Start your 7-day free trial — unlock full access instantly.

Lead Closed

This opportunity is no longer accepting submissions.

BloomingdaleGreen Risk

ClosedProfessional Services

Reading Associates Report Final

BID #: N/A

ISSUED: 2/22/2016

DUE: TBD

VALUE: $48.62M

100

Rating

Risk Rank

Green Risk

AI-Powered Lead Insights

Executive Summary

This document presents a fiscal impact analysis concerning the proposed Meer Tract redevelopment in the Borough of Bloomingdale, Passaic County, New Jersey. The redevelopment project involves expanding quarrying operations from the adjacent Tilcon property, ultimately leading to the creation of a residential development with 360 multi-family rental housing units, including 72 affordable housing units. The analysis projects the potential fiscal impacts on municipal services, school districts, and county services, considering added tax revenues and budgetary appropriations. The document includes a detailed description of the project, demographic determinants, and assumptions for assessing the fiscal effects.

Web Content

Automated discovery link found on Bloomingdale website.

Document Text

--- Document: Reading Associates Report Final Document ---
F'ISCAL IMPACT ANALYSI S
MEER TRACT REDE.VELO PMIJNT
BOROUGH OF BLOOMINGD,^rLE
PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JTRSEY


FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
MEER TRACT REDEVELOPMENT
IN THE
BOROUGH OF BLOOMINGDAI,E
PASSAIC COUNTY, NEW .lERStrY
Richard B. Reading Associates
Princeton, New .lerse1,
Febrr-rary 22.2016


o
o
STJMMARY OF FTNDINGS
PROPOSED MEER TRACI' REDEVEI,OPM ENT
-l-he deve lopment that is the subject of'this evaluation involves a pnrposal by for the development of a I [i0
* acre tract of land riMeer.'l-ract) fbr an expansion o1'the quarrying operations tiom the adjacent Tilcon
propertl'that will facilitate the creation of a 35 + acre site lbr a residcntial del'elopment containins 360
multi-family rental housing units, including 72 "af-fordable" housing units.
The current development plans contemplate the an expansion ot'the existing and adjacent quarrf ing
operations plus constructiou of 360 multi-family rental housing units. including 288 "ntarket" and l'2
"affordable" housing r.rnits. -fhe 288 "market" housing units rvould be,;omprised of 173 ope-beclroopr
units and 1 1 5 two-bedroom units with monthly rents ranging fiom $ 1 .785 to $2,100. 'l'he 72 "allbrdable"
housing units willbc offered in the reqr-rired mixture of one-, tw,o-. u1d thrce-berlroom units and n'ill har,'c
rnonthly rents calculated to be aflbrdablc to lamilies with "very le$"'. 'ulorv" and" moderate" ilcome:;.
Based upon these development plans, tl-re completed mixed-r-rse clcvelopment vuoulcl represent a r.alue rt1'
$48.620.550 with an estimated assessment of $45.042.100.
'l'he proposed nlixed-use development. with l0 ernployees and 725 anticipatecl residents. would har,,e
allocated. tax-supported.mutricipalservicecostsof$lg8.5l0hadirbeencompletecl during2015. Addccl
rt-runicipal tax rcvenues fi'om the proposed mixed-use developmenl wou|J have amounted to $488.260 at
the current tax rate, and u'ould fully offset the allocated n-runicipal service costs of $198.510. to vielcl a
municipal revenue surplus of $289.750.
Utilizing the star.rdard (Statewide) and "aflbrdable" demographic nrLrltiplicrs plblished by,the Cenler lirr
Urban Policy Research (CIUPR), the 288 "ntarkct" housing units would bc estirnated to generate 22 pLrblic
school children. 1'he T2 "affbrdable" housing units would be cstimatecl to generatc 48 pgblic schgel
children. resulting in a total of 70 public school students that w,oulcl be e.xpected to be enrolted in public
schools rvith an allocateci cost of $457.620. These school districl costs lvoulct be full1,o1l.set bl,adcic,d
school district tax re:venues of $967,050. to yield a annual revenue surplus amounting to $509.430.
The "market" couponents o1'the proposed redeveloprnent (expancled qr.rarry and 288 "rnarket" housir:g
trrlits)*ouldgeneral,eannualtaxrevenucstotaling$1.657.300 thatwouldoffscttheirallocatedcosts,i'
$453.670 to I'ield an annual revenLre surplus of $1.203.630. The "allbrdablc" c'omponent (72 al'lbrdabte
housitrg Lrnits) is estimatecl to gencrate annual tax rcvenues totaling $ 1 68.710 ancl tax-supportecl c.sts of
$445.150. resulting in arcvenue deflcit of $276,440, 'fhe rcvenllc surpluses geperated b1,the .''rarke1"
components ($ 1'203.630) is sulfrcient to fully of f set the revenue dellcits of the i'af'fordable" housir.rs r-u.rirs
($276.440) to yield an overall (cornbined) revenue surplus of $927.190.
In addition to the annual fiscal effbcts, the expernsion of the quarry ancl the accornpsr.rving reside'tial
development wor-rld also getrerate non-recurring revenues rcsulting lrom tJ:re dee,ling of thc residc'tial sile
to the Boror-rgh an its subsccluent sale at an estimated $ I 0.656,000 as well as water and sewer connection
f-ees amounting to $i.168.000. The proposcd rcdevelopn-rent wor.rld also be expected to result in prir alc
sector impacts, with 408 constrttction-relatecl jobs with $ 1 8.7 n-rillion of payrolis clgrilg the constructio.
phase. Wl.ren completed, the proposed redevelopment would be location oi' t O j obs and 360 household:;.
and these actil,ities could be expected to result in $21.5 rnillion ol-annuerl pers,tnal exnenditures
o


TABLE OF CONTBNTS
Pagc
SUMMARYOFFTNDINGS.. 
........I
INTRODUCTION
ECONOMIC BASE AND FISCAL PROFILI] . .
General Cltaracteristics . . .
Pnrrrrlatinrr
....J
Housing'l'rends 
...... g
SchoolSystent 
...... ll
Conrmercial Dcveloprnerrt.... 
....,11
RATABLBBASEANDTAXIT.ATE 
........14
RatableBase 
...l4
Eff-ectiveTaxRates 
....16
Ovcru'ierv
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FISCAL IMPACTS
Project Dcscription
PopLrlation Deterrninants . . .
Attached I lousins Units
Affordable Ilousing Dernographics . . . .
Added PopLrlation
E,stinrated E,urployment . . . .
Added Services
INTPACT ANALYSIS
25
Ficr-rl Irrrnret
2
J
J
r8
1c)
1()
20
22
22
/.)
/.)
24
AssLrnrptions, Conditions and Qualifications
MUNICIPAL IMPACT
25
25
21
Municipal Costs .
Non-Residential (losts
Residerrtial Costs...
Cost Allocatiorrs
Municipal Rcvenucs 
...30
[-ocal Use'fax Rcvenr.res
Municipal Surnrrarl,
27
29
29
29
30
30
SCHOOLSYSTEMIMPACT 
.......3I
BloorlirrgdaleSchool DistrictCosts. 
...31
Sclrool District Revenues
School District'fax Revenucs
SchooI District Surr.rrrar'1,
COUNTY SERVICES IMPACT
Countv Costs
Non-Rcsidential Costs
Resiclential Cclsts . . .
CountvRevenues 
......35
FISCALIMPACTOVERVIEW.,. 
........36
Itrrnq,.t 
Qr,,r.,r. o"r'
Ratable Base aud Pcr Pupil Cortrparisons
Additiorral Revenues
Altcrrrate Use
).:-
32
32
JJ
JJ
34
34
36
38
39
39
ICONOMICIMPACTS....
Constluctiou PItase Intpacts
Opcrational Phasc Intpacts
APPENDICES


INTRODUCTTON
The ensuing evaluation has been undertaken at the request of'the Boror-rgh of Bloorningdale
in order to provide an examination of the anticipated irnpact of the redevelopment of a 1 80 + acre
propeftv (Meer Tract) upon the economic base and the frscal infi'astructur:e that exists in the BoroLrgh
of Bloomingdale in Passaic Cor.rnty. The initial section of this evalr.ration presents a historical profile
of the Borough's residential and non-residential growth trends and documents the manner in which
the Borough generates and distributes n'runicipal revenues and school dist.rict revenues. The lindings
of the fiscal profile are reviewed fiom a historical. as r.vell as a pfesent. perspective.
The second phase o1'the research undertaken inlolves a statistical analr,sis of the anticipated
f-rscal and economic efl'ects that u'ould be expected to result fiorn the expansion of the quarrying
operations of the adjacent Bloontingdale Quarry on a portion of the Meer Tract, including the
leveling of approximatell, 35 + ss1s5 in order to accommodate a rcsidential development containing
360 rnulti-family housing units, including 72 ''affordable" housing r-rnitrs. The data ald evaluations
contained on the fbllowing pages describe the nature and magnitr-rde of the development plan.
considers the available intiastructure ofthe community. and calculates the need for se6,ices resr-rltipg
fiorn the development.
The research and analysis undertaken herein is intended to prc,r,ide infbrmation r,vherebl'
changes in services and facilities necessitated by the proposecl cleveloprrent cal be accoprplished
snloothll', "vith fbresiglit. and r,vithout interruption of existing opcrations. Of particLrlar concern in
the lbllowing evaluation is detailed infbrmation pertaining to:
a) 
the economic and demographic composition o1' the l3orougS of
Bloorningdale. inch,rding historic and current levels of housins.
population. employment. and school enrollments:
the residential and non-residential ratable bases of Illoomingdale. the
changes occurring in each during recent years, ancl the effectir,,e tax
rate of the Boror.rgh;
the nature. scope. and magnitude of the proposecr development; and
the flscal in-rpact of the developrnent upon municipal, school district.
and county operations. to include changes in tax re.,,enues and
budgetary appropriations, as well as the impact upon the r:xisting tax
structure.
b)
c)
d)


ECONOMIC BASE AND FISCAL PROFTLE
An examination of the current and historic characteristics of the Borough of Bloomingdale
and the manner by which the Borough derives its revenues ancl manaLges itrs appropriations is a
precursorto a flscal impact analysis ofthe planned mixed-r.rse redevelopnrent. l-his exantination will
lurnish a useful insight into the nature of local fiscal operations and a benchmerrk by which changes
may,be measured and anticipated.
General Characteristics
The Borough of Bloorningdale. an established communitl'that is located in the soutl-r central
portion of Passaic County along the Courrty's boundary w,ith Morris County. The Borough, as
ilh-rstrated on Figr.rre 1, is bounded by Pompton Lakes Borough. RinElwood Borough. Wanaque
Borough and west Milfbrd Township in Passaic County and b1, Butler Borough and Riverdale
Borough in Morris County. The Borough of Bloomingdale, itself. irrclr-rdes a land area of 8.71
square miles, or approximatell, 4.72 percent of Passaic County's total lancl area of 184.59 square
miles.
Population - Bloomingdale contained a total population of 5,293 persons at the time of the
1960 Censr-rs. During the 1960's, Bloomingdale's popr,rlation increased by 2.504 persons (47.3
percent)and resulted in a population of 7,797 persons at the tinte of the 1970 Census. A popr-rlation
decrease r'vas recorded dLrring the 1970's with a gain of 70 persons (0.9 perce't) to 1,ield a total
population of 7,867 persons as of the 1980 Census.
Betu'een 1980 and 1990. the population of Bloomingdalc decreased by 337 persons (3.8
percent). to f ield a total population of 7.530 persons in 1990. In 1990, the popr,rlatio' of
Bloorningdale represented 1.66 percent of Passaic County's total populaLtion of 453.060 persons at
that time' Between the 1990 and 2000 Census of Population. Bloominplclale experienced a
popr-rlation increase of 80 persons. and resulted in the Borough's reported population of 7.610
persons at the tirne of the 2000 Census of Population. According to the reports ayailable fiorr-r the
2010 Census of Population. the Borough"s popr-rlation experienced a population increase amounting


ookrond // 
t-.. 
{Attendote I sooole / U*
.1' 
.-L(7.*{ 
t'u" fnooo.,}
,/-/')>=c;*i, Mon,v,,e,,S:.\,r,'(_;;;r.-?i:1-..^r&
,r' 
i 
Wl\ 
,/t:lll^[*,.xotr/y1**I j*;
/l, 
i xnn..n "J'GilWffi:ffiiil
I
Rockowoy ,rL-\---_\fi..^..-) woyne [til.+1.,#.:iivt "q
/
.^/ 
'\ L^.-/ 
, ?#..*f -- '' po.or,. .,
,'" 
t?'.,. u"'''^-. \ M^^, ;, 
't1....,,. ( 
-7;l::sl2'-:,,^ l'" 
" "" 
,(,
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
Mohwoh 
\
r_--r 
r 
'.
t 
'rl upp., \-
- 
.t-^0".,0, (: i{* ,'--..
-\\l/Monivo
)-. '\*-/--;-\fv/''r
/ 
\. 
i ^,,^^'-, I "^rr,^-) 
t, 
^- 
,
\ ,^'^t'u Monrvirre j'-'ff:l' \ 
.rt ( pATERsoN )f 
- \-.. ^ qi
Ve rnon
r
,,'dy.ton \
tockowov- \
'r;fis;[--r1 {"* "{ lt'::fj". [l'li:::,rkY,*1]il
rk
'\)/
, 
-\-r' 
, (. 
/
iv4 Denvilte ,, 
--/'
\,/';i Denvrtter// --/' 
4..,, I 
ru""E'u 
,K.-;rort,"^,j \'/' \ffi*.rrit
\ 
[ roi,rero Ll{rfor.,'lfn"'/ .--1.,+'.!t .Ir.l
q -liACi
L,' 
Potsipponv-rrov Hi's'\\ t'>,,rt.rf;;ilil.X)' 
crirton .-\',&Bn3*t9:
| ," .-ij),, ---\ 
\7'wesr cordwer(. ( 
Grove ,( \ 
,o(r0,.$AI'fiI11':#;
/ nosDroc( \
ttstt. i.,t
. 1 | eler0or0
Morris ,i _r\-_^\ ., 
-,/-' '<-n--^.ry 7 i,t ,11':r ,,-{r.,m,)
,i.l:"$,{:"-.>r;;:X,;ffiy H
Morris t'r-t. 
/
Wesl Milford
/
,, A
Ftin gwood
P
S
S
c
//
I
I
,I
IrBloomin
*5-) 
,{'-^-
l*
I 
wonoque /
ooJlr*"{'
okes
)(rt
-lur:fi
Woyne 
I
t
I
1 Howlhorne
F-J
Hol.drn (Pkl
-l y' t-t
,"( 
'lorurro*
(*''.:,1*"
*::f"(ffi,/"'', -
Little \ . 
i:
\'Y 
cr'non (-
oer )/ 
/
PAS SA
I


to z16 persons (0.6 percent) persons during the l0 vear period intervening the 2000 and the 2010
Census of Population with a total population of 7 ,656 persons reported at the time (April 1. 2010)
of the 2010 Census. The most recent rnunicipal population estimates pn:parecl by the Bureau of the
Census indicate that Bloomingdale's population had increased to 8.178 persons as of July 1" 2014.
These popr.rlation trends are surlmarized below:
Population Trends
Borough of Bloomingdale
Census
Est
Populatior-r
Change
Percent Char-rge
Bloomingdale
Passaic Co.
Borough / Co.
1 960
5 ?()l
lL)7 0
'7 -79'7
? 5(i4
Aa 
a
+/.J
t970
7.797
160,792
L69
1 980
7.867
70
0.9
1 980
7.867
447.585
1.76
1 990
7.530
(337)
(3.8)
I 990
7.53 0
453.060
1.66
2000
7.610
80
l.l
2010 2014
7 ,656 8,I 78
46 
522
0.6 
6.8
Between 1980 and 2010, Bloomingdale accounted lbr a clecreasing share of the Countv's
total population, fiom l .76 percent in 1 980 to 1 .53 percent in 201 0. According to the most recent
popr.rlation estimates by the Bureau of the Census. the Borough's share of the Countv's total
poptrlation had increased to l.6l percent in the 2014 population estimates. This infbrntation is
tabr,rlated belorv. and the 1990.2000 and 2010 Census population characteristics of Bloomingdale
are profiled in Table 1 while the age characteristics o1'the Borough's residentrs are furtherdetailed
in Table 2.
Population Trcnds
Bloomingdaleas a Share of Passaic Coun8
1 960
5,293
406.61 8
- % 
1.30
2000
7,610
489.049
rt.56
2010
7.656
501.226
1.53
2014
8.r78
508.856
i .61
Since 1980. the Borough's population base reflects a maturing of its residents r,vith increases
irr the median age of the population from 30.4 years in 1980. to 33.5 years in 1()90. to 37.9 years in
2000 and to 41.8 years in 2010. In 2010.23.1 percent of Bloon'ringdale's total popr-rlation was l9
1'ears of age oryounger. compared to 32.5 percent of the population in 19g0.


TABLE I
BLOOMINGDALE BOROUGH POPULA'TTON BASE
1990.2000 and 2010 CENSUS
TOTAL POPULATION
Male
Female
1 990
7 510
I 715
3.81 5
2000
7.610
3.763
3.847
509
1 ,187
216
270
2,611
1,066
452
396
48r
305
117
37.9
1.,696
"22.3
903
I 1.9
2.847
2.077
1 111
t./J+
(10.9
94
249
770
"27.0
o'-)
176
7.488
:2.63
122
116
o
2010
7,656
3,766
3.890
430
1.188
229
264
2.123
1,35t)
489
450
632
. A1
)+/
154
41.8
1.618
21.1
1.136
14.8
? c)]5
2,031
1.64s
56.0
t27
262
901
30.7
736
237
7.53 5
2.57
121
116
5
AGE
Under 5 years
5tolTyears
1 8 to 20 years
21 to 24 years
25 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 1,ears
85 years and over
Median age
Under l8 years
Percent of total popr_rlation
65 years and over
Percent of total population
520
1,138
308
496
2.667
973
393
325
A1-
+J/
223
50
33.5
1.658
22.0
710
9.4
2.747
2.094
1,763
64.2
83
248
653
23.7
507
169
7 5't0
1 1/1
0
0
0
HOUSEHOLDS I}Y TYPE
Total l-rouseholds
Fanri ly households (fanii lies)
Married-couple fami lies
Percent of total households
Other lamily. male householder
Other family. female householder
Non farnily hor-rseholds
Percent of total households
Hor.rseholder living alone
Householder 65 years and over
Persons living in households
Persons per houseliold
Persons living in group quartcrs
Institutionalized persons
Otlier persons in group cluarters


t--OoOtO\OcCSO..a\.oO
n\Ctr)<f,\O\OC\\Otr)oO\.oC .^
=
\o c\ 
o. \o $ 
cQ o. o 
ct .1 \o a
.a 
\O -i- 
ca tr) 
O 
oO r/-) ci 
(=) arf) I
S 
$ 
+ 
ca <- 
(n 
v?. $ 
* 
.O I/) 
rC- -
o.l 
F-
o.lA 
tr- 
l\ 
3 
r/^) ca tr) 
[\
c.OOoO\Otr).i<-(\lj
AI
e
C1l tr) 
t) 
(.r 
.\ 
6r. 1^.l t-- 
(> 
F 
-l
999c.€+c\\Or/-)6\?e
oo \O \O \C d 
$ 
o.l .. 
dt 
AO^ -
..i 
r*
,rt :<l ,r;
al
(/l
I
Ftzt+
-or f 
O 
\O cO \C c.l ca oO O. (-.l .a 
\O q
3l ;<l \o '.c ,r; + + 6 ol c.i ; ; aj ,; t
.ll 
ca
al-
FI
.Yl
il ;f q 99 $ oo c. .. oo !? c.r \o 
t-r o q
Rl zl 3 il $ 3 3 + R $. $ e ? r; 6" D
C..l 
r-
.ar 6 
(-l 
c.l 
tr) oO .a 
O 
+ 
c..l t-- 
[\ 
O
\.,t 
: 
.
?l c\l .o r^ \c \o i 
o. o i 
,rl + Ln .n o
)t 
Al
al
,ql
5l St qr r q .o a o $
3l .;l c\ 
- 
€ 
rtt 
(. 
.i- 
r.- 
C 
O 
-- 
c I 
cxj ??t n.
-t ._t t'/'' (-, 
S 
{- 
.O tr- 
t-- 
- 
<- 
ra 
t 
(\l 
V! 
?a
c..l 
F-.
^r \O 
O, 
OO
?l 5l \d \o i
al
(,)l
€l ^jl \O N 
r/.)
al;l 
- 
t 
o,
dl /-l \a 
r/-) \C
ql
:-l 
c)
:l 
bo
.Er
^l 
-
-l 
$oao${.o.$$=
Yt 
c\ 
c,l .a 
r/-) ,n 
.o 
al 
_ 
.::
3lT 5 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| t_ i: E
i] J ; = ! R K 3 z F E € il - :
FzD
U(, 2l
-l
121
\LI
aol
c,ul
<-l
A-l
-Fl
^l
6vl
F (.ll
H-l
r: 
vl
\J trI
- 
tYl
(\l 
A^l
v=l
l1 
&=l
i 
cxl
FA 
.l
1l 
-el
\ 
-i 
Al
-Al
- 
I 
v'l
-Fl
aOl
;PI
v 
v.l
Z-l
Fa.
..1


Housing Trends - Notwithstanding the population declines reported during the 1980's.
Bloomingdale has experienced an ongoing expansion of its housing inventory rsince 1960. During the
1960's, the Borough issued building permits authorizing the construction o1 572 new housing r-rnits
rvithin the Borough. An additional 395 residential dwellings were authorized during the 1970's. tsy,
1980. Bloomingdale contained a total of 2,649 year-round housing unirls of rvhich 2.591 units (97.8
percent ) wcre reported to be occt"tpied. T'he 2,649 _vear-round hoLrsing units included 2,189 Lurits itr
one-unit structures. 308 units in structures of 2 to t hoLrsing units. I -50 units in structures of 10 or ntore
hor-rsing units ar.rd 2 housing ur.rits classilied as "mobile honte or trailer". In 1980. 1.900 of the 2.61(l
occr"rpied housing units witl-rin Bloomingdale. or 73.3 percent. u'cre reported to be ou,ner-occupied.
During the 1980's. hor"rsing construction in Bloomingclale decreased fi:om tl.re rates obsen,ed
during the 1970's t,40 units/year). As indicated in Table 3. during the period fiomJanuary 198{)
through December 1989. Bloorningdale issued building permits aLrthorizing the construction of 158
residential units, or an average of 16 units/year. Between 1990 ancl 1999, a sigrrificantll, recluced level
of residential construction occtttred in Bloomingdale. n'ith the Borough ar.rthorizing the constructiol
of 106 uew'housitlg units betu,een 1990 arrd 1999. or al1 avera!:e of 11 new homes annually. The
Borough attthorized an additional 36 ner.r,housing units, or an average of 4 r-rnLits per year liom 2000
through 2009. During the past five years (201 0 through 2014),Blooming,Cale has reported the issuance
of 176 building permits authorizing new residential construction. The Boroush's buildins nermit
trends are liu'ther detailed on Table 3.
The 1990 housing stock of Bloomingdale reflects a housing base that is predominantlv
conlprised of orvner-occupied and single-f-amily detached and attacherJ hor.rs;ing units r1,it5 o\\'lter-
occupied llotnes acc:ounting for 73.5 percent of the total occupied housingl r,rnits, Ip 1990. 729 ho.rsilg
units (26.5 percent.) u'ere reported to be renter-occupied. Single-fiunily rJetached and attached homes
accounted fbr 2.171 of the Borough's 2,916 totalhousing units in 1990, 'r,'hile l/20 housing units were
located in mtrlti-farnily housing structures and 25 housing units rvere classilled as ''mobile home.
trailer or other".
Betn'een the 1990 and 2000 Census, the total number ol' hor-rsing units in Bloomingdale
incretrsed fiorn 2.916 hoursing ur-rits to 2,940liousing units, fbr an increarse of lZ4 housing units rvhile


a
Tr l
'c
O
co
tr
LE
-
L
a
-C-/- 
='<
*.-
^ .:
u=
l<
!
\6'* '=
,L
(Js
r
o--
4)€
?'3
oo
-7 ^t
trr
$
. - 
,-1.
ACJ.J
'J) - 
Cl
o.O
o-ct 
f.t(r)\9F-coo!=c
Ir 
^i^^^^:-_Jal
>.1 
c\ c.l c.t ct ct (.t ol cl a.t .-t 
Q ? =
r' 
=a.1
co
. --1.
:;99
a--
$rn\oFooo.
oo oo oo co co oo
AAAAA/-
O - 
O..1 ca
oo oo oo oo
AAAA
0) .=l
aPl
()
ril
c!l
(.) |
>l
tr)
A
c.)
G
'.=
;; .=l 
C a l $ oo C\ r/.) ca c\ .a tr-l
€ 
cl 
al c\ ca oo oo 
.\ 
|
.i 
-l
a*l
AJ
lil 
o r- or .a <- r//-) \, r-- oo o
tl 
r\ F- I-- t--- F- r-- I\ (-- t-- trr
>l 
O. O. O\ O. O. O' O'O\ O. O.
'*
--\-A^
\-
=Yl
o '=l
'a )l
CJ
v ._l
QJI
v+l'a )l
AJ
!l
a)l>l
o.
| =o
crF6
$l
, 
Lr) oi c. c.l c'l O ai - *l
a.)
ca 
o 
rar ri ,^r
r/) g - 
oO a\ r/-) oO N - 
",1
OO ra ca r//-) rC l-- N I
---.:-T-T__l
oo
l 
,., .O tn C\ F* .O n c..r a'.ll
: S F- \C tr; ra c', c-r trr -l
rrt 
O*Nca=f,
COI 
-tsts-*
a )l
,-l 
vvvVV
-l 
..t (-.] (-t .l N
O.-c''l 
.a$tr)\Otr-OCO\
AAAAAA
AAAAAA
t-z
=?
xF
7,2 >
:OE
<f 7 r-t
\!-Ai,L
aY.^
<lJ\J
il&z
.l-A
ra :i3-
E1 :oA=
d =ud
-^+f^A
' 
;i:
_Ft-t
QZa
Jt.lN
<ei
A--ino
VElF
ve=
-
J
.J
li
o
.:N
.F-
A
c.t
t--
A
A 
!!,=
=EX
at-
Q-(-.Jra$tn\Cf\oOO
t^ 
\A rA ,^ 
,^ 
,^ 
,i
yyvv!vv9:C:?
cooococso6
-ql
c.)'-l
6*l
lil
!vlol
>l


the total number o1'occupied households increased by 100 units. fi'om 2.747 households in 1990 to
2,847 households in 2000. Owner-occr-rpied households in Bloontingdale. whLich accounted fbr 73.5
percent of the Borough's occupied households in 1990. represented 7,[.7 percent of the Borough's
2.847 occupied hor-rseholds in 2000. The initial repofts ot'the 2010 Census disclose thar
Bloomingdale's tolal population arnounted to 7 ,656 residents, lvith 7"53 5 persons occupying 2"935 of
the Borough's 3,089 total housing units at the time of the 2010 ('ensus. The Borough's 1990.2000
and 2010 housing characteristics are lurther detailed in Table 4.
School System - The Boror-rgh of Bloomingdale operates its own s;chool district r.r,hich provides
educational services for the Borough's students in grades K through i3 and maintains a "sending"
relationship with the Boror.rgh of Butler (Morris County) fbr BloonrirLgdale's students in grades 9
tl'rrough 12. 'fhe number of students "on roll" in the Bloomingclale School District decreased fion.r
1.984 students in the 1975-76 school year to 933 students in the 1990-91 school year" fbr a decrease
o1'1"051students(53.0percent). Duringthe1990's,thenumberstuclentsenrolledintheBloorningdale
School District increased slightll'. with 952 str-rdents reported during the 1999-00 school year ancl 954
students enrolled during the 2007-08 school year. Since 2008. errrollments in Bloorningclale School
District have continued to decline somervhat, w'ith912 str-rdents enrolletl during the 2012- 13 school year
and 882 students rtn roll during 2015-16 school year. The enrollr-rLent trends of Bloorningclale
students are further detailed in Table 5.
Commercial Development - According to reports of thc Nerv Jersey Department of [,abor..
dLrring 1975 there 'nvere 581 persons covered by New Jersey Unentployrnent Contpensation (coverccl
.iobs) employed within Bloomingdale. Between 1975 ancl 1985, the l3orough's ernployment base
increased by 62 jobs to a total of 643 jobs in 1985. During this ten-r'ear period ( lg75-85), employment
in Bloonlingdale increased by an average of 6,jobs each year, 'fhe Borough experienced anot6er
increase in its employmetrt base during the ensuing ten-year interval (l9Si5-95) rvith 720 jobs reported
in Bloomingdale during 1995. Between 1995 and 2005, local errploymenl was reporred to have
increased by 309 jobs to I .029 jobs reported in 2005. Employmcnr in the Borough decreased to 9l i
jobs in 2010' and firrther declined to878 jobs reported in 2014. 'l-[is inLfbrmalion is further detailecl
in Table 6.
l0


TABLE ,l
BLOOMINGDALtr BOROUGH , PASSAIC COUNT'Y
1990,2000 and 2010 CENSUS
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
Occupied housing units
Ow'ner occupied
Percent owner occr-rpied
Renter occupied
Vacant housing units
For seasonal. recreatiorral. or occasional use
Homeowner vacancy rate (percent)
Rental vacancy rate (percent)
Persons per owner-occupied unit
Persons per renter-occupied unit
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
1-unit. detached
1-unit" attached
2 to 4 units
5 to 9 units
10 or more units
Mobile home, trailer, other
VALUE
Specified owner-ocrcupied units
$Less than $-50.000
$50.000 to $99,000
$ 100,000 to $ 149.000
$150,000 to $199.000
$200.000 to $299,000
$300.000 or more
Median (dollars)
CONTRACT RENT
Specitied renter-occr.rpied units paying cash renl
Less than $250
$250 to $499
$500 to $749
$750 to $999
$ 1.000 or more
Median (dollars)
1990
2.916
1 1A1
2,019
73.5
729
169
51
1.1
10.4
2.98
2.09
2,096
75
a.t 
1
i+l
130
249
25
1.817
l0
45
330
992
390
50
172.200
705
lt
64
480
102
48
676
ru00
2.940
2,847
2.127
7 4.7
720
93
39
0.6
1.9
2.82
2.07
2.1 80
111
11 /1
Lta
136
297
8
2,063
0
30
382
1.,090
440
121
177.,000
707
5
l3
82
402
188
899
2010
3.089
? gt5
2,137
72.8
798
154
37
0.(r
8.4
2.71
2.04
*
*
*
{<
* Detailed hoLrsing cltaracteristics fiorn the 2010 Census are lot vet ar,'ailable.
1l


TABLE 5
BLOOMINGDALE BOROUGH , PASSAIC COUNT'Y
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMtrNT
Year
t915-7 6
197 6-77
1917 -78
1978-79
I 979-80
I 980-8 1
1981-82
I 982-83
1 983-84
1 984-85
1 985-86
1 986-87
1 987-88
1 988-89
l 989-90
I 990-9 i
1991-92
1992-93
t993-94
1994-95
I 995-96
1996-91
r997 -98
I 998-99
1 999-00
2000-0 I
200 l -02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009- 1 0
2010-1 1
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
20t4-15
2015-16
Students
1.984
1.955
1,865
1.764
1,617
1,5 l4
1.440
1,329
1.245
I 701
1.162
1,117
1.012
1,011
977
933
939
976
976
981
981
1.015
1.060
994
952
966
966
966
984
967
949
959
954
951
950
929
913
912
880
887
882
S Cost/Studer[
1.337
1,602
1.789
1,991
) 102
) 577
2.956
- a --
1 1/ /
3,686
4,1 05
494
5 1))
5 r)i4
6,879
7;600
R .1?q
8.5 87
8.52 r
9.286
9.tJ97
9|+46
9,tJ74
9,,186
10.,11 8
10,,975
I l, l9l
1 1"1807
12,,+gg
12,:5 1 8
1 3.3 l4
14,1)24
14,'727
15.883
16,'367
16.:t54
16,979
17 ,,+7 5
18,,169
19.:z8l
21."294
)) ",i4
Source: Rutgers University, Bureau of Governrnent Research, N J Legislative District Data Book (1g75-201 2): N J Dept
of Education,20 l3-l5.Thenetcostperpupil isthegeneral firndbudgetperpupil,asirnplerrentedunder(CEIFA),isequal
to the sum of general firnd tax levy. budgeted generallirnd balance, rniscellaneous revenue, and most fbrrns of state fbrmula
aid.'fheperpupil costtbrthe20l3-14,2015-l5and20l5-l6school vearsrellectstc,tal operatingexpenditures
12


TABLE 6
PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYMENT
BLOOMINGDALE BOROUGH, PASSAIC COUNT'Y
(Covered by Nerv Jersey Unemployment Compensation)
Year
197 5
I 980
1981
I 982
I 983
1 984
I 985
1 986
1987
1 988
1 989
1 990
1991
1992
t993
1994
1 995
r 996
191)7
I 998
1999
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
201 0
201 1
2012
2013
2014
Bloomingdale
Borough
581
457
494
463
498
551
643
663
836
741
752
737
605
592
587
629
720
889
1.008
954
895
997
1.099
1,029
1,017
1.023
1,049
897
911
921
871
902
878
Passaic
Count),
151.729
157 .97 6
161,466
156.948
162"776
167.628
168.252
179,165
178,806
173.7 64
164,622
155.246
152.515
1 51"563
r 55.388
153.682
150.630
152.041
151,640
152.773
148.056
145,147
147,050
147.503
147,329
145.258
137.690
141,252
142.610
142"352
141.325
137.213
Borough/
Count)'(%)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Source: Neu' Jersey Departrnent of Labor, Division of Planning ancl Research, Office clf Dernographic
attd E,cononric Analysis, New'Jersey Covered E,ntplo),rnent Trencls. Errrployment is as of Septentber 30'r'.
t3


RATABLE BASE AND TAX RATE
The econontic and demographic characteristics of the Borough c,f Bloomingdale ar: reflected
in the Borough's ratable base, and changes in tlie Borough's household base and commercial
development over the past twenty years may be examined in terms of the per parcel and total
valuations (assessment) of the taxable properties in the Borough.
Ratable Base
The Borough of Blooningdale has undertaken periodic property revaluatiorrs in order to
maintain assessments that approximate current market values. The ratio of assessed value to market
value is expressed in the assessment ratio r.vhich amounted to 86.00 pe,rcent in 2000 and is reported
to amount to 92.64 percent in the current (201 5- 1 6) assessments. 'l'hese assessment trends rlre further
detailed in TableT.
During 2000, the total equalized propertv valuation in the Boror-rgh of Bloomingdale arnounted
to$584.1million.'[hisequalizedvaluationincreasedby65.2percenttretwcen]000andll015.ri'ith
an equalized assessed valuation of $799.9 million reported for 2014.
DLrring the period ll'om 2000 through 2015 u'hen the BoroLrgh's equalizeci valuatiorr increased
61.60 percent" tlie cost of n-rLrnicipal operations reflected in thc local use buclget increased fl-onr
$6,241.600 to $10.446,935--an increase o1'$4,205,335, or 65.2 percent. From 2000 to 2015. the
groll'th of municipal costs (67.4 percent) was above the increase in the equalized taxable lbase (65.2
percent). The result of these varying growth rates would be a somev,,hat higher local (municipal
pttrpose) property tax rate levied upon all properties as a percentage of propertv yalue.
Resider-rtial properties (Class 2) decreased as a share of total ratables fl.om 85.56 percent irr
2000to84.69percentin20l5.arelativedecreaseof1.0percent. 
Non-resiclential (comptercial ar.rcJ
industrial) properties amounted to 8. 1 1 percent of valr-ration in 2000 and 8.64 percent in 201 4. These
percentage levels and the changes that have occurred since 2000 indicate an increase in the proportiorr
of the total assessments represented b.v r-ron-residential properties. with commcrcial and ildustrial
properlies now conlprising 8.64 percent of total assessments.'nvltile res;idential (Class 2) properties
have decreased fiorn 85.56 percent to 84.69 percent of the Boroggh's tgtal assessed 'aluation.
1,+


ql
FIAI
vl
a2l
!el
-l
<l
ao't
!
.t)
L
a '')
l
q-
'a't
^
li
-=
F'-
9rr X
vd
(* 
l-
0)-o
! 
v
A!CZ.
-=
u.e2\)
0)()
t9
z^-
o.
ca
@
ca
v.ir
q
tr-
t/-)
@
cnnxl
vvt--l
>'=L 
l
&
'ir
c'.1
@
v
ai
A
\r
oo
ca
tr-
oo
t--
@
,-t
oo
oo
ra)
aa
(.t
tar
$oos
@
ca
ca
.T
t--
@
tr)
tr-*oo
.ir
@
a)l
Nl
!vl
=l
frll
a
'.=
E
OI9l
a)I
alal
0)
U) 
PI
'--) C)l
c4
?;l
Y-t
-lvl
". 
.El
6 -,1
vl
trll
'ol
Pql
:\l
Y!lotrl
^^l
(tl
FZD
Xa
v 
frl
azx
--\4
<Y.*
crF-
a=a
<az
g.X<
N 
1rZYl
.t+i-Ll
r-r 
f l 
v 
h
rv(,)
lHv+
,- .-, Z-
mAl!i,r
- 
9rn\
F 
-;t!
v*pl
ms
- 
trl
- 
rrl
T-tl*
--r r m v'
i 
-'-l
<s:
A-*E<<
Y 
^t(t
z*z
--.
<rz,
J
r/)
(-;
(J!
a
r/'l
til
ol
>l


Since 2000" the average equalized value of tlie Borough's residential (Class 2) parcels has
increased substantially. During 2000, the average equalized reside ntial (.Class 2) property assessment
amounted to $167.785 per parcel and. by 2015. this per parcel avcrage lhas increased to an equalized
value of $276"085.
In 2000. the average residential tax bill in the Borough of Bloomingdale was $5.007 and
between 2000 and 2015. this average annual tax increased at an annual average rate of4.99 percent.
resultingina20l5averageresidential(Class2)taxof$10.369. l'hisas:;essmentandtaxipfbrrnatiol
is detailed on Table 8.
Effective Tax R:rtgt
The local (general) tax rates levied in the Borough of Bloonringdale ref'lect the ratio of assessecl
to true (market) r'alue of the assessments in the Borough. In 2000, ttre local (general) tax rate i'
Bloorningdale was $3.470 per $100 of assessed value. By 2015. this general rax rate had increasecl
to $4.054 per $100 of assessed value. The increase in the general tax rate \\,as acconlparried bl,an
increase in the assessment ratio fiom 86.00 percent ro 92.64 percent. On an "equalized valuation"
basis. the tax rate relative to current values increased betu,een 2000 anct 2015. r,r,ith a increase in tl-rr-.
equalized or "efl.ective" tax rate in tlie Borough of Bloorningdale fiom $2.981 per $100 during 2000
to $3.755 per $100 of eqr"ralized valuation in 2015:
Bloomingdale Borough, Passaic Counfy
Local and Equalized Tax Ratcs
Year
2000
2014
Local
Rate/$ 100
$3.470
$4.0s4
State Equalizatiorr
Ratio
86.00
92.64
Equalized
Rate/$ 100
$2.e81
$3.75 s
l6


!
a.
 
I
rJ
rta
c\
al
EI
^l
^l-1
'vl
=l
-lFIjl
\l
()
!a
|-
ri
'l
C
ct
t-.1
a
li
/:Y
F-
r) c.l
(rca6
YI
-l- 
-
FV
A-oL
>.N
,);
o
-7 r\
:i
!
O
tr)
@
At
@
aa
trr\
c..l
@
>i
trl
/l 
-a
vt 
Al
(rl 
c.
@
c-
A
c7)
@
= (.)l 
co
v 
.il
A 
!t 
v
v 
-l
-q inl 
c\
(.)':l 
4
a)l
a7)
dU o.rl
oal
Jll 
a
|--
*xt 
-;
t< trt 
@
r/)
@
tr-
(-l
6
(t
frl
X
F
a 
!l
E 
?': ?l 
n
'.r 
i 
-l 
OO
i 
.:d6l 
F-
- 
! .: 'r-;1 
F.-
J 
"-n {A 
.c
'al
n 
r!C<l 
@
ra)
Ir-
Ln
@
,.'-: ll 
trr
-t 
A
=C")',lr-l
leictt;
Y 
^,1
:/ 
.t 
a)l 
+
2.Uall
4 ^/ <tl
\t 
q
!vl
vl
\l
-l 
al
U)
> frl
FX
7<
-'
AA
v-QZ
-. -t
tt\
-.4<F
Q7
aai
<F
AZ.
-rA'6
dF,-,
*r 
li.l
r-t 
f \ 
a.f\
-: 
Yc,
; 
7<
F 
t^1
vAA i-
rAZ
Jrr]
<c
A-,ta
a l rrl
v 
+,1
zM
- 
rrl
>ra
^>
v\A./
\Y/ 
*
Jtl..]
aa>


Oven'ielv
The preceding review o1'the economic, demographic. f-iscal and financial characteristics of
Bloomingdale l'ras disclosed the Borough to be an established community that accounts for 4.11
percent of Passaic County's land area but accounts fbr 1.58 percent of ttre Countr"s 2010 population
and 0,64 percent of the County's 2010 employment base. The Borough's popuLlation declinecl during
the 1980's but has experienced modest growth through 2010 resulting in a 2010 population that q'as
still somewhat below the Borough's population in1970. Employment in Bloornir-rgdale" which
amounted to 1.099 private sector.jobs in 2014, decreased to 87g.jobs ir:L 2014.
The revier'r'of the enrollment trends in the Bloomingdale School District ciisclosed a declinirrs
enrollment fi'oni the rnid-1970's through the early 1990's whiclt has been lbllorved bl,continued
enrollmentdeclineslronr l998throughthecurrent(2015-16)schoolyear. Between2000and20l-5.
the equalized valuation (assessments) in Bloomingdale increased from $484.1 million to $799.9
million.
t8


PITOJBCT DESCRIPTION AND FISCAL IMPACTS
On tlie preceding pages, the economic base and flscal infiastructure of the Borough of
Bloomingdale have been examirred and quantified. With the inlbrmation ar-rd insight gained in the
fbregoing examinalion, it is now possible to estimate the costs. revcnues. and overall flscal ef fbcts that
would be expected to accontpany the construction and occupancv of the proposed mixed-use. quarrlr
and inclusionary housing developrner-rt.
Project Description
The development that is the sr.rb.ject of the ensuing fiscal assessment involves a proposal fbr
the development of'a 180 + acre tract o1'land located within the Borough of Bloomingdale (Block 105.
Lot 14) and known as the Meer Tract fbr an expansion of the qr-rarrying operations fiom the adjacent
Tilcon property that will facilitate the creation of the a new resiclential clevelopment containing 360
n'rulti-larnily rental housing units. including 72 "af.fordable" housing units. The proposed developrnent
is the subject of long star"rding litigation an Order from the Superior Court of New Jersey. Lar,r'
Division, Passaic County. Tilcon proposes that. in con junction with the expar.rdecl quarn,ing operations
on the Meer tract. a portioti of the property (approximatel-v 35 acrcs) of the western side nearest LJnion
A'n'enue. rvill cleared, graded and prepared fbr residential developntent and deeded to the BoroLrgh.
Specific developt.uent plans fbr the contemplated residential development have not yet been prepared
and the fbllowing evaltration presents an assesslrent of the type of residential developrnent that is
believe likely to be accomrnodated on the subject property. Subject to thLe Court Order and consistent
u'ith the April 29.2014 Periodic Reexamination of Master Plan. the new resiclential deyelgpptept
u'ould be expected to include 288 "niarket" housing units and 72 "alfordable" housing r-rnits. all o1'
rvhich woLrld be expected to rental units.
The 288 "market" housing units rvor-rld be comprised of 173 one-bedroom units and 1 I 5 two-
bedroom units with monthly rents ranging fiom $1,785 to $2.100. with an average market re't of
$ 1 .91 1 ' The 72 ''a11brdable" housing units u'ill be offbred in tl're reqr-rired mixture of one-. tw.o-, and
three-bedrootn units (14 one-bec'lroom units.43 trvo-bedroorn units and 15 three-bedroont r-lrits) ancl
r'vill have monthly rents calculated to be aflbrdable to larrilies u,ith "low" and" moderate" incornes
19


iu accordatrce rvith the curreut atlbrdable housing regulations.. l'he estir-natcd sales prices o1'thc
"atlbrdablc" rental units rangc fiorn $702 to $942. rvith an avcrage eslin.rated prolthll,.rent gf $82,i.
Based upon the unit distributions in the developer's plans. the currcnt pricing schedule ancj
discr"rssiotls with the Borough's tax assessor. thc rnixcd-usc redcvcloprnent in Bloorningdale r.roLrld
be cxpected to represent an aggregate (completed) valr-re o1'$48.(120.55(i. At 13looningdale's currelt
assessment ratio ol'92.64 pcrcent. the cor-npleted n-rixcd-usc redci clopntent would yield an aggrcgate
assesseclr'aluationof$45,042.100. Thisinfbm-rationislirrthcrcletailerjinthelbllor.vinelabulation:
Proposed Mixed-[Jse Redcvelopment
Ilorou gh of Illoomingdalc
Or"rarr)' Operation
Residential
Markct
I -BR
2-BR
Subtotal
Allbrdable
One-Bedroom
'l'u,o Bedroom
'f hrce-Bedroon-r
Subtotal
Sub-l.otal Rcsidential
-l'otal
(Monthl1,'Rent)
$ 1.78s
$2.1 00
$ 1.91 I
$ 702
$ 824
$ e42
$ 82s
$ I .694
Acres
145.0
[Jnits
1 --
| /-)
115
288
14
la+-)
l5
72
3 (r0
Valuc/Ac
st7 ,271
['.st. Value
$ 2.50,+.300r
.Agg ValLre
$ 23.3s7.880
$. 18.266.650
$ 41.624.530
s 
742.470
$ 2.679.350
$ 1.069.900
$ 4.491 .720
$ '{(r.l 16.250
$ 4rJ.620.550
s 15.012. t00
Est Valuc
$ I 3-5.01 7
$ 1sri.840
$ 14+.530
$ 5i.034
$ 6r.310
s 71 .327
$ 62.38s
$128.101
li,s I i nt u I e d .,l.y s' e,s'.s nt a n / (0. 9 2 6 1 )
Population I)eterrninants
l'here are a nttrnber of tcchniques ancl rlethods available in demographic alalysis r,r'hich mar
bc utilizcd to estinlate tire anticipated population levels that rioulcl bc generateci by.a proposecl
cie'u'elopnlerlt. No single technique or tlethodology is unil,ersallr applicable. accepteci. or rcliable.
' f]qualized asscssnrenr o1' 145 acrcs ar $16.000/ac lo.9261-$2.504.300.
20


Rather. all methods available fbr the pro fbrma calculation of anticipated population are subject to
certain limitations.
Among the various techniques available fbr developing erstimatr:s of popr.rlation. the
"comparable" approach. or "case study" rnethod. appears to off-er the b,enefits of actual experiences.
tirnely data. geographic proximities, and knorvn similarities in rnarket sectors anci product design. In
the "case study" method, popr-rlation determinants are generated on the basis of the actual occLlpanc\,
experieuces of comparable housing units in similar. recently corrstructed ho,Lrsing cornplexes. The
reliability of the "case study" model is a function of the cornparability of the case study housing Lrnits
to the units proposed fbr construction.
Information is also available fr"om the U.S. Department ol'Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
u'hich provides population and housing characteristics that can be examinecl to estimate ntr-rnicipal
population and school children n-rultiplier ratios on a per household basis. In this regard, at the tinre
of the 201 0 Census of Population (April I , 201 0), Bloomingclale Borough contlinecl a total popLrlatiop
o1'7"656 persons, of which 7.535 persons occupied 2.935 of the Iloror.rgh's 3.089 total housing r.rnits.
At this time (2009-2010 school year). there were 950 chilclren lionr Bloomingdale enrolled in public
schools. fhese statistics indicate that the average household ir-r the Borough of Bloorlingdalc
contained 2.57 persons, including 0.324 public school cliildren.
The proposed recievelopment dillers fiom tl-re Borough's hor-rsing bas;e to the extent that all
(100.0 percent) of the proposed homes are "new". "attached" and "renter-occupied", as opposed to
onlr'0.6 percent "ltew".25.9 percent "attached" and27.2 percent "renten-occupied" in the Borough's
housing inventorl'. Additionally, 72 of the proposed housir-rg units are "at-fordahle" housing units q'it6
specific income and occupancy requirements. In view of the difl-erences in thi: type of housilg upits
that are proposed vis-a-r'is Bloon-ringdale's existing housing base. the use of nrunicipal demographic
cohorts as a "comparable" rvould not be appropriate.
Dernographic rnultipliers fbr total population and school age chilclren mr-rltipliers ha1'e beel
developed and pLrblished by tlie Urban Land Institute (ULI). The ULI multipliers. u,hich are cleri'ed
frorn infbrmation containecl irt the 1987 Arnerican Housing Surl,ev ancl lurnisl1 data 1br the Northeast
region of the United States, do not reflect current occupancy trends; are not disaggregatecl fbr Ne*
Jersey. Passaic Countl", or the Bloontingdale area; and do not distinguis;h bet'rveen "entry-level" ancl
21


higher-priced housing products. Given the Lrnique location, charactcr. and pricing of the proposed neu,
housing units. demographic infbrmation fbr recently occupied housing units in New Jersey ma1,'
provide a more realistic basis fbr estimating the population, school age. and public school children
likell'to be generated by the new hor,rsing units in Bloomingdale Borough.
Attached llousing Demographics - A more recenl survc)'of the demographics of residents
of housing units ir.r New Jersef is provided in a November 2006 studl'of newly occupied housing r-urits
entitled, Who Lives in Nell'.lerse), Housing. rvhich \\,as preparecl fbr the Nev,,Jersey Department of
Communitv Af fbirs. OfIlce of Smart Grow'th by the Center fbr Urban Poli,ty Research (CLJpR), Edr,vard
.1. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy at Rutgers, The State lJniversitl,. The CUPR stud1,
provides demographic multipliers fbr single-family detached homcs, single-lamily attached homes. and
mr"rlti-f-arlily (five or lnore units per building). which includes conclominiums ancl apartmeltts. Specific
multipliers are also furnished fbr "af'fordable" (low and moderate income) housing. Demographic
rnultipliers are provided forthe State of NewJersey with adjustments lbr pricing (belor.r'median or
above rnedian) and fbr certain bedroorn conlrgr.rrations. Infbrrnatior-r is also provided fbr three regions
of the State (north. central, and south) with the Borough of Bloomingclale being located w,ithin thc'
North Region of New Jersey. The standard (Stateu,ide) demographic mr-rltipliers for the 288 "market"
housing units proposed range fiom I .644 to 2,107 persons per ur.rit inc,luding 0.05lto 0.1 I 5 public
school children per unit. These CUPR demographic rnultipliers are presiented in Appenclices 1a.d 2.
Affordable Housing Demographics - In addition to thc "marl<et" pricecl housing units. the
redevelopuent proposal also colttains 72 "affbrdable" housing upits to be reser',,ed and priced to be-
aflbrdablc fbr lovn'er-irtcorle hor.rseholds in accordance with aflbrc'lable housi.ng regulations. To the
extent that tlteT2 "affbrdable" housing units have specific occupancy. income, and pricing restrictiops.
the "CUPR" survey provides separate dernographic rnultiplicrs fbr lorv and moderate income
lrouselrolds in Neu' Jersey. 'fhe demographic multipliers fbr the 72 onte-. two- and three-bedroor,.
renter-occupied, "affbrdable" housing Lrnits (Appendix 3) anticipate 1.61 to 3.82 perso's per unit
inclr-rding 0.14 to 1.27 public school children per "a1'fordable" hoLrsing unit.
))


Added Population-
Utilizing the CUPR demographic mLrltipliers lbr the "marlKet" hLousing units and the
demographic multipliers specific to "af.fbrdable" housing units profilerl in Appendix 3, the number
residents and public school children generated by the housing r,rnits rr,,ithin the mixecl-use
redevelopment proposed in the Borough of Bloomingdale have been estimated
The application of the standard (Statewide) demographic multipliers to the 288 "market"
lrousing units and the CUPR "affordable" demographic rnLrltiplicrs to theT2 "affbrdable" housing
units n'ould result in an estimate of 725 persons, including 70 public school children frorn the
proposed mixed-use reclevelopment:
Estimated Population
Proposed Mixed-Usc Redevelopment in liloomingdale
$!44Qr rd C UPR (Statervide) and Afford able Dem o graptrUlultrplC5
Population Per Unit 
Estir:nated .Population
Market
Apt-1BR
Apt-2BR
Sr,rbtotal
AfTordable
Apt - 1BR
Apt - 2BR
Apt - 3BR
Subtotal
Total
2.107 
0.1 15
r .826 
0.07 6
L6l0 
0.140
2.760 
0.620
3.820 
1.270
2.764 
0.667
232
119 
27
57 
19
199 
,+8
725 
70
No.
Units
173
115
288
t1
Aa
+J
l5
72
360
Total 
Public
Total 
Public
BAp- 
School 
Pop= 
School
1.644
0.051
284 
9
')ra
^z-+ z
526
13
22
2.014
0.1 94
Estimated Emplo]'ment
The nurnber of ernployees that could be expectecl to be generated try the expansion of the Tilton
quarrying operations on the subject property is based upon the actLral employment of 32 employ,ees at
the existir"rg Bloomingdale Qr.rarry ar-rd the potential to increase this employment base by a1 additional
10 employees r.vhen its operations are expanded on to the sub.jecl property.
/.J


Added Sen,ices
The developtnent and addition o1'new residences, new businesses" or a combination thereof to
a community will generate direct and indirect needs for new or added services fiom the community
and other governmentaljurisdictions. The services to be providcd to a ne$' rlevelopment generalll'
include education (public school). police and t-rre protection. public works. administration. etc. The
type and extent of services llrnished by a n'runicipality olien reflect comnrunity size ancj
developmental densities. In examining the services which will be provided by the Boror.rgh and. hence
all'ected by the proposed development. it is apparent that the over,whelming proportion of the
municipal sen'ices furnished. the faciiities r-rtilized, arrd the personnel required. are involved in sen,ins
the needs of the community's resident population. Accordingly, and in recogniti6l of tl.re firct that t5e
resident population is r-rltimately the predominant user and beneflciaLry of rnunicipal and school
services, the detern'rinatiort of the population anticipated to be generated by the propose<J nrixecl-use
redevelopment is an inlportant element and determinant in the inrpact eLnalvsis.
1A
LA


TMPACT ANALYSIS
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal irnpact resulting fiom the proposed mixed-use redev,elopntent and the addition o1'
10 employees. 725 new residents. including 70 public school chilclren, may now be examined in terms
of the costs incurred by the ntunicipality and the school district in providing a variety of srervices to
the Borough's resident population. The deterrnination of the fiscal impact of the proposed
development involved the use of an econometric model. which is a composite of two techniques
generally referred to as the "proportional valuation" method and the "p,er capita multiplier" method.
The "proportional t'aluatiott" method is utilized f-rrst to assign a portion o1'total rnunicipal expenditures
to the non-residetrtial (as opposed to residential) valuation in the Borough. Municipal ex.penditure
levels proportionately allocated to non-residential and residential valuation are then expressed in terms
ol per employee and per capita expenditures fbr the Borough's existing development. Scltool
appropriations are expressed on a per pupil basis. Once these per employee, per capita ancL per pupil
expense ratios are determined. the "per capita rnultipiier" method anticipates adcleci costs fiom tl-re
proposed development by applying increased employment. population and student enrollment to the
current expense ratios.
Assumptions. Conditions and Oualifications
The prepariLtion of a cost/revenue analysis. which measurcs the overall and specific intpacts
resulting fiom the developtnent and occupancy of the proposed clevclopment, necessarilv reqLrires t6at
certain empirical assumptions be made:
r)
All dollars are 2015 dollars--the llscal impact shown ref-lects the
forecasted ir-r-rpact as if the development lvere conrpleted in 2015;
other gro*.th or changes (demographic/economic) occurring in
Bloon-ringdale Borough dr.rring the development phases of the project
may'well have their own impact on fiscal matters. but are: not included
witliin the scope of this study in order to empiricalll/ assess the direct
impact of the planned der,,eloprnent;
,)
25


The "per capita rnultiplier urethod" assumes that. over the long run.
clrrrent average operating costs per capita fumish a reasonable cstimate
of lUjUIg operating costs occasioned by gror.vth. and that current levels
of service. relative to current popLrlation, are reasonably accurale
indicators of future service levels continued at the same relative scale.
and;
The current distribution of expenditures among the various sectors of
municipal service will remain constant in the short term and rvill serve
as the primary indicator of the n'ay in which adclitional expenditures
will be subsequently allocated.
Utilizing the afbredescribed methodology and assumptions. the ultimate irnpact o1' the
completion and occupancy of the proposed niixed-use development can be determined through a
cost/revenue analysis of the major sollrces of the services and taxing, bodies aff-ected by the nerv
development. The primary sources of the services and taxes to be affected are: a) the nrunicipalitr,;
b) the school district; and c) the Countr'.
1l
4)
zo


MUNICIPAL IMPACT
The flscal etfects anticipated to result fiom the development of the expanded quarry and the
360 proposed housing units in Bloomingdale Borough and the addition o1'1 0 enLployees, 725 residents
shall be analyzed in tltis section in terms of the municipal service costs tl:rat r.vould be allocated b1,the
rnunicipality' in providing a variety of services to its residents. An evaluation of the annual tax
revenues expected to accompar-ry the proposed development shall also be pro.vided.
Municipal Costs
Insofar as the costs ofthe services now being provided b1,the comntunity serve as the statistical
fbundation fbr the costs to be allocated to the neu,development. an ana.ly'sis o1'existing service/cost
relationships has been undertaken. A surnmary of Bloomingdale l3orough 's current (201 4) revenlles
and expenditures as presented in Table 9, provides a Lrseful prolile fbr the determination o1'the flscal
irnpact attributable to the proposed development.
Befbre the data and relationships indicated in Table 9 may bc Lrtili:zed. certain acl.iustments must
be niade to separate its residential and non-residential contponcnts. As may be seen in Table 9.
commercial and inciustrial properties in Bloomirrgdale Boror-rgh. ri,hicl-r include Class 4a Commercial
and Class 4b Indr"rstrial properties, represent 4.15 percent of all properlies and 8.64 percent of the
Borough's total assessed r,'aluation. Given these distributions. 6.39 percent of the total current
rnunicipal expenditures would be assigned, in terms of cost/benefit (or cost generation) to the I I l
commercial/industrial properties in Bloomingdale Borough and which haye an assessed yaluation of'
$64.013.400 . Of Bloorningdale's current tax-supported appropriations c,f $7.80 1.077 .approximatelv
6.39 percent, or $498.489. would be assigned to the Boror-rgh 's cornmercial and industrial properties.
1-he Boror,rgh 's residential properties. rvhicl-r include Class 2 Residential. Class 3a Farnt ancl
Class 4c Apartrrtent properties. represent 9?.22 percent of the llorough 's total properties. 87.85
percent of the Borough 's total r.'aluation, and wor-rld be assigned 90.04 pr3rcent of the Borough's total
tax-supported costs. ln this regard. $7.024.090 of Bloomingdale's $7.801,077 tax-sr-rpported local
use appropriatior.rs n'ould be attributed to the Borough 's residenlial properties.
27


TABLE 9
MUNICIPAL DATA - 2OI5
BLOOMINGDALE BOROUGH. PASSAIC COUNT'Y
A,
Current Assessments:
Categor)'
l. Vacant Land
2. Residerrtial
3a Fann-Regular
3b Farm-Qualified
4a Commercial
4b Industrial
4c Apartments
SurnmarL
Residential (Class 2, 3a, 4c)
Commerc ial/lndustri al
Other(Class I .3b)
Total
C urrent Tu;c Str uct ure :
Rate Per $ I 0(l (201 5- I 6)
Municipal Purpose
School District
County'Taxes
Total
B,
Assessment
$ 25,910,100
$627,648.300
$ 
884,800
$ 
96.400
$ 58,,+34,600
$ 5,578,800
$ 22.560,300
$651 ,093.400
$ 64,013,400
$ 25.996.500
$741.103.300
Percent
3.5;0
84.69
0.l2
0.cll
7.818
0.i'5
3.ct4
87.8i5
8.6,4
3.5_L
100 0
Parcels
86
2.454
4
1l
107
4
7
) 465
111
97
2.673
Rute
$ I .084
s2.117
$0.823
$4.054
Amount
$ 7,870,750
$ 1,205,020
$ 
30,000
li 1 .087,165
:f 
64.000
$ 
90.000
$ 10.446,935
Amount
$ 7,80 r .077
$ 2.165,15u
$ 480.600
$ 
100
:f 1 0,446,935
C. Local Use Appropriations:
MLuricipal Purposes within CApS
Total Operations Excluded fror-n CAPS
Capital Improvements
Debt Service (lncluded for School purposes)
Defbrred Charges
Reserve lbr Llncollected Taxes
Total General Appropriations
D, Generol Revenues - Locol IJse:
Revenue from Property Taxes
Miscellancous Revenues
Surplus Revenues
Receipts fiom Delinquent Taxes
Total General Revenues
Note: Assessment Ratio is 92.64 percent
Percent
26.74
52.96
20.30
100.00
Pcrcent
7 5.34
I 1.s4
0.29
10.41
0.61
1.82
100.00
Percent
74.67
20.73
4.60
0.01
100.00
28


Non-Resi{ential Costs - -l-he l1 1 existing cornmercial and irrdustrial propenies in the
Borough of Bloomingdale hat,e a current (2015) estimated employment base o1880 jobs ar.rcl rverc
previously calcLrlated to gencrate $498,489 in allocated. tax-sup1.rorted, local Llse costs. or $566 per
employee. Applying this non-residential cost f-actor o1'$566 per ennploy,ee to the 10 new jobs
estimated to be generated by the expansion of quarrying operations yieldls an allocated a local use cost
of $5,660 (10 x $5156: $5,660).
ResidentialCosts - Concentratcd, higher-density rcsidential developments. and particularll,
Class 4c income producing (aparlntent) properties. where many seru ices (streetsrand road maintenance.
sno\\r relroval. garbage collcction, etc) are provided by the propertl,owner. n'ill t)'picallv har,e
"marginal" added costs that are less than the "average" per capita cosrts. Infbrrnation provided b1'
Borough ofllcials indicates that the added popr-rlation can be accommodated nithout a need 1br
additional police and/or fire departn-rent personnel and cquipmer.rt andl that aclltinistrative serr,ices
rvould not be need to be increased as a result of the proposed devclopment. Sjmilarlr,. r,vith rcgard tc'r
Public Works. the Ilorough would r-rot providc road maintcnance. sno\\,remov6l or sanitation seryices
to the proposed mixed-use redevelopment. The services that woulcl be providerJ, inclgdipg I Iealth and
Welfarc. Recreation and llducation, Insurance, Construction Codc. l-ibrary and other services eqlllle
to $356 per capita. of which $266 per capita (74.67 percent) are firndeclby property tax revellres. The
allocated, tax-supported residential costs of $266 per capita. uhcn applied to the 725 anticipated
residents n'ould yield a tax-supported residential service cost of $192.850 and when contbincd rvith
the e stimated non-rcsidential cost of $5.660 yie lds a total allocated rnunicipal se rvice cost of $ 198.5 I 0.
Cost Alloclrtions - The actual expericnce and tlistribution of the mLrnicipality,'s expenditures
anlollg its various budgetan' contponcnts providers a basis fbr rhe allocation of the aclcled costs
cstimated fbr the proposed ner,v development. Bloontingdale Borough's current mur-ricipal bLrdgct
appropriations. n'hich furnish the statistical fbr"urdation fbr cost ancl rcvenue allocations. are tabulatecj
irr Section C of Table 9. l'he estintated tax-supported costs of $ 198.510, r,lhich amount ro2.54perce.t
of the Borough's current tax-supported currcnt appropriations of $7.8 0l,077.aLnd would be sufficient
to nlaintain the sanre level and quality of municipal services that are furnishecl to the Boroush's
existing residential and non-residential pronerties.
29


Municipal Revenues
The existing and added costs of municipal services are paicl by the varior-rs soLrrces of revenues
received by the cotnmunitl'. Bloomingdale Borough 's revenue sources mat be grouped into three
tnaior categories as shown or-r'l'able 9. As was the case in cstintating tax-supported aclded costs. the
added tax revenues generated by the plar-rned developrnent rnal be calculatecl on thc basis of thc
Borough 's actual e:xperience in generating mr_rnicipal ret,enues.
Local Use Tax ILevenucs - Local Llse tax revcllues mav be determined liom the currcnt
proportion of the tax rate allocated to local rlur-ricipal uses. O1'Bloorr-ringdale Borough's tax rate ol'
54.054 pcr $ 100 of assessed valuation. $ 1 .084 per $ 100 is appropriatccl lbr locr,rl nrupicipal uses. 'l'hc
local usc (municipal) tax rate may be utilized to detennine tlie aclclcd local use re\/enlles to be derived
liorn tire construction and occupancy of tl-re proposed mixed-use rcdevelopmept.
Ilstimated
Valuation
$ 100
$J5 ()4? I r)()
$100
X
X
Local Use
fax Rate
$ r .084
Added
Local Use
'l'ax Revenues
$488.260
Municipal Summary - 'fhe local use tax revenues that Bloorningdale Borough rvould havc
rcceived had the proposed development been completccl ancl occupied rJuring 2015 arc estinatccl to
arrrolult to $488.260 and represetlt a 6.26 percent increase in the Borough 's total 'u'icipal tar
rcvenues ol'$7.801.077. The arrticipated tax revenlles resr.rlting fic,rn the proposcd mixccl-usc
developulent fr-rlly offset thc allocated tax-supported costs of $198,510 and rcsult in a rnr-rnicipal
revenlle surplus of $289.750. Thc anticipated tax revenucs and tax-sLrpported cgsts are sct fbrth belolr :
Local Use'I'ax-Supported Costs and Itevcnucs
mcnt
R
r,\dded -l'ax Revenues
r\l located'l-ax-Sr-rpported Costs
Itevenue Surplus (Deficit)
$488.:160
$ 198.:'10
$289.750
30


SCHOOL SYSTEM IMPACT
The number of public school studcnts expected to be generated by, tLLe proposed mixecl-use
developntent furnishes the statistical basis fbr this elernent o1'the anticipated fiscal impact. As
previously discussed, the 288 "ltlarket" housing ur-rits would estintated to generate 22 public school
childrerr while 72"'affordable" housing units were cstinlated to generate 48 putrlic school children. 1br
a total of 70 public school children. Educational services for thesc students rvould bc providecl bl' the
Bioomingdale Borough School District. which furnishes educational services fbr Bloorningdalc
students in grades K-8 and nraintains a "sending" relationship n'ith the Borough of Butler for students
in grades 9-12. Based upon the types of hor.rsing units proposcd, 52 chil,Jren r,r,ould be expected to be
enrolled in grades K-8 u'hile 18 children n'ould be enroiled in 9-12 and sent ro the Butler school
district.
Bloomingdale Borough School District Costs
The flscal in'rpact resulting fiorr-r the addition of the 70 nerv stuclent:s to the Blooningdale
Boror-rgh School District has been statistically structured uncler thc assumptiol that all new students
r'r'ere enrolled dr"rring 2015. The insertiotr of the new students into a current,3nrollment situation is
erllpirically pref-erable to the extent that it permits a morc ob.jectiyc appraisal of the direct impact of
the er-rrollment specific to the new development and also perniits an analysis predicatcd upop klou,rr
flscal data and current (201 5) dollars. f he costs anticipated lbr tftc added enrollment of 70 students
ill the school district have been estimated on 1he basis of the actual apprropriations budgeted fbr t6e
2015-16 schooi 1,ear.
-l-he Bloonlingdale Board of Education has reported that tlte Bloomilgdale schools ha'e tlte
capacitl'fbr i20 additional students and that the estintated enrolhrcnt (approxirratell,.6 stuclents per
grade) could bc accomtnodated rvith a nouinal increase in costs. -l'hese ntarginal costs would inclr-rclc
the costs fbr textbooks. supplics, purchased serr.,ices, extracurricular and cquiprnelt costs apcl
trausportation services. rvhich amount to approxin-rately $1,998 pcr stuclent in thc currcnt budget. of
rvhich $1'626 (81.i9 pcrcent). is funded b1'local properly taxes. yielcling a 1ax slrpported cost of
$84.550 (52 x $ 1 .626: $34.550). The l8 students enrolled in graclcs 9- 12 would be sub.jecr to tuition
costs paid to the Br-rtler Borough school clistrict. During the 2015- l6 school year. the Bloomi'gdale
a1
-)l


School District reported total tuition costs o1'$6.71ri.183 fbr 222 studer.rts senl to the Butler schools
along with 20 students in private school placementrs and 37 students sent to other District's spccial
education programs. These tuition expenses anloultt to $25.465 per student. o1'n'hich 520J26 (81 .39
percent) would be lunded by property taxes. Applied to the I 8 estirnated stuclents in Gradcs 9- 12. tfte
tax-supported tuition costs of $20 ,726 per student would yield a tax supported tuition cost of $3 73 ^070
(18 x $20.726: $373,070). Combined. the K-8 costs of $84,550 ancl the 9,-12 costs o1-$373.070
amount to total tax supported school district costs of $457.620.
School District Revenues - Although school district rcvcnlle:s are received fiom scr,,cral
sollrces. the revenue s derived as a result of school district texes rcntain th,c prinrar)'sollrce of all school
revenues. Within the school district budget, revenues rcceir,'ed 1r'orn school district taxes accoupted
fbr 8 I .39 percent o1'the total school district revenues. rvhile thc renrariping soulces of school rcvcplles
can be generally grouped into three categories--balance. goventmelttal 3id. and other.
School District Tax ltevenues - fhe proposed rnixecr-use dcveloprmcnt is expected to represent
$45.042.100 o1'assessed valtrationto tlie ratable base of the Bloonringdale Borough School Districr.
Tlre application of the Bloomingdale Borough School District tax rate of $2. 14'7 per $ 100 o1'r,aluatigrr
rcsLtlts in $967,050 in added school district tax rer,'enucs f}orn tltc Bloorningdale Borough School
Districl tax ($45.042.100 - $100 x $2.147: $967.050).
School District Summary - Thc Bloomingciale Borougli School District tax rcvelLrcs
anticipatecl to resull h'onl the colnplelion ancl occupancv ol'the rlixed-u,se cle'r,clopmept proposed in
Bloomingdale Borough would amount to $967.050 and lhlly,olJset tlte allocatecl. tax-sLrpporteci school
district costs o1'$'+57,620. f ielding a revcnue surplus of $509.430 fbr the Bloorninsdale Boroush
School District:
Allocated Costs and Annual Revenues
le
Annual -l'ax Revenues
Allocated'l-ax-Supported Costs
Surplus (Dclicit)
s967.050
$457.620
s509.430
-)z


COUNTY SERVICES IMPACT
A broad range of services are lirrnished by the County government. itrs agencies. oltces. and
departments. These services. u,hich are provided and available to all Cor.rnty re,siclents without respect
to municipalitl,of residence. include the services of cor-rnty cor,rrts; ShLerilf'srolfice; various health.
saf-ety. and welfare progrants. ntaintenance of County roads: CoLrnt-v- education se5.,ices: County parks:
recreational facilities: etc. TIte ltatLlre of tlie services prol'icled by thc County are such that its serviccs.
lacilities and operations are generally of countywide use and bcneflt. and thLe costs thereof are 16t
allotted and cannot be segregated on a tnunicipality-by-rnLrnicipality basis. l herefbre. it is difflcLrlt
to specilically sep:Lrate and determine the actual rreasure of bencflt. and the r:osts attendant thereto.
receivecl by Bloomingdale Boror-rgh residents f}ont Passaic Countl,operatiorLs.
The absence of a direct cost/benefit relationship in thc services supplied b1,the Cor.rnty.does
not preclude its analysis. but rather. fbcuses the correlations upon the actual manner i1 u'hich Countl
services are furnished and flnar-rced. Although Cor-rnty'sc'n,ices are pr,rr,,idecl to the general pLrblic.
these services are no1 linanced by the population. but through thc assessment of a Courntl'Tax up.'
propefiy valuations. A calculatiott of the estimatecl Countv costs ancl estimated County revenlles
resulting f}om the proposed mixed-use redevelopment in Bloomingclale Boror-rgh may also be deriyec-l
f}om this bifurcatec'l relationship betrveen costs and revenues.
Countl- Costs
CoLrnty services are provided primarill', and in some instances e,xclusively, fbr the beneflt o1-
Countv residents witli onl,v a limited amount of services renderecl to n,on-residential properties anci
non-resident employees. Becattse the vast majoritl'of Passaic CoLrlty's services and associated cgsts
are f urnished to and for the benefit of Cor_urt1'resiclents" only a nonrinal and indirect relationship exists
relaliVe to notl-resiclerltial properties etncl the enrployees thereof. Ol'the total CloLrnty appropriatior-rs.
onlr those activities involved rvith seneral sor
could reasonably be perceived as provicling a serl'ice/beneflt tt'r nc'rn-residential properties ancl their
employ'ees. These types of County services. which are provicied lirr the ioint b,elefit of residents ar.rd
notr-residents. account lbr approximately 30 percent of the tolal Cor.rnty expenditures rvhile the
JJ


remainillg 70 percent of Passaic County's experrclitures are firrnished,exclusirrely lbr the Countl,'s
residential population.
Non-Residenti:rl Costs - Although the rna.jority of the County"s terx-supported costs are
provided for the benefit of the Countl,'5 residents. sorne portion of thLe total tax-supportecl
appropriations are attribr.rtable to non-residential properties. Dr-rring 2015. approxirnately $35.9 million
of the County's total tax-supported appropriations of $335.5 nrillion would be allocal.ed to the
County's comrnercial and industrial properties with 136.200 estintatecl employees. yielding a nol.l-
residential (commercial/industrial) cost factor of $271per commercial/irrdustrial ernployee. Applf ing
this non-residential cost firctor of $271 per ernployec to the 10 new, ,emplo,vecs generated b,v the'
quarrying operatious rvithin the rrrixed-use redevelopment yielcls an allocrated a lLocal use cost of $2.71 0
(10x$271 :$2.710).
Residential Costs - During 2015, $281.85 rlillion of Passaic Countlr's total tax-supportecl
expenditures of $3.15.5 r-nillion rvould be allocated to the Countr,'s residential properties. With an
estimated vear-end 2015 resident population of 51 1.550 persons. an average . tal:-supported. per capita.
Cour.rt,v cost appropriation of $551 is derived. Higher-density,. incor.nc-producing properties r,vhich are
prof-essionalll'lnanaged and do not require an expansion of Countf infiaLstructrure willtypicalll'haye
a'"ntarginal" added cost that is approxir-nately 60 percent o1-the ''average'' per capita Countl,cost. of
$331 per capita ($551 x 0.60 : $331). Applied to tlie 725 estirnatecl resiclenrs. 1.he rnarginal per capita
cost ($331) would y'ield an allocated cost of $239"980. The allocated Cor-rnty r:esidential service cosr
of $239.980. rvhetr combined u'ith the estimated non-residential cost of $2,7 I 0, yields a total Cor-rnt1'
service cost o1'$242.690. Given the ntagltitude of Passaic Countr operations. the abselce of a clirect
cost/revenue basis fbr the pror.'isiou of Countl' services. anc'l the fbct that the add,:cl developl-rept u,oulcl
represent a nolninal (0.121 percent) increase in the County's total popLrlattLon. it is unlikely that CoLrptl,
costs would itlcrease proportionatelv. To the contrary. it is probable that the adcled deyelopment cor-rlcl
substantially be accommodated and serviced by existing County facilities. equipn-rent. and personnel.
1tJq


Countv Revenucs
The costs of the services and facilities provided by' the Cior-urty are llnanced by a varietv ol'
re\/enue soltrces. One important revenue soLrrce that accourrts fcrr 73.4 perccnt of the total Countt
revenlles, and rvhich is directly derived from thc County's constituent mr.rnicipalities. is generatcd
through the imposition of the County tax rate upon the real propertv va,Luations in each rnr-rnicipality,
rvithin the County. -l'he proposed mixed-use development. in representing $4it.042.1 00 of valuation
to both the municipal and County tax rolls, would directly generatc County ta:: revenues ol'$370.700
at the cttrrent Coul.tty tax ratc of $0.823 per $ I 00 o1'valuation. Thc proposed rnixed-use developntent
in Bloontingdale Borough would. therelbre. be cxpectcd to gencfate County tax reveltues that fullr
oll'set the allocated Countv costs:
County Services Impact
Proposed Mixed-Use Developmcnt
County -l-ax Revenues
Allocated Tax-S upported Costs
Surplus (Deficit)
$37'0.700
va2.6e0
$ 12:8.010
35


FISCAL IMPACT OVERVIBW
In the preceding sections of this fiscal analysis. the naturc ancl magnitude of the proposecl
ntixed-use development in Bloomingdale Borough relative to the existing oommunity have been
deflned and quantitied, and the prospective impact thereof upon the various services furnishecl by the
municipality, the school district and the Cor-rnty have been deterntined. The need for l,ariolls public
services. and the costs thercof. as a result of the proposed developnrent were subsccluentlr,refinecl to
illustrate thc overall intpact through cost/revcnue analysis.
'fhe results of these anall'ses. as set lbrth in Table 10. indicate that the "rnarket" ccrn-rpcrnent
of the proposed mixed-use redevelopment (expancled qr-rarry opcration and 288 "'markct" hor.rsing
units) u''ould, in the present tiscal structure. generate adcled tax revenues totaling $1,657,300, u,hile
the tax-supported costs allocated to the "market" components amour-rt to i$453.(r70 and yield an annual
revenlle surplus o1'' $1,203.630. The "af.fordable" colnponcnt of the propgsccl cleveloprnelt (72
affordable l-rousing units) would, in the present f-iscal strr.rcture. gcnerate addcfl tax reycnu€:s totalipg
$168,710 while the tax-sttpported costs allocated to the "afforclable" housir.rg units amour1t tcr
$445.150, to yield a revenlre def-rcit of $276.440. 'fhe revenue surplus generatcd by the'"market"
components. w.hich amounts to $ 1,203,630. is sufl-icient to ful11, ot'f\et thre def-rr:its of thc "allordablc"
housit'tg units ($27tr.440) to result in a combined ("market" plus "aflbrdablc") surplus o1.sg27.lg0.
hr this regard. it shor.rld be noted that tlic "at'fbrdable" housing units rc-plese-nt on11,9.4 percent o1'the
estir-r-rated value anci tax revenues. but account fbr27.4 percent o1'tfte total rcsi,Ccnts and 68 6 percent
o1'the added cnrollrnent and school district costs.
Imnact Summarv
The estirnated flscal efl'ects of the '"r.narket" componcnts units within thc proposed
rcdevclopnlent. whicl-r result in tax revenues that substantially exceccl the allocal.ecl tax-supported costs
fbr the local school district. result liom dilferenccs in the estimated levels of costs ancl re'cnues
allocated to the proposed development. An examination of thc relal.ionships that exist bet'ur,een
enrollmetlt. r'aluation. and flscal operations relative to the Borougl-r on thc onr: hand. apcl the lliltllrc
36


TABLE IO
Summary of Added Tax Revcnues
and Tax-Supported Costs
Proposed Mixed-[Jse Redevelopment
in Bloomingdalc Borough
Municipal School 
County 
Total
MAI{KEI'
Annual Tax Revenues 
$443.150 $ 877.700 $3:i6,450 $ 1.657.300
Allocated Costs
Surplus (Deficit)
$ 145.580 $ 13 1 .270 g_U'6.820 $ ,+s3.670
$297,570 $ 764.430 $15;9,630 $1.203.630
AF-FORDABLE
Annual Tax Revenues 
$ 45.1 l0 
$ g9,350 $ .14.250 $ 16l.71 0
Allocated Costs 
$ 52.930 $ 326.350 g__155.870 445.150
Surplrrs (Delicit) 
($ 7 .820) ($ 237,000) ($ :i 1.620) ($ 276.440)
COMBINED
Annual I'ax Revenues 
$488.260 $ 967,050 $370.700 $ 1 .g26.01 0
AllocatedCosts 
$198.510 $ 457.620 $242.690 $ 898.820
Surplus (Delicit) 
$289.750 $ 509,430 $ 128,010 $ 927.1 90
37


o1 thc proposed developr-r-rent on the other. will disclose the undcrlt,ing reason lbr the existence of a
surplus revenues vis-a-vis tax-supported costs.
When a given budget is in balance. the measures of per pupil valuation express the amount of
propert,v tax base supportive of each service r.rser (student) in the local ntunicipality. 'l'hese l.lteasures
cau be used as a general indicator of whether a proposed developnrcnt r.,n,ill norrnalll,be expected to
generate surplus revenues (or deficits). Generally speaking. if thc per pupil valuations of a nc\\'
devclopment is greater than that which exists throughout the municipality. then a surplus situation
w'ould be ar-rticipated by such development. As the importance of propertl,tax revenues diminishcs.
the reliability o1'this indicator also declines.
In Bloon-ringdale Borough. wherc property taxes reprcsent source of funcls fbr 76.53 percent
of the non-surplus revenues mr-uricipal bLrdget and 90.04 perccnt ol'the local school clistrict budget.
per pupil valuatiot-ts prol'ide comparisons r,vhich w.ould anticipate thc lbrecastcd results. Dr,rring 2011.
the Borough's total valuation of $741.103.300 amolurts to $840.253 per public school pupil. 1-hc
"market" components o1' the mixed-use development, with an cstimated asscssed valuation gl'
S40.880,550 ($44,128.400 x .9264: $40,880.550) yields a per pupil valuation of $1,858,207. The
tax base derived lion-r the "ntarket" housing units within the proposed rcdeveloprnent is being adclecl
at a level that is 2.21 tirnes the Borough's existing per pupil valuation:
Ratablc Base and Per Pupil Cornparirsons
Assesscd Valuation
Public School Children
Per Pupil Valuatiorr
Bloomingdale
Borough
$741 .103,300
882
$840"2s3
Proposed
Market C'onrponcrrts
$4r1.880.550
22
$ r .85 8.207
-l-he proposed "market" components, as indicated above, generate higher levels of per capita
ratables than the existing development in Bloomingdale Borough. The indir:ated overall revclllle
surplus of $927,190 is achieved notwithstanding the inclr:sior.r of a substaptial (72units) "aftbrdable"
hoursing component. 'l'he revenLre deflcits attributablc to the "allbrdable" housring units are the rcsr.rlt
of the satisf.action of a municipal obligation, and should not be attributed to thc proposed ntixed-usc
38


development. To the contrarl,, the proposecl development not only firnds the construction of the
afTordable housing units, but the rnarket components generate annual revenlles that fLrlly ofllet
the operating costs of the affbrdable honsing units witl.r no aclded expense to the Borough's
residents and taxpayers. The operatirrg deflcits attributable to tl-rc affbrr1able Jrousirrg r"rrrits wottld
occur wherever these units. and this obligation, is satisfied rvithin the Borouglh.
The foregoing analysis has demonstrated that. if the proposed development had been in
existence during 2015, the total tax-sr-rpported costs expected to be greneral.ed by the proposed
development lvould have been ofl.set by the anticipated tax revenues. 'l-l-re actual and f-rnal
detennination of specific sen,ices. equipment. and manporver needs utost appropriately rests
with the various r-nunicipal and school authorities responsible fbr the provision ol'these services.
Additional Revenues - In additior-r to the annual and recurring revenLles generated by the
proposed mixed-use redevelopment. the redevelopr-r-rent can also be expected to generate one-
tit-ne. non-recurringl revenLles represented by the deeding of the resid,rntial site to the Borouglt
and its subsequent sale to a residential builder 1br an anlicipated sales price of $10.656.000 (288
market units at $37.000 per ur-rit). Water and seu,er connection fees rvc,uld be expected to
amount to approxirnately $2,700 and $7.200 per resider.rtial unit. respectivel,v. yiclding utility'
connection revenlles of $3.564.000. It is also anticipated. bascd r.rpon the construction pemrit
fees paid by other mr"rlti-farrilv developr.nents, that the residential dlevelopment on tlie Meer
Tract would be expected to pay construction permit and insper:tion f'ees anrounting to
approximately $801.),000. In total. these rron-recurring pa,vments could be expected to amount to
$ 15,020,000:
Proceeds of Sale o1'Residential Site
Water Connection Fees
Sewer Connection Fees
Building Perrrit Fees
Nou-Recurring Paynter-rts
$ 10.656.000
$ 972.000
s 2.592.000
$_ 800.000
$ 1 s.020.000
Alternative Use - As further detailed in the market stucll' and valuation repoft prepared
b,v the Otteau Group. ir-r the absence of the exparlsion o1'1he qlrarry. the costs to clear. grade,
level and stabilize the resider.rtial site are likell,' to exceed tlie land vah.re fbr the 360 r-rnit
residential development. Under tliesc circumstancers. the diminished Lrlility of the propert)' could
39


reslllt in a reductior-r of the property's currerlt assessed r,:rlue o1'$11,16;0.000 to an "open space"
value of $ 1 0,000 per acre, or $ 1 ,801 ,000 fbr the 1 80. 1 acre property. rvith an estimated assessed
value, aI 92.64 percent. of $ 1.668,400. fl.re reduction in the property assessrnent fi'om
$11,160.000 to $1.668,400 would reduce the annual property tax revenlle:; frot.t.t $452.400 to
$67,600, a decrease of $384,800. Another possibility resr-rlting fl'om the inabilitl' to utilize the
Meer Tract for quarrying operations and the accompanying resiclential use corlld be the deeding
of the property for public open space or corlservancy Llse. which n'ould exetnpt the property fi'on-r
laxation and yielding no property tax revenlles.
Affordable Housing Cost - The 360 unit residential clevelopmenl. ot.t the Meer Tract
includes 72 "afforclable" housing units that are being provided pursuant to ar-r Order fiom the
Superior Court of Neu' .lersey. Larv Division, Passaic County. Wittrout the expansion of the
quarrying operations and the accompanying abilitl, to prepare a portion of the propert.v fbr
resider-rtial use, the requirement to pror ide fbr 72 "af-fordable" hoLrsing units will still rernain and
the Borough will need to find an alternative location fbr this af lbrdable housir.rg. lf a comparable
site for inclusionarv is not available. the Borough may need to consider the pr"rrchase a suitable
property fbr a rnur.ricipal sponsored affordable hor.rsing developmcnt to provide the 72 affordable
required hor"rsing units. The cost o1- acqr"riring such a property are unkuor.l'n at tl-ris time as are
specific costs that would be involved with its clevelopmer.rt. bLrt a per rurit subsidl' cost of
$100,000 per unitr cor-rld be anticipated and. if funded by murricipal 30 1,ear,4.0 percent bonds.
nould yield ar-r annual debt service cost of $411.116.
hi additior-r to the debt service cost" the added operatir-rg costs fbr tl.re Borough and school
district (see Table 10) would be estimated to arnount to $2u14.820. erven presurring off'setting
property tax revenues.
I The Couucil On Allbrdable HoLrsing prepared estirlates uithin N.J.A.(1. 5:94-6..1( c) 5
of the per unit subsidy cost to plovide an atlbrdable housing urrit. These costs. rvhich are
calculated as tlre land and total developnent costs lesrs the proceeds ll'orn tlhe sale of the Lrnits or
the capitalization of the rental incorle, were estirraterl to be $180,2(r7 in tl-re Berlgen, Hudson,
Passaic, Sussex region.
40


ECONOMTC r!,{P_AerS
In addition to the ar-rticipated impact on the public sector operations (municipal. school and
County). the proposed redevelopment of the Meer Tract ntal,also be expected to inrpact on certain
private sector operations. The construction and occupancy of the lesiclential tiicilitics in l-incoln Park
can be expected to resull in prin"rary and secondary irnpacts during the construction phasc as wcll as
in the cornpleted. or operational. phase. These economic irnpacts inclr.rde temporary (construction) and
permanent employment, expenditure irnpacts fbr goods and scrvices. the generation o1- personal
disposable income and the acconlpan),ing personal consumption cxper-rdlitures, Data developecl bl'the
U.S. Department o1'Commcrce. Bureau of t-abor Statistics (BI-S) regardinu the relationships ancl
effects resulting liorn non-resideutial and residential construction and opr:rations has been incorporated
iu a methodologyr lor assessing economic impacts lbr neu, growlh b1' the tJrban I-and Itrstitute (tJLI)
and Center lbr Urbarr Policy Research (CtJPR). L.ltilizing thc tJI-I/C'IJPR input/output n.rodel. the
proposed redevelopn-rent in Bloomingdale 13orough is calculated to havc the fbllorving impacts ciuring
both the construction phase and opcrational phase.
Construction Phase Impacts
Estimates of tl-re construction stimulus to local cconomics nray be calculateci as a derivative of
project value. 'l-he emplovnent-getrerating e ff-ects of constmction ruay be assessed in orcler to cstimate
the effects of private constrr-rction expe:nclitures on jobs and rnatcrials. I-he studies by the Bureau o1'
Labor Statistics and the refinement of the Bt.S data in the input/oulput moclels of thc Urban I-and
Institute and the Ceuter fbr Urban Policy Research yield anticipated r;onstruction impacts that are
expressed in terms of the number of employee hours per $l.000 lalue ol.construction: thc percent of
on-site ernploymetrt hours by occupational gror-rp ancl skill level: the valuc of matcrials. ecluipmcnt.
and supplies per $ 1.000 of cor-rstruction costl and the distribution ol'equipment and sr-rpplies per $ I .000
of cost.
iDeveloprnent Impacts. Urban l-ancl lnstitute and Center ltrr Urban Policv Research.
Economic Irnpact,,\nalysis. Asscssment Ilandbook.
4L


'I'he proposed redevelopment. gencrating 10 neu' .jobs ancl 360 rnulti-tarnily rental housing
units. can be expected to directly result in 408 on- and ollsite construction rclated,jobs during the
constructionphase,-l-heULlirnpactrnodelfurtheranticipatesthedistribrrtionofcmplol,mcntbct*een
on-sitc and ofl--site construction; emplol'ment in the manuf-acturc of constnrction products: trac'le.
transportation, and services: and other ernployrrent. 'l'he total construction phase en'rployment (on-site-
and oilsite) is expected to generate payrolls of $18.7 rnillion and a disposable personal incorne of
$ 16.5 million. The construction of tl-re residential developrncnt plan can also be expected to result ir.r
the purchase of $13.5 rnillion o1'construction materials inclr.rding $3.4 rr-rillion liom rvithin the region
and $10.1 ntillion fiom outside tlte resion.
Operational Impacts
The econontic effbcts of the "stead,v state". or completed and occupied rcdc.u,elopment. are
measttred by a dcrivative of irtput/outpr-rt analysis that interprets the effects of'the neu,dcvclopntent
on other servicc providers irt the local markct area. For the long run. there are direct. indirect nncl
induced efl-ects. In the operational phase. the direct efJ-ects consist of pennanent .iobs crcated ancl
spending associatecl with both the operation of the completed dcvcloprnent as rvcll as spending bv its
and residcnts. There are also significant indirect ellects that emerge because emplol,ees and
hoLrseholds positively impacted by gror.l'th have increased wealth to distritrute throughout thc cconomr'.
This will lead to more sales by br-rsinesses and more revenue due 1o the taxcs levied on sales. as riell
as corporate profils. The secondary and tertiarl"'induced" ef-lbcts. which arc most signilicant to thc
macro state ccononty. arc not calculated herein.
When con-rpletcd. the proposed redevelopment is estimatecl to be the lor;ation o1'10 emplovees
and 360 houscholds rvith att estimated disposable personal income of $23.4 prilliol. Econonric riiticts
of retail expenditures as a proportion of total personal income inclicate that durilg the opcrational
(occLrpicd) phase of the proposed dcvelopment. the new'residents rvill generatc $21.5 million in
annttal personal expenditurcs. including expenditures o1-$3.7 rnillion fbr shoppipg goods. $5.0 nrillion
fbr convenience goods. and an additional $ 12.8 rnillion in consumption ,;xpenr1itures. -l-hc ccor1or1ic
impacts expected to result 1l'om the cornpletior.r ofthe proposed redcr,elopntent ip Bloorringclale during
thc construction and operating phases are summarized on Table 1 l.
+z


T.
II.
PROJECT'
Residential - Market
Residential - Aflbrdable
lrstimated Value
ECONOMIC IMPACT
TABLE 11
ECONOMIC IMPACT SUMMAITY
MEER TRACT REDEVELOPMENT
(288 DU)
( 72 DIJ)
[.abor Ilouns
279.290
4-5.610
237.040
173,520
79.010
814.470
Project
Value
$41 ,624,100
$ 4.492.150
$46.116.250
$32.281 .400
$ I 3,545,100
$ 3,389.500
$ l0. t 68.600
10
360
$23.445,000
$21.s69.400
$ 3.688.400
$ 5.004.100
$ 12.876.900
.lobs
i40
aa
a-)
119
87
39
408
$ 1 8.723.200
$ r 6.476.400
A. Construction Phase (tcmporarl')
Contract Construction
Material Purchases
Within Region
Otrtside Region
Ernployment
On-Site Construction
Ofl'-S ite Construction
Manuf-acturing
Trade. Trans & Services
Other
Total
Earnings
Wages
Disposable Personal Income
B. !)peration Phase (Permanent)
Ernployees
Households
Disposable Personal Income
Personal Expenditures
Shopping Goods
Convenience Goods
Consurnption Expenditures
43


INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIX I 
CUPR Stater,vide Demographic Multipliers -Total Populnll.t
APPENDIX 2 
CUPR Statewide Demographic Multipliers - Public School Children
APPENDIX 3 
Atlbrdable Housing Demographic MLrltipliers


STRUCTURE TYPE/
BEDROOMS/
VALUE |rENURE
APPENDIX 1
Demographic Multipliers - Total popr-rlation
STATEWIDE NEW JERSEY
TOTAL PERSONS AND PERSONS BY AGE
ontin
I 8-34
35.44 45.54
E 11
6 5.74
75+
5+ Units (Own), 0-1 EIR
All Values
Below Median $185,36i
Above Median $1 85,361
5+ Units (Own), 2 BR
AII Values
Below Median $226,552
Above Median $226,552
5+ Units (Own), 3 BR
Al Values
Below Median $226,552
Above Median $226,552
5+ Units (Rent), 0.1 UR
All Values
Belorv Median $125,716
Above N/edian $1 25 71 6
5+ Units (Rent), 2 BR
AllValues
Below N,ledran $1 77,1 23
Above Median $1i7 ,123
5+ units (Rent), 3 BF,
A ] Va]UeS
Belo',v [4edran $1 73,004
Above Median $173 004
2-4 Units, 0-1 BR
AllValues
Belov; l,4edian $1 23,574
Above lv4edian $ 1 23,574
2.4 Units, 2 BR
AllValues
Be o,r lvledian $149,607
Above N4edian $1 49,607
2.4 Units, 3 BR
All Values
Belor,v l,4edran 5226,552
Above lMedran $226,552
2.4 Units, 4.5 BR
Al t"ralues
Below Median fi7A,722
Above Median $370,722
0 094 ails
0 137 0 167
0 036 0 069
0 530 0 304
4.474 0,364
0 605 0.223
0 485
0 520
0.41 9
0.145 A 124
0 140 0.097
0 150 0,159
0191
0 164
0 243
0 159 0214
0 151 q 171
a1t1 a27A
1 694
1 742
1 682
1.791
1 .771
1.844
2.469
2.828
2.104
0.071
0.07 4
0.064
0.213 A.471
0.301 0.655
0 124 0 283
0 069 0.070
0 053 0.083
0.085 0.057
0.537 0.481
0,588 A.524
0 486 0 438
0 569 0.190
0 285 0 143
0,855 A,237
0.967 0.353
0.951 0.364
0 984 A342
1.137 0 577
1.064 0 s8i
1 212 0 568
0.747 A27B
0 650 0.282
0.847 0.27 4
0.940 0.477
0,939 0.497
0 940 0 456
1 062 0 654
1 085 071B
1 038 0 5BB
0 332 0.243
4.412 0.2A4
0.250 a.282
0.098 0 077
0,100 0 093
0 097 0 061
0.1 29 
0 063
0.103 0 041
0 155 0 086
0.149 0.284
0262 0 351
0.035 0 216
at22
0.131
0 105
0 320
U,J14
0 312
0 623
0,7 44
4.47 1
0.294
0 290
0.301
0.1 53
a 121
0 215
U. O L
0.1 47
0186
2,303
2.493
2.107
3,666
3.422
1 507
1 370
1.644
2 44'\
1 868
2.225
0.180
0,195
0164
0207 0 323
0 265 0 478
ai47 0 165
0 431 0 973
0 392 1.242
0,4i0 0.702
0.113 0.069 0090
0.115 0.065 0060
0.112 0,073 0.121
2.651
2.857
2.44A
3,529
3.665
3 388
3 995
4 2J1
3 699
0,179 0 288
0'151 0.259
02a7 0 318
0 19S 0 109
0.246 0.114
0 151 0 104
0 221 0.112
0.141 0 111
0 304 0 113
a u7 
0.157
0 200 0,144
0 235 0 169
0 363 0 209
0.269 0.0s9
0.460 A 322
0.075 0 044
4 022 0 000
0 128 0 088
0 087 0 i33
0.117 0 158
0 057 0 106
0 094 0.c63
0 082 0 052
0.106 0 075
0.107 0 035
0 047 0 021
0 170 0.052
0.250 0 453
0 341 0.603
0 158 0 300
0 293 0 805
0.355 1 070
4228, 0 530
0 384 0.749 1.141
0.474 0965 1.212
4.274 0.477 1052
0.527 0216 0194 0162
0.557 0073 0129 0.078
0 490 0,396 A 276 0 268


APPENDIX 2
Demographic Multiplier.s - Public School Childr.en
STAT-WIDE NEW JERSEY-
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN (PSC
STRUCTURE TYPE/
BEDR00tvlS/
VALUE /1'ENURE
5+ Units (0wn), 0.1 BR
All Values
Below Median $129,835
Above Median $129,835
5+ Units (0wn), 2 BR
Al Values
Below Median $226 552
Above Median $226,552
5+ Units (0wn), 3 BR
All Values
Below Median $220 552
Above iVedian $226,552
5+ Units (Rent), 0.1 BR
All Values
Beiovr Median $125,i16
Above Median $1 25,7 1 6
5+ Units (Rent), 2 BR
All Varues
Below lr4edian $177,123
Above Median $177 ,123
5+ Units (Rent), 3 BR
All Values
Below lr,ledian $ 1 73,004
Above Medran 9173,004
2.4 Units, 0.'1 BR
Al Values
Belovi lt'lecjian $1 23,57 4
Above Niedian $123,574
2.4 Units, 2 BR
All Values
Belovr Median $149,007
Above rVedian $149,60/
2.4 Units, 3 BR
All Values
Below Median $226,552
Above [,1edran $226,552
2.4 Units, 4.5 BR
All Values
Below lvledian $37 0,7 22
Above lvledian $370,722
TOTAL
Elementary
PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADE
Junr0r
High School
High School
7.el_____llu_?L
aJ17
0.167
0,051
0,098
0 101
0.092
0.1 00
0,137
0,051
0.067
0.065
0.072
0,321
0.406
0.234
0.040
0.043
0.037
0,1 83
0,286
0,078
0,4 93
0,76 1
0,225
0.1 39
u, rlo
U, ICJ
4,252
0.3(i0
0141
0 336
0,523
0 
",44
0 009
0.015
0,000
0 013
0.01 3
0 013
0,008
0.015
0.000
0,018
0,424
0 007
c 054
0,058
0.04 9
0 008
0.011
0 006
0.041
0 065
0.017
0 109
0,091
as27
0 059
0 067
0,0 51
0.057
0,071
a.042
012B
0,1 B0
0,07 4
0.167
0.165
0,16E
0,598
0.283
0.060
0.069
0.051
0,275
0,432
0,115
0,832
1 ,1 tl3
0,560
a 012
0,01 5
0 009
0,0 51
0,081
0.019
a 229
a.251
0 208
0.052
4,Q44
0,060
0 074
0 0E4
0 064
a.171
0.244
0 094
0 143
0.2 56
0,000
0 068
c.134
0,000
0,250
0,237
0,264
0,382
0,514
c.248
0,6ri1
0,94 6
4,412
0,556
0,7 42
0.322
a.247
A.'J21
0,154


APPEI\IDIX 3
AIIFORDAI]Ltr HOUSING DE IvIoGRAPI{I C MTJI,TII'[,IEITS
All Hotrsirrg Iy1;es ancl lJerllnonrs
Sirr gl e.larn il y, I)etaclrecl
] IJR
i {iR
,1 fl l(
Sinul c-[-anri ly, A,ila c:lrr:rl
2 Bli
|lR
5.t. UIrils, C)u,n
1 Bt(
2 UR
I lllt
U n its, Ren t
} RR
I UR
I t]r(
5.r
I
2
J
lo tal
Pc.tso r rs
2 I5
i) l;
/'l \)
0',,
2.0()
r ()Ii
1,J'i
| 76
) 5r
6i
76
'd2
Sr"'i ro o /-,i, qr:
Cltildran
0 50
().L4
05|
O IJ:J
0 ti
0 t)6
(i.07
0 )l
0. (iL)
0I()
0.68
1 .37
l)ttlt[i<. Sr'ltoo]
Clti,ltltel
0 ,15
.''
0 2r
0.i6
() 7.1
i) l'?-
0 7'/'
06
i 1r
(,,
(l I L]
0. 0l
: 17
tl
(l
t)
I
l
j
\rtttrte 
[) S ( t'ttstrs rtt'l'tt1;ttl;tii<>n ,tnrl l lt>Ltsin,q;, l)tr]tli<: l.lst: l,.lt..rticj;tla.5irrrr1,r/e, 2L)00