.
Feedback

BOE Bancroft Proposal Likely to Raise Cost of Project

School district officials speak about public meeting on Bancroft.

The price tag for the acquisition and development of the Bancroft property is likely to rise next week after school district officials unveil their plans in a joint meeting with the Haddonfield Board of Commissioners.

"It’s more expensive than what the borough put out because you get a lot more value there with the dollars," Steve Weinstein, the school board president said Friday. "We’ll talk specifics about money on Wednesday night."

The joint meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the auditorium at the , 242 Kings Highway East.

The borough released a cost study for the acquisition last month. The price was $19.52 million, $14.27 of which would be financed through tax dollars. That would mean a typical taxpayer with a home assessed at the borough average of $491,000 would pay an additional $271 a year in taxes for the next 20 years. The typical property tax bill in the borough is $12,000 yearly.

The estimate includes nearly $4 million in state and county grants and $500,000 in money collected from a borough open-space tax toward the $19.52 million cost. Only about $500,000 in grants have been specifically committed to the project to date.

The borough calculations did not include a new library and learning center the school board wants and additional field improvements, such as more fields than were included by the borough and artificial turf coverings for the fields.

School officials also said Friday that Lullworth Hall, a historic home on the 18.7-acre property, could be leased. The borough plan calls for it to be sold. Officials also speculated that up to 20 planned affordable housing units in the borough plans could be relocated to the district's Radnor Avenue fields, which would be sold to help pay for improvements on the Bancroft site adjacent to the high school.

Weinstein said he and other school officials have spoken to library trustees who have been actively pitching plans to replace the nearly 100-year-old building on Haddon Avenue and Tanner Street. But he cautioned that their interest in sharing a joint library with the high school has not yet been determined.

Both the borough and the school plans call for open space adjacent to Cooper River Park at the rear of the property that will include a 1-mile walking trail.

"I think it's up to the community to communicate with the commissioners if there's a consensus forming for it," Weinstein said. "I think a lot of people are going to be excited by it. It doesn't solve everybody's problem. Cost is an important thing.

"It would be nice after all this process if we can all come together around one idea and work together."

The Bancroft redevelopment has been a potentially divisive topic for more than a decade. The debate has been framed by whether to use the property for more open space, a high-school expansion and more athletic fields or for tax-generating businesses or housing. Borough commissioners had favored a plan to build an assisted-living retirement complex on the site, but a public backlash about "high-density" development forced them to scrap the plan and start over last December.

The commissioners are currently considering three development options that include a public purchase, like the school board wants, market-rate townhomes or independent-living homes for senior citizens.

The property has been owned for the last 128 years by an institution established by Margaret Bancroft to rehabilitate people with developmental disabilities. Bancroft today is a national leader in treatments for brain injuries. Officials there need to upgrade facilities and have leaned toward selling its property in Haddonfield and relocating to do it.

Bancroft, a nonprofit, currently pays no municipal taxes.

Jayne L. Grabowski October 17, 2011 at 01:55 am
I am responding to a quote from an article in Retrospect. Steve Weinstein said ""Once the fields are built, the district could sell its Radnor Field complex. Any state requirements for affordable housing could go there - and perhaps fit in better than they would in the relatively upscale Bancroft Field neighborhood, he reasoned." I find this comment pompous and insulting. We purchased our home, which backs up to Radnor Field, in 1986. We were told the field was owned by the Borough of Education. How would Mr. Weinstein like to have this complex in his back yard? Oh, I'm sure that it would just not "fit in" with his upscale neighborhood. My family has lived in Haddonfield for 6 generations. The only thing I don't like about this town, are people who look down their nose at others. I'll be at the meeting on Wednesday night. Jayne Moore Grabowski
Craig Wagner October 17, 2011 at 02:42 am
Just to let you know, the fields at Radnor Ave were deeded to the school board at the time the Hillside tract was developed. This was done at the request of the town, to be used for a school or perpetual open space, to accomodate the houses that were built there. The developer, Max Odlen, was a wonderful man who honestly felt he was building small affordable but high quality homes and donated this land as open space because it was the right thing to do for the community. This land was deeded as such in order to protect these property owners from future harm. The school board may want to sell this land for their own advantage, however to whom could they sell it to? Remember it is deeded for a school or open space. Just because the land belongs to the school board, it doesn't mean they are allowed to do whatever they want with it. I spoke to Max Odlen before he died in his 90's. He was very proud of his contribution to this town. I hope the Haddonfield residents of today will do the right thing as well and honor this deed. Jeanne Wagner
Jeff H October 17, 2011 at 02:12 pm
A NEW LIBRARY? That's a non-starter. A Community Center, maybe. But an expensive building to house books that few people read seems like a waste. Go back to the many library studies to see how many of the library's current collection is NEVER circulated, and how many books could be culled to make more space. Building a Library just to have a Library is not rational in today's economic and technological environment.
Bill Reynolds October 18, 2011 at 12:30 am
As somebody who has been involved in the library studies Jeff H refers to in his comment, I have to wonder whether he has ever taken the trouble to read them. What they say pretty clearly is that a nearly 100 year old building is totally outmoded to the information needs of our community in the 21st Century. How Haddonfield will decide to handle these needs continues to be an open question, but the studies all state pretty clearly that the current building doesn't work.
Bill Reynolds
Jeff H October 18, 2011 at 01:03 pm
Bill,
I see you are on the library board, so you probably already know this. If you read the fine print, you will discover that our collection is outdated and seldom used. I don't see a need to fund a new building to house an outdated, seldom used collection of books. You and the board have an opportunity to make a strong case for the taxpayers to spend miliions on a new library and in the end, the voters will decide if you have. Seems very democratic to me.
Bill Reynolds October 18, 2011 at 03:06 pm
Jeff misses the main issue in the library matter. The world is now in the middle of a revolution in information technology. Books are only one asset in a rapidly multiplying array of resources. The main local concern is that the nearly 100 year old library building is not equipped to handle the new technologies. Repurposing it so it can accommodate current and future demand will be costly and may not be the best use of our community’s limited resources. The Board of Education’s idea is another voice in the continuing open and very democratic discussion of how best to address the issue. The Library Board has no position on the matter yet because there has been no concrete proposal. It seems me speaking only as a local resident that this and other ideas should not be lightly dismissed with comments implying that the information functions of libraries are no longer important. In light of the pace of changing information technology and the need for all of us to keep up, they are probably more important than ever.
Bill Reynolds
Jeff H October 18, 2011 at 04:02 pm
No lecture required Bill. Believe it or not, we are a tech-savvy bunch here. What you are really talking about is a place where people can come to use technology, not a building that houses thousands of unused books? Isn't technology portable, and used anywhere? You don't need a multi-million dollar building for that. Sorry, but you (and the board) still haven't made a strong case to spend millions for this purpose. Luckily the residents will make the final determination through referendum.
Bill Reynolds October 19, 2011 at 12:06 am
Different opinions are the stuff that makes a horse race, and the opinions on the issue have been pretty well expressed, so this will be my last comment in this round..
I would like to see specific chapter and verse documentation of the "many library studies" that say "the library's current collection is NEVER circulated." I went back and looked at the studies as have several other people who are committed to getting our facts right. We can't find any such comment, even in the "fine print." The most significant fact we can find with respect to circultation is that Haddonfield Public Library's high per capita circulation rate puts us in the upper tier of public libraries nationally. I'd like to see the "facts" that we are apparently missing. Bill Reynolds
Jeff H October 19, 2011 at 02:53 pm
Bill, I know there are literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of library studies out there. It's there somewhere. It talks about the books that are currently being stored and the vast percentage that have never or seldom been 'checked out', and the suggestion that these should be culled from the collection. These books are taking up expensive space, space that I am not interested in spending millions for.
If these aren't facts, I don't know what are.
Bill Reynolds October 19, 2011 at 06:32 pm
My apology to readers. I said that my last post was the end of my participation in the current series of exchanges, but I do have to respond to Jeff H's latest.
The final sentence in his last post leads me to conclude that he does not know what "facts" are. He has claimed that studies exist to support his assertions that the Haddonfield Public Library contains "an outdated, seldom used collection of books" many of which are "NEVER circulated." When challenged to produce the facts to support his assertion, he waffles. He is making claims that need to be supported by evidence. Apparently, he can't produce the evidence. The issues connected with decisions about what information and cultural resources the Haddonfield community needs and wants are still being defined. The definition process requires informed democratic (and hopefully rational) dialogue. Unproven generalities and vague assertions masquerading as "facts" do not contribute anything to the outcome. Bill Reynolds
Bill Reynolds October 19, 2011 at 06:32 pm
My apology to readers. I said that my last post was the end of my participation in the current series of exchanges, but I do have to respond to Jeff H's latest.
The final sentence in his last post leads me to conclude that he does not know what "facts" are. He has claimed that studies exist to support his assertions that the Haddonfield Public Library contains "an outdated, seldom used collection of books" many of which are "NEVER circulated." When challenged to produce the facts to support his assertion, he waffles. He is making claims that need to be supported by evidence. Apparently, he can't produce the evidence. The issues connected with decisions about what information and cultural resources the Haddonfield community needs and wants are still being defined. The definition process requires informed democratic (and hopefully rational) dialogue. Unproven generalities and vague assertions masquerading as "facts" do not contribute anything to the outcome. Bill Reynolds
Jeff H October 19, 2011 at 07:46 pm
Bottom line Bill is that you have not made a case to spend millions on housing outdated books and 'technology' when the books aren't read and the technology is portable and can be used anywhere. As I said, we will let the taxpayers decide when they vote on the referendum that is required by law. Regards.
Jeff H October 19, 2011 at 08:12 pm
Bill,
It's interesting to note that in their June meeting, the Library Board authorized you to spend up to $25,000 of Library funds to "secure any necessary properties" for a new Library. I guess the decision has already been made, and funds allocated? I don't understand how $25k could be released that easily when a townwide referendum has not been held, and the commissioners have not had their say? This says a lot about your perspective on the issue I suppose. These minutes can be found at http://www.haddonfieldlibrary.org/pdf/libraryboardminutes/libraryboardminutesjune11.pdf
Herb Hess October 19, 2011 at 08:58 pm
Jeff,
The $25,000 you referenced was not Boro funds and they were not expended after all. They were donated funds. Herb
Jeff H October 19, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Thanks Herb. The decision to allocate funds (whatever the source) seems premature and contrary to what the voters have said they want. They want to make the final decision. Still, the board, including the mayor, go ahead and allocate the funds anyway. It appears that folks aren't acting in the best interests of their constituents, even after a 80% majority voted for a 'Libary Referendum'.
Jim October 20, 2011 at 01:57 am
We do not need a new library the Borough can acquire 66 Tanner st across the street as Libray annex which will supoort the 1st floor needs for the children section and will be senior citizen and handicap accessible The building can bought around the $300,000and with renovation with out union wage scale another $25-$50000 in renovations.The cost can be controlled and service by the existing library staff.The rear parking lot which was originally part of this property will service the extra parking for the expansion library annex For $350000 we solve the library issues . The Borough can stop thinking about buying the Bancroft property ,We do not have the money to purchase and be the developer of this site.This project will cost over 35 million dollar which we can not afford and do not need.Allow a private developer to conduct the costly studies not the Tax payers money that the current commissioners are doing.The Bancroft property will be developed once that property can receive approvals in the proper density and maybe Bancroft can impove their faclities and stay for another 128 years.Stop spending money we do not have. We are one of the highest tax town in NJ and possibly the USA so stop raising taxes,The Borough can not manage even one street re construction for example Tanner st is still not completed after 13 months.
Dianna October 20, 2011 at 02:01 am
I don't understand Weinstein's reasoning -- "relatively upscale Bancroft neighborhood". Right across the street from Bancroft is Lee Avenue with it's twin houses and the condos at The Mews. It seems to me that affordable housing would fit in better there!

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Haddonfield-Haddon Township Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Grossman June 13, 2013 at 02:46 am
We found Four in a neighbor's yard. He is now home with his kitty friends and family. Bob