In terms of Dr. Zigmund's citation of $500, it's clear to me when read her comments that she's talking about the total costs to residents of acquisition, development of the property, etc.

It's an open secret in town that the school board wanted to get this referendum as close to "$150" per year to be able to sell it, but such window dressing doesn't change the fact that they have longer-term plans for this property that will cost taxpayers a lot more.

The school district is purporting to sell its "vision" to the public (which includes future construction), so residents need to be aware of the range of costs of that vision since they're being asked to vote on getting into this property.

[BTW: You still haven't private messaged me about getting together on the other issues you raise. I would be happy to meet with you about all those things, after January 22nd. If you're going to admonish folks for not taking a position on other excess spending -- as you've done with me in the past -- please have the courtesy to allow us to take you up on your offer.]

@Joe Taxpayer I completely disagree with your statement, "My point is not to judge the impact of any incremental expense but to point out that no one single expense is the straw that broke the camel's back even though people are attempting to make it so."

With anyone's decision to finally sell their house and move out due to a new property tax coupled with other already established expenses, that certainly is, "the straw that broke the camel's back!" Granted, a person decision to move to live in retirement elsewhere may not be based on a tax increase. However, an increase of $500 per year in gasoline costs, or any other living expenses solely or collectively, thrown on top of another property tax increase, no mater which of the big 3 - school Board, county or town - may also be the "straw that broke the camel's back." You just can't look at increased taxes and not consider other costs of living.

I've lived in the town next to yours for 23 years. Fortunately I can still afford to stay, but barely. It gets pretty tiring hearing year after year from either my town, my school board or from the county something to the effect, "the tax increase is only @150 per average per tax payer". While my town hasn't increased taxes in 3 years, the County took their full 2.5% increase as allowable by NJ law for the 2013 tax year. I'm not aware of any laws that would prohibit the town, the school broad and the county to each increase their taxes by 2.5% in a single year.

@MisterMike - How can anyone determine which increased cost is the "straw"? That is my point. If $500 is the breaking point and Bancroft fails but someones healthcare costs rise $500, will they still be forced to move away?

Stand with me and support lowering our taxes by eliminating the pensions and capping healthcare expenses. This will save millions annually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/business/despite-overhaul-new-jersey-pension-plan-said-to-be-in-deep-trouble.html?_r=0

This year, the state contributed $1 billion toward pension costs, but by 2018, it will have to come up with about $5.5 billion a year — roughly 40 percent of what it now spends on public education. There is no apparent source of that much money in the state’s $31 billion annual budget.

“The growth in pension requirements, plus the ever-increasing cost for current and retiree health benefits will crowd out other budgetary needs,” said the task force, a project led by the former Federal Reserve chairman, Paul A. Volcker, and the former New York lieutenant governor, Richard Ravitch.

You say: the "overall lack of everyone's anti tax passion when it comes to the annual budget rituals of our country, state, county and boro because if we all cared, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are in ie BROKE and OVERTAXED." Obviously you don't know me.

Dr. Zigmund, thank you for the reply. For the most part I agree with you and Jack S and others about the costs to live here and in NJ. Where we seem to disagree is on the main culprits which are outlandish pay and benefits for public workers - 70% of our taxes go for payroll not capital. On the merits, you and others make valid points on your opposition of Bancroft. . I happen to disagree because I think the costs and value are easily absorbed and the long term benefits are there. What long term benefits do any of us get from paying 26% to the county or for paying for someone elses retirement plan? NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.

While we may disagree on this situation, I encourage everyone to get very active during the boro and BOE's upcoming budgets. Let's say NO to any tax increases for payroll expenses because tax increases of any kinds are forcing people to move away. Eliminate the pensions would be the 1st priority!

Brian, I wrote a long response earlier this morning but it exceeded allowable space by 1500 words so I guess that it didn't transmit.
In a nutshell traffic & noise is WAY down on my list of issues with Bancroft, let's be very clear on that.
Do you recall an organization called S.H.A.I.R. (Secure Haddonfield Against Institutional Rezoning)? from back in the early 2000's.
Bancroft was so use to getting whatever they asked for from our Town Leaders that they requested to have the entire Hopkins Lane are rezoned as Institutional, fortunately we found out about it an organized and filled Borough Hall and stayed there until after midnight until our Zoning Board finally decided to take a step back and try to find out what Bancroft was up to and quickly realized that they were in serious nonconforming use on that residential street. I won't even mention the Lindens, Google it.
Moving across the street from a High School you accept traffic for the 10 months that the kids are in school, Bancroft runs 365 24x7 with their own vans along with every serving townships vans and buses and they all use our side streets coming on and off 295 & Rt. 70.
Tom

I think Crow's Woods has three or four ball fields and at least 6 soccer fields. If fields eventually are placed on a partial piece of Bancroft I think we are looking at 2-3 total fields max if we even get more than one. And by the way, this is a high school we are talking about, that isn't changing. Every school I visit has multiple available facilities for every sport. We don't have a ball field or fully competitive soccer field at the high school. We can't get past the need that exists. Neighbors by the high school knew that the high school would be their neighbor when they moved in. When I evaluated where I wanted to live, I fully considered every neighborhood before making a decision and can't complain about it now. I'm reminded of the individuals that moved down the street from the 7-11 and then complained about their hours. Oy.

@Pro-Haddonfield. I agree with you 100% that one needs to consider what is already there when deciding to purchase a house. You don't buy and then decide something shouldn't be there that was there first. My wife and I purchased our house over 23 years ago across from a county park with a lake. That was a definite positive, while having daily traffic that was 1000% more than our old house located on a cu-DE-sac was a big negative. Suffice it to say that the positive outweighed the negative for us. Our decision once made, we would never demand that the county change our street into a local permit needed to use it or park on it road!

Sharon, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the #s in the article are inaccurate. The $12.5 million figure in the article refers to the bond amount and not to the purchase price (which is, as you note, is $12.192 million). If one wants to be technical about it, the actual cost of the acquisition and demolition on the front end is closer to $16.8 million. The only reason why the bond amount is lower at $12.5 million is because other taxpayer money (i.e., grants) will be used to draw down the bond amount. That's hardly 'free' money, and the total cost (at the outset), as noted, are closer to $16.8 million.

In terms of the information on the board's website, there are many inaccuracies and omissions in those materials, and Brian Kelly I am told recently made the BoE aware of those concerns. Perhaps the board will have the good sense to update their materials, although I understand that many of those inaccuracies have already been circulated to residents.

Good day Jack S
Can you elaborate on how you estimate that the acq and demo costs are an additional $4+ million. What is driving that is your estimation?

Joe,

The project budget is available on the BoE site. Here's a breakdown from the original proposal:
$12.192M for the land
$1.75M demo and site prep
$1.2M turf athletic field complex and parking lots
$800K turf on Stadium field
$100K concession stand/rest rooms
$770K 20% soft costs

$16.8M total ($16.8M minus $12.2M land = $4.6M in other costs)

Since then the Stadium turf ($800K) was removed as they raised their money and then subtract of $3.5M in grants and you get the referendum amount of $12.5M.

Now keep in mind that there are about $4M in County Open Space funds available that Haddonfield tax payers paid into the fund, but the BoE only requested funds for 3.68 acres. This land is all steep slopes and wetlands that can not be developed. They don't want more grant money because they want to be able to develop the land, and using grant money would require them to leave the land open space.

I don't have the #s with me, as I'm in the office today. But I believe the demo costs in the BoE's plan are in the range of $1.7 million, or between $15 and $20 per square foot.

When several local citizens who oppose the bond (and who have engineering expertise) benchmarked actual demolition costs for the site based upon inquiries to leading demolition firms in our region, the cost estimates came in vastly lower, at between $4 and $5 per square foot. This differential is due in large part to the fact that the BoE's demolition estimate is based eroneously on US Veteran Administration benchmark costs and, as such, assumes, among other things, that the BoE must pay its contracted demolition firm(s) prevailing wages pursuant to the Davis Bacon Act. The BoE is not subject to such Federal regulations, including Federal prevailing wage mandates and, as a result, the board's demolition costs are inflated by as much as three or four times.

The excessive dollars in the bond for demolition are excentuated by the fact that the recently release Phase II environmental study found a relatively few red flags. (I just hope the study is accurate, as I live not too far away from Bancroft.)

Tom, I do have friends living in your area that have those concerns such as I stated but still, I agree these are not the major points driving the bond.
There are lots of pro and con on many issues but the most important one comes down to cost and how higher taxes will affect people over the years. There are many people that are having trouble dealing with costs and many that are just tired of paying these taxes and want repairs to our roads, schools, our water system (that's going to be a big one) before this kind of money is spent. That's really the primary focus.

I don't think you'll see much of an increase. I will say that having parking available to students at the high school will cut down on the frenzy that comes with trying to find a spot to park in the surrounding neighborhoods while trying to get to school on time. I remember looking at houses in the area and being turned off by the parking situation both in the morning and afternoon not to mention when there is a concert or basketball game etc going on at the high school. I imagine neighbors would appreciate the possibility of relief from this.

The issue is OneHaddonfield represents itself as a grassroots organization when it is funded by Bancroft. It's rather ironic that the term for this type of fake grassroots group is an Astroturf Group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

The practice is dishonest and underhanded. If your funded by Bancroft, then say so. Let people know where the message is coming from.

Pro Haddonfield is correct that it's legal for Bancroft to contribute to one Haddonfield. My problem concerns a conflict of interest as the property is overpriced by millions of dollars. I have a big problem with this. Some people won't. It will up to each individual to make to make that decision.
The biggest issues will be the ones everyone has been discussing for the past months.
John M, I made the same assumption about the active space but Joe Taxpayer corrected me and got me the right info.

Dave: There were two appraisal in the Renick document: $6.5M and $15.1M. The $6.5M appraisal is the only appraisal that reflects uses that are permitted at the property. The $15.1M is not relevent because it assumes a "higest and best use" of the property which is not legally permitted. If this were a matter of land being seized (as opposed to a negotiated price), "highest and best" use would be relevant, but it's merely a red hering in the context of this proposed purchase.

Jack S. I expanded on this on HaddonfieldTalks:

Many people point out the land is in an R2 residential zone and that is true and
Bancroft's campus is a pre-existing, non-conforming use of the land in that
zone. However Bancroft is still a school and a campus and is for sale as such.
What a buyer wants to do with the land is restricted by what you can do. However
if you buy it as a campus it can remain a campus and its value is 15.1M
according to the appraiser.

Dave, the $15.1 million appraisal is not reflective of the permitted uses of the property. As such, it is not a relevant appraisal.

Although Bancroft is using the property as a campus, the $15.1 million appraisal wrongly assumes an EXPANDED institutional use of the property, which is different from Bancroft's current nonconforming use. Bancroft would need to request a use variance for such expanded institutional use, which in turn would require approval from a super majority of our zoning board -- a difficult proposition even in the best circumstances. Remember the 1000s of residents opposed to high-density development (of which an expanded institution use would be one flavor)?

When I spoke with board president Steve Weinstein a few months back concerning the number of third party buyers who would line up to purchase the property for an expanded institutional use, he couldn't think of any. If Bancroft itself thought it would be so easy to get a use variance for an expanded institutional use, why are they selling?

Joe, my concern is that the BoE is trumpeting the open space aspect of this, and lots of folks mistakenly think there is a large amount of open space included. This is not true; the intent is to develop.

Perhaps it's just me, but the concept of turf being open space is a stretch. Yes, I realize that it may qualify technically as "active open space" under certain grants, but a stadium environment, with the lights and sound system, is not a location where I'm going to escape for a stroll and peace and quite. Again, just my opinion, for what it's worth. Others are free to disagree.

@Jack S, I agree with you on that specific observation. My understanding of open space is that it's open to the use of the people to use for various things. Yes, there may be some restrictions such as whether pets can be walked there, hours that the space is closed (say from 9:00 PM to 6:00 AM as an example) and others, but by and large people can use open space to walk, run, and a picnic, etc.

I highly doubt that a sports stadium, whether with a turf field or natural grass, would be open to the public to enjoy except to attend sports events. Additionally, with most of those sporting events (such as football) you will probably need to Pay admission, even though Haddonfield residents have already had their property taxes used to build the sports facility. That hardly sounds like open space to me!

@Mister Mike. I'm also concerned that the open space we already have in Haddonfield is in abysmal shape. In some cases, that's the fault of the County. Hopkins Pond, for example, is a stone's throw from my house, but I never go there except to drive by. The pond is so dirty and disgusting that it saddens me to see it. I used to catch fish there as a kid, but now I wouldn't want to get a drop of that water near me. The acquisition of Bancroft does nothing to improve that situation. If the Borough could convince the County to get its act together on Hopkins pond, then that would do something to improve open space.

Jack S, yes lots of people have different definitions and views on what they would define as "open space". The good news is that state statutes define it for us.

As a reference, the state open space laws funded through the Green Acres Program have this to say

Q What can be developed with Green Acres money?
A For Green Acres purposes, “development” is the improvement of parkland with facilities for outdoor recreation and/or conservation purposes. Examples of development projects include construction of tot lots, athletic fields, running tracks, athletic courts, walkways, trails, boat ramps and boardwalks. Structures that will be used to support the outdoor recreation use of parkland (such as restrooms, maintenance sheds, or concession stands) may be constructed with Green Acres funds.

Below is the press release from last fall on funded Green Acres projects. As you can see, open space money goes to support open space AND all things that come with open space such as turf fields, parking lots, restrooms, boat docks, etc.

Consider when open space money goes to preserve someone's farm. Do we get to walk on and pick our fruits and vegetables when that happens? Of course not yet it is acquired with our open space tax dollars and we have zero access or control of it.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2012/12_0106.htm