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
Top Related