.
Feedback

Haddonfield BOE Set to Approve Bancroft Sale Agreement

The agreement of sale is the last step before a nearly $17 million bond referendum in January.

The Haddonfield Board of Education is set to vote Tuesday on an agreement of sale to buy the 19-acre Bancroft property on Kings Highway East.

The vote is scheduled in a special meeting at the borough middle school at 6 p.m.

The BOE and the borough have entered an agreement of sale with Bancroft after a decade of public debate. The parcel is seen by many as an oasis of possibilities in this nearly built-out, 300-year-old town. The public purchase of the land will allow a kind of manifest destiny to annex it to the adjacent Haddonfield Memorial High School campus and preserve parts of it for open space.

The public purchase option was among three presented to borough residents last year after another in a series of exhaustive planning studies Haddonfield has commissioned was released. Other options were age-restrictive and market-rate housing.

A $16.9 million public referendum on the financing of the sale has been a lightning rod for public debate on the merits of the deal. The referendum is set for Jan. 22.

Critics of the plan have questioned the $12.2 million purchase price for Bancroft, a center for the developmentally disabled and acquired brain injuries. Opposition has also mounted for nearly $2 million of the cost being earmarked for build an additional athletic field and resurface the football stadium field, both with artificial turf.

Questions have also been raised about why the referendum will be held in January instead of November, during the general election.

An appraisal of the Bancroft parcel released last week values it at just over $15 million. The amount raised some eyebrows of critics because it nearly doubled the assessment value from a 2005 appraisal. That appraisal was just released in July after borough officials kept it private as part of a negotiating strategy for the past seven years.

School board President Steve Weinstein said the new appraisal came in higher because it allowed for more density of housing and also used comparable recent sales in South and Central Jersey to compare value. Weinstein also said the January referendum was needed because approval of the purchase by the state Department of Education is a lengthy process that would not have been completed by the general election in November.

Weinstein also said a private fundraising effort to pay for half of the resurfacing of the high school field and an adjacent field owed by the borough is expected to be completed before the referendum and could reduce the the total cost of the project by $800,000. The borough is also seeking open-space grants from Camden County and the state that could further reduce the amount of the referendum, Weinstein said.

The grant applications has been contingent on a signed agreement of sale.

Haddonfield-Haddon Township Patch is on Facebook. Like us here.

Mr. B. October 10, 2012 at 01:03 pm
I am seriously considering leaving Haddonfield because of the taxes; not because I can't afford them, but because I just don't feel like throwing money in the street. Now they will go up because of this boondoggle, once again. The pressure on our residents to keep paying more and more taxes on top of our already ridiculously high taxes for no real gain or change in the level of service from our government is literally a crime. The residents are not a bottomless ATM living here for the purposes of funding every single unnceccesary pet project by whatever intererest group in town that wants turf fields or highly overpriced real estate for schools that are not growing. No more! Stop the spending! Haddonfield is a nice little town, but it's not the end of the world of nice places to live. There are other places to live in our region where we don't have to throw senseless money into the pothole ridden streets. If this passes the January referendum, expect to see the for-sale signs go up. I know one will at least go up in front of my house. Good luck selling a house with that insane tax bill attached, though.
Paul H October 10, 2012 at 08:55 pm
And let's not abandon school maintenance and repair so that later someone can later say we need a new high school because it is now so dilapidated. It's the library all over again. Residents like me whose children have already gone through the system want to keep the facilities in good condition, and do upgrades that are essential. That is a far wiser way, and tax friendly way, in contrast to purchasing the Bancroft tract with all of its attendant and (hidden?) costs.
Brian Kelly October 11, 2012 at 02:00 am
Paul, Your way is the best way. Just keep an eye on your assets and maintain them. Fix what you have when it needs it. How hard should that be?
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Brian for someone who has so much to say, how much do you really understand about our budget and where the money goes now? How much is the purchase price going to cost each year - a hundred bucks or so. That's a drop in the bucket to the cost increases we have seen thanks to this idiot in the White House. Try and see the big picture. Is any of the new spending offset by old spending being paid off?
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 01:04 pm
John well said. Wake up people. The State is using all of Haddonfield's tax dollars to support someone else and leaving us to pay for everything ourselves. How much school aid do we get back versus Camden which is corrupt. NOW you complain. Stop electing people in Trenton or DC who steal our tax dollars and do nothing for us. Why do we get no state aid? Aren't we entitled to some of our money back to benefit our town? Is this not fair?
Jack S October 11, 2012 at 02:03 pm
The final cost to Haddonfield taxpayers will not be merely a "hundred bucks or so." Even if you accept the figures floated by the Borough -- which I do not -- the purchase will cost the "average" homeowner at least several hundred dollars per year at the outset. That lowball figure does not take into account future development of the site for as an educational campus, which the BoE has stated is its ultimate goal, or for other purposes. So, a $16,000,000 purchase then becomes a $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 money pit over time. Perhaps all of this would be okay if the purchase price were not overblown, meaningful open space funds were committed, and this was not a pet economic development project for many pay-to-play players. But the purchase will be the gift that keeps on giving to the to the parasitic pay-to-play players who for decades to come will suck on the host of the Haddonfield taxpayer for every last of our hard-earned dollars.
Jack S October 11, 2012 at 02:06 pm
The final cost to Haddonfield taxpayers will not be merely a "hundred bucks or so." Even if you accept the figures floated by the Borough -- which I do not -- the purchase will cost the "average" homeowner at least several hundred dollars per year at the outset. That lowball figure does not take into account future development of the site as an educational campus, which some officials have stated is their ultimate goal, or for other purposes. So, a $16,000,000 purchase then becomes a $25,000,000, $30,000,000 or bigger money pit over time. Perhaps all of this would be okay if the purchase price were not overblown, meaningful open space funds were committed, affordable housing was not identified as a use for this property, and this was not a pet economic development project for many pay-to-play players. But the purchase will be the gift that keeps on giving to the to the parasitic consultants, lawyers, demolition companies,construction firms and other pay-to-play players who for decades to come will suck dry the host of the Haddonfield taxpayer for every last of our hard-earned dollars.
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 02:12 pm
Jack S - sounds like you are making up some fuzzy math. What is the estimate per household for this project? Why does it become 25 or 30 million? That's you making up stuff. How much incrementally does this cost us? Do we have other offsets such as other debt service being reduced? While you are at it complaining about our hard earned tax dollars, the BOE has had a flat budget for 3 straight years.
And where is all the outrage for taxpaying paying $1 millon a year to fund pensions in the township budget. Would you rather have new facilities for our students and residents or pay for retirement benefits? It's hypocritical to complain about high taxes when a large share of our taxes does nothing to benefit us. It's also hypocritical to complain about high taxes when we elect the failed leaders to represent us in Trenton who only take from us to give elsewhere leaving us to foot all of our own bills. If trenton sent us back a small share, this project wouldn't cost us another dime. Where's the fairness in our state for our town? We pay and pay and pay. What do we get back?
Jeff H October 11, 2012 at 02:38 pm
Taxpayer don't confuse local control of our situation with issues in Trenton and Washington. You sound like Ed Borden, blaming everything on Trenton. We have to manage what we can control, and we can control overpaying for property that no one is in any rush to purchase!
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 02:55 pm
Jeff H - don't start by comparing me to someone else. We can manage Trenton. Stop voting for the idiots who steal our tax dollars and give it out to others. As for local, show me how this is a bad deal and really affects taxpayers. What is the cost incrementally if at all? If we are gonna sit on here on our tax complaining soapboxes, then complain about paying too much for pensions, benefits and salaries which gobble up much more of our tax dollars each year than this project ever will. That's the point. I am tired of everyone's lazy hypocrisy. I think this deal and benefits far exceed the few hundred bucks it may cost me a year.
John October 11, 2012 at 03:22 pm
Why do you presume those of us opposed to this purchase vote for the "idiots" in Trenton? For example, I am am active in good government organizations that focus on matters both at the Federal and state level. Thus, it is particularly disturbing when locally we have to fend off the same sort of nonsense we see at the Federal and state level. And the "incremental" costs are quite easy to quantify. This purchase would increase incrementally the total debt load of the Borough and BoE combined by nearly 50%, and we will then be close to our debt cap. Commissioner Borden himself conceded that the cost of this purchase will force out some "less affluent" residents. For a nonessential purchase, that's an unacceptable outcome.
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 03:35 pm
John - really? What is the township debt and BOE debt? How does that compare to others? What is our credit rating? What does this new debt cost incrementally as old debt is presumably paid off? The devil is in the details not soundbites. Show me how this project affects us at a cost of maybe 100-200 more a year. Won't healthcare costs be more than that next year? Pensions? Salaries? Maybe you don't vote for the idiots in trenton but someone sure does. My point is why are you attacking this as a cost issue and not the structural cost imbalances we face here and especially in Camden County? Where's the same passion and fight against Haddondfield taxpayers getting fleeced by everyone else. Who are you to say its non essential? Is paying for pensions or healthcare essential to our well being? We spend $600k a year on road work. We send the library $900k a year. Come on.
Town health insurance = $1.7 million. BOE insurance = $5.4 million. Total taxpayer expense = $7.1 million and you are gonna sit here and tell us that this project is what is forcing people out. How much do we pay Camden county and for what? Stop with the excuses. Is the few hundred really the problem or is it we get none of our money back from Trenton and have to pay for others retirements while our facilities and kids suffer? If lower property taxes are the goal, I will listen to your ideas on how to make it happen.
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 03:43 pm
John - you said it was pretty easy to quantify so would you mind sharing the total cost of this project as it affects the town's debt, annual debt service payments (net of any paydowns and payment offsets from other revenue sources) and the affect it has on the average homeowner in dollars per year.
John October 11, 2012 at 04:45 pm
Do you truly believe that the Bancroft purchase is acceptable because officials are already wasting taxpayer money on other items such as the library? That's like saying I should ignore the cancer eating away my right foot because the cancer is already eating away my left foot. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue on the one hand that the Borough is spending excess sums on items such as the library, but that the Board will do right by taxpayers when it comes to Bancroft. The Board's hand-picked appraiser came up with a sky-high valuation based on assumptions as to the use of the property which are not legally permitted absent variance. In the absence of variance, the appraiser conceded the property would be valued at $6.5 million -- half the $12.2 million purchase price the Board has offered! By the way, no one rightly believes that this project will only cost a few hundred bucks a year for each taxpayer, since as you admit above the costs to taxpayers for numerous local services have skyrocketed in recent years. For example, in sidebar conversations, Board members have told me that they intend to pursue an educational campus on the property. That will come at a significant additional cost to local taxpayers, if the purchase floodgates are opened.
John October 11, 2012 at 04:51 pm
The Board/Borough has claimed that the property tax increase will be $241 per year for a property valued at $491,000. If you believe you will only see an average $241 increase from this purchase over time -- after the Board/Borough exploits the property for their pet development projects -- I will be happy to sell you the bridge over Hopkins Pond.
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 04:52 pm
John - you keep changing the subject and making stuff up. Where are the numbers you said you could quantify? You brought up the debt and debt cap. I'd like to see the data and numbers that support your opposition.
I think that a purchase like this that is paid for over time at lower interest rates that solves a multitude of problems is worth it. It's certainly worth more than paying for healthcare and pensions that deliver us no value. What are you doing to lower our taxes and preventing people from being forced out? I would argue that investments in our town, our community and our kids are good ones. Investing more in payroll or paying the county 27% of our taxes does nothing to enhance the value. Things cost money. Not maintaining or investing also costs money. How much of the cost will be offset from other sources? What is the true net cost to the average homeowner that has your panties in such a bunch? Haddonfield spends $1 million a year for pensions. That's more than this project would cost. Which is more valuable to our community?
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 04:58 pm
John do you support pensions and healthcare and paying Camden County 27% of our taxes but only complain about a $12 million capital purchase? Do you support paying your income taxes and sales taxes and other taxes to get nothing in return from the idiots we have in Trenton. What is Greenwald doing for Haddonfield except stealing our money? What do you support? We pay Camco politicians $500K a year in open space taxes. For WHAT???
Our schools are excellent and the value of them is why people live in our town despite it being in corrupt Camden County. Should we never invest in ourselves just everyone else?
John October 11, 2012 at 05:29 pm
Please continue to point out that the Borough spends obscene amounts on items such as the library and pensions, since you're only making my point.
John October 11, 2012 at 05:46 pm
Is there anyone else on this page who wants to set Taxpayer straight? Frankly, his argument are so inane I've lost patience responding. Somehow, in his/her view, I'm supposed accept the Bancroft purchase hook, line and sinker because I'm already being robbed blind by the County and Borough. And somehow I'm not allowed to express my view on the Bancroft purchase unless I'm a good governance advocate (which, by the way, I am, having told him/her that more than once). Perhaps someone can get through to TP, since I need to focus on more constructive discussion.
Brian Kelly October 11, 2012 at 06:33 pm
Well Taxpayer, I'll tell you a few things I do know. Just on little things like planning on bancroft from 2005 - 2010. Heyer & Gruel- 133,087.74. McManiman & Scotland- 68,977,33 Parents Beard -6,875 Clarke Caton Hintz 856.90. On April 29, 2011, a separate attorney was billed 57,196.68. Tally that up with a final total of 210 thousand spent on the fired Heyer & Gruel, all wasted taxpayer (hey, that's you!) money. Tip of the iceberg...
Also, last year Haddonfield's taxes went up an average of $552.51 and Tavistock's $1,732.06. When Steve Weinstein tells you bancroft is worth 15.1 million dollars common sense has to kick and tell you he's trying to justify the 12.2 million. It's worth half that. Buy the land at fair price. I don't have a say in Camden County's 27% tax but I do with 12.2. I don't know this stuff because I'm a genius, trust me on that. I know because people all over town send me credible information for Haddonfield United. Check the site out and decide for yourself. I knew about bancroft, its environmental problems and its worth from people who worked there for years. They were right. I understand how some people are sick of seeing me posting all the time, sometimes I am too. Neither one of us has any idea how much that Bancroft project will wind up costing us. If you trust the people running the show more power to you. I don't.
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 07:22 pm
Brian what is the point you are trying to make about those expenses? All wasted money? How much do those expenses cost me maybe a buck or two a year? Wasted is never good but grandstanding on a few thousand when we pay $60 million a year in taxes is laughable. we spend $1 million a year on pensions. I don't see you complaining and that is ongoing not one time like the examples you reference. Over 10 years, we will spend $10 million for pensions. What benefit do we get from that wasteful spending? Could pay for this entire deal.
Explain to us why the taxes went up that much last year and why?? Was it because of capital investments or pay and benefits? You do have a say in Camden's taxes. you can not vote for the Freeloaders. I would rather you or John answer my questions about how much the plan will cost net of debt service reductions and revenue offsets and why this cost is such an important one when no one cares about the high taxes and structural causes in the various budgets. I get it you are opposed but you are making financial arguements that quite frankly you cannot back up especially relative to the waste and fleecing going on under our noses.
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 08:27 pm
John I am not making your point in the way you think. I explaining the difference between operating expenses which are obscene - many of which provide no tangible value to the residents and capital expenses which are for assets - that provide tangible benefits. Kinda of like paying $200 a month for cable versus investing in a new deck for your home. if you are opposed to all spending, I applaud you but I do not recall you or anyone else for that matter attacking the structural problems within the budgets and doing anything to fix them. Will you sit back next year when health insurance costs go up by a similar amount to what it would cost to do this deal? You will be paying more but will you still care or is it all about this project?
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 08:33 pm
John now you just sound petulant like the guy pretending to be President. You can express all the opinions you want but when you claim facts or can quantify things and do not product the information, your credibility is shot.
We get it. You don't like the deal. You think it's too much. I asked you to quantify what too much means net of all other variables ie debt service reductions and revenue offsets ie open space, grants, fundraising, future revenue streams. Isn't there a financial case we can review? If we are talking about a multi million transactions that solves many township issues and enhances the community and kids and it only costs a few hundred bucks a year, that is a hell of a lot more worthwhile than all of the other nonsense expenses we will be paying in the next 20 years.
Brian Kelly October 11, 2012 at 09:23 pm
Taxpayer, Think about the point you're making. If you're against waste you should be against it at any level. You don't think the money spent for Bancroft on plans and consultants never used a waste? I'd call over 3 hundred grand wasted money. If you equate it with how it only affects you, your missing the point of the very waste you rail against. You're furious about Camden County waste but not here because you think it only cost you a few dollars? On principle that's hypocritical, don't
you think? Go on the NJ.com website for our taxes and for every town in jersey. You don't want to believe it, knock yourself out. You want to find out where all the money for the tax rise went? Pick up the monthly expenditures at the borough meetings and go on the preservation haddonfield site, they list the costs and who got what. Don't ask me to do the homework, you do it. You'll see where your money is going and why the tax hike. As far as John or I telling you how much the plan will cost net of debt service reductions and revenue offset, we'll need you to look in your crystal ball and tell us what will finally get built there. Affordable housing? Sports complex? University? Open space park? When you start to take Bancroft down when kind of environmental problems will you run into? Read the Bancroft agreement and you'll see what's there. If you can answer these questions for me, sell me on Weinstein's appraisal and convince me they'll be no budget overrun, I'll vote with you.
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 09:53 pm
1 of 2
Brian I like where you are going with some of this. We agree more than you think. I am not trying to sell you Weinstein's appraisal. It's either legit or its not. If not, why not sue to stop it for fraud? As for the plan, I do support it. I don't believe the sky is falling because of capital investments that generations can benefit from. I do however object to any more spending on healthcare, pensions that do not deliver anything tangible to us. The BOE budget had zero increase this year. The borough budget went up 135 bucks for a 7.5% increase due to a non cash spending item due to I assume tax appeal victories. No I am not happy about that. Did it break the bank on me either? No. When I see healthcare and pensions totalling $2.7 million for our small town, that gets me annoyed. When I see we are even having this debate when we pay $60 million a year in taxes, that gets me annoyed. Over next decade, we will pay more than half a billion dollars in taxes probably 70% for payroll and we are arguing over $12 million that will solve many problems. Over next 10 years, we will pay more in taxes for healthcare - probably $100 million than this could ever be worth but in 10 years, we would still have the assets. a 10% savings in healthcare costs and this deal is paid for at no cost to the taxpayer.
Taxpayer October 11, 2012 at 09:53 pm
2 of 2
I also don't like any waste but to be so focused ONLY on what you consider this waste is what I call hypocritical. Im happy to help you attack other budgets and spending when applicable. Let's start with the Federal Government....they spend $3.8 trillion a year and take in only $2.5 trillion. Not very smart!! Here are the budgets. I know where the money goes. I guess you didn't since you are so unwilling to share your data. No one wants to answer the question about the financial case. If total debt service is being paid down by 3.5 million a year, all debt will be gone in the next 5-7 years. The 3.5 million in spending can be used to reduce taxes or pay the bancroft debt. It is not incremental expense over the 20 years. I am also willing to bet in 20 years pension and healthcare costs will triple causing taxes to rise. What are we prepared to do about that? http://www.haddonfield.k12.nj.us/BOE/Attachments/UserFriendly%20Budget%202012-13.pdf http://www.haddonfieldnj.org/pdf/2012_Adopted_Budget-State_Approved.pdf
Brian Kelly October 11, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Taxpayer, It's all on facebook.com/HaddonfieldUnited I know if you don't get a facebook page you might not be able to access it. That's where the data is. The good part is the info sent in from people all through town. I hope you can access it and put your two cents in there too.
I'd be willing to bet just about everyone agrees with you when it comes to government spending. We both have our sources from in and around the borough as to where we get our info. Even if I disagree with something you say, I respect your opinion and your right to say it. It's all about the debate. You'll notice Bill Tourtellotte and I have gone at it in the patch and since we're both such polar opposites in view it's important to know in cases like that truth often lies in the middle. Sometimes two people can have opposite views and neither is wrong. The main thing is to state what you believe and keep an open mind. Thanks for the info, we'll get in on the page.
John October 11, 2012 at 11:07 pm
"Petulant"? 'I stepped away from the computer for a few hours to attend to daily life, and apparently you were still on here arguing with yourself. As Brian has noted, much of this information is online on the H.U. Facebook page. And for those of us who have attended most if not all of the Board and BoE meetings on this matter, many financial assumptions have been discussed by us and others. And while I enjoy the back and forth at some level, I don't think this discussion has become terribly constructive, since by all accounts our respective minds appear to be made up re: the purchase.
Taxpayer October 12, 2012 at 01:13 am
Thanks for the heads up. Information and facts are key. I will see if I can view it without an account. Thanks for the exchange.
Taxpayer October 12, 2012 at 01:16 am
Maybe I am a little better at multi tasking. In any event, our minds may be made up but I have tried to understand the true cost/benefit and I just do not see this as the big deal you are making it. If all else were equal and this was truly a bad deal and the debt would make us like the Obama admin, I would stand down. The facts locally don't support that. I'd trade pension payments for capital improvement all day long but I am not going to say we should not improve our town because our spending is tied up on it. Appreciate the exchange and your comments. If you feel inclined to share any data or numbers I haven't seen, please do so.

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