Bancroft Appraisal

884 views

Published on

The BOE appraisal of the Bancroft Porperty from August 2012, the basis for their agreement of sale

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
884
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bancroft Appraisal

  1. 1. SELF-CONTAINED APPRAISAL REPORT The Bancroft School 425 Kings Highway Block 13, Lot 25 & Block 14, Lot 2 Haddonfield, NJ Prepared By RENWICK & ASSOCIATES Appraisal Consultants Effective Date of Appraisal: August 23, 2012 Copyright © 2012 by Renwick and Associates
  2. 2. September 28, 2012Richard P. Perry, Ed.D.Haddonfield Board of Education1 Lincoln AvenueHaddonfield, NJ 08033RE: 425 Kings Highway Block 13, Lot 25 & Block 14, Lot 2 Haddonfield, NJDear Dr. Perry:According to your request, I have made a detailed inspection and appraisal of theabove captioned property for the purpose of developing an opinion of the marketvalue, as of the date of inspection, August 23, 2012.Based on the findings and conclusions contained within the attached, self-contained appraisal report, and in accordance with the enclosed Contingent andLimiting Conditions, which you are urged to read, it is my opinion that theestimated market value of the subject property as of August 23, 2012 is: FIFTEEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($15,100,000) DOLLARSThis appraisal may not be used or relied upon by anyone other than the client, forany purpose whatsoever, without the express written consent of the appraiser.In conformance with the Ethics Rule of the Uniform Standards of ProfessionalAppraisal Practice, Renwick & Associates has not performed any appraisal orappraisal consulting services for the subject property in the past three yearsimmediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.Thank you for your consideration in this matter.Very truly yours,Harry Renwick, CTASCGREA No. 42RG00097200
  3. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTSSUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS .................................................................................... iSUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS ............................................................................ 1IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY .................................................. 2PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL ............................................................................. 2PROPERTY INSPECTION ...................................................................................... 2DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE ......................................................................... 3SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL ................................................................................. 4PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED .......................................................................... 5INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL ................................................................... 5DISCLOSURE OF CLIENT AND INTENDED USER(S) ............................................ 5SUMMARY OF AREA ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 6DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD............................................ 7ESTIMATE OF EXPOSURE TIME .......................................................................... 8DELINEATION OF TITLE ...................................................................................... 9ASSESSMENT INFORMATION .............................................................................. 9ZONING ............................................................................................................. 10ZONING MAP ..................................................................................................... 11DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT LAND ............................................................ 12BOUNDARY SURVEY ......................................................................................... 14SUBJECT TAX MAP ........................................................................................... 15FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP............................................................... 16NJDEP FRESHWATER WETLANDS MAP ............................................................ 16DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT IMPROVEMENTS .................................................. 18HIGHEST AND BEST USE .................................................................................. 42APPROACHES TO VALUE .................................................................................. 48SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ...................................................................... 49SALES COMPARATIVE GRID.............................................................................. 64ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS OF SALES .................................................................. 65FINAL VALUE OPINION ...................................................................................... 66CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL ............................................................................ 67ADDENDUMNotice of Privacy PolicyContingent and Limiting ConditionsResidential Land Value AnalysisCopy of Subject DeedArea AnalysisZoningQualifications
  4. 4. SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHSEXTERIORView of the Bancroft building from the southerly side of Hopkins lane lookingeasterly. Showing the Southerly and Westerly elevations.Partial view of the Bancroft building taken from the center of Hopkins Lanelooking Northerly showing portions of the Southerly and Westerly Elevations. i
  5. 5. Partial view of the Bancroft building taken from the Southerly side of HopkinsLane looking Northerly showing the Southwesterly elevation of a one story portion.Partial rear view of the Bancroft building taken from the driveway showing variouselevations looking westerly. ii
  6. 6. Partial view of Bancroft building section known as the York Center taken from thedriveway behind Bancroft looking Southerly showing a portion of the Northerlyelevation.View taken from the driveway near Bancroft Hall looking Easterly showing theNortherly elevation of the Charlotte residence building. iii
  7. 7. View of the Charlotte residence taken from the driveway looking Northerly showingthe Westerly and Southerly elevations.View of the Charlotte residence building taken from the driveway near the Russellbuilding looking Southerly showing the Northerly and Westerly elevations. iv
  8. 8. View taken from the Southwesterly elevation of lot 25 looking Northerly showingthe Easterly elevation of the Cooley building.View taken from the driveway near the Security building on lot 2 lookingSoutherly showing the Northerly elevation and front of the Cooley Hall. v
  9. 9. View taken from the Northerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Southwesterlyshowing the main parking area for Cooley Hall.View taken from the driveway at the Southerly end of the CRC Complex lookingNortheasterly showing a partial view of Charlotte Residence Hall on the left, JenziaResidence Hall on the right and the Russell building to the rear. vi
  10. 10. View taken from the driveway near Farrington Hall looking Northerly showingportions of the Jenzia, Charlotte and Linden buildings.View taken from the Northerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Northerly showingtypical asphalt paved driveway and stoned parking areas. The Security andBancroft building are to the right out of the picture. vii
  11. 11. View taken from the driveway located near the Security building lookingSouthwesterly showing typical driveway. Security building is on the left, Cooleybuilding is in the distance.View taken from the driveway located on lot 25 looking Northwesterly with partialviews of the CRC Complex to the right and Bancroft Hall to the Left in thedistance. viii
  12. 12. View taken from the driveway near the CRC Complex looking Westerly showingthe Easterly elevation of the Farrington Hall .View taken from the main parking and drive area near Farrington looking Westerlyshowing the Southeasterly or front of Farrington Hall. ix
  13. 13. View taken from the Northerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Northerly showing theSoutherly and Easterly elevations of a one car detached garage.View taken of the remaining concrete pad from the former Greenhouse located onlot 25 just West of the Carriage House. x
  14. 14. View of Hopkins Lane looking Northwesterly. Cooley Hall is to the left andBancroft Hall is to the right.View of Hopkins Lane looking Southeast towards Kings Highway. Bancroft Hall isto the left and Cooley Hall is to the right. xi
  15. 15. View of Hopkins Lane taken from the Northwesterly perimeter of the campuslooking Southeasterly. Cooley Hall is visible to right Bancroft Hall is visible to theleft.View of Hopkins Lane taken near the Carriage House looking Southeasterly,partial view of the Lullworth building is to the right. xii
  16. 16. View of Kings Highway looking Easterly taken from the Lullworth Hall drivewayentrance.View taken from the Northerly side of Kings Highway near the intersection ofHopkins Lane and Kings Highway looking Northeasterly. Hopkins Lane is the leftand as the entrance to the Bancroft campus. xiii
  17. 17. View taken from the Northerly side of Kings Highway looking Southwesterly.Lullworth Hall is to the right, out of the picture.View taken from the Northerly side of Kings Highway looking Southwesterly.Lullworth Hall is to the right, out of the picture xiv
  18. 18. View taken from the driveway in front Stevenson Center looking Southwesterlyshowing the Northeasterly and Southeasterly elevations of the Linden #2 building.View taken from the driveway to the South of the Linden #2 building lookingNortherly showing the Southeasterly and Southwesterly elevations of Linden #2. xv
  19. 19. View taken from the Northern most point of the driveway on lot 2 lookingSoutherly showing the secured access to the Linden buildings. Linden #3 is in theforeground , Linden #1 in the background the left. sView taken from a Northern most position on the lot 2 driveway lookingSouthwesterly showing the Northeasterly elevation of Linden #3. Partial view ofLinden #1 is on the left. xvi
  20. 20. View taken from the driveway near the Stevenson Center looking Northwesterlyshowing the Northeasterly elevation of Linden #1.View taken from the Southerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Northerly showing thegravel and stone parking area located in the Northwest corner of lot 2. xvii
  21. 21. View taken from the Easterly corner of lot 25 looking Westerly showing partialviews of the Easterly and Southerly elevations of the Lullworth building.View taken from the Westerly elevation of lot 25 looking Easterly showing thegravel and stone parking lot. Lullworth Hall is to the right in the background. xviii
  22. 22. View taken from the Southerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Southerly showingthe Northerly and Westerly elevations of Lullworth.View taken from the Northerly side of Kings Highway at the driveway entrance toLullworth looking Northerly showing Southerly and Westerly elevations ofLullworth. xix
  23. 23. View taken from the driveway just the West of the CRC Complex looking Easterlyshowing the Northerly and Westerly elevations of the Miriam Residence Hall.View from the driveway located to the South of the CRC Complex looking Northerlyshowing the Southerly and Westerly elevations of the Miriam Residence building. xx
  24. 24. View taken from the driveway between the Stevenson Center and Linden #2looking Southeasterly showing the Northwesterly elevation of the RussellResidence Hall.View taken from the Northerly side of the driveway near the Northwesterlyproperty line of lot 2 looking Southeasterly. Partially showing the security buildingin the forefront and the Bancroft Hall in the background. xxi
  25. 25. View taken from the driveway near the Westerly elevation of lot 2 lookingSoutherly showing the Northerly and Westerly elevations of the security building.View taken from the driveway located at the Westerly end of lot 2 lookingSouthwesterly showing the Northerly elevation of the security building and one ofthe Westerly elevations of Bancroft Hall. xxii
  26. 26. View taken from the driveway located between Stevenson Center and Linden #2looking Northwesterly showing a typical asphalt driveway and stone and gravelparking areas. xxiii
  27. 27. INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS BANCROFT HALLViews of basement area. xxiv
  28. 28. Additional views of basement area. xxv
  29. 29. View of entry area and corridor.View of typical classroom. xxvi
  30. 30. View of mechanical area in basement.View of restroom. xxvii
  31. 31. View of typical office.View of bullpen area. xxviii
  32. 32. CARRIAGE HOUSEView of tongue and groove lath and beamed ceilingView of spiral wrought iron stairway to attic area. xxix
  33. 33. Views of classroom shop area. xxx
  34. 34. View of small restroom.View of storage attic area. xxxi
  35. 35. Additional view of storage attic area. xxxii
  36. 36. CHARLOTTE AND JENZIA BUILDINGSView of sitting and recreation area.View of kitchen area. xxxiii
  37. 37. View of laundry area.View of dining area. xxxiv
  38. 38. View of typical bedrooms.View of typical restroom xxxv
  39. 39. View of mechanical room. xxxvi
  40. 40. COOLEY HALLView of front entry and foyer area.View of typical corridor xxxvii
  41. 41. Views of kitchen area. xxxviii
  42. 42. Additional views of kitchen area. xxxix
  43. 43. View of typical restroom.View of combination gymnasium/cafeteria area. xl
  44. 44. View of typical classroom.View of mechanical area. xli
  45. 45. View of typical office area.View of home economics room. xlii
  46. 46. View of basement area with heating and fire suppression systems.Interior view of roof structure and support system-storage attic area. xliii
  47. 47. View of 2nd floor conference room. xliv
  48. 48. CRAFT HOUSEView of two-fixture restroom.View of one of two offices. xlv
  49. 49. View of basement water heater and boiler. xlvi
  50. 50. FARRINGTONViews of lower level mechanical area. xlvii
  51. 51. View of typical classroom.View of typical corridor. xlviii
  52. 52. View of office.View of entry and foyer area. xlix
  53. 53. View of typical restroom.View of conference room. l
  54. 54. GREENHOUSEView of botanical classroom.View of mechanical area in basement. li
  55. 55. Additional view of mechanical area in basement.View from entrance into floral classroom. lii
  56. 56. View of floral classroom. liii
  57. 57. LINDEN BUILDINGSView of utility room.View of kitchen. liv
  58. 58. View of laundry roomView of restroom.View of additional restroom. lv
  59. 59. View of conference room. lvi
  60. 60. View of typical bedroom. lvii
  61. 61. RUSSELL HOUSEView of living room.View of kitchen. lviii
  62. 62. View of typical bedroom.View of typical restroom. lix
  63. 63. View of basement storage area.View of basement restroom.View of basement workshop area. lx
  64. 64. View of mechanical area. lxi
  65. 65. MARIAN BUILDINGView of typical restroom.View of very small kitchen.View of living room. lxii
  66. 66. View of typical bedroom. lxiii
  67. 67. View of boiler room. lxiv
  68. 68. STEVENSON CENTERView of boiler room.View of typical ground floor office.View of restroom. lxv
  69. 69. View of upstairs office. lxvi
  70. 70. LULLWORTH HOUSEViews of basement area.View of heating system in basement. lxvii
  71. 71. View of electrical system in basement. lxviii
  72. 72. View of boiler in basement.View of first floor powder room. lxix
  73. 73. View of lobby area on first floor. lxx
  74. 74. View of first floor front office.View of additional powder room on first floor. lxxi
  75. 75. View of first floor executive office.View of ceiling of above executive office. lxxii
  76. 76. View meeting room.View of additional executive office. lxxiii
  77. 77. View of large meeting room with a fireplace.View of kitchen/break room area. lxxiv
  78. 78. View of copy room.View of smaller office. lxxv
  79. 79. View of staircase to the second floor.View of landing area between first and second floor. lxxvi
  80. 80. View of second floor restroom.View of additional second floor restroom. lxxvii
  81. 81. View of stained glass window.View of additional stained glass window. lxxviii
  82. 82. View of access to exterior fire escape.View of third floor office. lxxix
  83. 83. View of porch area off of preceding office.View of stairway leading up to third floor. lxxx
  84. 84. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTSLOCATION: 425 Kings Highway Block 13, Lot 25 & Block 14, Lot 2 Haddonfield, NJZONING: R2, ResidentialDATE OF INSPECTION: August 23, 2012EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL: August 23, 2012HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Institutional UseTYPE AND SIZE OF IMPROVEMENTS: Office, Classroom, and Residence use buildings totaling 125,785± square feet in 15 buildingsTYPE OF VALUE REPORTED: Market ValueLAND SIZE: 19.22 acres (per Boundary Survey Plan, by Schoor DePalma)INDICATED VALUE BY: SALES COMPARISON APPROACH: $15,100,000 COST APPROACH: N/A INCOME APPROACH: N/AFINAL VALUE OPINION: $15,100,000 1
  85. 85. IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is known as The Bancroft School, located at 425 KingsHighway and is further identified as Block 13, Lot 25 and Block 14, Lot 2, on theofficial tax map of Haddonfield Borough, County of Camden, State of New Jersey.(See legal description contained within the Addendum) PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of the appraisal is to develop an opinion of market value as ofthe date of inspection, August 23, 2012. An appraisal can be transmitted to the client in one of three formats: Self-contained, summary, or restricted. In compliance with the U.S.P.A.P., the readeris advised that the subject appraisal represents a self-contained appraisal report. PROPERTY INSPECTION The subject property was initially inspected on August 23, 2012, by HarryRenwick, Daniel Connors, Richard Moule, John Baldino and Nancy Luciano ofRenwick and Associates. Additional information was acquired through acontinuing inspection on August 24, 2012. The property owner’s officialrepresentative, Stephen Bruce, Vice President of Strategic Planning Special ProjectManagement for Bancroft School, was present during the inspection. 2
  86. 86. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive andopen market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller eachacting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected byundue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of aspecified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditionswhereby:1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests;3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale."1 Federal Register, Volume 55, Number 163, August 22, 1990, pp. 34228 and 34229.  3
  87. 87. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL The scope of the appraisal requires that the appraisal conform to theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (copyright 2012 by theAppraisal Foundation) including the Ethics, Competency Rules, and Scope ofWork Rules. The subject appraisal involves developing an opinion of market value. Thisrequires, where applicable:(1) making an on-site inspection of the subject property;(2) meeting with township tax assessor to gain his opinion of the current trends in real estate affecting Haddonfield Borough and to request data that he may possess in support of said trends.(3) Conduct a complete review of the current zoning restrictions and trends affecting the subject property(4) delineating the subject title (see Contingent and Limiting Conditions);(5) researching public records for approvals secured on the subject site and building permits issued;(6) making an effort to secure data concerning social, economic, governmental, and environmental influences within the subject market area and relating that data to the value of the subject property;(7) researching public records for recent relevant land and improved sales data, securing all essential data that may have an impact on the price paid, and verifying that data;(8) researching relevant cost data and subtracting estimated accrued depreciation from all causes and adding the result to the estimated land value;(9) researching relevant income and expense data within the subject’s market area and applying the appropriate discount or capitalization rate to net operating income;(10) analyzing all of the relevant information gathered about the subject property and correlating that data into a final opinion of value. Daniel Connors, Richard Moule, John Baldino and Nancy Luciano, ofRenwick and Associates, provided significant professional assistance in thedevelopment, analysis, and reporting of the value conclusion(s). 4
  88. 88. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The entire fee simple estate makes up the real property evaluated in this appraisal. With exceptions for deed restrictions (if any), zoning (a police power of the state), and easements of record, the fee simple title is assumed to be free and clear of encumbrances. Fee simple estate is defined as: “Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.”2 INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL "The intended use is defined as the use or uses of an appraiser’s reported appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assignment opinions and conclusions, as identified by the appraiser based on communication with the client at the time of the assignment.”3 The use of this appraisal is as a basis for prospective purchase of the subject property. DISCLOSURE OF CLIENT AND INTENDED USER(S) This report is intended for use only by the Haddonfield Board of Education or its agents. Use of this report by others is not intended. Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5th Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2010, pg. 78¡ Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2010, Appraisal Foundation, Washington, DC, pg. U-3¢ 5
  89. 89. SUMMARY OF AREA ANALYSISRegion The Delaware Valley has a diverse economy in that it is not heavily reliant on one or two large industries. It is strategically located in the center of the Northeast Corridor, which is anchored in the north by Boston and in the south by Washington, D.C. Because of its strategic location, it is served by a comprehensive road, rail, and air transportation system. As of the effective date of the appraisal, the region is suffering from the lingering effects of the recent national recession exemplified by high unemployment rates, tighter lending requirements, declining values real estate values.Camden County It is the fifth smallest county by land mass in the state and the smallest of the seven southern counties. Because of its strategic location and smaller size, the county is nearly built out with only a very limited supply of land available to support new development. The southeastern end of the county has been one of the fastest growing areas in the state. The county is well-served by a ground transportation network that includes interchanges for both I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike, and State Highways including Routes 30, 38, 42 (North/South Freeway), 70, 73, and US Routes 130 and 168. As of the effective date of the appraisal, the county is suffering from the lingering effects of the recent national recession exemplified by high unemployment rates, tighter lending requirements, and declining real estate values.Municipality Haddonfield has an extensive and thriving downtown retail business district, principally located on Kings Highway and extending to sections of Haddon Avenue. Haddonfield is an affluent town with a highly-paid skilled and educated population and has a reasonably diverse and stable tax base, all of which have had a positive impact on the towns reputation. In its 2010 rankings of the "Best Places to Live" in New Jersey, New Jersey Monthly magazine ranked Haddonfield as the 33rd best place to live. Other national and regional publications have long rated Haddonfield as one of the most desirable places to live in the Delaware Valley. Due to the recent downturn in the economy and minimal land available for development, very limited growth and expansion are expected for the foreseeable future.Please see addendum for the complete Area Analysis. 6
  90. 90. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD The immediate subject neighborhood is physically defined as being boundby a branch of the Cooper River and the Cherry Hill Township municipalboundary to the east, Hopkins Pond to the north, Kings Highway to the South,and the Haddonfield High School complex and a mix of residential and commercialproperties to the west. The preceding paragraph describes the physical neighborhood; however, thecompetitive economic neighborhood from which data are researched within thisappraisal report includes other areas defined as being economically comparable,superior, or inferior with Haddonfield Borough. Appropriate locationaladjustments are made in our analysis where considered necessary. Because of limited land area and the highly built up nature of HaddonfieldBorough, the trend over the years has been to purchase properties as currentlyimproved to either raze for new uses or retrofit for more modern uses. Thesignificant historic nature of many improvements within the borough tends toplace strong restrictions against said conversions. The aforementioned trend has been over recent years (since late 2006) inconcert with the current recessionary and declining real estate trends. Despitethe national recessionary real estate trends affecting the region, a rather strongdemand for real estate locations remains evident within the borough. 7
  91. 91. ESTIMATE OF EXPOSURE TIME “Reasonable exposure time is one of the series of conditions in most market value definitions. Exposure time is always presumed to precede the effective date of the appraisal. Exposure time may be defined as follows: The estimated length of time the property interests being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective estimate based upon an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market.”4 Based on conversations with market participants and Realtors, three to six months is a reasonable estimate of exposure time. Further, a review of 3,747 residential sales reported sold in the most recent annual report (August 2011 through August 2012) of the Burlington/Camden County Multiple Listing System for Camden County supports that conclusion. Information regarding the sales follows: Days on the market ranged from a monthly low of 95 to a monthly high of 141 with an average of 116 days. Listing prices ranged from a low of $8,300 to a high of $4,250,000 with an average $215,990. Selling prices ranged from a low of $10,100 to a high of $3,273,303 with an average of $191,547. The percent difference between listing price and selling price was a negative 11.32%. Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Statement No. 6, pg. U-90, published by the Appraisal Foundation,£ copyright 2012¤ 8
  92. 92. DELINEATION OF TITLEBlock 13, Lot 25 and Block 14, Lot 2Deed Book and Page: 5269 / 0445Date of Conveyance: November 4, 2002Consideration: $1.00Grantor: Bancroft NeurohealthGrantee: Bancroft NeurohealthBlock 25, Lot 13Deed Book and Page: 2024 / 80-82Date of Conveyance: June 9, 1956Consideration: N/AGrantor: Jenzia C. CooleyGrantee: Bancroft SchoolBlock 14, Lot 2Deed Book and Page: 690 / 381 & CDate of Conveyance: November 22, 1928Consideration: N/AGrantor: Bancroft Training SchoolGrantee: Bancroft School A limited review of the public records reveals no other conveyances involvingthe subject property within the past three years. (See Contingent and LimitingConditions) ASSESSMENT INFORMATIONBlock 13, Lot 25Land: $3,420,000Improvements: $ 960,500Total: $4,380,5002012 Taxes: Tax exemptBlock 14, Lot 2Land: $6,188,400Improvements: $1,623,600Total: $7,812,0002012 Taxes: Tax exempt2012 Tax Rate: $2.642 per $100 of assessed value2012 Ratio of Assessed Value to "true value": 100.87%Total Assessed Value of Subject Properties: $12,192,500 9
  93. 93. ZONING The subject property is currently zoned R-2, Residential. Following is ananalysis of the relevant zoning information and a conclusion regarding thesubject’s compliance or lack of compliance with current zoning. A more detaileddescription of zoning is contained within the “Addendum” of this report. Permitted uses include: single-family detached dwellings; public parks,playgrounds or recreational areas; and municipal buildings or uses. Minimum lotsize is 20,000 square feet having minimum frontage and width of 125 feet. Zoning is not in the process of being changed relative to the subjectproperty. The current use of the subject property is a pre-existing non-conforminguse. A survey was provided, and it appears the subject property conforms to allbulk yard and area requirements. The subject property has, and continues to be, the focus of severalredevelopment plans. In 2006, the Haddonfield Borough Commissioners approveda resolution declaring the Bancroft site a redevelopment zone. Bancroft filed suitagainst the town. In February 2007, the Commissioners approved a resolution fordismissal of the suit brought by Bancroft. The terms of the agreement allowBancroft to re-file the suit at a later time after the Borough formally enacts aredevelopment plan for the site. No indication of a zoning change to the subjectproperty was mentioned in the June 7, 2011 Redevelopment Principles document.No change in zoning is anticipated. 10
  94. 94. ZONING MAP 11
  95. 95. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT LAND The subject property is bisected by Hopkins Lane into two separate taxblock and lot parcels. Block 13 Lot 25 is located fronting along the Northwesterlyside of Kings Highway East and also fronting along the Southwesterly side ofHopkins Lane. This parcel has 896.94’ of primary (principal access) frontage alongHopkins Lane and 295’ of secondary access and frontage along Kings HighwayEast and contains 6.072 acres of land. The second parcel, Block 14 Lot 2 has1,214.85’ of primary access frontage along Hopkins Lane and approximately567.88’ of secondary exposure frontage along Kings Highway East and contains13.151 acres. The combined acreage of the two parcels is 19.22 gross acres,according to the Boundary Survey Plan, dated October 9, 2002, by SchoorDePalma. The first parcel gently slopes downward from a southeasterly tonorthwesterly direction. The second parcel also slopes downward gradually in asoutheasterly to northwesterly direction and also a northeasterly direction. On-site improvements include driveways, asphalt paving, storm andsanitary sewer laterals, concrete curbing; and crushed stone parking areas. Atleast a portion of the sanitary sewer is a forced-main feed. Off-site improvements include asphalt-paved, 2-lane, 109’-wide KingsHighway right-of-way and asphalt paved, 2-lane, 20’-wide Hopkins Lane right-of-way; access to public water and public sanitary sewer; storm sewer; natural gasservice; stone curbing; brick sidewalks; overhead electric, telephone and cableservice; and, street lights. According to (F.E.M.A.) National Flood Insurance Rate Map CommunityPanel Number 34007C0044E, dated September 28, 2007, the subject property islocated within Zone "X ", which is low flood risk. A portion of block 14 lot 2 iscontained within the high flood risk and moderate flood risk areas. 12
  96. 96. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)Freshwater Wetlands Maps are not a definitive determinant of wetlands affectingthe subject property. It is included for information purposes only, as a generalestimate of wetlands impact. (The client is referred to the Contingent and LimitingConditions contained within this appraisal report.) The Schoor DePalma Boundary Survey provides specific wetlandsdelineation of the subject property. The subject site is affected by 1% to 2%wetlands. 13
  97. 97. BOUNDARY SURVEY 14
  98. 98. SUBJECT TAX MAPTax map area is not accurate, not employed as a basis for valuation. 15
  99. 99. FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 16
  100. 100. NJDEP FRESHWATER WETLANDS MAPFor exhibit purposes only. 17
  101. 101. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT IMPROVEMENTSLullworth HouseThe Lullworth House is a two-and-one-half story, Victorian style residentialdwelling building constructed circa 1860. The building was subsequentlyconverted to administrative offices in support of the current education use. Thebuilding features a stone foundation, an open ‘Widow’s Watch’, three openporches, stained-glass and original double-hung wood windows, decorative slateand raised-seam metal roofs, fireplaces, original ornamental wood trim finishes onboth the interior and exterior of the building. Portions of the building have centralair conditioning while others are serviced by window units. Heat is a combinationof gas-fired forced warm air and oil-fired hot water radiators. The first floorincludes well-appointed executive offices with exposed oak floors, mahogany trim,and wainscoting. Other first floor areas have good grade commercial carpeting.Plaster walls are predominant, but some sheetrock partitions have been added tocreate work areas. A Pullman-style lunch kitchen is available to employees. Thesecond and third floor finishes are less well-appointed and in average condition.Evidence of prior roof leaks was observed.The rest rooms include modern water closets and sinks; however, original claw-foot tubs, water closets, fixtures, and floor and wall tiles remain in place.The exterior is finished with painted wood clapboard siding. A wooden exteriorstaircase acts as a fire escape, and a wooden handicap ramp provides access tothe first floor.As previously mentioned, the entire building was converted into office facilitiesmany years ago and includes 6,472 square feet of above grade finished space,3,302 on the first floor, 2,655 on the second and 515 in the attic with 2,568square feet of unfinished basement. Lullworth is in overall average condition,however, shows signs of exterior deferred maintenance.The inspection of this building revealed significant original architectural anddesign features. The Haddonfield Borough Master Plan calls for future historicpreservation of this architecturally significant structure.Carriage HouseThe Carriage House is one and one-half story building constructed circa 1900±that was converted from a carriage house into a classroom for training custodialstudents. The first floor of 1814 square feet also includes a storage area and restroom, concrete slab floor, and ceramic coated brick walls. An interior spiralstaircase leads to the unfinished, 907 square foot second floor/attic. The half-story includes three dormers. The building is constructed of brick and frame.Exterior finishes include painted decorative clapboard siding, brick, anddecorative slate roofing. It is serviced by overhead electric, central air and oil heat.The building is in overall average condition. 18
  102. 102. The Haddonfield Borough Master Plan calls for future historic preservation of thisarchitecturally significant structure.Education GreenhouseThe Education Greenhouse is a one and one-half story, cape cod style buildingwith brick foundation, painted clapboard siding and metal roof. The first floorcontains 397 square feet and the second is attic space. The building is estimatedto be one hundred years old and is serviced by overhead electric. Access to thebasement is via exterior Bilco doors. The basement is six feet high with pouredconcrete floor, and houses the water heater and oil-fired boiler heating system.Attached to the building is a small, operational greenhouse, constructed withwood frame and clear plastic panels.This building is used for florist career training and is in overall fair condition asthe foundation of both sections is deteriorating.In addition, a small wooden shed with brick foundation and metal roof is nearby.The existing greenhouse, related outbuildings, and carriage house are alsodesignated for historic preservation under the Haddonfield Borough Master Plan.Foundation of former GreenhouseOn the campus diagram, there is a building that located between the CarriageHouse and Cooley Hall that was a greenhouse but no longer exists. The concretepad for the main part of the house and the three walkways for the greenhouse doexist.Cooley HallCooley Hall is a one-story, 36,000± square foot education building containingclassrooms and offices. It was originally built in 1963 with concrete slab floor,brick and block walls, aluminum frame single pane, fixed and tilt-out glasswindows, painted fascia, painted gypsum type soffits, and gable-style roof finishedwith slag and stone. A small second floor conference room is located near themain entrance. The roof is undergoing repairs in failing areas.A newer section, constructed of decorative cinder block, steel bar joist and deckroof system, houses a combination gymnasium and cafeteria with 28’ height, andadjacent 12’ high modern commercial kitchen. The ‘cafeterium’ has built-in tables,high-intensity lighting, and rubberized mat covered concrete slab.The classrooms are finished with asphalt tile flooring, rubberoid baseboard,painted block walls with black/white boards, ceiling affixed fluorescent lightingand rough cast ceiling. Offices have similar finish but with carpeting andupgraded doors. The building is wet-sprinklered throughout, with a firedepartment connection located near the main entrance.Central air conditioning units exist, but at least one window unit exists in eachroom. 19
  103. 103. The basement boiler room is accessed from the main hall, and houses the quickrecovery water heater, two Bock 241EASME oil-fired boilers, 400amp electricalpanels, and the forced main pumping system, and a sanitary sewer collectioncistern, which is pumped from that location into the sanitary sewer system.Cooley Hall is in overall average to fair condition.Bancroft HallBancroft Hall was originally constructed of brick and frame in 1954 for use as adormitory. Several additions have been constructed over time and the resultingfootprint is highly irregular. The basement contains 1633 square feet and housesthe boilers and electrical panels. A large storage area is unused due to dampness.The first floor has 25,383 square feet of gross area; is used for classrooms andoffices; and is finished with vinyl tile floors in classrooms, carpet in offices,rubberoid baseboard, painted sheetrock and plaster walls and ceilings, ceilingaffixed fluorescent lighting, and fully sprinklered. The second floor is primarilyused for offices with the same finishes as the first floor and contains 7,485 squarefeet. The HVAC is a mixture of built-in gas-fired heating/air-conditioning units,central ductwork heating, and window air-conditioning units.The exterior is brick and vinyl siding, a mixture of aluminum frame single panewindows and vinyl double-hung replacement windows, and painted, or, aluminumcovered soffits and fascia. The gable-style roof system is covered with three tabfiberglass shingles.Bancroft Hall is in overall fair condition, and suffers from functional obsolescencedue to its highly irregular layout and traffic pattern. Future purchasers of theproperty would mostly likely consider razing this improvement.FarringtonThe Farrington Building is a three-story, 19,132 square foot, masonry buildingconstructed in the mid-70’s as a dormitory. Each level contains 6,377 square feetwith the lower level being at and partially below grade. The exterior is brick withaluminum frame, fixed and tilt-in awning type windows, and gable-style roof withselvage roofing. The main access is at the middle floor via slate steps or a woodenhandicap ramp with newer Trex decking.The building was converted to classrooms and offices.Typical primary interior finishes include vinyl tile covered slab floors, rubberoidbaseboard, painted block walls, t-bar suspended ceilings with affixed fluorescentlighting. Office upgrades include carpeting and refractor light finishes. Theconference room highlights include a full brick hearth with granite mantle and oakbeam ceiling. Gas fired boilers supply heat and hot water.The building is in generally average condition. 20
  104. 104. A detached 12’x20’ wood framed garage is located near Farrington and is inaverage condition.CRC ComplexThe four-building CRC Complex was constructed in 1976 for use as residences.The buildings are in fair to average condition with some recent updating butshowing signs of wear and tear.Charlotte and Jenzia Buildings (CRC Complex)The Charlotte and Jenzia buildings each contain 3,600 square feet of living spaceand are mirror-image layouts. Constructed of masonry and frame, the one-story,multi-tenant residence buildings have pent and shed style roof systems coveredwith selvage roofing. Exterior finishes are stucco and vinyl siding; and interior ispainted sheetrock and hard vinyl wainscoting.Each building includes an attached laundry room with outside access to 4washers and 4 dryers.The boiler room houses an oil-fired, four-zone, Weil-McLain boiler to provide bothdomestic hot water and baseboard heat. The building has central air conditioningsupplemented with through-the-wall units.Interior layout includes: centrally located carpeted living room; full-size kitchenwith vinyl flooring, dishwasher, stove, Formica tops, and center island; and diningarea. Hallways lead to 4 paired bedrooms, each pair adjoined by jack-and-jillbathrooms. Lighting is provided by a mix of ceiling-affixed fluorescent and trackstyle. There are vaulted ceilings in the living-room and dining areas.Russell House (CRC Complex)The Russell Building has the same interior and exterior finishes as the CharlotteBuilding, with the exception of a gable and hip style roof systems. Lighting isprovided by a mix of ceiling-affixed fluorescent and track style.The basement of Russell Building includes a storage room and office/classroomwith vinyl tile flooring over concrete slab. The walls are combination of sheet rockand wood paneling. The t-bar celotex suspended ceiling has attached exposed 2-bulb florescent lights.Two two-fixture bathrooms complete the finished portion of the basement.The majority of the 12’ high basement is used as the maintenance shop andstorage area for certain supplies. Painted cinder block walls, partially finishedsheetrock walls and ceilings with suspended fluorescent lighting is the main finishin the shop area. The boiler room houses a gas-fired boiler, 80 gallon electricwater heater and 800 amp electric service panel. 21
  105. 105. Miriam (CRC Complex)The Miriam Building has interior and exterior finishes similar to Charlotte House,and provides three 2-bedrooms units. The apartment–sized kitchens provide verylittle counter space and cabinets, and appear to be original.The boiler room is accessed from an exterior door. Each apartment has its ownzone. A 100 amp electrical panel is also located in the boiler room.Stevenson CenterThe Stevenson Center is a Cape-Cod style building with 1500 square feet offinished interior space used as offices. The interior finish includes paintedsheetrock walls, t-bar suspended ceiling with recessed fluorescent lighting, carpetand vinyl flooring and radiator heat. Each floor has a bathroom.The exterior is wood frame double hung windows, vinyl siding and three-tabfiberglass roof shingles. A fixed steel fire escape is in place to the second floor andthe building is not sprinkled.The Stevenson Center is in average overall condition.Linden #1,#2,#3The Linden complex includes three virtually identical, 3,850± square foot, one-story frame construction residence buildings built in 1994. The complex has acentral courtyard, enclosed by six-foot high board-on-board wood fencing. Thesecured courtyard and buildings require electronic pass keys for access, andclosed-circuit cameras provided additional monitoring capabilities.The exterior is vinyl siding, full-egress vinyl double-hung windows and hip-styleroof structure with fiberglass roof shingles.The interior finish includes carpet, vinyl tile, or sheet good flooring over slab;sheetrock walls and ceilings; sprinklers; 200 amp service panels; gas fired waterheaters; central air and forced-air heat. The mechanicals are located in a separateutility room with exterior access only.The interior layout includes: 5 bedrooms; 2 hallway-access common bathrooms;kitchen; dining room; living room; laundry room; secured staff office with glassobservation windows; conference room with two fixture bath; and two sessionrooms separated by an observation room with one-way mirrors.The Linden buildings are in overall average condition.Craft House (Security)Also known as the Security Building, the Craft House is a one story frame buildingwith clapboard siding and gable roof, and is attached to a one and one-half storystone building with gable roof. It is used for the campus security team and for amailroom, respectively. The mailroom section was inaccessible at the time of the 22
  106. 106. inspection. A small basement in the stone portion houses a newer oil-fired heaterand water heater. The roofing is newer fiberglass dimensional shingles.Interior finish includes low-grade commercial carpet, with wood paneled walls andceilings and a two fixture bath. Mechanicals include oil-fired hot water radiatorheat and window air conditioners. The building is in overall fair condition.It is our observation from inspecting the buildings located on the subject premisesthat most of the buildings designated to onsite residential housing and thoseconverted from dormitory to office or security use would most likely be consideredfor removal by future institutional type users. 23
  107. 107. 24
  108. 108. 25
  109. 109. 26
  110. 110. 27
  111. 111. 28
  112. 112. 29
  113. 113. 30
  114. 114. 31
  115. 115. 32
  116. 116. 33
  117. 117. 34
  118. 118. 35
  119. 119. 36
  120. 120. 37
  121. 121. 38
  122. 122. 39
  123. 123. 40
  124. 124. 41
  125. 125. HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use is defined as: "The reasonably probable and legal useof vacant land or an improved property that is legally permissible, physicallypossible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible and that results in thehighest value."5Four criteria are considered:1. Legally permissible uses. What uses are permitted by private deed restrictions, zoning, building codes, environmental regulations?2. Physically possible uses. Of the legally permissible uses, what uses are physically possible?3. Feasible uses. Which possible and permissible uses will produce sufficient income to meet or exceed all financial obligations, i.e. operating expenses, mortgage debt?4. Maximally Productive/Highest and Best Use. From among the feasible uses, which use will produce the highest net return or value? The present use of a site is not necessarily its highest and best use. Forexample, a single-family dwelling on a busy highway in a commercial zone mayhave as its highest and best use a commercial site. The existing improvementmay be retained and renovated or demolished to make way for construction of amodern, efficient commercial building. The criteria are applied first to the site asvacant and then, to the property as improved. The economic principles of supply and demand, anticipation, substitution,balance, and conformity along with factors that influence value such as utility,scarcity, desire, and effective buying power should be considered in every highestand best use decision.¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¨ ¨ ! # § $ % ! § ¨ $ ( § ¨ © ) % ¨ ! 0 1 1 2 3 4 0 5 5 % $ 0 5 2 4 42
  126. 126. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS A VACANT SITELegally Permissible Use The subjects permissible uses and area regulations are documented withinthe Zoning section of the report. Although this is an analysis of the site as vacant, the fact that the subject iscurrently improved with a preexisting, non-conforming use cannot be ignored. Apremium may accrue to the land resulting from the current, pre-existing,nonconforming use. No known land leases restrict the legally permissible uses of the property.No unusual environmental restrictions are indicated within the zoning informationavailable. As mentioned in the “Description of the Subject Land”, the subjectproperty is affected by the presence of freshwater wetlands. No othercommissions, such as a Historic Commission, currently exercise zoning controlsover the property. The redevelopment plan, however, states the LullworthBuilding and Carriage House are subject to adaptive re-use. Common restrictions for utility easements may exist; however, they do notappear to adversely affect development of any legally permitted use. The subject property is currently located within a designated redevelopmentzone; however, it continues to be described as within the R2-Residential Zone onthe official zoning map of the Borough of Haddonfield. No evidence of imminentchange to the current zoning is apparent.Physically Possible Use The subjects size, topography, shape, frontage along paved and dedicatedstreets, and access to all public utilities impose few limitations on its ability to bedeveloped for the permitted residential or public (as defined in the zoning) uses. The cost for grading and constructing a foundation on the site would betypical of other sites within the neighborhood. The load-bearing capabilities of thetop- and sub-soils are not known but are assumed to be sufficient to support atleast the types and sizes of buildings within the subject and surroundingneighborhoods. 43
  127. 127. The subject is located in Flood Zone X , which is low flood risk. A portionof block 14, lot 2 is contained within the high flood risk and moderate flood riskareas. Freshwater wetlands affect 5% of the subject property.(Subject to the Contingent and Limiting Conditions contained within this report.)Financially Feasible Uses As indicated within the “Neighborhood Analysis”, the current institutionaluse is consistent with other uses in the subject’s competitive economicneighborhood. As an alternative to this use, public (as defined in the zoning code)and single family residential uses are permitted to be developed on the subjectproperty. Based on a review of residential market data and an interview with Mr.Tom Colavecchio, Haddonfield Borough Tax Assessor, it was concluded thatpotential residential developers of the subject property would not pay a per acreprice competitive with those being paid by potential institutional users. Recently,the Borough of Haddonfield completed a town-wide reassessment of all ratables;therefore, the borough is currently assessed at 100% of true value. A review ofClass 2, single family, residential land assessments for 34 properties sold betweenJanuary 1, 2010 and August 22, 2012 having lot sizes of 20,000 square feet andlarger throughout the borough has resulted in an average per acre assessment of$679,000. This figure was derived by taking the 34 land assessments, dividingeach by its percentage of an acre, summing the per-acre values and dividing thetotal by the number of sales. The $679,000 per acre figure represents the averagevalue that would be paid on a per acre basis for a fully approved and fullyimproved residential site within the borough. Residential developers typically pay50% of this retail acreage figure in order to compensate for demolition, approval,infrastructure construction, and profit margin costs. It would appear, therefore,that residential developers, keeping in mind the current weak residential market 6,would be willing to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $340,000 per acre forthe subject property, or approximately $6,500,000.6 According to recent statistics, the single family residential market throughout the state and nation suffers from excessinventory, tight and restrictive lending policies, a reduction in per capita disposable income, and a 30% to 40% reduction invalues since 2007. 44
  128. 128. Another economic feasibility test was applied to continuation of the existinginstitutional, pre-existing, non-conforming use. A review of market data withinthis arena has indicated strong demand and expansion of institutional uses withinsouthern New Jersey. This trend appears to be supported by demand forestablishment of private educational facilities, i.e. Charter schools, privatereligious affiliated educational facilities, universities, satellite campuses, andmedical educational facilities. The catalyst for this demand seems to beprincipally related to the amalgamation of the Rowan/Rutgers University effortswithin Camden County in combination with aggressive expansion and newconstruction of competing hospitals within the southern New Jersey area. Otherdemand is created through the desire to establish charter schools and privateeducational facilities. A review of recent sales activity within the institutional marketplace (themost relevant of which have been analyzed within this report), indicates a mergedprice per acre inclusive of improvements far exceeding that which could beproduced by single family residential development (the only other viable permitteduse). The most financially feasible use of the subject property, therefore, as of theeffective date of appraisal is for continuation of the existing, non-conforminginstitutional use.Maximally Productive/Highest and Best Use After considering the legally permissible, physically possible, and financiallyfeasible uses of the subject property, the highest, best, and most profitable use ofthe land as vacant is development with a non-conforming, institutional useconsidering the Borough’s long history of granting variances to the site or equallyfor a municipal use, which is a permitted use in the R-2 zone. Either one of theseuses is compatible with the adjacent use to the southwest, which is a public highschool. 45
  129. 129. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IMPROVEDLegally Permissible Use The subject property is currently improved with an educational institutionaluse. The existing use is not a permitted use within the R2, Residential Zone;therefore, the existing use is a pre-existing, non-conforming use. It became non-conforming in 1974 with the adoption of comprehensive changes to the zoningordinance. As mentioned in the “Zoning” section, the subject lot currently conforms toall bulk, yard, and area requirements. Because the existing use is pre-existing and non-conforming, it wouldrequire variances for future expansion of the improvements.Physically Possible Use The subject property is currently improved with a pre-existing, non-conforming institutional use. If the site were vacant, zoning permits only oneother economic use, single family residential development. Both the existing andpermitted residential use of the subject property would conform well to thephysical characteristics of the subject site and adjoining uses. Considering theexcessive age of the improvements, ideally, if those improvements were beingconstructed today, a developer would correct the functional obsolescence andphysical depreciation currently present. It is physically possible to expand the existing improvements (subject to azoning variance).Financially Feasible Use The analysis of the site as vacant concluded that the continuation of thepre-existing, non-conforming institutional use would produce the highest returnto the land. Extensive review of institutional-type purchases indicates that buyersof these facilities tend to have various motivations. Many of these type buyersretrofit or expand the current improvements on the property while at the sametime eliminating improvements that are functionally obsolete or do not meet theiroverall plan for the property. A certain percentage of purchasers retain a minimalamount of existing improvements, demolish what is left, and construct a newinstitutional use. The market data tend to indicate that all of these purchasers, 46
  130. 130. despite their differing motivations, buy properties based principally on a per acrebasis inclusive of existing improvements. This conclusion has been reachedthrough a review of numerous sales of these type properties, and it has beendiscovered that a high degree of compatibility exists on a merged acre price basisregardless of varying plans for the properties.Maximally Productive/Highest and Best Use As a result of the preceding analysis, it is apparent that the highest point ofvalue relative to the subject property is gained through continuation of theexisting institutional use. This use may legally be continued as long as a futurebuyers plans tend to be highly compatible with the use that previously utilizedthe subject facility. The use physically conforms well to the subject site, and it isthis use that will economically generate the highest return to the land. Based on this analysis, the highest, best, and most profitable use of thesubject property, as currently improved, is the continuation of the current pre-existing, non-conforming, institutional use. 47
  131. 131. APPROACHES TO VALUE All three recognized approaches to value are considered: the salescomparison, cost, and income approaches. The sales comparison approach is based on the premise that an informedpurchaser would pay no more for a property than the cost of acquiring an existingproperty with the same utility. The approach involves researching recent sales ofcompetitive properties, adjusting them to the subject property for items ofdifference and reconciling the resultant indicators into an opinion of value. It isapplicable when an active market provides sufficient quantities of reliable datawhich can be verified from authoritative sources. The approach is necessary toproduce credible assignment results. The cost approach is based on the premise that an informed purchaserwould pay no more than the cost of producing a substitute property with the sameutility as the subject property. It is particularly applicable when the propertybeing appraised involves new or relatively new improvements that represent thehighest and best use of the land or when unique or specialized improvements arelocated on the site and for which there exist no comparable properties in themarket. It involves estimating reproduction cost new of the subjectimprovements; deducting estimated accrued depreciation in order to arrive at thedepreciated cost of the improvements; then, adding the estimated value of theland in order to arrive at an indicator of value. The approach is not necessary toproduce credible assignment results due to the difficulty in accurately estimatingaccrued depreciation. The income approach converts anticipated benefits (dollar income oramenities) to be derived from the ownership of a property into a value estimate.The income approach is widely applied in appraising income-producing properties.Anticipated future income and/or reversions are discounted to a present worthfigure through the capitalization process. The approach is not necessary toproduce credible assignment results due to the fact that institutional uses are nottypically leased and rental income is not the typical motivation of the user. Forthis reason there was insufficient arm’s length market rental data available insupport of this approach. 48
  132. 132. SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The sales comparison approach is used to develop an opinion of marketvalue by comparing the subject property to similar and competing properties thathave recently sold. The theory is that the market value of a property is related tothe prices of similar and competitive properties. The sales are adjusted to the subject for differences such as the estatetransferred (fee simple or some fraction of it), financing considerations, motivationof the buyers and sellers, change in property values since the time of sale,location, land sizes, zoning, or any other salient features. Typical units of comparison are price per square foot, per acre, per frontfoot, or the entire price. In the case of the subject, price per acre inclusive ofimprovements is used to arrive at an indicator of value. Of the institutional sales researched, the following 4 sales have been verifiedand analyzed and meet the following criteria: informed buyers and sellers; property rights conveyed are the fee simple interest; parties to the transaction are under no undue pressure to consummate the sale; financing terms are cash or equivalent, and consistent with conditions in the financial marketplace at the time of sale; and, the property is exposed on the open market for a reasonable period of time. The data search covered January 1, 2008 through September 1, 2012inclusive. A grid and an analysis containing narrative explanations of the reasons andsupport for the adjustments follow the description of the sales. 49
  133. 133. COMPARABLE LAND SALESale 1 Identification No.3,177Location: 28 E. Main Street Block 4605, Lot 22 (additional lots 10-13, 23, and 24) Moorestown Township, NJSale Price: $4,000,000Date of Sale: 10/15/08Deed Book: 6605, page 215Grantor: Friends Boarding Home of HaddonfieldGrantee: Moorestown Friends School AssociationLand Description: 4.14 acresFinancing: Cash to SellerZoning: CRO front commercial office; R2 rearOff-site Improvements: Overhead electric; natural gas; storm sewer; public water; public sanitary sewer; two-lane roadway; street lights; concrete curb and sidewalkOn-site Improvements: Single lane asphalt-paved road surfaceVerified With: Lisa Carbone Warren, Director of Finance, Moorestown Friends School, 09/21/12Indicates: $966,184 per acre inclusive of buildingsRemarks:The sale included 5 contiguous properties on block 4605: Lot 22 - 28 E Main St -2 main buildings used as boarding house and for convalescent care containing24,900 square feet; Lot 23 - 36 E Main St - 2-story dwelling containing 1,500square feet; Lot 24 - 38 E Main St - 2-story dwelling containing 1,700 squareFeet; Lot 12 - 41 E Prospect St - split-level design containing 2,717 square feetconverted into 3 apartments; and, Lot 10 - vacant land on Prospect AveThe subject property was marketed by William Pounds, a commercial broker.Renwick and Associates completed an appraisal for the grantor, with an effectivedate of November 12, 2007; concluding to a $5,000,000 value. An appraisal wascompleted on behalf of the future grantee and was used to negotiate to a final sale 50
  134. 134. price of $4,000,000 The grantee operates the Moorestown Friends School on theadjacent properties. The properties at 38 and 36 E Main Street were sold in 2010and 2011 respectively. According to the Moorestown Friends website, theGreenleaf building was converted from the boarding house into eight classrooms,a music suite and choral sectionals rehearsal room. The building opened in May2012 and is now known as Hartman Hall. The transaction was considered to bearms length. COMPARABLE LAND SALESale 1 Identification No.3,177 28 E. Main Street Block 4605, Lot 22 (additional lots 10-13, 23, and 24) Moorestown Township, NJ 51
  135. 135. 52
  136. 136. COMPARABLE LAND SALESale 2 Identification No.3,180Location: 83 Bayard Lane Block 16.01, Lot 1 Princeton Boro, NJSale Price: $15,000,000Date of Sale: 04/29/10Deed Book: 6053, page 294Grantor: Princeton Healthcare SystemGrantee: The Trustees of Princeton UniversityLand Description: 9.06 acresFinancing: CashZoning: R1Off-site Improvements: Underground electric; natural gas; storm sewer; public water; public sanitary sewer; two-lane roadway; street lights; concrete curb and sidewalkOn-site Improvements: NoneVerified With: Pam Hersh, Princeton Healthcare, 09/13/12Indicates: $1,655,629 per acreRemarks:According to Ms. Pam Hersh, the deed states that the sale price was $23,000,000;however, the price included an estimated $8,000,000 contribution earmarked forthe new hospital building fund. The tax assessor has an assessed value of$15,000,000 for vacant land for 2012. The 27,520 square foot building has beenremoved and the lot is currently vacant. John Zeigler, Director of Real EstateDevelopment, Princeton University, stated that the university intended todemolish the existing improvements and re-develop the site with graduate studentapartment housing. The transaction was considered to be arms-length betweenunrelated parties. 53
  137. 137. COMPARABLE LAND SALESale 2 Identification No.3,180 83 Bayard Lane Block 16.01, Lot 1 Princeton Boro, NJ 54
  138. 138. 55
  139. 139. COMPARABLE LAND SALESale 3 Identification No.3,182Location: Eden Way Block 2, Lot 2,3,6,7, and 9 West Windsor Twp., NJSale Price: $3,490,000Date of Sale: 09/30/09Deed Book: 6019, page 478Grantor: Eden Institute FoundationGrantee: The Trustees of Princeton UniversityLand Description: 3.0669 acresFinancing: CashZoning: Lots 2 and 3 - ROM-1, Research, Office, Limited Manufacturing; Lots 6, 7, and 9 R-2, ResidentialOff-site Improvements: Overhead electric; natural gas; storm sewer; public water; public sanitary sewer; six-lane divided highway; street lightsOn-site Improvements: NoneVerified With: Christopher Tarr, attorney for grantor, 09/14/12Indicates: $1,137,956.89 per acre inclusive of improvementsRemarks:According to Christopher Tarr, appraisals were completed and used to establishthe sale price. Like the grantor, Princeton University utilizes the 17,704 squarefoot school building on lot 3 for autistic and challenged students. Lots 2 and 6have 1 story dwellings totaling 2464 square feet. Lot 7 is vacant land. Lot 9 has a1248 square foot building formerly used for students that now appears unused.The attorney stated that the grantee helped them obtain property for a new schoolin the Forrestal Village areas and a mortgage for that property. The transactionwas considered to be arms-length between unrelated parties. 56
  140. 140. COMPARABLE LAND SALESale 3 Identification No.3,182 Eden Way Block 2, Lot 2,3,6,7, and 9 West Windsor Twp., NJ 57
  141. 141. 58
  142. 142. 59
  143. 143. COMPARABLE LAND SALESale 4 Identification No.3,187Location: 420 Turnersville Road Block 12302, Lot 1 (part of) Gloucester Township, NJSale Price: $20,282,000Date of Sale: 11/09/11Deed Book: 9497, page 1018Grantor: Camden County Health ServicesGrantee: Camden County CollegeLand Description: 40 acresFinancing: No OTBZoning: IN - Institutional DistrictOff-site Improvements: Overhead Electric, Natural Gas, Storm Sewer, Public Water, Public Sanitary Sewer, 2 Lane Roadway, Street LightsOn-site Improvements: Asphalt parking and drives; detention basin; concrete pad; Overhead and Underground electricVerified With: Dominic J Vesper Jr., Deputy County AdministratorIndicates: $507,050.00 per acre inclusive of improvementsRemarks:The property, a portion of the Lakeland Complex, contained the Camden CountyEmergency Training Facility for many years. Older improvements included theburn, ladder training, and control tower buildings used specifically for live firetraining; a 4,290 square foot service garage used for storage and repair ofemergency equipment; and the “Old Academic Building”, a 7,071 square footbuilding containing classrooms and assembly areas (a former commercial laundrybuilt in the 1920s, converted in 1989). In 2009, a new one-story, 36,887± squarefoot building, the “Emergency Training Center” was constructed. This buildingcontains college-style classrooms, theatre-style assembly area, cafeteria,garage/equipment training area, and many offices. Most offices were utilized bycounty fire marshal and emergency training officials and personnel. The 40 acre 60
  144. 144. portion of lot 1 (180 acres total) was subdivided and sold. The site size of 40 acreswas created to allow for the safety zone surrounding the fire training buildingswhere controlled fires are used for training. Camden County sought to reduce itsdebt level through liquidation of various assets and at the same time eliminatingpayroll related to certain county level positions. Camden County College, at thetime of this transaction, was in expansion mode and had the resources topurchase the property, as well as continue the emergency training programs. COMPARABLE LAND SALESale 4 Identification No.3,187Photo taken winter of 2011/2012 420 Turnersville Road Block 12302, Lot 1 (part of) Gloucester Township, NJ 61
  145. 145. 62
  146. 146. 63
  147. 147. SALES COMPARATIVE GRIDSale No. 1 - 3177 2 - 3180 3 - 3182 4 - 3187Sale Price $ 4,000,000 $15,000,000 $3,490,000 $20,200,000Price per unit $ 966,184 $ 1,655,629 $ 1,137,957 $ 505,000Unit Adjusted $ 966,184 $ 1,655,629 $ 1,137,957 $ 505,000Estate Conveyed 0% 0% 0% 0%Adjusted Price $ 966,184 $ 1,655,629 $ 1,137,957 $ 505,000Financing 0% 0% 0% 0%Conditions of Sale 0% 0% 0% 0%Adjusted Price $ 966,184 $ 1,655,629 $ 1,137,957 $ 505,000Expenditures post-sale 0% 0% 0% 0%Adjusted Price $ 966,184 $ 1,655,629 $ 1,137,957 $ 505,000 10/5/2008 4/29/2010 9/30/2009 11/9/2011Date of Sale -30% -10% -20% -5%Adjusted Price $ 676,329 $ 1,490,066 $ 910,366 $ 479,750Location 0% -10% 0% 20%Physical -20% -15% -35% 15%Zoning 0% 0% 0% 0%Off-Site Imp. 0% 0% 0% 0%Other 0% 0% 0% 0%Net Adjustment -20% -25% -35% 35%Final Adjusted Price $ 541,063 $ 1,117,550 $ 591,738 $ 647,663Total Absolute Adjust. 50% 35% 55% 40% Correlation of SalesUnadjusted Mean: $1,006,192 Median: $1,052,070 Range: $1,150,629Adjusted Mean: $724,503 Median: $619,700 Range: $576,487The unadjusted central tendencies indicate a per acre value of approximately$1,000,000, while the adjusted central tendencies indicate a per acre value closerto $725,000.Greatest weight is given to the indicator derived from Sales No. 2 and 4, the saleswith the lowest total absolute adjustment and the sales of properties with sitesizes considered most competitive with the subject. Next greatest weight is givento the indicator derived from Sales No. 1 and 3 respectively, the sales with thenext lowest total absolute adjustments. The weighted per acre value is slightlyhigher than the adjusted mean. 64
  148. 148. Indicated value, therefore, is $788,000 per acre.(Final land value computation):$788,000 Per acre x 19.22 acres = $15,145,360 USE: $15,100,000 ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS OF SALESSale 1Subject is inferior for Date of Sale due to declining market conditions since thedate of the transaction; for Physical since larger sites, such as the subject, tend tosell for a lower price based on a per acre unit intensity. The subject requiresforced-main sewage; however, this adjustment was offset by sale site’s irregularshape.Subject and sale are comparable for all other adjustments.Sale 2Subject is inferior for Date of Sale due to declining market conditions since thedate of the transaction; for Location since Haddonfield is slightly economicallyinferior to Princeton; for Physical since larger sites, such as the subject, tend tosell for a lower price based on a per acre unit intensity. The subject requiresforced-main sewage.Subject and sale are comparable for all other adjustments.Sale 3Subject is inferior for Date of Sale due to declining market conditions since thedate of the transaction; for Physical since larger sites, such as the subject, tend tosell for a lower price based on a per acre unit intensity and the subject requiresforced-main sewage.Subject and sale are comparable for all other adjustments.Sale 4Subject is superior for Location as it is in an ecnomically superior location; forPhysical since smaller sites, such as the subject, tend to sell for higher pricebased on a per acre unit intensity. The superior Physical adjustment is somewhatoffset by the fact that the subject property requires forced-main sewage:Subject is inferior for date of sale due to declining market conditions since thedate of transaction.Subject and sale are comparable for all other adjustments. 65
  149. 149. FINAL VALUE OPINIONFinal ReconciliationIndicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $15,100,000Indicated Value by Cost Approach: $N/AIndicated Value by Income Approach: $N/A Greatest weight is given to the indicator derived from the sales comparisonapproach since it is the only approach applicable. The estimated market value of the subject property, therefore, as of August23, 2012, is: FIFTEEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($15,100,000) DOLLARS 66
  150. 150. RENWICK ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISALI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT UPON THE REQUEST FOR VALUATION BY:I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: 425 Kings Highway Block 13, Lot 25 Block 14, Lot 2 Haddonfield, NJAND AM OF THE OPINION THAT ON THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2012, THEESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS: FIFTEEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($15,100,000) DOLLARSI certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct;the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reportedassumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiasedprofessional analyses, opinion and conclusions;I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of thisreport and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved;I have performed no (or the specified) services, as an appraiser nor in any othercapacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to theparties involved with this assignment.My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reportingpredetermined results;My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon thedevelopment or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favorsthe cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of astipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to theintended use of this appraisal. 67
  151. 151. RENWICK ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL(Continued)My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has beenprepared, in conformity with Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.Daniel Connors, Richard Moule, John Baldino, Nancy Luciano provided significantprofessional assistance in the development and reporting of this report.Harry Renwick, CTASCGREA No. 42RG00097200 68
  152. 152. ADDENDUM
  153. 153. NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY Information Only - No Response Necessary At Renwick and Associates, protecting your privacy is very important. We wantyou to understand what information we collect and how we use it. We collect and use“nonpublic personal information” in order to provide our clients with verified marketinformation. We treat nonpublic personal information in accordance with our PrivacyPolicy.What Information We Collect and From Whom We Collect It We collect “Nonpublic personal information”. This is nonpublic information aboutyou that we obtain in connection with providing a service to you. We may collectnonpublic personal information from the following sources: Information we receive from you on applications or other forms; Information we receive from you or your representatives in interviews Information we receive from non-affiliated third partiesWhat Information We Disclose and To Whom We Disclose It We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about you to either ouraffiliates or non-affiliates without your express consent, except as permitted by law(see Security Procedures following). We may disclose nonpublic personalinformation we collect to persons, companies, or governmental entities that receivethe original or a copy of a report that we have performed. “Our affiliates” arecompanies with which we share common ownership.Our Security Procedures We restrict access to your nonpublic personal information and allow disclosuresto persons and companies only as permitted by law. We maintain physical,electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect your nonpublic personal information.Request for More Detailed Information If you would like a more detailed explanation of our information practices,please send your request in writing to Renwick and Associates 1000 S. Lenola Road, Bldg Two, Suite101 Maple Shade, NJ 08052
  154. 154. CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONSI assume no responsibility for matters legal in nature, nor do I render any opinion as tothe title, which is assumed to be marketable. The property is appraised as thoughunder responsible ownership and prudent management.The sketch in this report is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Ihave made no survey of the property.I am not required to give testimony or to appear in court by reason of this appraisalunless arrangements have been previously made.The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvementsapplies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for landand building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid ifso used.I have not been requested to make an investigation of the possible existence of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation or any potentially hazardous material used in themaintenance of the building. In addition, I have not investigated the possible existenceof toxic waste that may or may not have been stored on the property. This office is notqualified to render an opinion on such matters. I urge the client to retain an expert inthis field if he desires this type of information.Information, estimates, and opinions furnished and contained within this report wereobtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct, however, Iassume no responsibility for their accuracy.Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be conveyedto any person or entity, other than the appraisers or firms client, through advertising,solicitation materials, public relations, news, sales or other media without the writtenconsent and approval of the authors, particularly as to valuation conclusions, theidentity of the appraiser or firm with which the appraiser is connected, or any referenceto affiliation with any professional appraisal organization or designation. Further, theappraiser or firm assumes no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. Ifthis report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall make such partyaware of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment.The client is hereby informed that the property owner, in any transaction within theState of New Jersey, has responsibility under the Industrial Site Recovery Act (I.S.R.A.)to establish that toxic materials have not affected the subject or surrounding properties.Although a physical inspection of the subject property was made, I am not qualified torender an opinion on such matters. The client is put on notice that such an impact fromtoxic waste, unless otherwise considered within this appraisal, has not been taken intoaccount.

×