**TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY DOCKET NOS.:**  **010456-2020; 009577-2021; 007910-2022**  NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS Options Imagined, **: A NJ Nonprofit Corporation**  , **: :**  **Plaintiff, :**  **:**

**v. :**  **:** Parsippany
- Troy Hills Township **, : :** 

**Defendant. :**  **:**

**Decided: October**  **31 ,**  **2022 Robert B. McBriar for**  **plaintiff (Schneck**  **, Price**  **, Smith**  **, & King, LLP.,**  **attorneys)**

**. Richard P. DeAngelis for**  **defe ndant**  **( Connell Foley LLP.**  **, attorney s).**  **BIANCO, J.T.C. This is the court’s formal opinion concerning property tax exemption**  **eligibility pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6, for tax years 2020, 2021, and 2022**  **, 1**  **of property owned by**  **plaintiff ,**  **Options Imagined, a NJ Nonprofit Corporation (Options), located at 2467 Route 10, Apt. 18** 

**- A1, Parsippany** 

**- Troy Hills Township,** 

1 **When the Township filed its motion in March 2022, it included tax years 2020 and 2021 as those**  **were the only appeals then pending in the Tax Court. On June 8, Options timely**  **filed its complaint challenging the denial of the exemption for the current tax year. Thereafter, on July 12, Options**  **filed its opposition to the**  **Township’s Motion for Summary Judgement and Cross -Motions**  **for Summary Judgement that included tax year 2022. In filing its reply brief and opposition to Options’**  **Cross Motion on August 15, the**  **Township failed to include reference to tax year 2022. Both parties**  **have confirmed in writing that the Court’s consideration of the pending Motion for Summary Judgement and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement should be for all years under appeal as the**  **material fac ts pertaining to all years are the same.**  **Approved for Publication In the New Jersey**  **Tax Court Reports**2

**and designated by the taxing district as Lot 18.01 in Block 15.25 (Subject Property). Specifically at issue is**  **whether the Subject**  **P roperty is actually used in furtherance**  **of Options ’**  **charitable purpose, and whether Options is operating in furtherance of**  **its organizational purpose set forth in its bylaws. Defendant Parsippany** 

**- Troy Hills**  **Township (Township) moved for summary judgment to dismiss Options’ appeals of the**  **Morris County Tax Board’s denial of the Subject Property’s charitable property**  **tax exemption for all the years at issue. Options filed cross**

**- motions for summary**  **judgment entreating the court to grant the exemption. For the reasons stated more specifically set forth herein, the court: (1) grants**  **Options’ cross**

**- motions for summary judgment, finding that Options has met its**  **burden of satisfying the elements of N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6**  **; (2) denies the Township’s**  **motion to dismiss Options’ appeal s**  **; and (3) finds that Options is organized in furtherance of its**  **Certificate of Incorporation** 

**.** Statement of Undisputed Facts **The facts are not in dispute. 2**  **Options is a**  **nonprofit New Jersey c**  **orporation and**  **a Federal 501(c)(3)**  **o rganization**  **created in 2015 by Joseph**  **DeSimone to provide**  **support services to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.**  **Options is managed by its**  **five -member**  **Board of Trustees. Mr. DeSimone serves as the**  **President of the**  **Board of**  **Trustees**

**.**

2 **At argument, both counsel reaffirmed**  **that no facts were in dispute in these matters.**3

**In furtherance of its charitable**  **purpose s, Options provides various New Jersey**  **Department of Human Services, Division of Development Disabilities (DDD) recognized services**  **3 to aid the moral and**  **mental improvement of me n,**  **women, and**  **children, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 36** 

**. Pu**  **rsuant to Options’ amended**  **C ertificate**  **of I ncorporation**  **, u pon**  **its dissolution, its assets will be distributed for tax exempt**  **purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) or be**  **distributed by federal, local,**  **or state government for a public purpose.**  **The Subject Property is a residential two**

**- bedroom condomin**  **ium unit containing approximately 1,021 square feet of livable area; it was assessed for**  **$150,000 for all years under appeal. 4**  **In September 2019, Options purchased the Subject Property from its President**  **Mr. DeSimone for $220,000.**  **The entirety of the**  **Subject Property is**  **exclusively used for independent living and rehabilitative**  **services. 5**  **Since Options purchased the Subject Property in 2019, Mr. DeSimone’s**  **autistic adult son was the only resident and lessee**  **of one of the bedrooms** 

**. 6**  **However, it is anticipated that an additional DDD participant will occupy the second** 

3 **Options provides services within the Subject Property and outside the Subject Property. The**  **services include Community Based Supports (Supports Program), Community Inclusion Ser vices,**  **Day Habilitation, Individual Supports (Community Care Program), Prevocational Training, Respite, Support Coordination, Supported Employment, Support Brokerage, and Transportation.**  **4 The property tax for the Subject Property for the relevant**  **years is as follows: $4,626.00 in 2020, $4,756.50 in 2021, $4,894.50 in 2022.**  **5 The Subject Property has operated at a loss for the preceding three years.**  **6 The rent for the Subject Property for the relevant years is as follows: $1,390 in 2020, $1,483 in**  **2019.**4

**bed room at the Subject Property once**  **his/her transition plans**  **7 are complete** 

**. Additionally, Options has the intention of acquiring and operating five group homes**  **by 2025 in furtherance of its charitable purpose.**  **Before Options acquired the Subject Property, the current resident**  **lived alone at the Subject Property and received Section**  **8 subsidies.**  **8 After the sale to**  **Options, Mr. DeSimone transferred the Section 8 housing contract to Options** 

**. Additionally**  **, Options receives in** 

**- home and service funding from various sources**  **such as Medicaid Waiver Programs. The**  **Subject Property’s home expense**  **s are**  **derived from resident funds and state funded housing programs.**  **9 Options receives** 
**in**

**- home and service funding from various sources such as Medicaid Waiver**  **Programs. While the**  **Subject Property itself is not yet approved by the DDD, the DDD has issued a Notice of Intent to License.**  **10 Options**  **, however, is approved and recognized by the DDD to provide services**  **and support to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities enrolled in**

7 **The D DD**  **’s Planning for Adult Life Project assists students with int ellectual and developmental**  **disabilities and their families in transitioning into adulthood. Transition plans are created when a**  **student moves from the school system into the adult service system. A transition plan identifies**  **services that aids youth in achieving**  **their ideal future life goals. 8**  **The Division of Housing and Community Resources (DHCR) Section 8**  **Housing Program is a**  **Housing Voucher program that assists low**

**- income households in paying rent by reducing housing**  **costs through direct subsidy payments to landlords.**
9 **Supportive Housing Vouchers from NJ Supportive Housing Alliance, and State Rental Assistance Programs (SRAP).**  **SRAP is a state funded program that provides housing subsidies to**  **very low**

**- income New Jersey Residents. From September 2019 through December 2019, Options**  **received SRAP subsidies totaling to $31,293. 10**  **Once the Subject Property is licensed by DDD, funding will be received in the form of Supportive Housing Vouchers from the Supportive Housing Alliance.** 5

**various Medicaid Waiver programs. Options provides twenty** 

**- four** 

**- hour**  **support services at the Subject Property to enable DDD participants to live in the community.**  **The current resident is enrolled in**  **CCP and receives funding through programs**  **administered by the DDD. 11**  **The current**  **resident is cared for fulltime by four trained**  **Options individual support employees at the Subject Property as outlined in his approved New Jersey**  **Individual Service Plan (ISP). 12**  **Individual support services are direct**  **aid to**  **individuals in achieving an independent lifestyle. These services**  **include assistance in performing everyday tasks, such as the development of s ocial**  **skills and basic self**

**- care.**  **Options provides i ndividual**  **support services only to**  **CCP participants**  **in the Subject Property as well as other locations within twenty** 

**- one**  **counties in New Jersey. The DDD listed Options**  **as a Support Coordination (SC) agency, specifically as a released agency.**  **13 Support Coordination is a DDD funded**  **service that assists DDD partic**  **ipants in gaining access to needed programs and State**  **plan services.** Applicable Law

11 **The DDD developed and operates two Medica i**  **d waiver p**  **rograms : (1)**  **The Supports Program (SP) and**  **(2) T**  **he C ommunity Care Program (C**  **CP ).**  **The CCP is a DD**  **D initiative that permits New**  **Jersey to receive a federal match on a variety of approved waiver programs and support s Medicaid**  **beneficiaries to live in the community and avoid institutionalization.**  **12 Each CCP participant**  **must have an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) developed according to the standards specified in the CCP policy manual and the Support Coordination Orientation.** 
13 **Released agencies are agencies authorized to have their SC approve their own service plans**  **because they**  **met a minimum standard of delivering quality service plans. Therefore, released agencies do not have to submit service plans to the D**  **DD for review and approval.** 6

**A motion for summary judgment should be granted in the absence of genuine issues of material facts.**  **R. 4:46**  **-2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.**  **, 142 N.J. 520, 528** 

**- 29 (1995) (summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings,**  **depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the**  **affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter**  **of law”). Denial is appropriate only where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could return a finding favorable to the party opposing the motion.**  **Id. at 534,** 
**540. “In a proceeding in the Tax Court there is a presumption of correctness in** 
**f avor of the County Board judgment which must be overcome by plaintiff’s**  **introduction of sufficient competent evidence.” Glen Wall Assoc. v. Wall Twp.**  **, 6 N.J. Tax 24, 28 (Tax 1983), rev’d on other grounds**  **, 99 N.J. 265 (1985). “Exemption [from taxation] is justly sustained only upon the principle that the**  **concession is due as quid pro quo for the performance of a service essentially public, and which the state there** 

**- by is relieved pro tanto from the necessity of performing.”**  **Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. East Orange City, 17 N.J. T ax 298 (Tax**  **1998). When making charitable exemption decisions, “it is the use of the property, not the status or character of its owner, that determines exemption.”**  **Emanuel Missionary Baptist Church v. City of Newark**  **, 1 N.J. Tax 264, 268 (Tax 1980)** 

**.**7

**N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6 provides in pertinent part that:**  **The following property shall be exempt from taxation . . . all buildings actually used in the work**  **of associations and corporations organized exclusively for the moral and mental improvement**  **of men, women and children, provided that if any**  **portion of a building used for that purpose is leased to profit** 

**- making organizations or is otherwise used**  **for purposes which are not themselves exempt from taxation, that portion shall be subject to taxation and**  **the rema ining portion only shall be exempt.**  **[N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6]**  **While value determinations by County Boards generally enjoy a presumption of validity,**  **MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Borough of Mountain Lakes , 18 N.J.**  **Tax 364, 373 (Tax 1998), “the determination of an exemption is more properly one of statutory and case law interpretation than one requiring any special expertise**  **possessed of an assessor[;] . . . ‘statutory construction is ultimately a judicial function.’”**  **Hertz v. Borough of Lincoln Park , 31 N.J.**  **Tax 1, 12 (Tax 2019) (quoting O’Rourke v. Fredon, 25 N.J. Tax 443, 450 (Tax 2010)).**  **“[T]ax exemption cases . . . are necessarily limited to their facts and are not controlling.”**  **AHS Hosp. Corp. v. Town of Morristown**  **, 28 N.J. Tax 456, 499 (Tax 2015) (citi ng**  **Int’l Schs. Servs., Inc. v. West Windsor Twp.**  **, 207 N.J. 3, 22 (2011)). “The Supreme Court of New Jersey has set forth three criteria for whether a**  **property qualifies for exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6: (1) the owner of the**  **property must be organized exclusively for the tax** 

**- exempt purpose; (2) the property** 8

**must be actually used for the exempt purpose; and (3) the operation and use of the property must not be conducted for profit.”**  **Borough of Hamburg v. Trs. of Presbytery of Newton, 28 N.J. Tax 311, 3**  **18 (Tax**  **2015) (citing**  **Paper Mill Playhouse v. Millburn Twp., 95 N.J.**  **5 03, 506 (1984)).** 
**Because “all property shall bear its just and equal share of the public burden**  **of taxation [,]**  **” “[s] tatutes**  **granting exemption from taxation represent a departure and consequently they are most strongly construed against those claiming**  **exemption.” Princeton Univ. Press v. Borough of Princeton, 35 N.J. 209, 214**  **(1961 ).**  **Accordingly, “[t]he burden of proving a t ax**  **- exempt status is upon the**  **claimant.” Ibid.**  **However, “[t]he rule of strict construction must never be allowed to defeat the evident legislative design.”**  **Soc’y of the Holy Child Jesus v. City of Summit**  **, 418 N.J. Super. 365, 373 (App. Div. 2011) (quotin g**  **N.J. Carpenters Apprentice Training & Educ. Fund v. Borough of Kenilworth, 147 N.J. 171, 177** 

**- 78**  **(1996)). When determining whether a property is actually used for a tax** 

**- exempt** 
**pur pose, the Tax Court evaluates whether the property is “reasonably necessary**  **” for such tax** 

**- exempt purposes.**  **See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. East**  **Orange City, 18 N.J. Tax 649, 653 (App. Div. 2000) (citing City of Long Branch v. Monmouth Med. Ctr.**  **, 138 N.J. Super. 524, 532 (App. Div. 1976), aff’d**  **, 73 N.J. 179 (1977)).**  **When applying this test, the Court has held that “necessary” is not**9

**interpreted to mean “absolutely indispensable.” Boys’ Club of Clifton, Inc. v. Twp.**  **of Jefferson , 72 N.J. 389, 401 (1977).**  **Eligibility for exemption is determined as of October 1 of the prior tax year.**  **See Catholic Relief Servs., U.S.C.C. v. South**  **Brunswick Twp. , 9 N.J. Tax 25, 26** 

**- 7 (Tax 1987),**  **aff’d , 9 N.J. Tax 650 (App. Div.**  **1987).** Analysis **While property tax exemption determinations pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6**  **are inherently and typically fact sensitive** , **s ee**  **AHS Hosp. Corp., 28 N.J. Tax at 499 (citing**  **Int’l Schs. Servs., Inc**

**. , 207 N.J.**  **at 22 ),**  **the court finds that summary judgment is appropriate in the present matters as there are no genuine disputes of material**  **facts. Both parties**  **agree that Options is**  **using the property to care for the current resident**  **and that Options is a nonprofit corpora**  **tion organized for the moral and**  **mental improvement of individuals in accordance with N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6.**  **Furthermore, the parties are in accord that**  **Options is not using the Subject Property for profit.**  **At issue, is**  **the second prong of the Paper Mill test,**  **i.e., whether the**  **Subject Property is actually used in furtherance of its organizational**  **purpose**
**. Additionally,**  **despite the parties having stipulated to Options o**  **rganizational elements, the Township focused its ar**  **gument on whether Options satisfied its charitable purpose by providing services to the public, given**  **that Mr. Desimone’s**  **son was the only former and current resident of the**  **S ubject**  **P roperty** 

**.**10

1. The Use Test **For Options to meet the requirements under the use test, it must demonstrate that the Subject Property is “reasonably necessary for the accomplishment, and an**  **integral part, of the taxpayer’s activities in pursuit of a function forming the basis of**

**an exem ption under N.J.SA. 54:4** 

**- 3.6.”**  **Fountain House of New Jersey v. Montague Twp**  **, 13 N.J. Tax 387, 402 (**  **Tax 1993**  **) (citing**  **Long Branch v. Monmouth Med. Ctr. ,**  **138 N.J. Super. 524, 532 ( App. Div.**  **1976), aff’d**  **, 73 N.J. 179 (1977)). Options contends that the Subject Property is**  **entitled to tax exempt status**  **because it is used in providing Mr. DeSimone’s son**  **with DDD approved services and support**  **, which use is consistent with Options’ charitable purpose.**  **The Township**  **disputes whether**  **Options actually used the Subject Property in furtherance of its charitable purpose as of the relevant assessing dates.**  **To that argument the Township asserts that because**  **the Subject Property is not available to the public but rather, available only to th**  **e son of Options’ President, Options does not render a charitable benefit to the public.**  **Accordingly, in the Township’s view, exemption of the Subject Property is inappropriate.**  **The court finds that Options satisfied all the requirements for tax exemptio**  **n. It is clear the Subject Property was used to provide the current resident**  **with housing and**  **DDD approved support services. This court has**  **previously recognized that**  **property used to house and provide substantial supportive services that encourage an** 11

**independent lifestyle meets the standard for property tax exemption under N.J.SA.** 
**54:4**

**- 3.6** 

**. See**  **Community Access Unlimited, Inc. v. City of Elizabeth , 21 N.J. Tax**  **604 (Tax 2003) (where the court**  **granted a charitable tax exemption to Community**  **Access, an organization that provided housing and supportive services to individuals**  **with mental disabilities ,**  **finding that, similar to Options, its goal was to aid persons**  **with mental disabilities in leading an independent lifestyle ).**  **The Subject Property is reasonably necessary and integral to the**  **care and**  **well**

  ** being** **of the current resident**  **and provides him with the ability to lead an independent**  **lifestyle within the community**

**. The**  **current resident receive**  **s assistance with**  **community**

**- based activities and aid in performing everyday**  **tasks . Furthermore,**  **Options is not limited to only housing Mr. DeSimone’s son. An additional DDD**  **participant is anticipated to reside in the Subject Property and receive similar**  **s upport**  **services based on his or her ISP**

**. When Mr. DeSimone’s son is no longer a resident,**  **the Subject Property will continue to be reasonably necessary and integral to the c are**  **of other DDD participants. Both**  **bed rooms at the Subject Property can continue**  **to be leased by DDD participants in need of housing and supportive aid.**  **Accordingly ,**  **the Court finds that Options does satisfy the requirements of the use test.**
2. Public Use **There is nothing in the case law or controlling statutes to suggest that Opti ons’**  **undisputed use of the property does not satisfy the requirements for exemption.**12

**While it is well settled that property tax exemption is an exception that must be strictly construed**  **against the party seeking exemption , s**  **ee Soc’y of the Holy Child** 
**Jesus , 418 N.J. Super.**  **at 373**  **, there is no requirement for**  **an organization to be open to the general**  **public and utilized by more than one individual at any given time** 

**. See**  **Princeton Univ. ,**  **35 N.J. at 214**

**. Furthermore, it is not pertinent to the requirements**  **of either the use test or N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6**  **that Mr. DeSimone’s son is the sole**  **resident. The Township’s argument that Options is ineligible for tax exemption**  **because the Subject Property is not adequately used by the public conflates**  public

use **with** public purpose

**. It**  **h as been**  **held that our**  **courts should not strictly define either public purpose or public use;**  **“to be serviceable it must expand when necessary to encompass changing public needs of a modern dynamic society.”**  **Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. Super.**  **191, 207 (1964)** 

**. “The concept of public purpose is a broad one... it connotes an**  **activity which serves as a ben efit to the community as a whole**  **, and which, at the**  **same time is directly related to the functions of government. Moreover, it cannot be**  **static in its implications .”**  **Ibid**

**. “[T]he term**  **“public use” defies absolute definition because it changes with varying conditions of society and changing conceptions of**  **the scope and functions of government.” Id.**  **at 226.**  **Here, Options is absorbing some**  **cost s**  **that the taxpayers**  **would otherwise have to bear by caring for an individual with developmental disabilities.**  **Current**13

**available funding resources do not provide Options with full housing funds**  **; Options**  **operates at a loss, and resident funds contribute**  **to a portion of the Su bject Property’s** 
**expense s.**  **The fact that there has**  **been only one individual living at the Subject**  **Property does not change the fact that Options is bearing a cost that the State must otherwise pay**  **for the care of the current resident**  **. Moreover, o ur jurisprudence has**  **long established that a quantum of use is not required for a property to be tax exempt ;**  **nor is there any certain amount of benefit or relief from public expenses that must**  **be met**

. **See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark**  **, 17 N.J. Tax at 311**  **( reasoning** 
**that “no courts in this state have eve r**  **suggested that the quantum, regularity, or consistency of religious activity are necessary prerequisites to [tax exemption]")** 

**. Options offers housing and supportive services to individ**  **uals who might otherwise be institutionalized**  **at a higher cost to the public and**  **provides them with a safe setting**  **in which to thrive.**  **14 Th**  **e Tax C ourt has**  **found that organizations**  **similar to O**  **ptions are “playing a role in fulfilling an articulated State policy of**

**14 “The average cost to maintain one state hospital bed is $146,000 per annually. Almost half of**  **the S**  **tate’s mental health budget (or**  **$483 million dollars )**  **pays for the cost of caring for an average 3,300 patients in State and County facilities on any given**  **day. Given that almost half of the State hospital patients are clinically ready for discharge, housing them in State hospitals**  **is very expensive. Without a local system of care to coordinate an array of services a**  **nd supports for persons who are seriously mentally ill, again, if we do nothing, the Task Force finds a si**  **gnificant number of State hospital beds (400) would need to be added given current admission, discharg**  **e and average daily population trends** 

**. Such a use of institutional care would be unfortuna**  **te and inappropriate. The lost potential in human terms is incalculable. Lives have been lost, s**  **pirits broken and families devastated.” 2005 Task Force on Mental Health**  **Final Report , p. 6, available**  **at** THE FINAL EXEC SUMMARY 3 30 05 B.itb.doc (nj.gov) **; last visited Oct. 14, 2022.** 14

**deinstitutionalizing the mentally disabled.” Advanced Housing, Inc. v. Twp. of**  **Teaneck , 215 N.J** 

**. 549, 554 (2013)**  **(citing Community Access Unlimited Inc.**  **, 21**  **N.J. Tax at 617)**

**. The Gov**  **ernor’s 2005 Task Force on Mental Health Final report 15**  **revealed that the cost of institutionalizing one individual is**  **far more exuberant**  **than providing services in a residence.**  **Ibid**

**. Consequently, Options**  **’ existence relieves**  **the state’s financial burden of institutionalizing individuals. This**  **court rejects the Township’s arguments that there is a specific public use requirement and refuses to find such in the penumbra of the jurisprudence**  **concerning property tax exemption. Because Options is bearing a cost that the State would otherwise pay, this court is satisfied that Options is operating in satisfaction**  **of the requisite public purpose.**

3. Operating in Furtherance of Options ’ Organizational Purpose **While the parties have stipulated to the o**  **rganizational elements, t**  **he Township**  **’s contention**  **that Options was not created to provide residential services**  **, 16**  **nevertheless suggests that Options is not acting within its organizational purpose** 

**. The court finds such a**  **claim to**  **be unfounded**

**. While**  **Options ’**  **Certificate of**

15 **In 2005, the cost of maintaining one patient in a State psychiatric h**  **ospital was $146,000 per year, and in a group home $60,000 per year.**  **16 The Township asserts**  **as an undisputed fact that Options was not organized to provide**  **residential services.** 15

**Incorporation does not explicitly state that its creation is to provide residential services**  **, it broadly**  **outlines t hat Options**  **’ primary purpose is to provide services and**  **support to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities as well as conducting any other activity**  **necessary in achieving its charitable purpose.**  **The court is satisfied that the support services Options provide**  **s at**  **the Subject Property**  **are necessary in achieving its charitable**  **purpose. The current resident**  **, and potentially**  **future residents ,**  **receive the daily supportive aid**  **necessary to lead an independent lifestyle.**  **The Court rejects the T**  **ownship ’**  **s argument and**  **finds that Options is operating according to**  **its organizational purpose** 

**.** 4. Public Policy Argument **As this court has discussed at length in Life With**  **Joy v. Twp. of Green**  **, 32**  **N.J. Tax 580, 599**

**- 603 (Tax 2022**  **), the legislature set forth an extensive statutory**  **scheme through the DDD to provide for the caretaking of individuals with developmental disabilities.**  **T hese elaborate government programs that are set up to**  **fund the care and development of individuals with developmental disabilities proves the public benefit.**  **When individuals and nonprofits act in accordance with state law and policy to care for individuals with developmental disabilities, they hel**  **p relieve the state, and more importantly, the tax** 

**- paying public**  **, from the financial cost of their**  **care. The Supreme Court endorsed such reasoning when it cited a 2005 Task Force on Mental Health commissioned by Acting Governor Codey outlining the “dearth**  **of**16

**affordable housing that offer[s] comprehensive support services.” Advanced**  **Housing, Inc**

**. , 215 N.J.**  **Super. at**  **554**

**. The Court found that caring for “mentally**  **disabled citizens, who otherwise would be dependent on government relief, is i n**  **furtherance of this State’s express policy.” Ibi**  **d. This court is empowered to find coexistence amongst promulgated statutes**  **and thus finds that if the Subject Property is used in furtherance of an organizat ion’s**  **charitable goals and in furtherance of a public purpose such property will be exempt**  **from taxation. Here, the court is satisfied that Options is actually using the Subject Property in furtherance of their charitable purpose in accordance with N.J.S.A.**  **54:4**

**- 3.6 and is thus exempt from**  **taxation.**
Conclusion **Accordingly, the court finds that the Subject Property is actually used in furtherance of Options’ charitable purpose and is thus exempt from taxation pursuant** 
**to N.J.S.A. 54:4**

**- 3.6 for the tax years at issue.**  **The Township’s motions for summary judgment are denied and Options’ cross motions for summary judgment are granted.**  **The Tax Court’s judgment and Final Order consistent with this opinion will be uploaded to**  eCourts.