

251

8.

942

1,47

9

64

Clo

ster

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

718,

545

96.0

8,89

7

226,

655

64

,369

87.7

308

(7

34)

1,

686

17

,021

522

18

.016

941

7

104

Cre

sski

ll B

orou

ghB

erg.

3.34

8,71

096

.49,

035

22

1,59

8

83,5

57

91

.230

9

(8)

1,90

9

14,8

77

52

0

19.0

9141

5

90

Dem

ares

t Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

354,

947

96.3

5,13

9

274,

172

99

,229

95.8

220

(2

71)

1,

624

19

,773

620

19

.379

479

92

Dum

ont B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.82

17,7

5797

.318

,254

101,

683

35

,139

94.0

146

(4

4)

1,13

6

15,9

91

24

1

14.5

743,

248

118

Eas

t Rut

herf

ord

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

279,

733

94.4

10,3

13

18

6,92

5

33,3

74

80

.61,

135

(557

)

2,36

1

19,4

32

53

2

9.9

144

738

49

Edg

ewat

er B

orou

ghB

erg.

1.79

12,1

4889

.713

,538

214,

204

64

,623

38.0

331

(3

7)

1,82

2

13,9

52

52

3

9.0

5575

2

24

Elm

woo

d P

ark

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

2220

,094

95.2

21,1

03

96

,622

27

,605

75.2

346

(6

24)

1,

255

12

,520

234

12

.469

1,15

1

10

3

Em

erso

n B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.10

7,56

697

.27,

786

16

0,19

7

44,1

61

84

.120

5

(632

)

1,44

1

14,6

64

37

5

15.0

8240

4

109

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Eng

lew

ood

City

Ber

g.3.

3627

,533

94.0

29,2

80

16

1,15

5

63,0

70

76

.033

2

(396

)

2,02

7

19,3

40

37

8

10.3

943,

223

41

Eng

lew

ood

Clif

fs B

orou

ghB

erg.

1.82

5,35

494

.85,

648

55

7,47

3

104,

010

71.4

596

62

5

2,72

3

19,9

29

1,

286

9.7

122

513

66

Fai

r La

wn

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

4932

,998

97.3

33,9

27

12

9,60

1

41,4

47

83

.220

3

66

1,

386

17

,084

307

13

.911

069

5

109

Fai

rvie

w B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.68

14,2

3794

.215

,108

72,1

21

21,5

20

72

.818

2

(481

)

1,12

3

11,7

51

17

3

11.1

684,

388

41

For

t Lee

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

3536

,014

91.9

39,1

97

16

3,52

3

53,3

22

83

.024

7

334

1,

830

15

,035

372

9.

745

516

63

Fra

nklin

Lak

es B

orou

ghB

erg.

2.22

10,7

5995

.511

,262

376,

534

14

7,81

0

88

.133

1

(77)

1,

468

24

,377

884

15

.915

865

6

53

Gar

field

City

Ber

g.3.

9631

,199

93.9

33,2

14

63

,562

20

,427

78.7

205

(1

57)

98

6

16

,489

146

14

.581

11,5

99

43

Gle

n R

ock

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

0711

,838

97.5

12,1

37

20

0,19

4

68,2

12

91

.723

6

1

1,

429

17

,979

467

20

.082

427

98

Hac

kens

ack

City

Ber

g.4.

6544

,113

93.6

47,1

11

11

1,99

4

30,6

80

58

.324

6

50

1,

952

16

,606

270

10

.791

2,53

0

41

Har

ringt

on P

ark

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

014,

751

98.0

4,84

6

194,

190

61

,548

95.4

141

(1

9)

1,24

7

15,8

92

43

0

20.5

9739

6

111

Has

brou

ck H

eigh

ts B

orou

gBer

g.4.

3012

,022

95.8

12,5

48

13

3,06

8

38,7

65

79

.323

1

(296

)

1,47

9

13,7

56

31

2

15.0

8658

6

98

Haw

orth

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

073,

431

97.7

3,51

1

264,

390

72

,698

85.8

381

(4

68)

2,

144

19

,835

645

19

.618

147

7

96

Hill

sdal

e B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.17

10,4

2497

.910

,645

170,

010

49

,678

92.8

239

16

0

1,18

1

16,1

14

37

8

18.4

111

532

11

7

Ho-

Ho-

Kus

Bor

ough

Ber

g.2.

794,

124

95.8

4,30

4

286,

403

10

3,60

2

94

.228

5

(109

)

1,89

8

14,5

63

66

5

20.5

6950

8

70

Leon

ia B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.33

9,07

595

.89,

473

13

5,83

6

46,4

59

91

.819

6

(546

)

1,42

7

15,9

06

30

9

14.9

109

2,51

2

85

Littl

e F

erry

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

2510

,806

95.5

11,3

16

10

6,28

7

29,1

49

75

.337

8

(918

)

1,38

7

12,8

71

26

4

11.7

831,

083

88

Lodi

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

9924

,522

93.5

26,2

20

75

,194

24

,567

79.8

211

(1

53)

96

4

15

,207

182

13

.374

4,11

4

86

Lynd

hurs

t Tow

nshi

pB

erg.

3.92

21,3

2594

.922

,476

121,

621

33

,238

61.1

275

59

1,68

1

14,7

44

28

2

10.7

6381

8

87

Mah

wah

Tow

nshi

pB

erg.

2.72

26,3

5296

.327

,358

215,

265

64

,084

77.9

301

20

3

1,32

2

18,8

48

51

6

11.6

180

706

69

May

woo

d B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.08

9,68

796

.810

,006

123,

066

37

,217

80.6

297

26

6

1,60

7

14,1

57

28

5

12.6

106

907

99

Mid

land

Par

k B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.24

7,27

396

.37,

550

14

9,65

0

44,2

98

82

.534

3

(167

)

1,32

6

19,4

64

36

2

13.4

7258

6

101

Mon

tval

e B

orou

ghB

erg.

3.14

8,02

096

.78,

291

27

3,37

1

62,7

74

69

.442

9

234

1,

942

18

,041

598

18

.015

242

6

91

Moo

nach

ie B

orou

ghB

erg.

2.98

2,75

795

.42,

889

29

7,26

7

29,4

38

29

.61,

050

62

3,

363

21

,648

549

12

.215

61,

092

107

New

Milf

ord

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

4616

,572

96.5

17,1

68

10

1,14

7

36,5

37

94

.411

2

13

1,

130

15

,009

225

11

.994

849

10

9

Nor

th A

rling

ton

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

3315

,632

95.8

16,3

22

89

,315

32

,938

86.1

243

(9

25)

1,

237

13

,344

207

10

.666

1,00

8

93

Nor

thva

le B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.32

4,74

695

.74,

961

18

4,25

0

35,3

65

67

.731

1

69

1,

563

17

,569

429

16

.111

342

6

126

Nor

woo

d B

orou

ghB

erg.

3.60

5,79

796

.06,

038

20

2,59

1

65,0

14

85

.122

7

49

1,

595

18

,749

483

14

.694

624

97

Oak

land

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

0212

,959

97.0

13,3

63

17

3,58

9

50,2

24

83

.220

0

694

1,

355

15

,966

411

18

.298

452

10

3

Old

Tap

pan

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

025,

874

96.8

6,06

9

283,

084

92

,917

92.6

425

24

3

1,48

8

19,7

32

67

2

19.4

248

488

83

Ora

dell

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

778,

128

97.1

8,37

0

194,

612

66

,045

86.4

301

61

4

1,73

1

18,0

95

42

9

17.4

9557

7

99

Pal

isad

es P

ark

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

5520

,288

94.2

21,5

40

11

3,75

6

27,3

13

82

.419

5

81

92

1

13

,589

283

7.

644

1,13

8

34

Par

amus

Bor

ough

Ber

g.2.

9426

,674

96.8

27,5

55

31

4,09

8

47,6

30

52

.932

9

(260

)

2,06

9

18,9

58

71

0

14.1

147

495

99

Par

k R

idge

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

618,

803

95.8

9,19

2

187,

847

58

,166

86.8

330

(1

29)

1,

349

19

,441

435

14

.242

422

11

8

Ram

sey

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

6114

,706

96.6

15,2

19

22

2,63

4

61,5

37

79

.432

5

(782

)

1,50

0

17,4

37

50

9

18.4

9744

4

80

Rid

gefie

ld B

orou

ghB

erg.

3.29

11,2

1894

.211

,907

151,

372

30

,698

66.8

455

(5

83)

1,

735

13

,081

346

12

.846

21,

663

70

Rid

gefie

ld P

ark

Vill

age

Ber

g.4.

7312

,925

93.9

13,7

59

10

1,67

0

29,1

28

71

.246

1

458

1,

682

14

,115

221

14

.788

2,40

4

70

Rid

gew

ood

Vill

age

Ber

g.3.

3225

,352

96.7

26,2

12

22

8,93

3

93,7

92

90

.939

8

(36)

1,

741

15

,440

520

22

.271

347

63

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Riv

er E

dge

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

4511

,515

97.0

11,8

69

14

1,37

1

44,9

34

91

.612

1

8

1,

231

14

,029

318

17

.990

361

11

2

Riv

er V

ale

Tow

nshi

pB

erg.

3.99

9,91

697

.210

,206

191,

058

62

,456

95.2

210

(2

15)

1,

306

16

,934

444

18

.276

296

10

7

Roc

helle

Par

k T

owns

hip

Ber

g.3.

625,

883

96.2

6,11

7

163,

541

34

,555

64.0

393

(1

07)

1,

871

16

,453

335

10

.411

468

8

110

Roc

klei

gh B

orou

ghB

erg.

1.61

535

87.2

613

354,

749

18

3,68

0

52

.348

4

-

2,08

1

21,3

85

90

8

5.5

147

419

24

Rut

herf

ord

Bor

ough

Ber

g.4.

1318

,358

95.5

19,2

27

13

4,83

8

44,6

05

83

.921

4

315

1,

507

15

,691

307

13

.372

938

96

Sad

dle

Bro

ok T

owns

hip

Ber

g.3.

7513

,895

96.4

14,4

18

15

4,08

8

34,9

84

67

.216

6

266

1,

393

17

,462

320

12

.110

061

7

129

Sad

dle

Riv

er B

orou

ghB

erg.

1.33

3,19

890

.73,

527

68

3,07

5

308,

519

94.5

1,19

7

(2

64)

3,

781

18

,964

1,57

7

11

.411

950

4

41

Sou

th H

acke

nsac

k T

own s

Ber

g.4.

082,

442

96.1

2,54

0

252,

579

25

,661

31.9

427

60

1

3,06

3

22,7

80

60

5

12.8

191

727

10

1

Tea

neck

Tow

nshi

pB

erg.

4.21

40,3

2996

.041

,988

123,

779

51

,841

89.5

294

77

5

1,66

0

21,7

40

29

3

9.8

801,

266

72

Ten

afly

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

3414

,704

95.7

15,3

64

27

2,28

9

102,

769

92.8

243

(2

41)

1,

747

16

,416

610

23

.373

370

65

Upp

er S

addl

e R

iver

Bor

o uB

erg.

2.81

8,32

695

.18,

758

31

7,22

1

102,

301

91.2

352

16

3

1,36

6

18,2

02

73

9

21.5

9844

6

101

Wal

dwic

k B

orou

ghB

erg.

4.49

9,83

996

.710

,176

147,

252

40

,986

89.1

245

28

1,34

5

16,6

48

33

8

15.9

243

508

10

9

Wal

lingt

on B

orou

ghB

erg.

3.79

11,5

4593

.812

,314

79,5

32

26,5

44

81

.033

5

(46)

1,

051

13

,326

187

10

.255

2,42

6

10

7

Was

hing

ton

Tow

nshi

pB

erg.

3.63

9,24

897

.69,

475

17

9,65

1

53,5

26

96

.923

2

588

1,

308

19

,202

414

12

.975

628

12

4

Wes

twoo

d B

orou

ghB

erg.

3.86

11,0

7595

.711

,569

165,

487

42

,581

79.7

300

55

2

1,45

5

18,0

21

38

6

13.0

8859

0

96

Woo

dclif

f Lak

e B

orou

ghB

erg.

2.90

8,40

696

.38,

726

22

5,95

2

93,4

22

70

.023

8

(215

)

1,55

0

22,8

25

31

7

12.8

6041

2

170

Woo

d-R

idge

Bor

ough

Ber

g.3.

955,

830

96.8

6,02

5

194,

212

40

,806

76.5

337

(1

,866

)

2,

019

12

,251

736

18

.213

068

9

66

Wyc

koff

Tow

nshi

pB

erg.

2.82

16,9

2896

.917

,471

245,

883

87

,657

93.4

276

(2

08)

1,

031

17

,054

563

18

.063

415

24

Bas

s R

iver

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.35

1,43

988

.91,

618

10

8,86

1

30,7

09

79

.046

1

(603

)

775

16,4

02

41

6

13.5

188

6,74

9

58

Bev

erly

City

Bur

l.5.

652,

565

92.3

2,78

0

42,4

59

22,7

60

92

.343

2

(469

)

1,13

6

18,5

39

17

1

12.2

104

10,9

47

83

Bor

dent

own

City

Bur

l.4.

253,

914

92.3

4,24

0

82,6

40

33,8

06

79

.142

1

(395

)

1,28

8

15,2

20

31

9

11.2

933,

452

75

Bor

dent

own

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.85

11,4

2695

.711

,938

107,

296

36

,207

75.9

307

(3

51)

94

5

13

,528

401

16

.475

3,06

8

71

Bur

lingt

on C

ityB

url.

4.71

9,85

091

.410

,782

59,2

37

22,9

11

74

.632

8

(381

)

1,52

4

18,9

04

23

3

13.1

502

11,9

10

69

Bur

lingt

on T

owns

hip

Bur

l.3.

9822

,639

96.2

23,5

33

95

,333

32

,106

71.3

335

57

3

986

15,3

84

36

0

17.0

195

4,59

2

58

Che

ster

field

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.76

7,76

096

.18,

073

87

,959

45

,835

93.6

302

(2

28)

48

2

14

,517

338

13

.164

2,86

9

46

Cin

nam

inso

n T

owns

hip

Bur

l.3.

8516

,763

96.1

17,4

38

98

,833

39

,393

83.3

154

44

794

16,4

91

37

4

13.8

110

3,73

2

11

0

Del

anco

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

4.11

4,55

894

.74,

813

86

,277

32

,297

86.5

239

(1

,038

)

1,

052

14

,736

330

11

.184

4,64

8

83

Del

ran

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

4.25

16,8

3995

.417

,644

88,1

94

32,8

03

80

.721

9

436

91

4

13

,964

343

16

.972

3,85

8

88

Eas

tam

pton

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

4.03

6,07

595

.86,

339

73

,840

31

,828

92.6

112

(5

1)

791

14,3

70

28

4

14.5

677,

095

51

Edg

ewat

er P

ark

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.60

8,84

493

.89,

428

69

,419

25

,034

86.7

111

1,

197

611

15,3

15

23

0

10.9

726,

400

58

Eve

sham

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.68

45,6

4496

.347

,413

106,

853

42

,429

83.8

163

(1

37)

72

5

15

,766

410

14

.567

3,18

6

69

Fie

ldsb

oro

Bor

ough

Bur

l.4.

0953

093

.256

9

86

,810

25

,727

75.0

649

(3

12)

1,

366

12

,033

371

15

.815

62,

729

89

Flo

renc

e T

owns

hip

Bur

l.3.

6612

,356

94.5

13,0

75

87

,081

33

,722

86.7

283

15

1

804

15,4

21

36

3

13.6

103

5,38

5

75

Hai

nesp

ort T

owns

hip

Bur

l.3.

106,

117

97.1

6,29

7

123,

343

41

,971

81.2

218

(1

42)

66

0

15

,476

474

14

.560

4,20

9

58

Lum

bert

on T

owns

hip

Bur

l.3.

4012

,499

96.2

12,9

92

10

4,92

2

40,4

38

85

.115

9

(61)

68

6

15

,041

411

16

.999

6,13

6

40

Man

sfie

ld T

owns

hip

Bur

l.4.

048,

564

96.4

8,88

6

126,

925

40

,308

88.9

302

36

0

820

19,2

47

50

3

15.2

584,

652

128

Map

le S

hade

Bor

ough

Bur

l.3.

8419

,043

92.8

20,5

20

74

,773

27

,494

77.8

171

54

770

14,6

34

26

8

10.7

833,

886

84

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Med

ford

Lak

es B

orou

ghB

url.

4.31

4,13

696

.14,

303

10

7,11

4

42,3

42

97

.930

3

44

1,

001

13

,714

408

17

.667

2,44

9

90

Med

ford

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.80

23,2

8195

.724

,336

129,

347

55

,936

89.3

235

(1

44)

85

7

16

,414

480

17

.482

2,32

0

69

Moo

rest

own

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.02

20,6

6494

.821

,807

192,

428

73

,625

77.7

269

32

2

1,08

7

15,9

90

65

4

18.1

8277

1

54

Mou

nt H

olly

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

4.05

9,34

589

.510

,440

56,7

20

24,9

13

82

.531

4

419

89

0

16

,303

223

13

.114

58,

894

57

Mou

nt L

aure

l Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.40

41,7

3896

.143

,430

146,

970

45

,702

71.0

284

23

905

18,8

11

50

6

13.9

652,

489

79

New

Han

over

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

2.72

7,94

289

.98,

836

8,

022

29,2

76

76

.311

7

1,58

6

21

8

13

,485

31

2.5

101

7,09

3

5

Nor

th H

anov

er T

owns

hip

Bur

l.2.

717,

669

82.6

9,28

3

44,0

49

30,5

61

84

.516

3

(650

)

378

8,78

3

172

20

.882

6,82

3

21

Pal

myr

a B

orou

ghB

url.

4.40

7,36

193

.07,

911

67

,363

30

,486

89.9

198

(6

83)

96

4

14

,355

254

11

.171

5,32

8

74

Pem

bert

on B

orou

ghB

url.

2.36

1,39

290

.51,

538

74

,520

29

,554

87.4

383

-

73

8

23

,543

280

9.

763

17,6

26

58

Pem

bert

on T

owns

hip

Bur

l.3.

3327

,914

93.0

30,0

14

49

,294

22

,587

91.4

224

(7

14)

78

7

19

,400

199

15

.310

117

,626

36

Riv

ersi

de T

owns

hip

Bur

l.4.

658,

053

94.0

8,56

5

50,1

35

22,9

73

87

.415

9

124

74

9

15

,021

207

14

.592

8,68

7

77

Riv

erto

n B

orou

ghB

url.

4.15

2,77

295

.12,

916

88

,148

44

,053

92.8

366

(2

74)

1,

071

14

,924

336

12

.079

1,52

9

77

Sha

mon

g T

owns

hip

Bur

l.3.

456,

444

97.4

6,61

9

105,

587

43

,270

95.2

263

16

0

410

14,8

35

40

3

19.0

884,

250

56

Sou

tham

pton

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.75

10,3

9094

.510

,999

98,7

36

34,8

99

88

.615

0

(272

)

570

18,2

40

38

2

10.0

101

2,73

8

11

6

Spr

ingf

ield

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

4.11

3,40

795

.53,

568

11

1,90

5

40,0

45

85

.929

9

(1,0

94)

956

18,0

76

43

4

14.9

120

6,36

4

77

Tab

erna

cle

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.66

6,97

097

.17,

175

97

,591

38

,229

95.4

98

338

45

0

16

,070

377

16

.588

5,65

5

67

Was

hing

ton

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

2.22

684

90.1

759

126,

007

39

,325

81.3

780

(2

81)

1,

856

17

,116

535

12

.710

776,

981

90

Wes

tam

pton

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

3.34

8,77

997

.19,

043

12

8,36

5

35,8

31

65

.536

4

144

1,

143

15

,808

493

15

.472

5,58

1

55

Will

ingb

oro

Tow

nshi

pB

url.

5.28

31,8

7795

.133

,511

53,6

32

23,4

00

91

.818

6

256

1,

176

16

,667

193

11

.911

09,

615

85

Woo

dlan

d T

owns

hip

Bur

l.3.

401,

797

96.4

1,86

5

73,2

80

33,1

59

85

.430

7

(192

)

714

15,9

51

28

9

10.5

337

5,46

8

45

Wrig

htst

own

Bor

ough

Bur

l.3.

0879

888

.889

9

44

,873

19

,239

62.4

583

8,

500

1,38

9

72,2

79

16

5

2.4

459

38,0

28

24

Aud

ubon

Bor

ough

Cam

.4.

438,

771

95.3

9,20

7

77,1

79

32,5

78

86

.724

0

(59)

1,

001

13

,862

639

14

.290

6,24

9

10

4

Bar

ringt

on B

orou

ghC

am.

5.09

6,87

894

.67,

269

71

,295

32

,061

86.7

152

81

944

14,6

98

58

3

11.8

963,

764

107

Bel

lmaw

r B

orou

ghC

am.

5.08

11,5

4095

.612

,066

64,0

72

25,1

09

78

.224

8

(55)

1,

049

14

,792

547

12

.410

16,

568

128

Ber

lin B

orou

ghC

am.

4.35

7,60

095

.27,

987

92

,955

34

,576

81.1

217

(3

69)

89

1

12

,006

791

15

.787

3,97

9

95

Ber

lin T

owns

hip

Cam

.4.

975,

362

95.5

5,61

7

97,7

13

25,6

29

54

.327

2

(605

)

1,61

0

17,5

55

81

9

13.6

229

7,42

0

13

1

Bro

okla

wn

Bor

ough

Cam

.3.

981,

944

94.2

2,06

4

60,7

48

22,9

01

69

.048

9

(193

)

1,46

4

14,0

20

54

4

19.1

9711

,630

79

Cam

den

City

Cam

.3.

5376

,903

86.3

89,1

04

17

,626

10

,683

68.2

318

1,

485

1,69

9

20,7

08

16

2

16.7

1106

18,7

35

9

Che

rry

Hill

Tow

nshi

pC

am.

4.16

71,7

2294

.575

,911

107,

545

46

,421

73.6

164

(5

4)

868

14,8

55

82

3

14.7

116

1,13

9

10

0

Che

silh

urst

Bor

ough

Cam

.5.

091,

637

93.7

1,74

7

47,4

18

21,7

91

86

.435

5

-

1,50

6

23,6

34

42

5

8.0

473

17,9

42

77

Cle

men

ton

Bor

ough

Cam

.5.

424,

976

92.3

5,38

8

50,1

29

21,6

82

83

.125

0

(314

)

968

16,8

20

43

4

11.5

8010

,226

83

Col

lings

woo

d B

orou

ghC

am.

4.47

13,8

5092

.315

,000

68,7

14

35,1

36

88

.634

1

451

1,

077

16

,083

561

10

.880

6,38

9

80

Gib

bsbo

ro B

orou

ghC

am.

4.77

2,25

797

.22,

323

10

1,27

1

33,7

35

75

.142

1

(220

)

1,32

4

15,0

88

80

6

16.1

122

4,89

7

11

4

Glo

uces

ter

City

Cam

.4.

4311

,402

90.2

12,6

47

43

,120

21

,600

76.5

364

32

4

1,36

7

19,0

42

34

2

14.4

212

16,5

32

60

Glo

uces

ter

Tow

nshi

pC

am.

4.60

64,2

9795

.467

,421

61,7

47

29,9

13

90

.116

4

(35)

80

7

14

,155

525

14

.976

7,55

8

79

Had

don

Hei

ghts

Bor

ough

Cam

.4.

287,

428

94.9

7,83

0

101,

912

42

,631

90.0

147

32

0

934

14,5

95

79

6

11.7

961,

432

99

Had

don

Tow

nshi

pC

am.

4.57

14,6

2796

.115

,217

87,5

70

37,5

95

88

.724

8

(9)

835

14,7

85

75

6

13.5

834,

069

108

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Had

donf

ield

Bor

ough

Cam

.4.

1211

,507

95.7

12,0

21

17

7,22

3

70,9

01

90

.230

9

(353

)

1,30

5

13,2

73

1,

426

20.8

8235

1

87

Hi-n

ella

Bor

ough

Cam

.5.

2686

589

.896

4

39

,912

20

,410

90.2

385

-

95

8

14

,791

340

11

.486

7,76

9

61

Laur

el S

prin

gs B

orou

ghC

am.

6.11

1,89

594

.32,

010

61

,817

28

,187

90.3

262

19

0

1,32

0

13,9

34

53

6

17.0

158

5,51

1

14

9

Law

nsid

e B

orou

ghC

am.

5.51

2,93

194

.03,

120

76

,582

23

,832

64.5

116

(3

89)

1,

158

19

,005

633

13

.137

99,

102

73

Lind

enw

old

Bor

ough

Cam

.4.

9717

,501

90.0

19,4

45

32

,437

19

,079

89.6

125

18

1

670

15,2

13

26

7

12.3

107

10,1

95

58

Mag

nolia

Bor

ough

Cam

.5.

114,

321

92.4

4,67

5

54,8

87

26,1

78

83

.232

3

1,65

2

96

7

18

,889

477

12

.098

8,28

8

10

4

Mer

chan

tvill

e B

orou

ghC

am.

4.81

3,80

693

.24,

082

61

,115

32

,776

89.8

395

(7

62)

1,

142

15

,461

495

9.

913

75,

705

55

Mou

nt E

phra

im B

orou

ghC

am.

5.38

4,66

395

.04,

910

58

,312

28

,523

86.7

209

(1

42)

98

6

15

,346

514

12

.684

6,34

4

13

3

Oak

lyn

Bor

ough

Cam

.5.

024,

015

93.4

4,29

9

65,4

17

30,0

82

90

.029

9

(503

)

1,15

2

13,0

49

51

7

11.9

804,

821

102

Pen

nsau

ken

Tow

nshi

pC

am.

4.51

35,8

3095

.237

,651

66,0

08

22,1

50

66

.726

6

(347

)

1,02

5

16,0

74

51

0

13.8

146

9,23

7

76

Pin

e H

ill B

orou

ghC

am.

5.66

10,4

9693

.811

,192

42,5

01

24,5

67

93

.723

4

(403

)

735

16,6

46

36

2

14.2

7910

,121

79

Run

nem

ede

Bor

ough

Cam

.4.

838,

436

95.0

8,88

2

59,6

22

26,1

42

80

.717

3

674

84

4

15

,769

458

13

.010

06,

897

104

Som

erda

le B

orou

ghC

am.

5.13

5,26

193

.95,

604

57

,800

24

,755

78.5

368

61

6

1,06

3

15,3

98

49

4

13.3

936,

706

104

Str

atfo

rd B

orou

ghC

am.

5.01

6,95

295

.77,

268

59

,923

27

,741

83.8

211

1,

221

833

16,7

34

48

4

14.5

996,

875

112

Voo

rhee

s T

owns

hip

Cam

.4.

0029

,229

93.6

31,2

42

11

3,37

7

52,9

55

76

.420

5

318

87

4

16

,764

899

14

.571

2,85

2

68

Wat

erfo

rd T

owns

hip

Cam

.4.

9110

,792

96.2

11,2

22

68

,497

29

,262

90.5

189

63

0

901

15,4

84

56

9

15.1

116

7,37

4

92

Win

slow

Tow

nshi

pC

am.

4.67

39,1

6594

.341

,517

61,9

03

28,4

10

88

.919

5

(585

)

701

17,9

67

53

2

11.6

146

9,14

2

65

Woo

dlyn

ne B

orou

ghC

am.

7.76

2,96

190

.33,

281

20

,508

13

,491

91.4

242

(9

66)

85

7

13

,984

182

18

.257

11,6

13

59

Ava

lon

Bor

ough

C.M

.1.

761,

310

12.7

10,2

87

74

2,45

3

63,6

70

95

.752

5

(1,5

94)

2,36

2

46,8

78

1,

607

0.6

431,

108

17

Cap

e M

ay C

ityC

.M.

2.75

3,55

835

.110

,147

268,

871

39

,684

82.5

701

(2

,315

)

1,

587

53

,785

678

2.

033

17,9

76

22

Cap

e M

ay P

oint

Bor

ough

C.M

.1.

9528

526

.51,

076

44

1,83

1

56,3

23

93

.332

8

-

1,58

5

21,4

94

1,

161

0.3

248,

914

27

Den

nis

Tow

nshi

pC

.M.

2.82

6,34

488

.77,

152

11

8,83

2

29,1

14

79

.513

2

(831

)

612

20,2

16

29

8

10.1

230

8,47

9

63

Low

er T

owns

hip

C.M

.3.

1622

,451

66.0

34,0

01

10

9,06

0

24,7

06

91

.115

2

(70)

76

3

14

,224

270

8.

846

5,33

9

47

Mid

dle

Tow

nshi

pC

.M.

3.05

18,8

9178

.124

,202

109,

694

28

,275

74.9

191

34

4

843

17,0

39

28

6

9.5

147

5,73

9

46

Nor

th W

ildw

ood

City

C.M

.2.

703,

968

23.2

17,1

36

15

4,02

2

27,2

72

88

.449

6

1,23

7

1,

496

22

,803

388

1.

826

2,14

5

22

Oce

an C

ityC

.M.

2.20

11,4

5128

.240

,576

282,

195

43

,923

94.3

523

54

3

1,74

8

21,0

88

57

2

3.3

532,

492

18

Sea

Isle

City

C.M

.1.

852,

096

15.1

13,8

93

31

1,13

9

43,3

68

95

.539

0

-

1,50

3

27,4

48

76

3

0.7

212,

555

15

Sto

ne H

arbo

r B

orou

ghC

.M.

1.80

847

13.6

6,23

6

650,

133

67

,956

94.5

567

6,

840

2,18

6

68,8

76

1,

637

0.6

341,

389

19

Upp

er T

owns

hip

C.M

.2.

4712

,187

72.0

16,9

25

11

3,68

0

37,6

29

86

.019

6

(435

)

691

15,9

27

28

6

11.7

374

4,86

6

46

Wes

t Cap

e M

ay B

orou

ghC

.M.

2.74

1,02

047

.32,

158

20

2,77

2

33,8

55

87

.825

6

1,60

0

98

9

32

,946

515

5.

041

10,7

94

45

Wes

t Wild

woo

d B

orou

ghC

.M.

3.10

587

30.9

1,89

9

126,

814

25

,670

87.0

311

-

1,

086

22

,725

308

2.

921

693

39

Wild

woo

d C

ityC

.M.

4.57

5,22

832

.915

,893

90,9

39

14,0

59

67

.337

3

(1,3

97)

1,50

6

18,0

73

22

7

4.8

636,

749

14

Wild

woo

d C

rest

Bor

ough

C.M

.2.

773,

226

27.5

11,7

27

18

3,13

6

31,9

00

85

.464

5

(1,4

48)

1,88

0

25,4

15

45

7

2.2

321,

940

25

Woo

dbin

e B

orou

ghC

.M.

2.45

2,44

870

.23,

489

45

,082

19

,713

80.0

308

30

510

19,5

20

13

3

6.6

8312

,876

22

Brid

geto

n C

ityC

umb.

4.89

25,2

5292

.427

,336

17,5

83

10,9

91

72

.625

2

(32)

84

5

16

,035

194

19

.116

215

,330

27

Com

mer

cial

Tow

nshi

pC

umb.

3.85

5,17

488

.95,

821

42

,895

18

,032

85.4

206

16

1

590

15,1

64

42

5

13.8

9212

,723

56

Dee

rfie

ld T

owns

hip

Cum

b.3.

963,

132

95.3

3,28

7

61,1

46

29,3

81

83

.039

8

(16)

53

5

14

,924

627

14

.991

7,97

6

66

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Dow

ne T

owns

hip

Cum

b.3.

761,

566

64.9

2,41

4

63,9

04

22,2

89

88

.221

2

1,24

3

56

6

16

,951

666

8.

219

09,

312

61

Fai

rfie

ld T

owns

hip

Cum

b.3.

476,

566

91.4

7,18

0

43,0

58

20,9

88

84

.216

2

351

39

8

14

,817

431

10

.567

10,8

96

59

Gre

enw

ich

Tow

nshi

pC

umb.

3.85

809

91.1

888

128,

711

33

,561

85.0

404

(1

,254

)

84

4

20

,761

884

11

.494

10,3

01

98

Hop

ewel

l Tow

nshi

pC

umb.

3.72

4,52

395

.54,

738

70

,828

28

,503

84.9

332

35

9

522

15,0

27

71

1

14.8

658,

063

83

Law

renc

e T

owns

hip

Cum

b.3.

663,

306

90.3

3,66

3

59,8

36

25,4

28

88

.918

0

463

50

0

14

,452

620

16

.079

10,2

53

63

Mau

rice

Riv

er T

owns

hip

Cum

b.3.

857,

662

90.6

8,46

0

36,5

97

26,0

15

82

.818

9

628

47

0

14

,193

376

6.

513

28,

616

46

Mill

ville

City

Cum

b.3.

8528

,711

93.1

30,8

33

55

,419

23

,159

74.6

61

182

80

2

15

,929

570

16

.213

813

,571

54

Shi

loh

Bor

ough

Cum

b.3.

5851

292

.555

3

62

,317

31

,477

92.1

365

(4

7)

616

11,6

76

64

1

11.4

604,

652

73

Sto

w C

reek

Tow

nshi

pC

umb.

4.02

1,43

595

.61,

501

76

,275

30

,367

90.9

297

43

7

509

18,2

67

79

0

12.7

919,

492

82

Upp

er D

eerf

ield

Tow

nshi

pC

umb.

3.74

7,63

494

.78,

058

76

,779

27

,611

75.6

448

23

6

651

16,5

02

75

4

15.4

168

8,51

6

84

Vin

elan

d C

ityC

umb.

3.10

61,0

5094

.764

,497

62,9

31

22,8

09

66

.534

8

150

92

1

15

,966

611

15

.596

13,6

43

43

Bel

levi

lle T

owns

hip

Ess

ex4.

9336

,168

93.5

38,6

85

73

,039

27

,030

82.4

186

92

6

1,51

8

13,6

53

36

8

12.1

166

5,45

4

70

Blo

omfie

ld T

owns

hip

Ess

ex5.

1647

,589

94.4

50,3

92

85

,534

32

,097

83.8

187

(5

60)

1,

476

13

,527

423

12

.412

73,

311

81

Cal

dwel

l Bor

ough

Ess

ex3.

687,

861

95.7

8,21

4

121,

941

48

,743

87.1

484

40

1,45

5

10,6

67

61

4

13.7

8426

3

68

Ced

ar G

rove

Tow

nshi

pE

ssex

3.35

12,4

7097

.012

,850

173,

023

54

,068

84.3

176

(2

82)

97

5

15

,018

850

13

.282

427

11

0

Eas

t Ora

nge

City

Ess

ex6.

1264

,544

86.6

74,5

26

39

,931

18

,361

83.7

398

66

9

1,82

5

20,6

91

22

9

13.3

297

17,9

43

28

Ess

ex F

ells

Bor

ough

Ess

ex2.

852,

119

96.0

2,20

6

334,

925

14

1,78

7

96

.570

1

(113

)

2,32

1

24,1

15

1,

652

14.5

9159

8

66

Fai

rfie

ld T

owns

hip

Ess

ex3.

157,

509

97.1

7,73

0

334,

769

52

,843

42.5

607

22

5

2,52

0

20,0

23

1,

755

16.3

153

563

10

0

Gle

n R

idge

Bor

ough

Ess

ex4.

287,

623

97.4

7,82

3

189,

242

84

,187

91.8

252

38

9

1,62

8

15,0

66

92

4

24.0

5138

3

65

Irvi

ngto

n T

owns

hip

Ess

ex5.

8954

,222

86.6

62,5

96

39

,046

18

,021

80.4

262

21

4

1,55

7

18,6

16

20

5

11.4

186

15,6

87

24

Livi

ngst

on T

owns

hip

Ess

ex3.

0329

,594

97.1

30,4

65

24

6,34

9

98,2

54

82

.433

8

(163

)

1,47

3

16,8

91

1,

156

19.5

9740

7

96

Map

lew

ood

Tow

nshi

pE

ssex

4.58

24,4

9295

.725

,586

129,

122

57

,554

89.7

398

(2

9)

1,56

0

15,2

92

65

3

16.2

7256

4

63

Mill

burn

Tow

nshi

pE

ssex

2.20

20,2

1395

.921

,082

408,

701

21

8,70

8

82

.943

3

485

2,

399

16

,514

1,96

7

23

.311

438

4

50

Mon

tcla

ir T

owns

hip

Ess

ex4.

0437

,912

94.8

39,9

77

16

3,42

1

81,4

24

89

.436

6

566

1,

796

16

,756

811

17

.074

967

46

New

ark

City

Ess

ex3.

6927

8,42

786

.332

2,53

7

43

,113

16

,103

49.2

1,05

1

29

7

1,96

5

17,7

71

23

2

14.7

314

15,0

60

13

Nor

th C

aldw

ell B

orou

ghE

ssex

2.93

6,55

798

.06,

689

23

9,71

8

112,

480

96.2

330

48

6

1,27

5

17,7

77

1,

183

17.3

6838

4

67

Nut

ley

Tow

nshi

pE

ssex

4.51

28,5

4096

.029

,738

125,

098

42

,139

80.5

289

(3

84)

1,

677

14

,305

619

13

.689

1,71

2

10

5

Ora

nge

City

Ess

ex5.

5730

,436

91.7

33,2

07

41

,680

20

,324

78.7

311

(3

49)

1,

708

16

,826

212

14

.625

214

,958

31

Ros

elan

d B

orou

ghE

ssex

3.08

5,79

996

.46,

014

29

8,67

3

64,5

94

59

.842

3

348

2,

252

20

,562

1,27

3

14

.113

962

5

114

Sou

th O

rang

e V

illag

eE

ssex

4.51

16,2

7894

.917

,160

146,

547

76

,262

92.7

604

(3

2)

1,96

7

17,1

09

72

4

16.1

8562

9

55

Ver

ona

Tow

nshi

pE

ssex

3.91

13,6

6596

.214

,200

153,

445

57

,103

88.4

464

(6

4)

1,59

2

14,4

42

74

7

15.3

8238

7

97

Wes

t Cal

dwel

l Tow

nshi

pE

ssex

3.61

10,8

6897

.611

,135

201,

185

51

,691

68.7

417

65

1,65

3

17,4

69

1,

039

13.9

118

430

95

Wes

t Ora

nge

Tow

nshi

pE

ssex

5.11

46,6

7995

.348

,964

118,

421

49

,474

82.5

343

22

2

1,50

0

19,1

45

59

4

14.2

9697

8

74

Cla

yton

Bor

ough

Glo

uc.

4.66

8,21

693

.28,

813

54

,572

25

,095

88.2

263

(1

04)

81

5

13

,723

356

14

.863

7,48

4

66

Dep

tford

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.3.

8830

,608

94.6

32,3

68

87

,328

29

,446

66.7

230

(2

02)

96

4

14

,250

558

12

.969

5,54

4

76

Eas

t Gre

enw

ich

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.3.

9310

,203

95.8

10,6

50

10

0,49

9

41,8

28

91

.116

8

(72)

65

1

13

,150

662

17

.917

33,

443

59

Elk

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.4.

504,

249

93.5

4,54

3

79,2

28

29,8

92

85

.531

5

62

98

6

17

,103

530

13

.880

8,57

2

74

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Fra

nklin

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.4.

1816

,741

95.8

17,4

71

73

,631

29

,544

88.2

123

80

4

647

16,2

42

45

4

14.9

837,

603

77

Gla

ssbo

ro B

orou

ghG

louc

.4.

9218

,953

93.4

20,2

83

56

,402

29

,015

79.8

376

26

3

1,10

9

16,9

07

38

2

10.4

125

7,74

5

58

Gre

enw

ich

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.3.

894,

872

95.0

5,12

7

186,

060

31

,499

38.2

499

-

2,

188

18

,402

1,34

2

11

.314

11,

926

100

Har

rison

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.3.

6312

,721

96.4

13,1

95

10

4,21

0

46,7

31

91

.028

9

140

76

6

12

,650

674

20

.741

4,86

5

44

Loga

n T

owns

hip

Glo

uc.

2.83

6,01

396

.16,

258

18

5,32

0

31,6

29

38

.51,

037

164

1,

476

16

,256

1,21

5

17

.479

4,88

9

33

Man

tua

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.4.

0615

,109

95.6

15,7

99

86

,657

35

,945

84.4

205

1

804

14,3

91

56

3

15.9

775,

482

88

Mon

roe

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.4.

7336

,732

95.7

38,3

72

68

,407

28

,870

85.3

176

94

867

13,4

25

39

3

16.0

105

5,61

1

77

Nat

iona

l Par

k B

orou

ghG

louc

.5.

603,

009

94.7

3,17

7

51,2

22

24,5

29

93

.815

8

(119

)

767

16,0

70

35

6

14.5

137

7,66

4

13

5

New

field

Bor

ough

Glo

uc.

4.33

1,54

292

.51,

667

76

,724

28

,507

86.1

177

-

77

5

14

,225

475

14

.278

5,99

4

11

0

Pau

lsbo

ro B

orou

ghG

louc

.4.

816,

023

90.2

6,67

4

61,3

51

19,2

25

58

.634

1

(89)

1,

211

16

,237

404

15

.984

11,3

86

61

Pitm

an B

orou

ghG

louc

.4.

858,

943

94.2

9,49

7

66,3

25

32,7

54

88

.920

3

(39)

83

5

15

,834

428

15

.067

6,86

5

88

Sou

th H

arris

on T

owns

hip

Glo

uc.

3.72

3,21

196

.63,

324

11

0,56

2

47,6

99

90

.634

5

27

59

3

14

,960

711

19

.139

4,52

4

54

Sw

edes

boro

Bor

ough

Glo

uc.

5.46

2,63

093

.42,

815

64

,120

24

,884

79.5

240

34

873

11,4

08

44

1

18.5

923,

548

58

Was

hing

ton

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.4.

2148

,123

97.1

49,5

79

90

,425

37

,069

81.6

220

(4

3)

862

16,5

74

55

1

15.6

656,

434

77

Wen

onah

Bor

ough

Glo

uc.

4.80

2,26

396

.42,

348

10

3,44

4

46,9

73

96

.624

6

166

1,

085

17

,675

615

17

.168

5,46

4

11

2

Wes

t Dep

tford

Tow

nshi

pG

louc

.3.

6821

,498

93.5

22,9

88

10

3,69

2

32,9

15

61

.849

5

372

1,

698

13

,668

348

13

.287

3,94

8

69

Wes

tvill

e B

orou

ghG

louc

.5.

164,

250

91.8

4,63

0

52,4

74

23,4

75

76

.859

6

166

1,

289

16

,317

318

12

.487

7,65

9

82

Woo

dbur

y C

ityG

louc

.5.

4510

,078

91.7

10,9

85

59

,284

27

,135

72.8

273

68

1,22

1

17,0

59

35

7

13.3

130

8,14

0

67

Woo

dbur

y H

eigh

ts B

orou

gGlo

uc.

5.09

3,02

096

.13,

143

84

,073

31

,668

73.8

268

17

6

1,21

2

20,5

32

54

6

13.6

957,

717

120

Woo

lwic

h T

owns

hip

Glo

uc.

4.54

11,2

5895

.911

,738

93,7

15

43,0

93

88

.327

3

35

75

4

12

,818

605

21

.236

3,72

0

35

Bay

onne

City

Hud

.4.

5065

,028

90.8

71,6

29

71

,356

27

,510

68.4

634

(2

9)

1,71

0

13,2

92

38

9

12.8

123

5,81

0

47

Eas

t New

ark

Bor

ough

Hud

.3.

982,

640

95.6

2,76

2

48,3

13

17,5

87

68

.447

9

2,05

9

1,

263

13

,834

280

14

.321

38,

598

25

Gut

tenb

erg

Tow

nH

ud.

5.01

11,4

2992

.412

,364

70,8

75

31,0

61

86

.831

1

(313

)

1,38

4

11,7

06

39

7

10.4

613,

888

31

Har

rison

Tow

nH

ud.

4.22

15,2

2793

.116

,350

64,8

72

24,6

45

59

.873

8

(149

)

2,44

3

17,9

86

36

0

12.0

632

12,9

37

35

Hob

oken

City

Hud

.1.

9552

,575

93.2

56,3

84

19

6,92

7

88,8

27

81

.970

3

(500

)

1,86

9

19,2

89

94

2

4.3

197

4,33

1

8

Jers

ey C

ityH

ud.

2.74

257,

342

89.1

288,

855

64,4

36

33,6

04

63

.676

8

155

1,

763

17

,085

334

10

.922

113

,299

15

Kea

rny

Tow

nH

ud.

4.84

41,6

6494

.943

,886

73,6

16

24,8

16

67

.038

1

(184

)

1,70

4

13,2

16

40

2

13.1

421

5,30

2

55

Nor

th B

erge

n T

owns

hip

Hud

.4.

1162

,341

92.3

67,5

69

67

,509

24

,516

65.9

227

(4

46)

1,

217

13

,121

373

10

.910

67,

690

26

Sec

aucu

s T

own

Hud

.2.

8718

,311

92.0

19,9

07

24

0,13

3

42,8

60

33

.750

9

(796

)

2,39

2

15,2

85

1,

354

10.7

9143

7

47

Uni

on C

ityH

ud.

4.48

68,2

4791

.574

,580

39,6

77

17,6

94

69

.043

2

317

1,

501

17

,428

224

15

.220

715

,666

12

Wee

haw

ken

Tow

nshi

pH

ud.

3.38

13,3

5691

.914

,527

178,

625

53

,868

64.1

894

24

0

2,59

0

17,2

84

94

2

8.5

162

2,15

6

27

Wes

t New

Yor

k T

own

Hud

.3.

3852

,122

94.2

55,3

46

39

,124

24

,463

70.0

582

31

1,31

7

15,1

06

22

3

12.9

123

13,0

35

12

Ale

xand

ria T

owns

hip

Hun

t.3.

654,

905

94.3

5,20

4

148,

247

54

,545

95.3

185

(5

0)

576

19,7

84

54

1

15.3

623,

832

68

Bet

hleh

em T

owns

hip

Hun

t.4.

163,

928

97.0

4,05

1

136,

737

52

,540

93.1

159

42

0

708

18,3

05

50

4

17.7

622,

692

81

Blo

omsb

ury

Bor

ough

Hun

t.3.

8785

994

.191

3

10

6,64

1

33,3

59

78

.362

9

1,10

7

1,

254

17

,270

403

19

.563

7,50

1

67

Cal

ifon

Bor

ough

Hun

t.4.

741,

060

94.0

1,12

7

120,

245

43

,249

87.8

172

1,

086

905

20,5

03

44

4

15.2

102

2,25

9

91

Clin

ton

Tow

nH

unt.

4.21

2,69

696

.32,

801

13

6,04

4

47,0

60

77

.142

4

424

1,

290

18

,386

480

16

.957

3,01

9

74

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Clin

ton

Tow

nshi

pH

unt.

3.46

13,3

0196

.413

,793

159,

010

64

,429

83.3

337

49

8

848

18,6

82

57

3

16.9

721,

735

59

Del

awar

e T

owns

hip

Hun

t.3.

084,

540

92.8

4,89

3

180,

233

82

,761

94.9

221

89

890

24,0

49

66

6

12.4

742,

931

96

Eas

t Am

wel

l Tow

nshi

pH

unt.

3.38

3,96

796

.14,

129

17

6,24

2

56,6

34

84

.825

8

80

70

1

20

,972

662

13

.777

1,99

7

88

Fle

min

gton

Bor

ough

Hun

t.4.

054,

540

94.2

4,81

8

93,4

00

29,1

27

56

.426

0

109

1,

035

11

,335

320

15

.176

950

48

Fra

nklin

Tow

nshi

pH

unt.

3.86

3,15

194

.43,

337

17

4,51

0

54,9

74

91

.144

3

451

1,

039

22

,840

603

13

.378

1,50

6

87

Fre

ncht

own

Bor

ough

Hun

t.4.

231,

356

90.9

1,49

3

101,

999

37

,943

78.0

421

(7

0)

1,18

6

19,5

55

39

1

12.3

915,

247

75

Gle

n G

ardn

er B

orou

ghH

unt.

3.77

1,68

593

.11,

810

86

,908

41

,331

95.2

171

34

4

642

12,1

23

32

5

13.0

6646

9

52

Ham

pton

Bor

ough

Hun

t.4.

641,

382

93.1

1,48

4

87,4

91

34,7

59

93

.317

0

1,56

8

66

6

24

,313

307

10

.365

5,74

1

77

Hig

h B

ridge

Bor

ough

Hun

t.5.

123,

604

95.7

3,76

4

93,3

03

40,0

89

94

.274

8

853

1,

644

18

,360

344

14

.381

3,15

2

87

Hol

land

Tow

nshi

pH

unt.

3.58

5,22

795

.55,

476

12

3,38

9

41,3

17

94

.445

4

(154

)

949

16,8

88

45

7

16.3

495

3,20

1

10

5

Kin

gwoo

d T

owns

hip

Hun

t.3.

743,

833

92.2

4,15

9

146,

937

44

,548

88.4

264

(1

60)

68

3

19

,995

550

13

.680

4,09

1

72

Lam

bert

ville

City

Hun

t.2.

993,

863

94.4

4,09

4

176,

574

57

,257

82.8

480

-

1,

208

22

,947

598

9.

110

11,

029

77

Leba

non

Bor

ough

Hun

t.3.

171,

337

90.7

1,47

5

177,

772

44

,676

63.2

620

81

9

1,23

4

25,3

69

66

8

11.7

622,

192

78

Leba

non

Tow

nshi

pH

unt.

3.44

6,51

094

.16,

915

12

4,05

1

49,1

15

93

.336

1

(102

)

911

16,3

16

46

7

15.4

382

2,74

2

71

Milf

ord

Bor

ough

Hun

t.4.

901,

216

94.2

1,29

1

88,7

01

33,7

53

85

.135

2

(269

)

1,20

8

19,3

49

31

8

11.5

222

3,29

5

13

4

Rar

itan

Tow

nshi

pH

unt.

3.53

22,0

9397

.222

,729

169,

386

58

,880

80.4

149

21

2

781

17,1

83

64

2

18.9

911,

854

60

Rea

ding

ton

Tow

nshi

pH

unt.

3.64

16,0

9096

.416

,683

185,

415

62

,098

80.2

233

(1

24)

1,

135

18

,514

689

16

.385

1,24

1

81

Sto

ckto

n B

orou

ghH

unt.

4.20

531

91.5

580

156,

511

41

,731

84.6

438

-

1,

118

21

,245

583

13

.489

4,50

7

11

7

Tew

ksbu

ry T

owns

hip

Hun

t.2.

875,

943

94.2

6,30

7

258,

007

12

0,29

5

94

.965

6

690

1,

585

22

,473

954

15

.382

1,70

0

62

Uni

on T

owns

hip

Hun

t.3.

615,

828

95.7

6,08

7

129,

167

56

,905

83.0

244

68

1

561

19,9

92

48

8

12.7

641,

480

51

Wes

t Am

wel

l Tow

nshi

pH

unt.

3.82

2,80

595

.22,

945

16

6,08

4

50,5

30

88

.542

8

-

1,25

9

18,3

21

62

4

14.9

328

748

89

Eas

t Win

dsor

Tow

nshi

pM

erc,

4.36

27,5

5694

.229

,246

91,5

29

37,6

36

78

.618

3

(381

)

712

15,5

71

62

0

14.8

120

3,66

4

56

Ew

ing

Tow

nshi

pM

erc,

4.79

36,5

4794

.638

,642

73,8

62

34,4

53

72

.018

4

162

1,

072

17

,881

518

9.

425

32,

610

74

Ham

ilton

Tow

nshi

pM

erc,

3.65

88,9

1995

.593

,131

90,5

67

32,6

33

78

.119

6

551

1,

068

14

,801

529

13

.120

66,

010

81

Hig

htst

own

Bor

ough

Mer

c,4.

995,

567

93.7

5,93

9

71,1

99

32,1

46

83

.528

0

(318

)

1,10

9

13,0

00

46

5

13.7

853,

059

65

Hop

ewel

l Bor

ough

Mer

c,4.

061,

920

95.2

2,01

6

157,

259

52

,035

83.6

547

(6

0)

1,48

4

14,5

26

92

3

16.4

8450

2

113

Hop

ewel

l Tow

nshi

pM

erc,

3.55

18,3

7495

.919

,161

204,

678

81

,132

75.5

351

(8

5)

1,16

5

20,6

10

1,

342

15.2

8571

2

76

Law

renc

e T

owns

hip

Mer

c,3.

5633

,166

94.6

35,0

59

13

6,69

8

48,5

45

68

.544

3

(142

)

1,24

8

15,8

19

91

3

11.4

114

843

59

Pen

ning

ton

Bor

ough

Mer

c,3.

662,

587

95.2

2,71

7

185,

302

72

,139

87.0

314

(6

9)

1,20

6

16,7

47

1,

085

16.0

6957

9

79

Prin

ceto

nM

erc,

3.00

29,0

0892

.431

,388

230,

333

11

7,07

4

86

.087

4

(37)

1,

961

21

,263

1,36

1

10

.878

988

33

Rob

bins

ville

Tow

nshi

pM

erc,

4.18

14,0

5596

.414

,580

164,

512

55

,861

76.5

515

91

1,57

5

13,8

45

1,

046

20.1

9781

1

73

Tre

nton

City

Mer

c,5.

4584

,349

86.5

97,5

04

23

,626

15

,349

70.7

834

1,

741

2,04

1

19,5

53

15

7

14.0

452

16,7

27

22

Wes

t Win

dsor

Tow

nshi

pM

erc,

3.46

28,3

6696

.329

,450

208,

467

73

,853

73.3

422

62

6

1,30

7

16,3

65

1,

355

19.2

7475

1

43

Car

tere

t Bor

ough

Mid

d.4.

1023

,994

93.2

25,7

55

74

,830

23

,145

61.3

506

91

1

1,50

8

14,7

07

30

3

14.4

100

7,21

0

57

Cra

nbur

y T

owns

hip

Mid

d.2.

673,

910

96.3

4,06

1

385,

762

85

,119

47.6

1,10

6

(6

92)

2,

858

20

,154

1,41

0

19

.311

557

5

50

Dun

elle

n B

orou

ghM

idd.

4.66

7,34

695

.67,

681

71

,085

28

,391

87.5

159

(2

42)

85

3

13

,203

284

15

.078

4,70

5

76

Eas

t Bru

nsw

ick

Tow

nshi

pM

idd.

3.96

48,1

6096

.849

,756

146,

051

44

,050

79.5

336

(1

84)

1,

132

16

,142

546

17

.084

2,09

5

87

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Edi

son

Tow

nshi

pM

idd.

3.41

101,

450

96.3

105,

308

133,

356

39

,880

69.8

229

(4

2)

1,13

1

13,8

59

49

5

13.8

152

926

68

Hel

met

ta B

orou

ghM

idd.

3.97

2,20

796

.82,

279

88

,560

36

,280

96.1

385

-

98

2

10

,342

366

13

.262

-

87

Hig

hlan

d P

ark

Bor

ough

Mid

d.4.

4214

,361

94.7

15,1

63

84

,825

40

,908

89.8

167

48

0

896

17,8

12

34

7

10.3

652,

302

48

Jam

esbu

rg B

orou

ghM

idd.

4.55

5,99

495

.86,

256

69

,275

29

,481

85.4

245

(2

57)

89

4

13

,575

276

14

.666

5,49

2

66

Met

uche

n B

orou

ghM

idd.

3.84

13,7

5696

.414

,273

147,

148

50

,522

83.9

232

29

6

1,09

9

16,1

81

57

7

15.0

102

470

94

Mid

dles

ex B

orou

ghM

idd.

4.34

13,8

1296

.814

,266

98,3

57

31,2

94

80

.622

5

(286

)

1,16

0

14,2

27

39

1

14.7

125

4,18

3

10

9

Mill

tow

n B

orou

ghM

idd.

4.08

6,99

696

.37,

262

11

8,28

8

38,9

58

87

.436

3

(477

)

1,10

0

14,3

16

47

9

13.6

531,

124

115

Mon

roe

Tow

nshi

pM

idd.

3.63

41,6

6091

.645

,461

146,

733

45

,680

85.3

343

36

1,12

3

15,8

92

55

1

13.0

5044

8

121

New

Bru

nsw

ick

City

Mid

d.3.

7155

,831

93.8

59,5

24

53

,336

16

,447

62.9

576

(2

01)

1,

290

17

,395

199

14

.422

714

,305

12

Nor

th B

runs

wic

k T

owns

hipM

idd.

4.04

42,2

4196

.743

,675

102,

169

34

,623

71.7

231

38

4

1,01

0

14,5

79

38

3

14.3

103

1,85

9

58

Old

Brid

ge T

owns

hip

Mid

d.3.

4366

,570

96.5

68,9

81

98

,546

35

,815

86.9

170

(2

80)

75

7

14

,617

383

13

.091

4,94

6

60

Per

th A

mbo

y C

ityM

idd.

4.45

51,9

8293

.155

,815

57,6

49

15,7

82

66

.710

7

(2,6

43)

1,28

6

16,1

38

21

0

17.5

165

16,3

32

38

Pis

cata

way

Tow

nshi

pM

idd.

3.73

58,4

0595

.960

,895

99,2

44

34,3

64

70

.721

5

(525

)

992

13,1

38

38

5

12.0

962,

133

53

Pla

insb

oro

Tow

nshi

pM

idd.

3.34

23,3

0993

.225

,012

149,

671

52

,305

69.6

404

61

5

1,02

5

16,0

73

59

1

16.4

6673

8

26

Say

revi

lle B

orou

ghM

idd.

3.69

44,4

1295

.446

,562

93,7

95

32,2

11

82

.832

3

(12)

1,

132

12

,908

391

13

.119

93,

437

76

Sou

th A

mbo

y C

ityM

idd.

4.11

8,81

094

.39,

343

89

,790

32

,439

85.8

270

(1

35)

1,

690

13

,506

356

12

.141

45,

835

80

Sou

th B

runs

wic

k T

owns

hiM

idd.

3.24

44,7

1795

.946

,613

168,

533

46

,286

67.6

284

12

8

1,06

3

14,4

98

62

9

18.9

111

2,64

2

49

Sou

th P

lain

field

Bor

ough

Mid

d.3.

4023

,784

97.3

24,4

39

15

1,50

6

34,0

18

64

.023

7

285

1,

097

15

,236

569

14

.311

12,

596

80

Sou

th R

iver

Bor

ough

Mid

d.3.

5316

,236

94.9

17,1

12

76

,713

26

,751

89.2

454

(1

6)

976

12,0

36

29

7

13.7

485,

489

66

Spo

tsw

ood

Bor

ough

Mid

d.4.

358,

402

96.5

8,70

8

86,8

87

33,4

81

88

.529

7

(294

)

1,12

6

14,8

23

34

6

13.5

825,

125

96

Woo

dbrid

ge T

owns

hip

Mid

d.4.

0810

0,57

495

.810

4,95

8

10

1,38

9

31,5

27

69

.821

8

(185

)

1,24

8

13,7

26

40

2

13.0

221

1,71

8

95

Abe

rdee

n T

owns

hip

Mon

.3.

9018

,216

96.8

18,8

15

10

7,80

9

37,0

00

86

.623

0

(617

)

860

16,3

63

32

6

12.9

773,

403

80

Alle

nhur

st B

orou

ghM

on.

2.04

493

59.5

829

774,

625

70

,221

93.0

2,54

5

-

5,

511

28

,539

1,88

5

0.

423

615

,895

97

Alle

ntow

n B

orou

ghM

on.

4.35

1,81

595

.81,

895

98

,437

37

,799

92.0

271

(5

02)

1,

127

13

,302

314

14

.969

2,63

9

90

Asb

ury

Par

k C

ityM

on.

3.32

15,8

5583

.319

,040

64,1

97

23,0

16

75

.769

6

1,14

2

2,

165

27

,102

181

12

.670

923

,154

14

Atla

ntic

Hig

hlan

ds B

orou

gM

on.

3.58

4,35

493

.44,

661

16

2,06

7

49,4

06

89

.345

5

204

1,

556

19

,729

497

9.

770

1,17

4

78

Avo

n-by

-the

-Sea

Bor

oug h

Mon

.2.

461,

909

68.2

2,79

9

355,

388

58

,865

94.0

1,10

4

(2

,479

)

2,

454

20

,550

1,01

6

5.

852

1,06

4

89

Bel

mar

Bor

ough

Mon

.2.

695,

736

68.6

8,36

7

183,

886

44

,065

88.9

888

(2

50)

1,

799

15

,784

557

6.

651

1,74

7

44

Bra

dley

Bea

ch B

orou

ghM

on.

2.95

4,27

666

.06,

481

16

6,88

9

38,0

16

93

.425

8

1,13

7

1,

315

18

,996

502

5.

755

2,83

2

51

Brie

lle B

orou

ghM

on.

3.02

4,77

188

.75,

376

25

7,40

6

65,4

09

90

.537

2

(567

)

1,60

3

15,0

96

77

6

15.4

5549

9

88

Col

ts N

eck

Tow

nshi

pM

on.

2.36

10,0

9987

.711

,510

266,

388

11

0,33

2

92

.721

4

181

95

5

26

,360

818

13

.117

24,

060

52

Dea

l Bor

ough

Mon

.2.

2174

336

.02,

066

1,

034,

878

114,

096

89.3

1,81

6

57

2

4,62

4

25,3

97

3,

493

8.0

220

12,9

00

44

Eat

onto

wn

Bor

ough

Mon

.3.

4912

,262

92.9

13,1

93

15

6,26

0

33,2

83

51

.246

4

(42)

1,

747

19

,155

478

11

.311

13,

514

50

Eng

lisht

own

Bor

ough

Mon

.3.

581,

948

96.0

2,03

0

109,

206

31

,422

81.8

319

74

1,01

3

10,9

58

35

1

19.2

703,

115

63

Fai

r H

aven

Bor

ough

Mon

.2.

786,

081

95.4

6,37

4

228,

756

93

,425

95.8

371

(2

12)

1,

277

12

,657

698

22

.371

366

69

Far

min

gdal

e B

orou

ghM

on.

3.32

1,31

194

.61,

385

99

,919

31

,504

83.5

232

17

8

563

16,9

36

32

0

13.8

995,

370

74

Fre

ehol

d B

orou

ghM

on.

4.23

12,0

4794

.312

,778

76,2

57

22,2

43

74

.134

3

107

1,

175

11

,421

230

16

.598

5,33

7

52

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Fre

ehol

d T

owns

hip

Mon

.3.

4436

,064

95.7

37,6

78

15

4,93

4

45,3

74

73

.631

4

(418

)

1,06

1

15,9

46

47

6

16.5

197

2,37

8

73

Haz

let T

owns

hip

Mon

.3.

7620

,223

96.3

21,0

08

10

6,29

2

34,5

21

79

.622

3

861

97

2

16

,099

341

14

.690

4,10

4

91

Hig

hlan

ds B

orou

ghM

on.

4.12

4,96

083

.45,

949

10

3,08

4

43,8

28

88

.662

9

(246

)

1,70

6

25,8

61

31

1

5.2

603,

377

63

Hol

mde

l Tow

nshi

pM

on.

3.03

16,7

1596

.417

,338

232,

374

84

,066

88.6

277

(6

3)

1,24

4

17,2

91

73

5

17.7

115

580

61

How

ell T

owns

hip

Mon

.3.

7251

,732

96.0

53,8

87

11

2,98

2

36,3

80

84

.521

6

677

85

3

15

,978

357

17

.114

74,

765

65

Inte

rlake

n B

orou

ghM

on.

2.50

820

91.9

893

286,

856

72

,970

99.8

314

-

2,

484

22

,166

845

4.

012

01,

684

126

Kea

nsbu

rg B

orou

ghM

on.

4.85

10,0

1488

.111

,364

47,2

28

22,1

04

89

.744

0

178

1,

478

22

,422

147

12

.716

118

,923

46

Key

port

Bor

ough

Mon

.3.

967,

196

93.7

7,67

7

86,8

08

29,7

25

77

.930

0

962

1,

167

17

,307

252

11

.193

6,34

6

57

Lake

Com

o B

orou

ghM

on.

3.76

1,72

670

.42,

452

14

9,49

8

32,7

39

91

.416

3

-

1,23

4

18,7

92

48

0

7.8

137

3,05

2

62

Littl

e S

ilver

Bor

ough

Mon

.3.

165,

906

94.2

6,26

9

254,

050

77

,045

91.4

760

58

1,93

1

17,4

35

76

5

17.9

9356

8

80

Loch

Arb

our

Vill

age

Mon

.4.

8519

351

.637

4

40

5,84

4

72,4

42

92

.71,

835

(1,4

61)

3,59

9

85,9

64

1,

228

7.1

100

9,82

2

33

3

Long

Bra

nch

City

Mon

.3.

8930

,390

82.9

36,6

40

11

9,36

5

30,5

83

85

.626

9

108

1,

395

15

,905

351

12

.911

78,

880

34

Man

alap

an T

owns

hip

Mon

.3.

1439

,851

96.6

41,2

69

14

8,05

2

47,6

88

92

.117

2

97

77

7

15

,199

444

17

.294

4,09

5

54

Man

asqu

an B

orou

ghM

on.

2.70

5,75

767

.88,

488

22

5,13

6

45,6

75

90

.249

4

(778

)

1,21

9

13,4

20

69

5

11.3

4659

0

73

Mar

lbor

o T

owns

hip

Mon

.3.

1840

,326

96.8

41,6

75

16

8,28

4

58,0

98

91

.215

7

(194

)

811

22,7

28

51

3

12.7

544,

835

57

Mat

awan

Bor

ough

Mon

.4.

088,

755

93.1

9,40

2

98,2

73

38,4

81

85

.813

8

(516

)

1,12

3

13,6

84

30

1

14.3

154

2,84

6

68

Mid

dlet

own

Tow

nshi

pM

on.

3.30

66,2

9096

.069

,048

147,

193

49

,855

88.1

193

61

2

1,01

2

15,7

46

42

9

14.1

881,

798

70

Mill

ston

e T

owns

hip

Mon

.3.

5510

,483

96.1

10,9

05

15

8,29

6

59,1

34

93

.224

6

(630

)

647

17,3

89

50

7

17.6

772,

470

55

Mon

mou

th B

each

Bor

oug h

Mon

.2.

303,

290

75.4

4,36

2

291,

018

85

,099

96.0

1,02

0

47

7

1,99

7

22,3

59

86

6

8.4

6769

1

67

Nep

tune

City

Bor

ough

Mon

.3.

914,

839

92.3

5,24

5

92,2

16

28,7

00

79

.02,

777

871

3,

766

14

,091

296

11

.491

3,38

4

87

Nep

tune

Tow

nshi

pM

on.

3.61

27,8

4686

.232

,296

108,

866

29

,629

83.0

(92)

(9

20)

85

3

16

,386

326

12

.015

58,

395

66

Oce

an T

owns

hip

Mon

.3.

4427

,254

91.9

29,6

43

15

0,93

7

43,9

30

84

.136

9

(291

)

1,13

2

17,0

91

46

4

12.7

851,

953

73

Oce

anpo

rt B

orou

ghM

on.

3.24

5,81

693

.26,

242

18

0,19

7

53,1

14

86

.658

7

416

1,

537

15

,989

565

13

.087

674

93

Red

Ban

k B

orou

ghM

on.

3.45

12,2

1391

.613

,333

150,

419

39

,528

66.8

512

19

6

1,59

1

15,3

54

42

7

12.7

151

2,00

4

50

Roo

seve

lt B

orou

ghM

on.

4.75

873

96.0

909

89,7

55

38,7

80

96

.229

5

(2,0

42)

1,07

8

16,7

47

28

9

14.8

907,

194

73

Rum

son

Bor

ough

Mon

.2.

207,

006

90.7

7,72

6

429,

758

15

8,49

8

94

.767

2

(1,2

82)

2,11

1

42,6

15

1,

303

8.0

861,

083

47

Sea

Brig

ht B

orou

ghM

on.

2.42

1,35

965

.42,

078

33

4,00

7

82,7

03

86

.01,

821

(416

)

3,56

9

46,2

96

91

3

2.8

7798

8

35

Sea

Girt

Bor

ough

Mon

.1.

781,

811

63.7

2,84

1

730,

666

12

1,89

4

95

.641

5

(1,4

51)

2,31

4

21,0

96

2,

158

6.5

6954

4

79

Shr

ewsb

ury

Bor

ough

Mon

.3.

273,

937

96.3

4,09

0

256,

385

61

,346

61.8

535

13

8

2,21

6

19,2

85

75

0

16.1

9369

3

75

Shr

ewsb

ury

Tow

nshi

pM

on.

4.32

1,12

490

.01,

249

43

,618

23

,245

100.

041

(4

)

76

0

6,

705

15

1

9.5

6996

7

47

Spr

ing

Lake

Bor

ough

Mon

.1.

683,

001

61.2

4,90

5

682,

089

10

8,93

9

93

.359

0

1,08

6

2,

097

22

,726

1,97

0

5.

962

640

63

Spr

ing

Lake

Hei

ghts

Bor

oM

on.

2.60

4,68

977

.96,

017

18

2,97

8

43,8

94

89

.120

1

313

93

3

16

,540

538

8.

166

644

71

Tin

ton

Fal

ls B

orou

ghM

on.

2.87

17,9

7695

.318

,860

161,

602

50

,148

77.6

460

44

1

1,23

7

20,1

91

45

9

10.1

792,

793

65

Uni

on B

each

Bor

ough

Mon

.4.

105,

805

94.4

6,14

6

88,2

45

27,7

85

84

.882

0

(477

)

1,89

0

14,9

59

26

5

15.1

108

8,98

3

79

Upp

er F

reeh

old

Tow

nshi

pM

on.

3.71

6,91

296

.17,

190

16

7,75

1

52,9

05

92

.029

6

(685

)

794

18,1

48

52

9

18.2

723,

600

72

Wal

l Tow

nshi

pM

on.

3.25

26,0

9592

.428

,255

192,

669

51

,227

77.8

213

16

7

1,24

5

17,4

99

60

5

13.1

125

941

76

Wes

t Lon

g B

ranc

h B

orou

gMon

.3.

638,

509

94.3

9,02

3

138,

122

45

,867

80.6

210

(5

03)

1,

131

17

,406

432

9.

288

487

79

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Boo

nton

Tow

nM

orr.

4.23

8,43

095

.28,

855

12

2,56

6

38,0

62

79

.156

4

(621

)

1,60

0

17,6

13

31

6

11.6

103

1,14

1

79

Boo

nton

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

3.01

4,35

595

.64,

554

20

2,88

2

84,1

00

95

.353

7

(367

)

1,41

4

16,7

72

52

7

16.2

5361

3

70

But

ler

Bor

ough

Mor

r.4.

147,

618

95.6

7,96

5

119,

855

36

,175

83.2

765

(3

28)

1,

734

17

,448

313

11

.712

12,

096

91

Cha

tham

Bor

ough

Mor

r.2.

599,

039

95.7

9,44

2

240,

832

83

,179

88.5

881

(2

7)

1,82

3

11,7

47

61

4

22.5

6137

0

59

Cha

tham

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

2.28

10,6

5094

.811

,229

288,

720

13

1,35

0

94

.752

9

(41)

1,

469

17

,660

729

17

.374

556

56

Che

ster

Bor

ough

Mor

r.3.

411,

675

95.1

1,76

2

217,

951

67

,360

57.0

1,19

2

(2

3)

3,16

6

16,9

73

57

6

17.7

8391

5

73

Che

ster

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

3.10

7,94

896

.18,

270

22

8,97

5

107,

554

96.3

626

(3

1)

1,88

4

18,6

15

58

5

18.7

108

1,24

1

66

Den

ville

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

3.45

16,8

7295

.517

,664

179,

014

54

,813

82.2

639

(4

54)

1,

486

19

,034

462

14

.410

31,

495

80

Dov

er T

own

Mor

r.3.

6518

,367

96.2

19,0

97

70

,427

19

,280

72.8

686

(6

24)

1,

436

12

,730

177

13

.866

8,44

7

40

Eas

t Han

over

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

2.58

11,3

0697

.911

,547

298,

366

54

,186

57.8

766

14

6

2,28

3

19,1

98

75

1

13.2

244

616

10

4

Flo

rham

Par

k B

orou

ghM

orr.

2.47

11,8

3195

.312

,416

229,

766

68

,439

66.8

856

(2

77)

1,

961

17

,822

611

10

.983

495

72

Han

over

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

2.70

14,2

2496

.114

,808

235,

045

51

,761

60.5

728

(2

18)

1,

915

15

,117

658

14

.915

551

1

81

Har

ding

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

1.78

3,87

391

.64,

230

53

2,73

1

191,

824

93.0

943

(3

5)

2,58

4

22,7

56

1,

409

10.0

107

530

35

Jeffe

rson

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

3.88

21,5

2291

.123

,630

110,

472

40

,580

90.5

362

74

1,24

6

16,5

07

27

4

14.1

884,

737

76

Kin

nelo

n B

orou

ghM

orr.

3.61

10,4

0096

.410

,783

189,

126

75

,952

94.9

423

(2

57)

1,

360

16

,653

490

19

.572

685

69

Linc

oln

Par

k B

orou

ghM

orr.

4.11

10,4

7096

.510

,847

123,

285

41

,407

86.7

746

60

2,01

8

15,6

49

32

3

11.4

841,

278

101

Long

Hill

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

3.63

8,81

296

.29,

155

17

5,63

6

61,9

26

89

.387

9

201

2,

118

18

,099

446

14

.814

863

7

97

Mad

ison

Bor

ough

Mor

r.2.

5716

,274

95.0

17,1

34

20

7,99

0

82,1

73

85

.41,

185

(284

)

2,06

4

15,1

51

52

5

14.0

4739

2

53

Men

dham

Bor

ough

Mor

r.2.

585,

020

95.8

5,24

2

258,

882

12

1,34

7

91

.147

4

(165

)

1,64

5

17,7

49

65

1

18.0

9693

7

65

Men

dham

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

2.62

5,89

994

.76,

231

30

5,29

1

169,

800

98.0

616

27

8

1,79

3

23,0

07

78

9

18.5

781,

238

50

Min

e H

ill T

owns

hip

Mor

r.4.

203,

686

96.3

3,82

7

112,

926

34

,147

86.1

470

(1

,256

)

1,

402

15

,544

295

14

.374

5,01

9

11

0

Mon

tvill

e T

owns

hip

Mor

r.3.

1921

,830

95.7

22,8

16

20

8,95

8

67,5

77

84

.471

2

(224

)

1,71

9

16,3

17

53

0

17.5

9444

0

77

Mor

ris P

lain

s B

orou

ghM

orr.

3.16

5,73

997

.05,

917

25

0,63

5

56,8

20

64

.966

1

(394

)

2,44

1

17,4

95

62

0

14.5

104

875

10

7

Mor

ris T

owns

hip

Mor

r.2.

6122

,581

95.6

23,6

20

21

7,08

7

87,9

62

82

.757

7

691

1,

711

23

,373

559

11

.113

91,

617

56

Mor

risto

wn

Tow

nM

orr.

3.14

18,5

2990

.820

,415

125,

453

48

,368

66.7

1,24

7

40

4

2,52

4

13,6

61

32

0

10.8

141

945

38

Mou

nt A

rling

ton

Bor

ough

Mor

r.3.

745,

162

89.7

5,75

4

130,

397

43

,132

89.0

1,12

1

(2

53)

2,

145

20

,097

333

8.

559

1,07

9

84

Mou

nt O

live

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

4.25

28,7

3895

.130

,227

102,

243

40

,973

75.4

403

(7

16)

1,

128

16

,130

267

15

.568

3,22

8

46

Mou

ntai

n La

kes

Bor

ough

Mor

r.2.

974,

269

96.3

4,43

2

296,

608

12

9,96

2

90

.01,

042

311

2,

370

17

,754

728

26

.294

645

48

Net

cong

Bor

ough

Mor

r.4.

513,

257

95.3

3,41

7

80,7

05

28,4

54

80

.040

3

(486

)

1,23

4

14,7

65

20

1

12.7

117

4,49

0

74

Par

sipp

any-

Tro

y H

ills

To w

Mor

r.3.

4153

,868

95.3

56,5

11

15

0,15

0

41,8

67

66

.853

8

(114

)

1,40

2

17,8

27

37

6

12.5

8163

6

67

Peq

uann

ock

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

3.37

15,6

4295

.216

,423

151,

286

45

,521

87.7

480

(3

2)

1,29

5

14,9

39

38

1

13.8

7494

5

113

Ran

dolp

h T

owns

hip

Mor

r.3.

4725

,982

96.5

26,9

33

15

6,77

9

61,7

72

86

.71,

023

(40)

1,

848

16

,690

397

18

.469

2,55

8

47

Riv

erda

le B

orou

ghM

orr.

2.88

4,06

093

.44,

349

19

9,04

8

44,0

70

65

.945

1

(306

)

1,79

4

16,2

29

50

8

10.0

101

553

74

Roc

kaw

ay B

orou

ghM

orr.

3.82

6,50

496

.96,

712

12

8,16

4

34,9

74

75

.560

3

260

1,

521

14

,279

320

14

.381

1,23

3

78

Roc

kaw

ay T

owns

hip

Mor

r.4.

4024

,493

93.7

26,1

40

14

6,35

0

42,6

94

76

.347

6

(100

)

1,64

2

19,6

02

37

3

14.1

681,

660

84

Rox

bury

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

4.06

23,5

8096

.624

,405

126,

894

42

,211

80.0

402

(4

13)

1,

393

17

,449

340

14

.986

3,71

3

84

Vic

tory

Gar

dens

Bor

ough

Mor

r.3.

601,

535

94.2

1,63

0

40,5

35

18,5

45

83

.960

3

-

1,02

5

11,7

75

12

3

15.9

458,

447

31

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Was

hing

ton

Tow

nshi

pM

orr.

3.55

18,7

4096

.119

,494

144,

492

57

,649

93.3

328

(2

22)

1,

006

14

,936

373

19

.073

2,57

2

52

Wha

rton

Bor

ough

Mor

r.4.

086,

617

95.0

6,96

7

99,9

62

28,6

38

68

.998

9

(45)

1,

614

15

,356

262

16

.479

4,08

2

67

Bar

nega

t Lig

ht B

orou

ghO

c.2.

1757

721

.42,

700

38

3,38

1

50,1

13

93

.146

0

3,45

0

1,

214

83

,716

1,44

7

1.

131

1,97

3

65

Bar

nega

t Tow

nshi

pO

c.4.

1321

,913

89.5

24,4

93

91

,962

28

,160

89.2

189

(5

31)

91

8

14

,548

377

13

.143

6,24

8

98

Bay

Hea

d B

orou

ghO

c.2.

5299

244

.92,

211

69

3,74

5

73,0

35

94

.21,

109

(1,6

31)

2,58

8

29,3

47

2,

687

4.6

7764

7

57

Bea

ch H

aven

Bor

ough

Oc.

2.58

1,17

719

.95,

912

33

2,77

6

48,7

24

90

.372

4

2,06

0

1,

844

56

,369

1,12

6

1.

938

1,21

8

24

Bea

chw

ood

Bor

ough

Oc.

3.27

11,1

7296

.211

,609

75,7

64

27,6

28

95

.121

3

53

85

7

5,

897

30

7

17.0

572,

055

60

Ber

kele

y T

owns

hip

Oc.

3.73

41,8

2985

.448

,960

104,

401

27

,796

91.2

258

31

2

935

14,7

83

41

9

7.5

871,

394

112

Bric

k T

owns

hip

Oc.

3.59

75,8

3288

.685

,577

122,

760

33

,422

88.5

329

22

9

1,16

2

14,5

05

49

4

11.0

633,

808

82

Eag

lesw

ood

Tow

nshi

pO

c.3.

681,

621

81.7

1,98

4

119,

274

41

,859

75.4

326

92

2

31

,807

501

6.

310

35,

337

77

Har

vey

Ced

ars

Bor

ough

Oc.

2.02

343

13.9

2,46

4

509,

404

92

,204

97.7

648

5,

538

1,91

1

127,

025

1,94

5

1.

343

1,85

1

24

Isla

nd H

eigh

ts B

orou

ghO

c.3.

331,

681

82.2

2,04

5

168,

797

45

,254

89.9

294

57

4

1,15

2

21,8

92

66

6

7.5

571,

857

82

Jack

son

Tow

nshi

pO

c.3.

5256

,079

95.5

58,7

51

11

0,50

8

34,3

04

88

.210

9

10

68

8

14

,297

441

15

.358

5,47

6

71

Lace

y T

owns

hip

Oc.

3.26

28,0

2188

.031

,846

123,

837

31

,669

84.1

199

15

0

892

14,6

46

48

3

14.1

354

4,69

6

76

Lake

hurs

t Bor

ough

Oc.

3.84

2,70

093

.42,

890

59

,708

21

,377

82.8

471

38

0

1,29

9

14,7

45

27

1

17.3

102

12,0

49

53

Lake

woo

d T

owns

hip

Oc.

3.93

93,5

9292

.210

1,50

9

71

,606

15

,524

78.8

154

1,

411

689

18,5

60

27

8

5.7

514,

220

35

Lava

llette

Bor

ough

Oc.

1.99

1,86

629

.56,

333

32

7,16

8

60,9

57

97

.064

1

(1,7

10)

1,44

4

29,0

27

1,

317

2.0

271,

366

63

Littl

e E

gg H

arbo

r T

owns

h iO

c.3.

7920

,344

78.1

26,0

58

91

,538

28

,332

90.8

199

(5

7)

845

16,8

68

35

8

10.0

566,

986

76

Long

Bea

ch T

owns

hip

Oc.

2.52

3,06

216

.718

,336

446,

084

55

,539

95.8

328

6,

819

1,29

5

133,

489

1,70

2

0.

937

1,92

8

30

Man

ches

ter

Tow

nshi

pO

c.3.

4843

,342

88.2

49,1

22

72

,761

27

,511

84.7

150

(1

49)

63

9

16

,379

267

5.

865

1,90

5

96

Man

tolo

king

Bor

ough

Oc.

1.94

261

30.3

862

1,22

4,10

6

13

9,06

8

95

.53,

787

-

6,58

0

23,8

34

4,

846

0.3

171

-

69

Oce

an G

ate

Bor

ough

Oc.

4.83

2,02

569

.22,

928

80

,334

30

,150

96.8

554

47

9

1,17

3

16,9

53

32

3

7.4

494,

860

58

Oce

an T

owns

hip

Oc.

3.25

8,65

381

.210

,660

122,

209

32

,929

90.3

430

(5

36)

1,

132

18

,681

497

8.

457

7,69

4

78

Pin

e B

each

Bor

ough

Oc.

3.00

2,15

790

.62,

381

11

4,42

3

39,2

00

95

.826

2

105

1,

016

11

,616

431

12

.987

4,04

8

80

Plu

mst

ed T

owns

hip

Oc.

3.14

8,52

395

.78,

903

95

,151

34

,152

90.7

275

(1

4)

541

14,9

70

35

4

17.1

517,

405

61

Poi

nt P

leas

ant B

each

Bor

oOc.

2.63

4,64

258

.87,

888

26

1,43

4

45,5

81

79

.670

3

658

1,

307

20

,902

980

8.

172

730

66

Poi

nt P

leas

ant B

orou

ghO

c.3.

5618

,521

87.3

21,2

15

15

3,28

8

41,2

45

91

.118

6

(164

)

1,10

4

13,0

49

60

0

13.6

582,

077

80

Sea

side

Hei

ghts

Bor

ough

Oc.

4.52

2,90

645

.86,

342

10

3,45

1

22,0

62

66

.41,

538

2,94

7

2,

356

20

,096

405

4.

525

4,33

7

17

Sea

side

Par

k B

orou

ghO

c.2.

981,

592

30.8

5,16

6

230,

010

45

,074

94.5

1,05

2

1,

530

2,02

5

87,3

93

91

0

1.2

4012

,063

47

Shi

p B

otto

m B

orou

ghO

c.2.

501,

159

26.9

4,31

4

288,

082

38

,108

87.3

560

1,

263

1,55

0

32,3

44

1,

096

2.2

572,

307

31

Sou

th T

oms

Riv

er B

orou

gO

c.4.

013,

718

94.7

3,92

8

59,2

36

18,8

32

84

.234

0

37

1,

137

4,

031

22

8

19.2

841,

405

69

Sta

fford

Tow

nshi

pO

c.3.

4826

,941

74.2

36,3

02

10

9,87

9

30,9

77

83

.623

6

102

1,

178

19

,770

411

6.

472

4,79

7

76

Sur

f City

Bor

ough

Oc.

2.41

1,21

224

.25,

000

33

2,36

1

44,3

39

93

.841

9

2,89

2

1,

209

68

,702

1,25

1

1.

433

2,09

1

40

Tom

s R

iver

Tow

nshi

pO

c.2.

7091

,583

80.2

114,

173

123,

952

34

,715

80.7

420

12

2

1,03

7

13,9

15

42

8

11.5

745,

166

66

Tuc

kert

on B

orou

ghO

c.3.

793,

378

73.4

4,60

2

93,1

33

28,3

00

86

.026

6

436

89

4

16

,580

373

11

.371

6,79

8

68

Blo

omin

gdal

e B

orou

ghP

as.

5.57

7,74

295

.08,

148

96

,461

37

,757

86.9

215

(2

97)

1,

262

19

,142

678

10

.868

2,21

4

12

5

Clif

ton

City

Pas

.4.

3885

,390

96.0

88,9

69

10

9,02

1

29,5

54

73

.222

2

8

1,

199

13

,382

717

12

.611

32,

327

95

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Hal

edon

Bor

ough

Pas

.5.

928,

385

94.7

8,85

0

61,3

19

21,5

41

84

.124

9

(522

)

1,08

4

13,8

17

44

3

15.5

786,

916

74

Haw

thor

ne B

orou

ghP

as.

4.62

18,9

8796

.119

,756

114,

237

36

,778

83.4

203

53

8

986

16,0

93

80

2

12.0

7484

6

109

Littl

e F

alls

Tow

nshi

pP

as.

4.20

14,5

2296

.215

,089

111,

225

42

,288

78.2

170

20

9

1,02

8

16,2

27

71

5

8.8

8561

8

110

Nor

th H

aled

on B

orou

ghP

as.

4.27

8,48

597

.28,

730

14

7,75

5

45,2

98

93

.822

5

(42)

1,

390

19

,734

1,03

0

9.

469

3,15

7

13

5

Pas

saic

City

Pas

.4.

5370

,868

95.0

74,5

96

42

,810

14

,290

72.4

148

27

6

1,10

2

18,5

44

29

6

18.0

168

17,0

00

22

Pat

erso

n C

ityP

as.

5.24

145,

948

92.5

157,

857

43,1

73

14,1

99

73

.041

1

(152

)

1,55

9

16,1

30

29

0

17.1

209

14,8

19

26

Pom

pton

Lak

esP

as.

5.43

11,1

4896

.511

,550

97,7

09

37,4

35

87

.813

8

7

1,

078

16

,883

684

13

.791

2,43

8

11

5

Pro

spec

t Par

k B

orou

ghP

as.

5.91

5,91

393

.16,

354

42

,018

18

,059

88.4

244

12

6

940

12,5

52

26

9

18.7

547,

916

52

Rin

gwoo

d B

orou

ghP

as.

4.64

12,3

3596

.612

,774

127,

586

44

,941

89.1

196

36

1,18

0

17,0

34

87

6

14.3

129

2,92

6

96

Tot

owa

Bor

ough

Pas

.4.

0310

,907

96.6

11,2

96

17

7,70

7

38,8

74

58

.931

7

105

1,

492

16

,194

1,24

8

13

.211

554

4

151

Wan

aque

Bor

ough

Pas

.4.

9511

,208

96.0

11,6

71

10

9,62

1

36,5

34

86

.215

2

309

1,

063

19

,214

702

11

.778

3,50

5

10

8

Way

ne T

owns

hip

Pas

.4.

3055

,040

96.8

56,8

85

16

6,99

2

50,6

83

74

.824

7

220

1,

392

16

,578

1,11

3

14

.777

453

10

8

Wes

t Milf

ord

Tow

nshi

pP

as.

5.09

26,5

2092

.428

,708

104,

466

39

,177

88.9

231

(8

3)

1,15

7

17,9

62

73

0

12.9

110

3,91

1

90

Woo

dlan

d P

ark

Bor

ough

Pas

.4.

5512

,274

95.8

12,8

12

12

7,11

6

34,4

21

77

.726

3

11

1,

236

13

,766

894

12

.865

664

12

6

Allo

way

Tow

nshi

pS

alem

3.72

3,43

494

.13,

650

80

,336

35

,077

88.7

266

(7

6)

521

14,0

67

74

6

14.6

106

6,97

9

64

Car

neys

Poi

nt T

owns

hip

Sal

em4.

087,

955

93.2

8,53

5

78,9

26

24,3

12

64

.764

9

(291

)

1,08

0

24,9

38

79

8

11.9

9516

,778

69

Elm

er B

orou

ghS

alem

3.98

1,36

992

.91,

474

72

,377

28

,129

77.1

234

(8

09)

70

4

13

,375

664

15

.186

8,39

6

83

Els

inbo

ro T

owns

hip

Sal

em4.

111,

017

86.8

1,17

1

91,0

01

35,6

05

93

.226

3

-

683

15,6

29

96

2

13.0

102

6,70

9

96

Low

er A

llow

ays

Cre

ek T

o wS

alem

1.37

1,74

193

.41,

864

16

0,84

7

30,1

29

42

.21,

326

(1,0

68)

5,20

5

3,44

7

1,37

1

10

.538

794,

516

29

Man

ning

ton

Tow

nshi

pS

alem

3.84

1,78

891

.21,

960

10

2,97

0

32,5

80

54

.017

8

628

65

3

19

,389

1,06

2

8.

413

93,

372

56

Old

man

s T

owns

hip

Sal

em3.

781,

861

93.3

1,99

5

116,

474

30

,476

64.0

341

36

3

659

15,2

98

1,

271

15.2

116

6,44

6

74

Pen

ns G

rove

Bor

ough

Sal

em5.

605,

047

89.9

5,61

6

27,9

54

14,6

10

78

.433

8

(67)

1,

037

5,

733

29

9

19.7

222

3,85

7

39

Pen

nsvi

lle T

owns

hip

Sal

em4.

7513

,117

92.8

14,1

27

79

,620

29

,607

70.6

222

59

6

1,06

1

15,9

79

83

7

12.5

375

4,85

5

88

Pile

sgro

ve T

owns

hip

Sal

em3.

863,

995

93.4

4,28

0

103,

358

39

,406

85.2

247

(1

,262

)

64

9

16

,619

999

13

.610

47,

334

83

Pitt

sgro

ve T

owns

hip

Sal

em3.

579,

231

96.0

9,61

6

65,9

08

36,7

20

87

.915

3

164

40

9

15

,657

643

15

.472

9,07

2

65

Qui

nton

Tow

nshi

pS

alem

3.97

2,63

794

.32,

797

69

,064

27

,930

86.6

248

(2

15)

50

6

16

,041

654

12

.911

59,

407

92

Sal

em C

ityS

alem

5.67

5,02

181

.96,

129

34

,899

15

,366

68.3

431

(4

31)

1,

343

18

,712

351

16

.122

816

,609

43

Upp

er P

ittsg

rove

Tow

nshi

Sal

em3.

743,

471

95.2

3,64

6

81,7

49

30,1

97

86

.822

1

(398

)

482

13,4

94

81

5

14.4

122

6,58

4

81

Woo

dsto

wn

Bor

ough

Sal

em4.

313,

482

94.4

3,68

7

74,8

54

31,6

22

85

.735

6

(777

)

885

10,2

30

73

7

16.0

684,

514

72

Bed

min

ster

Tow

nshi

pS

om.

2.09

8,22

294

.38,

721

28

8,48

9

84,1

39

77

.630

3

(543

)

1,24

9

18,9

61

93

0

9.5

9978

8

47

Ber

nard

s T

owns

hip

Som

.2.

7326

,924

96.8

27,8

05

24

2,39

6

94,9

10

88

.255

7

(408

)

1,35

6

14,4

31

79

8

20.7

6553

2

54

Ber

nard

svill

e B

orou

ghS

om.

2.41

7,76

793

.58,

305

28

3,71

5

130,

541

90.5

461

(4

39)

1,

689

17

,463

950

15

.880

472

50

Bou

nd B

rook

Bor

ough

Som

.4.

8910

,487

94.0

11,1

60

65

,212

23

,580

82.8

375

83

2

1,13

4

14,0

77

27

1

14.1

100

5,10

8

73

Bra

nchb

urg

Tow

nshi

pS

om.

3.16

14,5

6097

.314

,969

192,

753

57

,638

72.9

343

11

0

1,22

7

16,8

51

72

0

16.2

202

790

68

Brid

gew

ater

Tow

nshi

pS

om.

2.94

44,9

7396

.746

,497

192,

367

54

,260

73.6

262

(4

5)

838

15,8

26

70

7

16.3

127

1,05

9

72

Far

Hill

s B

orou

ghS

om.

1.43

925

90.0

1,02

8

428,

248

36

9,09

8

92

.048

8

(483

)

2,69

4

19,2

15

1,

433

9.2

6352

0

32

Fra

nklin

Tow

nshi

pS

om.

3.38

65,2

8095

.468

,432

128,

866

40

,783

72.0

239

(4

08)

88

4

16

,936

434

11

.768

1,62

1

60

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Gre

en B

rook

Tow

nshi

pS

om.

3.81

7,25

597

.07,

478

18

4,07

4

57,1

28

82

.319

8

(140

)

1,12

3

16,3

00

70

3

18.1

8567

4

86

Hill

sbor

ough

Tow

nshi

pS

om.

3.30

39,2

9996

.740

,622

143,

513

50

,065

87.2

163

15

4

712

15,1

18

56

6

17.6

803,

493

53

Man

ville

Bor

ough

Som

.4.

6510

,424

93.9

11,1

01

82

,359

25

,744

86.9

255

41

4

1,17

7

13,9

45

33

5

12.5

145

3,76

3

13

7

Mill

ston

e B

orou

ghS

om.

3.96

418

97.0

431

128,

877

39

,231

91.8

283

-

1,

173

10

,240

483

18

.315

3-

135

Mon

tgom

ery

Tow

nshi

pS

om.

3.37

22,4

9996

.623

,286

190,

453

80

,010

90.6

534

21

2

1,16

8

16,4

72

75

2

20.1

5983

8

44

Nor

th P

lain

field

Bor

ough

Som

.5.

2122

,056

94.9

23,2

41

65

,651

24

,280

83.7

165

(4

6)

988

16,0

01

25

4

14.3

667,

377

59

Pea

pack

-Gla

dsto

ne B

oro u

Som

.2.

742,

587

93.5

2,76

8

255,

739

96

,615

78.8

874

(4

57)

2,

317

18

,164

968

12

.691

491

54

Rar

itan

Bor

ough

Som

.3.

617,

706

93.9

8,20

8

134,

147

34

,982

54.0

263

(4

2)

1,24

2

14,7

37

48

8

13.0

8198

7

72

Roc

ky H

ill B

orou

ghS

om.

2.72

686

95.9

715

178,

207

82

,280

87.1

834

-

1,

577

14

,748

675

14

.710

7-

86

Som

ervi

lle B

orou

ghS

om.

4.58

12,1

7192

.713

,125

90,8

30

31,6

10

69

.234

1

(202

)

1,32

6

16,5

69

34

9

12.4

107

3,29

1

65

Sou

th B

ound

Bro

ok B

oro u

Som

.4.

494,

596

92.9

4,94

6

61,5

34

28,2

65

91

.850

2

(306

)

1,16

0

16,2

31

22

7

11.2

855,

993

72

War

ren

Tow

nshi

pS

om.

2.79

15,8

8596

.216

,510

260,

914

98

,148

82.1

260

(3

67)

1,

123

18

,799

965

17

.680

582

61

Wat

chun

g B

orou

ghS

om.

2.89

5,86

594

.66,

198

26

3,28

0

96,0

87

79

.184

1

(24)

2,

360

18

,527

1,00

5

16

.211

360

0

69

And

over

Bor

ough

Sus

.4.

2659

291

.664

6

11

5,98

2

29,4

80

67

.928

7

613

98

4

13

,942

589

15

.919

72,

043

91

And

over

Tow

nshi

pS

us.

4.37

6,18

194

.96,

512

10

8,50

1

45,3

91

83

.926

2

848

1,

188

19

,292

549

11

.271

2,82

7

68

Bra

nchv

ille

Bor

ough

Sus

.3.

6782

194

.387

1

15

9,03

2

31,3

88

55

.139

7

(284

)

1,17

4

23,2

29

84

3

11.7

777

3,25

9

10

0

Byr

am T

owns

hip

Sus

.4.

718,

162

91.2

8,94

6

109,

822

40

,594

89.2

242

(9

3)

1,22

0

17,1

29

56

1

15.3

694,

604

79

Fra

nkfo

rd T

owns

hip

Sus

.3.

845,

495

81.2

6,76

8

124,

336

37

,597

87.8

152

(3

10)

55

0

22

,874

575

10

.371

5,63

2

73

Fra

nklin

Bor

ough

Sus

.4.

744,

937

90.6

5,44

7

75,0

74

26,3

56

69

.819

5

349

1,

131

17

,035

403

12

.211

46,

524

71

Fre

don

Tow

nshi

pS

us.

4.16

3,32

093

.63,

546

12

6,97

9

46,4

57

93

.018

0

486

72

8

17

,341

652

16

.176

3,17

4

76

Gre

en T

owns

hip

Sus

.4.

553,

530

94.4

3,73

9

124,

201

42

,853

92.3

199

25

5

941

15,7

52

58

6

18.4

563,

393

76

Ham

burg

Bor

ough

Sus

.4.

883,

193

92.4

3,45

5

79,0

15

31,1

74

86

.921

6

745

86

0

20

,210

412

11

.765

5,88

7

10

2

Ham

pton

Tow

nshi

pS

us.

3.97

5,07

191

.95,

520

11

0,33

5

35,5

00

79

.814

2

1,03

3

66

5

19

,472

582

12

.680

4,50

6

77

Har

dyst

on T

owns

hip

Sus

.3.

888,

088

86.0

9,40

0

126,

112

38

,896

82.7

273

57

4

1,10

0

19,8

83

62

5

10.4

774,

515

69

Hop

atco

ng B

orou

ghS

us.

4.35

14,8

0689

.816

,490

100,

115

34

,220

93.4

194

(1

36)

1,

004

18

,922

463

11

.058

6,24

3

83

Lafa

yette

Tow

nshi

pS

us.

4.16

2,48

295

.22,

607

14

3,60

9

39,0

06

79

.940

1

135

81

1

20

,629

670

14

.172

3,28

3

10

9

Mon

tagu

e T

owns

hip

Sus

.4.

133,

795

85.2

4,45

5

74,7

89

28,2

98

84

.810

9

(383

)

456

17,7

66

37

9

10.3

855,

886

63

New

ton

Tow

nS

us.

5.42

7,94

291

.18,

716

72

,768

28

,617

88.9

305

(1

80)

1,

331

16

,242

385

12

.511

85,

350

73

Ogd

ensb

urg

Bor

ough

Sus

.4.

912,

329

95.5

2,44

0

81,7

74

31,4

41

90

.818

8

336

1,

160

14

,686

438

17

.281

6,58

7

98

San

dyst

on T

owns

hip

Sus

.3.

791,

932

79.8

2,42

2

105,

376

34

,486

87.5

191

82

1

523

20,8

59

49

3

11.9

107

7,07

3

75

Spa

rta

Tow

nshi

pS

us.

4.29

19,4

4492

.521

,015

150,

477

54

,587

88.4

295

18

4

1,17

9

17,8

41

73

0

16.6

621,

688

64

Sta

nhop

e B

orou

ghS

us.

4.87

3,52

294

.83,

714

88

,427

35

,097

89.8

306

58

5

1,23

3

16,2

67

43

0

14.4

604,

572

97

Stil

lwat

er T

owns

hip

Sus

.4.

124,

002

80.5

4,97

4

93,0

03

34,4

84

94

.120

7

888

70

9

17

,408

468

12

.869

4,92

6

74

Sus

sex

Bor

ough

Sus

.4.

612,

097

89.5

2,34

4

51,8

22

23,3

07

77

.817

2

198

61

6

13

,538

278

10

.780

4,45

5

59

Ver

non

Tow

nshi

pS

us.

4.25

22,9

9378

.729

,223

88,1

00

33,8

75

89

.516

9

368

77

6

19

,440

448

12

.177

7,08

4

64

Wan

tage

Tow

nshi

pS

us.

4.09

11,2

4293

.711

,998

98,2

39

34,0

57

88

.019

5

435

54

3

19

,241

497

13

.766

6,28

0

83

Ber

kele

y H

eigh

ts T

owns

h iU

n.3.

2813

,466

97.3

13,8

46

22

9,70

7

68,6

29

76

.426

2

404

1,

253

16

,539

1,16

2

17

.311

146

9

92

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Cla

rk T

owns

hip

Un.

3.94

15,1

8496

.715

,700

149,

777

43

,399

82.8

242

(6

59)

1,

324

13

,065

772

14

.011

445

8

133

Cra

nfor

d T

owns

hip

Un.

3.91

23,2

9397

.423

,925

157,

288

50

,043

83.6

364

44

1

1,43

4

13,9

42

82

7

15.9

121

587

11

7

Eliz

abet

h C

ityU

n.4.

7812

7,55

891

.413

9,57

9

46

,323

17

,488

68.9

427

41

2

1,55

9

18,5

24

23

8

16.4

209

15,8

33

26

Fan

woo

d B

orou

ghU

n.4.

247,

510

97.8

7,67

9

141,

933

49

,307

92.1

298

30

1,19

4

13,1

88

71

5

17.8

9846

5

111

Gar

woo

d B

orou

ghU

n.4.

264,

296

95.1

4,51

8

141,

867

37

,712

72.8

257

(2

02)

1,

649

14

,993

727

11

.410

884

7

125

Hill

side

Tow

nshi

pU

n.5.

5221

,787

94.4

23,0

86

72

,366

27

,458

78.5

346

36

2

1,79

7

16,3

51

37

5

12.8

187

7,12

1

85

Ken

ilwor

th B

orou

ghU

n.4.

308,

090

97.2

8,32

6

164,

266

32

,133

55.2

352

19

9

1,77

5

15,6

70

90

4

16.7

120

3,07

3

13

2

Lind

en C

ityU

n.5.

0041

,301

93.9

43,9

69

11

8,20

9

25,0

68

52

.548

3

1,39

8

2,

181

18

,821

618

13

.345

33,

619

92

Mou

ntai

nsid

e B

orou

ghU

n.3.

036,

808

96.5

7,05

6

238,

660

72

,036

82.3

358

(3

07)

1,

663

13

,762

1,18

1

14

.910

944

7

111

New

Pro

vide

nce

Bor

ough

Un.

3.52

12,3

3297

.212

,693

196,

172

66

,912

84.6

336

14

0

1,41

5

14,4

06

97

8

18.4

103

372

93

Pla

infie

ld C

ityU

n.5.

1350

,588

91.3

55,3

90

46

,818

20

,529

87.5

248

(1

59)

1,

336

16

,906

234

15

.314

014

,272

40

Rah

way

City

Un.

4.91

28,3

9493

.230

,462

88,8

28

28,9

82

70

.640

4

76

1,

666

16

,356

466

12

.113

25,

566

93

Ros

elle

Bor

ough

Un.

6.73

21,4

4993

.322

,990

56,3

01

23,8

06

85

.129

6

(554

)

1,68

6

16,9

29

29

2

11.7

106

8,76

4

83

Ros

elle

Par

k B

orou

ghU

n.5.

0413

,525

95.6

14,1

44

72

,154

30

,490

89.3

192

(4

7)

1,10

0

14,9

46

37

3

13.6

775,

427

93

Sco

tch

Pla

ins

Tow

nshi

pU

n.3.

7023

,975

96.6

24,8

15

15

5,45

0

61,9

90

92

.824

0

35

97

9

15

,357

773

16

.490

542

89

Spr

ingf

ield

Tow

nshi

pU

n.4.

0316

,824

96.7

17,4

05

14

3,92

4

54,3

47

76

.231

9

260

1,

707

16

,086

776

13

.110

157

6

96

Sum

mit

City

Un.

2.51

21,9

8894

.123

,363

288,

734

13

2,71

3

82

.450

5

366

1,

842

16

,448

1,47

5

17

.512

937

3

50

Uni

on T

owns

hip

Un.

4.52

57,5

4296

.659

,584

102,

337

32

,667

74.3

278

10

1

1,48

4

15,4

38

53

3

12.4

103

4,13

7

96

Wes

tfiel

d T

own

Un.

3.13

30,8

5196

.531

,972

227,

042

90

,165

90.4

307

11

7

1,27

8

14,7

35

1,

100

19.6

9645

1

74

Alla

muc

hy T

owns

hip

War

.3.

634,

492

93.2

4,82

1

119,

084

47

,116

93.9

189

(2

62)

69

3

14

,437

831

12

.081

948

86

Alp

ha B

orou

ghW

ar.

4.43

2,32

693

.42,

490

83

,147

28

,303

72.5

353

(4

22)

1,

210

14

,409

558

13

.291

5,77

4

10

6

Bel

vide

re T

own

War

.4.

732,

633

92.5

2,84

8

63,7

73

33,1

98

80

.722

6

(290

)

1,12

5

15,0

49

40

0

14.6

168

6,79

5

77

Bla

irsto

wn

Tow

nshi

pW

ar.

3.63

5,87

193

.56,

280

11

3,42

2

38,8

17

87

.815

8

(25)

64

4

16

,080

845

14

.346

94,

782

79

Fra

nklin

Tow

nshi

pW

ar.

4.78

3,13

292

.03,

403

11

2,19

3

41,5

05

82

.432

9

(111

)

678

22,4

65

83

4

13.9

775,

833

78

Fre

lingh

uyse

n T

owns

hip

War

.3.

912,

204

92.0

2,39

5

123,

225

44

,782

90.6

227

(5

94)

55

0

16

,117

978

14

.081

4,81

3

66

Gre

enw

ich

Tow

nshi

pW

ar.

3.63

5,60

896

.75,

800

11

4,59

0

41,3

28

81

.825

7

596

80

7

12

,536

858

20

.754

4,94

2

40

Hac

ketts

tow

n T

own

War

.4.

449,

607

95.2

10,0

91

94

,694

31

,418

69.1

268

1,

378

972

15,7

37

65

4

13.7

783,

643

65

Har

dwic

k T

owns

hip

War

.3.

861,

671

92.6

1,80

5

102,

694

42

,551

94.9

239

(9

2)

601

13,3

52

76

9

13.7

792,

578

86

Har

mon

y T

owns

hip

War

.3.

472,

601

91.7

2,83

6

183,

921

31

,857

46.7

359

(2

,015

)

1,

022

16

,290

1,34

4

12

.315

11,

011

76

Hop

e T

owns

hip

War

.4.

781,

928

91.6

2,10

5

108,

158

37

,846

91.2

326

(8

61)

72

8

17

,119

809

12

.291

3,75

4

77

Inde

pend

ence

Tow

nshi

pW

ar.

4.11

5,57

296

.15,

799

98

,097

39

,539

93.2

215

25

1

676

15,6

49

73

7

13.4

524,

759

68

Kno

wlto

n T

owns

hip

War

.4.

233,

016

90.5

3,33

2

91,5

56

36,9

99

88

.542

2

(76)

84

3

15

,580

695

13

.886

5,18

5

69

Libe

rty

Tow

nshi

pW

ar.

4.47

2,89

291

.03,

179

83

,815

36

,143

94.8

259

25

6

616

15,9

74

63

6

14.2

704,

858

74

Lopa

tcon

g T

owns

hip

War

.4.

098,

046

91.7

8,77

5

95,2

06

36,7

38

81

.321

1

334

77

1

13

,583

732

13

.910

82,

849

69

Man

sfie

ld T

owns

hip

War

.4.

287,

584

89.6

8,46

2

79,8

52

31,7

78

81

.112

5

(97)

67

9

14

,170

611

14

.710

55,

292

57

Oxf

ord

Tow

nshi

pW

ar.

4.71

2,47

892

.02,

694

69

,137

29

,591

91.9

495

(6

15)

82

4

15

,065

527

14

.866

6,41

4

74

Phi

llips

burg

Tow

nW

ar.

4.57

14,6

5589

.716

,342

50,4

02

21,1

71

75

.021

9

(1,0

32)

1,00

9

18,1

77

37

9

14.9

123

15,3

15

58

App

endi

x 2

- D

eter

min

ants

of P

rope

rty

Tax

Bur

den

in N

ew J

erse

y -

2013

2013

2013

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

2013

-14

2013

Per

sona

l%

of T

axLo

cal

Est

.In

com

eB

ase

Mun

.G

ener

alC

ount

yR

es.

Sta

teS

tate

Sta

te

Pro

p.C

ensu

sE

xand

edE

qual

ized

per

Res

.+M

isc.

Fun

dM

unic

ipal

Sch

ool

Tax

Sch

ool

Mun

.S

choo

lT

ax

Tax

%P

op.

Val

uatio

nT

axpa

yer

Apt

.+R

ev.

Bal

.B

udge

tC

ost p

erLe

vyP

upils

Aid

Aid

Reb

ates

Bur

den

Est

.O

cc.

ofpe

rpl

usF

arm

per

per

per

Res

iden

tpe

ras

% o

fpe

rpe

r R

es.

per

Mun

icip

ality

Cou

nty

Inde

xP

op.

Uni

tsM

un.

Cap

itaD

epen

d.H

mst

d.C

apita

Pu

pil

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

itaP

op.

Cap

itaP

upil

Cap

ita

Det

erm

inan

t

1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Sta

te A

vera

ge11

8,81

240

397

80.0

370

631,

317

16

351

489

13.5

141

5873

62

Poh

atco

ng T

owns

hip

War

.5.

053,

282

92.3

3,55

8

106,

649

31

,182

65.9

649

1,

200

1,82

9

17,5

14

76

1

13.5

993,

694

128

Was

hing

ton

Bor

ough

War

.5.

306,

460

90.5

7,13

5

64,2

99

27,1

82

82

.221

1

(207

)

1,06

1

13,2

84

44

2

13.9

834,

880

63

Was

hing

ton

Tow

nshi

pW

ar.

4.43

6,52

495

.56,

834

10

8,35

4

39,0

44

86

.579

1

(246

)

1,44

9

16,0

83

81

9

16.2

795,

409

84

Whi

te T

owns

hip

War

.3.

464,

797

91.8

5,22

6

103,

397

32

,581

80.0

668

(1

51)

85

8

17

,299

682

9.

560

3,49

0

95