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

September 28, 2012 Richard P. Perry, Ed.D. Haddonfield Board of Education 1 Lincoln Avenue Haddonfield, NJ 08033 RE: 425 Kings Highway Block 13, Lot 25 & Block 14, Lot 2 Haddonfield, NJ Dear Dr. Perry: According to your request, I have made a detailed inspection and appraisal of the above captioned property for the purpose of developing an opinion of the market value, 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 and Limiting Conditions, which you are urged to read, it is my opinion that the estimated market value of the subject property as of August 23, 2012 is:

FIFTEEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($15,100,000) DOLLARS

This appraisal may not be used or relied upon by anyone other than the client, for any purpose whatsoever, without the express written consent of the appraiser. In conformance with the Ethics Rule of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Renwick & Associates has not performed any appraisal or appraisal consulting services for the subject property in the past three years immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, Harry Renwick, CTA SCGREA No. 42RG00097200

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT 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 ............................................................................ 67 ADDENDUM Notice of Privacy Policy Contingent and Limiting Conditions Residential Land Value Analysis Copy of Subject Deed Area Analysis Zoning Qualifications

i

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS EXTERIOR

View of the Bancroft building from the southerly side of Hopkins lane looking easterly. Showing the Southerly and Westerly elevations.

Partial view of the Bancroft building taken from the center of Hopkins Lane looking Northerly showing portions of the Southerly and Westerly Elevations.

ii

Partial view of the Bancroft building taken from the Southerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Northerly showing the Southwesterly elevation of a one story portion.

Partial rear view of the Bancroft building taken from the driveway showing various elevations looking westerly.

iii

Partial view of Bancroft building section known as the York Center taken from the driveway behind Bancroft looking Southerly showing a portion of the Northerly elevation.

View taken from the driveway near Bancroft Hall looking Easterly showing the Northerly elevation of the Charlotte residence building.

iv

View of the Charlotte residence taken from the driveway looking Northerly showing the Westerly and Southerly elevations.

View of the Charlotte residence building taken from the driveway near the Russell building looking Southerly showing the Northerly and Westerly elevations.

v

View taken from the Southwesterly elevation of lot 25 looking Northerly showing the Easterly elevation of the Cooley building.

View taken from the driveway near the Security building on lot 2 looking Southerly showing the Northerly elevation and front of the Cooley Hall.

vi

View taken from the Northerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Southwesterly showing the main parking area for Cooley Hall.

View taken from the driveway at the Southerly end of the CRC Complex looking Northeasterly showing a partial view of Charlotte Residence Hall on the left, Jenzia Residence Hall on the right and the Russell building to the rear.

vii

View taken from the driveway near Farrington Hall looking Northerly showing portions of the Jenzia, Charlotte and Linden buildings.

View taken from the Northerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Northerly showing typical asphalt paved driveway and stoned parking areas. The Security and Bancroft building are to the right out of the picture.

viii

View taken from the driveway located near the Security building looking Southwesterly showing typical driveway. Security building is on the left, Cooley building is in the distance.

View taken from the driveway located on lot 25 looking Northwesterly with partial views of the CRC Complex to the right and Bancroft Hall to the Left in the distance.

ix

View taken from the driveway near the CRC Complex looking Westerly showing the Easterly elevation of the Farrington Hall .

View taken from the main parking and drive area near Farrington looking Westerly showing the Southeasterly or front of Farrington Hall.

x

View taken from the Northerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Northerly showing the Southerly and Easterly elevations of a one car detached garage.

View taken of the remaining concrete pad from the former Greenhouse located on lot 25 just West of the Carriage House.

xi

View of Hopkins Lane looking Northwesterly. Cooley Hall is to the left and Bancroft Hall is to the right.

View of Hopkins Lane looking Southeast towards Kings Highway. Bancroft Hall is to the left and Cooley Hall is to the right.

xii

View of Hopkins Lane taken from the Northwesterly perimeter of the campus looking Southeasterly. Cooley Hall is visible to right Bancroft Hall is visible to the left.

View of Hopkins Lane taken near the Carriage House looking Southeasterly, partial view of the Lullworth building is to the right.

xiii

View of Kings Highway looking Easterly taken from the Lullworth Hall driveway entrance.

View taken from the Northerly side of Kings Highway near the intersection of Hopkins Lane and Kings Highway looking Northeasterly. Hopkins Lane is the left and as the entrance to the Bancroft campus.

xiv

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

xv

View taken from the driveway in front Stevenson Center looking Southwesterly showing the Northeasterly and Southeasterly elevations of the Linden #2 building.

View taken from the driveway to the South of the Linden #2 building looking Northerly showing the Southeasterly and Southwesterly elevations of Linden #2.

xvi

View taken from the Northern most point of the driveway on lot 2 looking Southerly showing the secured access to the Linden buildings. Linden #3 is in the foreground , Linden #1 in the background the left.

s View taken from a Northern most position on the lot 2 driveway looking Southwesterly showing the Northeasterly elevation of Linden #3. Partial view of Linden #1 is on the left.

xvii

View taken from the driveway near the Stevenson Center looking Northwesterly showing the Northeasterly elevation of Linden #1.

View taken from the Southerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Northerly showing the gravel and stone parking area located in the Northwest corner of lot 2.

xviii

View taken from the Easterly corner of lot 25 looking Westerly showing partial views of the Easterly and Southerly elevations of the Lullworth building.

View taken from the Westerly elevation of lot 25 looking Easterly showing the gravel and stone parking lot. Lullworth Hall is to the right in the background.

xix

View taken from the Southerly side of Hopkins Lane looking Southerly showing the Northerly and Westerly elevations of Lullworth.

View taken from the Northerly side of Kings Highway at the driveway entrance to Lullworth looking Northerly showing Southerly and Westerly elevations of Lullworth.

xx

View taken from the driveway just the West of the CRC Complex looking Easterly showing the Northerly and Westerly elevations of the Miriam Residence Hall.

View from the driveway located to the South of the CRC Complex looking Northerly showing the Southerly and Westerly elevations of the Miriam Residence building.

xxi

View taken from the driveway between the Stevenson Center and Linden #2 looking Southeasterly showing the Northwesterly elevation of the Russell Residence Hall.

View taken from the Northerly side of the driveway near the Northwesterly property line of lot 2 looking Southeasterly. Partially showing the security building in the forefront and the Bancroft Hall in the background.

xxii

View taken from the driveway near the Westerly elevation of lot 2 looking Southerly showing the Northerly and Westerly elevations of the security building.

View taken from the driveway located at the Westerly end of lot 2 looking Southwesterly showing the Northerly elevation of the security building and one of the Westerly elevations of Bancroft Hall.

xxiii

View taken from the driveway located between Stevenson Center and Linden #2 looking Northwesterly showing a typical asphalt driveway and stone and gravel parking areas.

xxiv

INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS

BANCROFT HALL

Views of basement area.

xxv

Additional views of basement area.

xxvi

View of entry area and corridor.

View of typical classroom.

xxvii

View of mechanical area in basement.

View of restroom.

xxviii

View of typical office.

View of bullpen area.

xxix

CARRIAGE HOUSE

View of tongue and groove lath and beamed ceiling

View of spiral wrought iron stairway to attic area.

xxx

Views of classroom shop area.

xxxi

View of small restroom.

View of storage attic area.

xxxii

Additional view of storage attic area.

xxxiii

CHARLOTTE AND JENZIA BUILDINGS

View of sitting and recreation area.

View of kitchen area.

xxxiv

View of laundry area.

View of dining area.

xxxv

View of typical bedrooms.

View of typical restroom

xxxvi

View of mechanical room.

xxxvii

COOLEY HALL View of front entry and foyer area.

View of typical corridor

xxxviii

Views of kitchen area.

xxxix

Additional views of kitchen area.

xl

View of typical restroom.

View of combination gymnasium/cafeteria area.

xli

View of typical classroom.

View of mechanical area.

xlii

View of typical office area.

View of home economics room.

xliii

View of basement area with heating and fire suppression systems.

Interior view of roof structure and support system-storage attic area.

xliv

View of 2nd floor conference room.

xlv

CRAFT HOUSE

View of two-fixture restroom.

View of one of two offices.

xlvi

View of basement water heater and boiler.

xlvii

FARRINGTON

Views of lower level mechanical area.

xlviii

View of typical classroom.

View of typical corridor.

xlix

View of office.

View of entry and foyer area.

l

View of typical restroom.

View of conference room.

li

GREENHOUSE

View of botanical classroom.

View of mechanical area in basement.

lii

Additional view of mechanical area in basement.

View from entrance into floral classroom.

liii

View of floral classroom.

liv

LINDEN BUILDINGS

View of utility room.

View of kitchen.

lv

View of laundry room

View of restroom.

View of additional restroom.

lvi

View of conference room.

lvii

View of typical bedroom.

lviii

RUSSELL HOUSE

View of living room.

View of kitchen.

lix

View of typical bedroom.

View of typical restroom.

lx

View of basement storage area.

View of basement restroom.

View of basement workshop area.

lxi

View of mechanical area.

lxii

MARIAN BUILDING

View of typical restroom.

View of very small kitchen.

View of living room.

lxiii

View of typical bedroom.

lxiv

View of boiler room.

lxv

STEVENSON CENTER

View of boiler room.

View of typical ground floor office.

View of restroom.

lxvi

View of upstairs office.

lxvii

LULLWORTH HOUSE

Views of basement area.

View of heating system in basement.

lxviii

View of electrical system in basement.

lxix

View of boiler in basement.

View of first floor powder room.

lxx

View of lobby area on first floor.

lxxi

View of first floor front office.

View of additional powder room on first floor.

lxxii

View of first floor executive office.

View of ceiling of above executive office.

lxxiii

View meeting room.

View of additional executive office.

lxxiv

View of large meeting room with a fireplace.

View of kitchen/break room area.

lxxv

View of copy room.

View of smaller office.

lxxvi

View of staircase to the second floor.

View of landing area between first and second floor.

lxxvii

View of second floor restroom.

View of additional second floor restroom.

lxxviii

View of stained glass window.

View of additional stained glass window.

lxxix

View of access to exterior fire escape.

View of third floor office.

lxxx

View of porch area off of preceding office.

View of stairway leading up to third floor.

1

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS LOCATION: 425 Kings Highway Block 13, Lot 25 & Block 14, Lot 2 Haddonfield, NJ

ZONING: R2, Residential

DATE OF INSPECTION: August 23, 2012

EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL: August 23, 2012

HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Institutional Use

TYPE AND SIZE OF IMPROVEMENTS: Office, Classroom, and Residence use buildings totaling 125,785± square feet in 15 buildings

TYPE OF VALUE REPORTED: Market Value

LAND 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/A

FINAL VALUE OPINION: $15,100,000

2

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is known as The Bancroft School, located at 425 Kings

Highway and is further identified as Block 13, Lot 25 and Block 14, Lot 2, on the

official 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 of

the 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 reader

is advised that the subject appraisal represents a self-contained appraisal report.

PROPERTY INSPECTION The subject property was initially inspected on August 23, 2012, by Harry

Renwick, Daniel Connors, Richard Moule, John Baldino and Nancy Luciano of

Renwick and Associates. Additional information was acquired through a

continuing inspection on August 24, 2012. The property owner’s official

representative, Stephen Bruce, Vice President of Strategic Planning Special Project

Management for Bancroft School, was present during the inspection.

3

DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and

open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each

acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by

undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a

specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions

whereby:

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; and

5. 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.

4

SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL The scope of the appraisal requires that the appraisal conform to the

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (copyright 2012 by the

Appraisal Foundation) including the Ethics, Competency Rules, and Scope of

Work Rules.

The subject appraisal involves developing an opinion of market value. This

requires, 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, of Renwick and Associates, provided significant professional assistance in the development, analysis, and reporting of the value conclusion(s).

5

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

6

SUMMARY OF AREA ANALYSIS Region

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 town's 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.

7

DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD The immediate subject neighborhood is physically defined as being bound

by a branch of the Cooper River and the Cherry Hill Township municipal

boundary 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 commercial

properties to the west.

The preceding paragraph describes the physical neighborhood; however, the

competitive economic neighborhood from which data are researched within this

appraisal report includes other areas defined as being economically comparable,

superior, or inferior with Haddonfield Borough. Appropriate locational

adjustments are made in our analysis where considered necessary.

Because of limited land area and the highly built up nature of Haddonfield

Borough, the trend over the years has been to purchase properties as currently

improved to either raze for new uses or retrofit for more modern uses. The

significant historic nature of many improvements within the borough tends to

place strong restrictions against said conversions.

The aforementioned trend has been over recent years (since late 2006) in

concert with the current recessionary and declining real estate trends. Despite

the national recessionary real estate trends affecting the region, a rather strong

demand for real estate locations remains evident within the borough.

8

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 �

9

DELINEATION OF TITLE Block 13, Lot 25 and Block 14, Lot 2 Deed Book and Page: 5269 / 0445 Date of Conveyance: November 4, 2002 Consideration: $1.00 Grantor: Bancroft Neurohealth Grantee: Bancroft Neurohealth

Block 25, Lot 13 Deed Book and Page: 2024 / 80-82 Date of Conveyance: June 9, 1956 Consideration: N/A Grantor: Jenzia C. Cooley Grantee: Bancroft School

Block 14, Lot 2 Deed Book and Page: 690 / 381 & C Date of Conveyance: November 22, 1928 Consideration: N/A Grantor: Bancroft Training School Grantee: Bancroft School

A limited review of the public records reveals no other conveyances involving

the subject property within the past three years. (See Contingent and Limiting

Conditions)

ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Block 13, Lot 25 Land: $3,420,000 Improvements: $ 960,500 Total: $4,380,500

2012 Taxes: Tax exempt

Block 14, Lot 2 Land: $6,188,400 Improvements: $1,623,600 Total: $7,812,000

2012 Taxes: Tax exempt

2012 Tax Rate: $2.642 per $100 of assessed value 2012 Ratio of Assessed Value to "true value": 100.87%

Total Assessed Value of Subject Properties: $12,192,500

10

ZONING The subject property is currently zoned R-2, Residential. Following is an

analysis of the relevant zoning information and a conclusion regarding the

subject’s compliance or lack of compliance with current zoning. A more detailed

description 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 lot

size 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 subject

property. The current use of the subject property is a pre-existing non-conforming

use. A survey was provided, and it appears the subject property conforms to all

bulk yard and area requirements.

The subject property has, and continues to be, the focus of several

redevelopment plans. In 2006, the Haddonfield Borough Commissioners approved

a resolution declaring the Bancroft site a redevelopment zone. Bancroft filed suit

against the town. In February 2007, the Commissioners approved a resolution for

dismissal of the suit brought by Bancroft. The terms of the agreement allow

Bancroft to re-file the suit at a later time after the Borough formally enacts a

redevelopment plan for the site. No indication of a zoning change to the subject

property was mentioned in the June 7, 2011 Redevelopment Principles document.

No change in zoning is anticipated.

11

ZONING MAP

12

DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT LAND The subject property is bisected by Hopkins Lane into two separate tax

block and lot parcels. Block 13 Lot 25 is located fronting along the Northwesterly

side of Kings Highway East and also fronting along the Southwesterly side of

Hopkins Lane. This parcel has 896.94’ of primary (principal access) frontage along

Hopkins Lane and 295’ of secondary access and frontage along Kings Highway

East and contains 6.072 acres of land. The second parcel, Block 14 Lot 2 has

1,214.85’ of primary access frontage along Hopkins Lane and approximately

567.88’ of secondary exposure frontage along Kings Highway East and contains

13.151 acres. The combined acreage of the two parcels is 19.22 gross acres,

according to the Boundary Survey Plan, dated October 9, 2002, by Schoor

DePalma. The first parcel gently slopes downward from a southeasterly to

northwesterly direction. The second parcel also slopes downward gradually in a

southeasterly to northwesterly direction and also a northeasterly direction.

On-site improvements include driveways, asphalt paving, storm and

sanitary sewer laterals, concrete curbing; and crushed stone parking areas. At

least a portion of the sanitary sewer is a forced-main feed.

Off-site improvements include asphalt-paved, 2-lane, 109’-wide Kings

Highway 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 gas

service; stone curbing; brick sidewalks; overhead electric, telephone and cable

service; and, street lights.

According to (F.E.M.A.) National Flood Insurance Rate Map Community

Panel Number 34007C0044E, dated September 28, 2007, the subject property is

located within Zone "X ", which is low flood risk. A portion of block 14 lot 2 is

contained within the high flood risk and moderate flood risk areas.

13

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

Freshwater Wetlands Maps are not a definitive determinant of wetlands affecting

the subject property. It is included for information purposes only, as a general

estimate of wetlands impact. (The client is referred to the Contingent and Limiting

Conditions contained within this appraisal report.)

The Schoor DePalma Boundary Survey provides specific wetlands

delineation of the subject property. The subject site is affected by 1% to 2%

wetlands.

14

BOUNDARY SURVEY

15

SUBJECT TAX MAP Tax map area is not accurate, not employed as a basis for valuation.

16

FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

17

NJDEP FRESHWATER WETLANDS MAP For exhibit purposes only.

18

DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT IMPROVEMENTS

Lullworth House The Lullworth House is a two-and-one-half story, Victorian style residential dwelling building constructed circa 1860. The building was subsequently converted to administrative offices in support of the current education use. The building features a stone foundation, an open ‘Widow’s Watch’, three open porches, stained-glass and original double-hung wood windows, decorative slate and raised-seam metal roofs, fireplaces, original ornamental wood trim finishes on both the interior and exterior of the building. Portions of the building have central air conditioning while others are serviced by window units. Heat is a combination of gas-fired forced warm air and oil-fired hot water radiators. The first floor includes 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 to create work areas. A Pullman-style lunch kitchen is available to employees. The second 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 exterior staircase acts as a fire escape, and a wooden handicap ramp provides access to the first floor.

As previously mentioned, the entire building was converted into office facilities many 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 2,568 square 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 and design features. The Haddonfield Borough Master Plan calls for future historic preservation of this architecturally significant structure.

Carriage House The Carriage House is one and one-half story building constructed circa 1900± that was converted from a carriage house into a classroom for training custodial students. The first floor of 1814 square feet also includes a storage area and rest room, concrete slab floor, and ceramic coated brick walls. An interior spiral staircase 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, and decorative slate roofing. It is serviced by overhead electric, central air and oil heat. The building is in overall average condition.

19

The Haddonfield Borough Master Plan calls for future historic preservation of this architecturally significant structure.

Education Greenhouse The Education Greenhouse is a one and one-half story, cape cod style building with brick foundation, painted clapboard siding and metal roof. The first floor contains 397 square feet and the second is attic space. The building is estimated to be one hundred years old and is serviced by overhead electric. Access to the basement is via exterior Bilco doors. The basement is six feet high with poured concrete floor, and houses the water heater and oil-fired boiler heating system. Attached to the building is a small, operational greenhouse, constructed with wood frame and clear plastic panels.

This building is used for florist career training and is in overall fair condition as the 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 also designated for historic preservation under the Haddonfield Borough Master Plan.

Foundation of former Greenhouse On the campus diagram, there is a building that located between the Carriage House and Cooley Hall that was a greenhouse but no longer exists. The concrete pad for the main part of the house and the three walkways for the greenhouse do exist.

Cooley Hall Cooley Hall is a one-story, 36,000± square foot education building containing classrooms and offices. It was originally built in 1963 with concrete slab floor, brick and block walls, aluminum frame single pane, fixed and tilt-out glass windows, painted fascia, painted gypsum type soffits, and gable-style roof finished with slag and stone. A small second floor conference room is located near the main entrance. The roof is undergoing repairs in failing areas.

A newer section, constructed of decorative cinder block, steel bar joist and deck roof system, houses a combination gymnasium and cafeteria with 28’ height, and adjacent 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 lighting and rough cast ceiling. Offices have similar finish but with carpeting and upgraded doors. The building is wet-sprinklered throughout, with a fire department connection located near the main entrance.

Central air conditioning units exist, but at least one window unit exists in each room.

20

The basement boiler room is accessed from the main hall, and houses the quick recovery water heater, two Bock 241EASME oil-fired boilers, 400amp electrical panels, and the forced main pumping system, and a sanitary sewer collection cistern, which is pumped from that location into the sanitary sewer system.

Cooley Hall is in overall average to fair condition.

Bancroft Hall Bancroft Hall was originally constructed of brick and frame in 1954 for use as a dormitory. Several additions have been constructed over time and the resulting footprint is highly irregular. The basement contains 1633 square feet and houses the 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 and offices; and is finished with vinyl tile floors in classrooms, carpet in offices, rubberoid baseboard, painted sheetrock and plaster walls and ceilings, ceiling affixed fluorescent lighting, and fully sprinklered. The second floor is primarily used for offices with the same finishes as the first floor and contains 7,485 square feet. 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 pane windows and vinyl double-hung replacement windows, and painted, or, aluminum covered soffits and fascia. The gable-style roof system is covered with three tab fiberglass shingles.

Bancroft Hall is in overall fair condition, and suffers from functional obsolescence due to its highly irregular layout and traffic pattern. Future purchasers of the property would mostly likely consider razing this improvement.

Farrington The Farrington Building is a three-story, 19,132 square foot, masonry building constructed in the mid-70’s as a dormitory. Each level contains 6,377 square feet with the lower level being at and partially below grade. The exterior is brick with aluminum frame, fixed and tilt-in awning type windows, and gable-style roof with selvage roofing. The main access is at the middle floor via slate steps or a wooden handicap ramp with newer Trex decking.

The building was converted to classrooms and offices.

Typical primary interior finishes include vinyl tile covered slab floors, rubberoid baseboard, painted block walls, t-bar suspended ceilings with affixed fluorescent lighting. Office upgrades include carpeting and refractor light finishes. The conference room highlights include a full brick hearth with granite mantle and oak beam ceiling. Gas fired boilers supply heat and hot water.

The building is in generally average condition.

21

A detached 12’x20’ wood framed garage is located near Farrington and is in average condition.

CRC Complex The four-building CRC Complex was constructed in 1976 for use as residences. The buildings are in fair to average condition with some recent updating but showing signs of wear and tear.

Charlotte and Jenzia Buildings (CRC Complex) The Charlotte and Jenzia buildings each contain 3,600 square feet of living space and are mirror-image layouts. Constructed of masonry and frame, the one-story, multi-tenant residence buildings have pent and shed style roof systems covered with selvage roofing. Exterior finishes are stucco and vinyl siding; and interior is painted sheetrock and hard vinyl wainscoting.

Each building includes an attached laundry room with outside access to 4 washers and 4 dryers.

The boiler room houses an oil-fired, four-zone, Weil-McLain boiler to provide both domestic hot water and baseboard heat. The building has central air conditioning supplemented with through-the-wall units.

Interior layout includes: centrally located carpeted living room; full-size kitchen with vinyl flooring, dishwasher, stove, Formica tops, and center island; and dining area. Hallways lead to 4 paired bedrooms, each pair adjoined by jack-and-jill bathrooms. Lighting is provided by a mix of ceiling-affixed fluorescent and track style. 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 Charlotte Building, with the exception of a gable and hip style roof systems. Lighting is provided by a mix of ceiling-affixed fluorescent and track style.

The basement of Russell Building includes a storage room and office/classroom with vinyl tile flooring over concrete slab. The walls are combination of sheet rock and 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 and storage area for certain supplies. Painted cinder block walls, partially finished sheetrock walls and ceilings with suspended fluorescent lighting is the main finish in the shop area. The boiler room houses a gas-fired boiler, 80 gallon electric water heater and 800 amp electric service panel.

22

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 very little counter space and cabinets, and appear to be original.

The boiler room is accessed from an exterior door. Each apartment has its own zone. A 100 amp electrical panel is also located in the boiler room.

Stevenson Center The Stevenson Center is a Cape-Cod style building with 1500 square feet of finished interior space used as offices. The interior finish includes painted sheetrock walls, t-bar suspended ceiling with recessed fluorescent lighting, carpet and vinyl flooring and radiator heat. Each floor has a bathroom.

The exterior is wood frame double hung windows, vinyl siding and three-tab fiberglass roof shingles. A fixed steel fire escape is in place to the second floor and the building is not sprinkled.

The Stevenson Center is in average overall condition.

Linden #1,#2,#3 The Linden complex includes three virtually identical, 3,850± square foot, one-story frame construction residence buildings built in 1994. The complex has a central courtyard, enclosed by six-foot high board-on-board wood fencing. The secured courtyard and buildings require electronic pass keys for access, and closed-circuit cameras provided additional monitoring capabilities.

The exterior is vinyl siding, full-egress vinyl double-hung windows and hip-style roof 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 water heaters; central air and forced-air heat. The mechanicals are located in a separate utility 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 glass observation windows; conference room with two fixture bath; and two session rooms 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 building with clapboard siding and gable roof, and is attached to a one and one-half story stone building with gable roof. It is used for the campus security team and for a mailroom, respectively. The mailroom section was inaccessible at the time of the

23

inspection. A small basement in the stone portion houses a newer oil-fired heater and water heater. The roofing is newer fiberglass dimensional shingles.

Interior finish includes low-grade commercial carpet, with wood paneled walls and ceilings and a two fixture bath. Mechanicals include oil-fired hot water radiator heat and window air conditioners. The building is in overall fair condition.

It is our observation from inspecting the buildings located on the subject premises that most of the buildings designated to onsite residential housing and those converted from dormitory to office or security use would most likely be considered for removal by future institutional type users.

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use is defined as: "The reasonably probable and legal use

of vacant land or an improved property that is legally permissible, physically

possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible and that results in the

highest value."5

Four 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. For

example, a single-family dwelling on a busy highway in a commercial zone may

have as its highest and best use a commercial site. The existing improvement

may be retained and renovated or demolished to make way for construction of a

modern, efficient commercial building. The criteria are applied first to the site as

vacant 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 highest

and best use decision.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � " � # # � � � � # "

43

HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS A VACANT SITE

Legally Permissible Use

The subject's permissible uses and area regulations are documented within

the "Zoning" section of the report.

Although this is an analysis of the site as vacant, the fact that the subject is

currently improved with a preexisting, non-conforming use cannot be ignored. A

premium 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 information

available. As mentioned in the “Description of the Subject Land”, the subject

property is affected by the presence of freshwater wetlands. No other

commissions, such as a Historic Commission, currently exercise zoning controls

over the property. The redevelopment plan, however, states the Lullworth

Building and Carriage House are subject to adaptive re-use.

Common restrictions for utility easements may exist; however, they do not

appear to adversely affect development of any legally permitted use.

The subject property is currently located within a designated redevelopment

zone; however, it continues to be described as within the R2-Residential Zone on

the official zoning map of the Borough of Haddonfield. No evidence of imminent

change to the current zoning is apparent.

Physically Possible Use

The subject's size, topography, shape, frontage along paved and dedicated

streets, and access to all public utilities impose few limitations on its ability to be

developed for the permitted residential or public (as defined in the zoning) uses.

The cost for grading and constructing a foundation on the site would be

typical of other sites within the neighborhood. The load-bearing capabilities of the

top- and sub-soils are not known but are assumed to be sufficient to support at

least the types and sizes of buildings within the subject and surrounding

neighborhoods.

44

The subject is located in Flood Zone "X ", which is low flood risk. A portion

of block 14, lot 2 is contained within the high flood risk and moderate flood risk

areas. 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 institutional

use is consistent with other uses in the subject’s competitive economic

neighborhood. 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 subject

property. Based on a review of residential market data and an interview with Mr.

Tom Colavecchio, Haddonfield Borough Tax Assessor, it was concluded that

potential residential developers of the subject property would not pay a per acre

price 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 of

Class 2, single family, residential land assessments for 34 properties sold between

January 1, 2010 and August 22, 2012 having lot sizes of 20,000 square feet and

larger throughout the borough has resulted in an average per acre assessment of

$679,000. This figure was derived by taking the 34 land assessments, dividing

each by its percentage of an acre, summing the per-acre values and dividing the

total by the number of sales. The $679,000 per acre figure represents the average

value that would be paid on a per acre basis for a fully approved and fully

improved residential site within the borough. Residential developers typically pay

50% 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 market6,

would be willing to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $340,000 per acre for

the subject property, or approximately $6,500,000.

6 According to recent statistics, the single family residential market throughout the state and nation suffers from excess inventory, tight and restrictive lending policies, a reduction in per capita disposable income, and a 30% to 40% reduction in values since 2007.

45

Another economic feasibility test was applied to continuation of the existing

institutional, pre-existing, non-conforming use. A review of market data within

this arena has indicated strong demand and expansion of institutional uses within

southern New Jersey. This trend appears to be supported by demand for

establishment of private educational facilities, i.e. Charter schools, private

religious affiliated educational facilities, universities, satellite campuses, and

medical educational facilities. The catalyst for this demand seems to be

principally related to the amalgamation of the Rowan/Rutgers University efforts

within Camden County in combination with aggressive expansion and new

construction of competing hospitals within the southern New Jersey area. Other

demand is created through the desire to establish charter schools and private

educational facilities.

A review of recent sales activity within the institutional marketplace (the

most relevant of which have been analyzed within this report), indicates a merged

price per acre inclusive of improvements far exceeding that which could be

produced by single family residential development (the only other viable permitted

use). The most financially feasible use of the subject property, therefore, as of the

effective date of appraisal is for continuation of the existing, non-conforming

institutional use.

Maximally Productive/Highest and Best Use

After considering the legally permissible, physically possible, and financially

feasible uses of the subject property, the highest, best, and most profitable use of

the land as vacant is development with a non-conforming, institutional use

considering the Borough’s long history of granting variances to the site or equally

for a municipal use, which is a permitted use in the R-2 zone. Either one of these

uses is compatible with the adjacent use to the southwest, which is a public high

school.

46

HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IMPROVED Legally Permissible Use

The subject property is currently improved with an educational institutional

use. 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 zoning

ordinance.

As mentioned in the “Zoning” section, the subject lot currently conforms to

all bulk, yard, and area requirements.

Because the existing use is pre-existing and non-conforming, it would

require 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 one

other economic use, single family residential development. Both the existing and

permitted residential use of the subject property would conform well to the

physical characteristics of the subject site and adjoining uses. Considering the

excessive age of the improvements, ideally, if those improvements were being

constructed today, a developer would correct the functional obsolescence and

physical depreciation currently present.

It is physically possible to expand the existing improvements (subject to a

zoning variance).

Financially Feasible Use

The analysis of the site as vacant concluded that the continuation of the

pre-existing, non-conforming institutional use would produce the highest return

to the land. Extensive review of institutional-type purchases indicates that buyers

of these facilities tend to have various motivations. Many of these type buyers

retrofit or expand the current improvements on the property while at the same

time eliminating improvements that are functionally obsolete or do not meet their

overall plan for the property. A certain percentage of purchasers retain a minimal

amount of existing improvements, demolish what is left, and construct a new

institutional use. The market data tend to indicate that all of these purchasers,

47

despite their differing motivations, buy properties based principally on a per acre

basis inclusive of existing improvements. This conclusion has been reached

through a review of numerous sales of these type properties, and it has been

discovered that a high degree of compatibility exists on a merged acre price basis

regardless 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 of

value relative to the subject property is gained through continuation of the

existing institutional use. This use may legally be continued as long as a future

buyer's plans tend to be highly compatible with the use that previously utilized

the subject facility. The use physically conforms well to the subject site, and it is

this use that will economically generate the highest return to the land.

Based on this analysis, the highest, best, and most profitable use of the

subject property, as currently improved, is the continuation of the current pre-

existing, non-conforming, institutional use.

48

APPROACHES TO VALUE All three recognized approaches to value are considered: the sales

comparison, cost, and income approaches.

The sales comparison approach is based on the premise that an informed

purchaser would pay no more for a property than the cost of acquiring an existing

property with the same utility. The approach involves researching recent sales of

competitive properties, adjusting them to the subject property for items of

difference and reconciling the resultant indicators into an opinion of value. It is

applicable when an active market provides sufficient quantities of reliable data

which can be verified from authoritative sources. The approach is necessary to

produce credible assignment results.

The cost approach is based on the premise that an informed purchaser

would pay no more than the cost of producing a substitute property with the same

utility as the subject property. It is particularly applicable when the property

being appraised involves new or relatively new improvements that represent the

highest and best use of the land or when unique or specialized improvements are

located on the site and for which there exist no comparable properties in the

market. It involves estimating reproduction cost new of the subject

improvements; deducting estimated accrued depreciation in order to arrive at the

depreciated cost of the improvements; then, adding the estimated value of the

land in order to arrive at an indicator of value. The approach is not necessary to

produce credible assignment results due to the difficulty in accurately estimating

accrued depreciation.

The income approach converts anticipated benefits (dollar income or

amenities) 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 worth

figure through the capitalization process. The approach is not necessary to

produce credible assignment results due to the fact that institutional uses are not

typically leased and rental income is not the typical motivation of the user. For

this reason there was insufficient arm’s length market rental data available in

support of this approach.

49

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The sales comparison approach is used to develop an opinion of market

value by comparing the subject property to similar and competing properties that

have recently sold. The theory is that the market value of a property is related to

the prices of similar and competitive properties.

The sales are adjusted to the subject for differences such as the estate

transferred (fee simple or some fraction of it), financing considerations, motivation

of 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 front

foot, or the entire price. In the case of the subject, price per acre inclusive of

improvements is used to arrive at an indicator of value.

Of the institutional sales researched, the following 4 sales have been verified

and 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, 2012

inclusive.

A grid and an analysis containing narrative explanations of the reasons and

support for the adjustments follow the description of the sales.

50

COMPARABLE LAND SALE Sale 1 Identification No.3,177 Location: 28 E. Main Street Block 4605, Lot 22 (additional lots 10-13, 23, and 24) Moorestown Township, NJ Sale Price: $4,000,000 Date of Sale: 10/15/08 Deed Book: 6605, page 215 Grantor: Friends Boarding Home of Haddonfield Grantee: Moorestown Friends School Association Land Description: 4.14 acres Financing: Cash to Seller Zoning: CRO front commercial office; R2 rear Off-site Improvements: Overhead electric; natural gas; storm sewer; public water; public sanitary sewer; two-lane roadway; street lights; concrete curb and sidewalk On-site Improvements: Single lane asphalt-paved road surface Verified With: Lisa Carbone Warren, Director of Finance, Moorestown Friends School, 09/21/12 Indicates: $966,184 per acre inclusive of buildings Remarks: 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 containing 24,900 square feet; Lot 23 - 36 E Main St - 2-story dwelling containing 1,500 square feet; Lot 24 - 38 E Main St - 2-story dwelling containing 1,700 square Feet; Lot 12 - 41 E Prospect St - split-level design containing 2,717 square feet converted into 3 apartments; and, Lot 10 - vacant land on Prospect Ave The subject property was marketed by William Pounds, a commercial broker. Renwick and Associates completed an appraisal for the grantor, with an effective date of November 12, 2007; concluding to a $5,000,000 value. An appraisal was completed on behalf of the future grantee and was used to negotiate to a final sale

51

price of $4,000,000 The grantee operates the Moorestown Friends School on the adjacent properties. The properties at 38 and 36 E Main Street were sold in 2010 and 2011 respectively. According to the Moorestown Friends website, the Greenleaf building was converted from the boarding house into eight classrooms, a music suite and choral sectionals rehearsal room. The building opened in May 2012 and is now known as Hartman Hall. The transaction was considered to be arm's length.

COMPARABLE LAND SALE Sale 1 Identification No.3,177

28 E. Main Street Block 4605, Lot 22 (additional lots 10-13, 23, and 24)

Moorestown Township, NJ

52

53

COMPARABLE LAND SALE Sale 2 Identification No.3,180 Location: 83 Bayard Lane Block 16.01, Lot 1 Princeton Boro, NJ Sale Price: $15,000,000 Date of Sale: 04/29/10 Deed Book: 6053, page 294 Grantor: Princeton Healthcare System Grantee: The Trustees of Princeton University Land Description: 9.06 acres Financing: Cash Zoning: R1 Off-site Improvements: Underground electric; natural gas; storm sewer; public water; public sanitary sewer; two-lane roadway; street lights; concrete curb and sidewalk On-site Improvements: None Verified With: Pam Hersh, Princeton Healthcare, 09/13/12 Indicates: $1,655,629 per acre Remarks: 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 for the 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 been removed and the lot is currently vacant. John Zeigler, Director of Real Estate Development, Princeton University, stated that the university intended to demolish the existing improvements and re-develop the site with graduate student apartment housing. The transaction was considered to be arm's-length between unrelated parties.

54

COMPARABLE LAND SALE Sale 2 Identification No.3,180

83 Bayard Lane Block 16.01, Lot 1 Princeton Boro, NJ

55

56

COMPARABLE LAND SALE Sale 3 Identification No.3,182 Location: Eden Way Block 2, Lot 2,3,6,7, and 9 West Windsor Twp., NJ Sale Price: $3,490,000 Date of Sale: 09/30/09 Deed Book: 6019, page 478 Grantor: Eden Institute Foundation Grantee: The Trustees of Princeton University Land Description: 3.0669 acres Financing: Cash Zoning: Lots 2 and 3 - ROM-1, Research, Office, Limited Manufacturing; Lots 6, 7, and 9 R-2, Residential Off-site Improvements: Overhead electric; natural gas; storm sewer; public water; public sanitary sewer; six-lane divided highway; street lights On-site Improvements: None Verified With: Christopher Tarr, attorney for grantor, 09/14/12 Indicates: $1,137,956.89 per acre inclusive of improvements Remarks: According to Christopher Tarr, appraisals were completed and used to establish the sale price. Like the grantor, Princeton University utilizes the 17,704 square foot school building on lot 3 for autistic and challenged students. Lots 2 and 6 have 1 story dwellings totaling 2464 square feet. Lot 7 is vacant land. Lot 9 has a 1248 square foot building formerly used for students that now appears unused. The attorney stated that the grantee helped them obtain property for a new school in the Forrestal Village areas and a mortgage for that property. The transaction was considered to be arm's-length between unrelated parties.

57

COMPARABLE LAND SALE Sale 3 Identification No.3,182

Eden Way Block 2, Lot 2,3,6,7, and 9

West Windsor Twp., NJ

58

59

60

COMPARABLE LAND SALE Sale 4 Identification No.3,187 Location: 420 Turnersville Road Block 12302, Lot 1 (part of) Gloucester Township, NJ Sale Price: $20,282,000 Date of Sale: 11/09/11 Deed Book: 9497, page 1018 Grantor: Camden County Health Services Grantee: Camden County College Land Description: 40 acres Financing: No OTB

Zoning: IN - Institutional District Off-site Improvements: Overhead Electric, Natural Gas, Storm Sewer, Public Water, Public Sanitary Sewer, 2 Lane Roadway, Street Lights On-site Improvements: Asphalt parking and drives; detention basin; concrete pad; Overhead and Underground electric Verified With: Dominic J Vesper Jr., Deputy County Administrator Indicates: $507,050.00 per acre inclusive of improvements Remarks: The property, a portion of the Lakeland Complex, contained the Camden County Emergency Training Facility for many years. Older improvements included the burn, ladder training, and control tower buildings used specifically for live fire training; a 4,290 square foot service garage used for storage and repair of emergency equipment; and the “Old Academic Building”, a 7,071 square foot building containing classrooms and assembly areas (a former commercial laundry built in the 1920's, converted in 1989). In 2009, a new one-story, 36,887± square foot building, the “Emergency Training Center” was constructed. This building contains college-style classrooms, theatre-style assembly area, cafeteria, garage/equipment training area, and many offices. Most offices were utilized by county fire marshal and emergency training officials and personnel. The 40 acre

61

portion of lot 1 (180 acres total) was subdivided and sold. The site size of 40 acres was created to allow for the safety zone surrounding the fire training buildings where controlled fires are used for training. Camden County sought to reduce its debt level through liquidation of various assets and at the same time eliminating payroll related to certain county level positions. Camden County College, at the time of this transaction, was in expansion mode and had the resources to purchase the property, as well as continue the emergency training programs.

COMPARABLE LAND SALE Sale 4 Identification No.3,187 Photo taken winter of 2011/2012

420 Turnersville Road Block 12302, Lot 1 (part of) Gloucester Township, NJ

62

63

64

SALES COMPARATIVE GRID Sale No. 1 - 3177 2 - 3180 3 - 3182 4 - 3187

Sale Price 4,000,000$ $15,000,000 $3,490,000 $20,200,000

Price per unit 966,184$ 1,655,629$ 1,137,957$ 505,000$

Unit Adjusted 966,184$ 1,655,629$ 1,137,957$ 505,000$

Estate Conveyed 0% 0% 0% 0%

Adjusted Price 966,184$ 1,655,629$ 1,137,957$ 505,000$

Financing 0% 0% 0% 0%

Conditions of Sale 0% 0% 0% 0%

Adjusted Price 966,184$ 1,655,629$ 1,137,957$ 505,000$

Expenditures 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 11/9/2011

Date of Sale -30% -10% -20% -5%

Adjusted Price 676,329$ 1,490,066$ 910,366$ 479,750$

Location 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$ 647,663$

Total Absolute Adjust. 50% 35% 55% 40%

Correlation of Sales Unadjusted Mean: $1,006,192 Median: $1,052,070 Range: $1,150,629 Adjusted Mean: $724,503 Median: $619,700 Range: $576,487

The unadjusted central tendencies indicate a per acre value of approximately $1,000,000, while the adjusted central tendencies indicate a per acre value closer to $725,000.

Greatest weight is given to the indicator derived from Sales No. 2 and 4, the sales with the lowest total absolute adjustment and the sales of properties with site sizes considered most competitive with the subject. Next greatest weight is given to the indicator derived from Sales No. 1 and 3 respectively, the sales with the next lowest total absolute adjustments. The weighted per acre value is slightly higher than the adjusted mean.

65

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 SALES

Sale 1 Subject is inferior for Date of Sale due to declining market conditions since the date of the transaction; for Physical since larger sites, such as the subject, tend to sell for a lower price based on a per acre unit intensity. The subject requires forced-main sewage; however, this adjustment was offset by sale site’s irregular shape.

Subject and sale are comparable for all other adjustments.

Sale 2 Subject is inferior for Date of Sale due to declining market conditions since the date of the transaction; for Location since Haddonfield is slightly economically inferior to Princeton; for Physical since larger sites, such as the subject, tend to sell for a lower price based on a per acre unit intensity. The subject requires forced-main sewage.

Subject and sale are comparable for all other adjustments.

Sale 3 Subject is inferior for Date of Sale due to declining market conditions since the date of the transaction; for Physical since larger sites, such as the subject, tend to sell for a lower price based on a per acre unit intensity and the subject requires forced-main sewage.

Subject and sale are comparable for all other adjustments.

Sale 4 Subject is superior for Location as it is in an ecnomically superior location; for Physical since smaller sites, such as the subject, tend to sell for higher price based on a per acre unit intensity. The superior Physical adjustment is somewhat offset by the fact that the subject property requires forced-main sewage:

Subject is inferior for date of sale due to declining market conditions since the date of transaction.

Subject and sale are comparable for all other adjustments.

66

FINAL VALUE OPINION Final Reconciliation

Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $15,100,000

Indicated Value by Cost Approach: $N/A

Indicated Value by Income Approach: $N/A

Greatest weight is given to the indicator derived from the sales comparison

approach since it is the only approach applicable.

The estimated market value of the subject property, therefore, as of August

23, 2012, is:

FIFTEEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($15,100,000) DOLLARS

67

RENWICK & ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL

I 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, NJ

AND AM OF THE OPINION THAT ON THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2012, THE ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS:

FIFTEEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($15,100,000) DOLLARS

I 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 reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinion and conclusions; I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved; I have performed no (or the specified) services, as an appraiser nor in any other capacity, 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 the parties involved with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results; My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

68

RENWICK & ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL

(Continued) My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, 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 significant professional assistance in the development and reporting of this report. Harry Renwick, CTA SCGREA No. 42RG00097200

ADDENDUM

NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY Information Only - No Response Necessary

At Renwick and Associates, protecting your privacy is very important. We want

you 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 market

information. We treat nonpublic personal information in accordance with our Privacy

Policy.

What Information We Collect and From Whom We Collect It

We collect “Nonpublic personal information”. This is nonpublic information about

you that we obtain in connection with providing a service to you. We may collect

nonpublic 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 parties

What Information We Disclose and To Whom We Disclose It

We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about you to either our

affiliates or non-affiliates without your express consent, except as permitted by law

(see Security Procedures following). We may disclose nonpublic personal

information we collect to persons, companies, or governmental entities that receive

the original or a copy of a report that we have performed. “Our affiliates” are

companies with which we share common ownership.

Our Security Procedures

We restrict access to your nonpublic personal information and allow disclosures

to 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

CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

I assume no responsibility for matters legal in nature, nor do I render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership and prudent management.

The sketch in this report is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. I have made no survey of the property.

I am not required to give testimony or to appear in court by reason of this appraisal unless arrangements have been previously made.

The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so 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 the maintenance of the building. In addition, I have not investigated the possible existence of toxic waste that may or may not have been stored on the property. This office is not qualified to render an opinion on such matters. I urge the client to retain an expert in this field if he desires this type of information.

Information, estimates, and opinions furnished and contained within this report were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct, however, I assume no responsibility for their accuracy.

Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be conveyed to any person or entity, other than the appraiser's or firm's client, through advertising, solicitation materials, public relations, news, sales or other media without the written consent and approval of the authors, particularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which the appraiser is connected, or any reference to affiliation with any professional appraisal organization or designation. Further, the appraiser or firm assumes no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall make such party aware of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment.

The client is hereby informed that the property owner, in any transaction within the State 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 to render an opinion on such matters. The client is put on notice that such an impact from toxic waste, unless otherwise considered within this appraisal, has not been taken into account.

I assume no responsibility for any claims that the State of New Jersey may develop through its mapping program to develop its claims for riparian rights.

The opinion of value is exclusive of applicability of the New Jersey Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Law unless otherwise considered within this report.

I assume no responsibility for limits imposed by the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act or Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Where available, I consult New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Freshwater Wetlands Maps. These maps, because of their scale (1” = 1,000’) are not as accurate as the results produced by a field delineation and historical analysis but present only a general depiction as to existence and location of wetlands. When N.J.D.E.P. maps are not available, I consult "National Wetlands Inventory Maps" prepared by the Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of Interior. These maps, because of their scale (1" = 2,000') and part of the “Special Note” stating "...a detailed on-the-ground and historical analysis of a single site may result in a revision of the wetlands boundaries...", are considered to be inaccurate but present only a general depiction as to the existence and location of wetlands.

This appraisal is made for valuation purposes only. It is not intended nor construed to be an engineering report. In that all materials could not be viewed, the appraiser makes no representation as to the overall soundness or capabilities of the improvements, materials or workmanship. Should there be any question regarding same, it is strongly suggested that an Engineering/Construction inspection be obtained.

The opinion of value in this report is based on the assumption that the property is not negatively affected by the existence of hazardous substances, including mold, or detrimental conditions. In connection with this appraisal, I have made a visual inspection of the subject neighborhood; no landfills or hazards external to the subject property were apparent. My routine inspection of and inquiries about the subject property did not develop any information that indicated any apparent significant hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions that would affect the property negatively. It is possible that tests and inspections made by a qualified hazardous substance and environmental expert should reveal the existence of hazardous materials and environmental conditions on or around the property that would negatively affect its value.

Delineation of Title is limited to documents provided by the client. These documents have indicated no private deed restrictions that would in any way negatively impact the highest and best use as projected within this report. This report has not been based on a complete (over 60 years) title search.

All furnishings and equipment, except those specifically indicated and typically considered as part of real estate, have been disregarded. Only the real estate has been considered.

All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless so specified within the report.

It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless non-compliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report.

It is assumed that the property is in compliance with all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless a non-conformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report.

It is assumed that all required licenses, consents or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the opinion of value contained within this report is based.

No environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this appraisal, and I hereby reserve the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies, research, or investigations.

It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted within the report.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. I (we) have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I (we) have no direct evidence relating to this issue, I (we) did not consider possible non-compliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property.

Acceptance of and/or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing general assumptions and limiting conditions.

This appraisal has been based on the assumption that the subject improvements do not have any historic significance.

The valuation contained within the appraisal report does not take into consideration any influence or cost associated with a low and mod housing obligation, which may affect the subject property. It could not be determined if, in fact, this obligation would be triggered by continuation of the pre-existing use of the subject property, or by sale into the public sector.

Regional Analysis – Delaware Valley Definition of Region

The nine-county area comprising the City and County of Philadelphia and surrounding southeastern Pennsylvania Counties of Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, and the southern New Jersey Counties of Mercer, Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties; totaling 352 municipalities, is known as the “Delaware Valley”.

Physical Central to the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic crossroads of the United States, the Delaware Valley is located between Washington, DC (3.5 hour drive to the south) and New York City (2 hour drive to the north), and includes the City of Philadelphia. According to Greater Philadelphia First, a non-profit, regional economic development organization, 20% of the nation’s population, possessing 13% of the nation’s buying power, lives within a 100-mile radius of the region’s central area, the City of Philadelphia. Moreover, over 100 million people and six of the eight largest United States’ markets, and four of Canada’s largest markets are within one day’s drive of Philadelphia.

Aerial of Delaware Valley Region (highlighted)

Furthermore, the State of New Jersey Department of Commerce and Economic Development points out 12 states and over 60 million consumers live within 250 miles of the State’s borders, with a collective purchasing power of $800 billion dollars. The State is also geographically and economically well positioned for the increasing globalization of markets observed and forecast by economists. In particular, New Jersey’s eastern seaboard location on the Atlantic Ocean and proximity to Canada fosters international trade by way of easier access to trade routes, evidenced by the fact the State ranks ninth in the nation for exports.

The moderate climate throughout the region provides opportunities for seasonal tourism tied to summer and winter recreational activities, as numerous beach and mountain resorts are no more than 2 hours’ drive from any part of the region. The lack of extreme temperatures also reduces energy and construction costs to more competitive levels for residential and non-residential development.

The region is well served with multiple modes of transit including air, rail, water, and road transportation. Thirty-six airports are open to the general public. All five major airports in the area, i.e. Philadelphia International, Atlantic City International, Northeast Philadelphia, Mercer County {Trenton}, and Greater Wilmington provide passenger and cargo services and have adequate room for expansion. General cargo rail facilities are provided by Norfolk Southern (formerly Conrail), Canadian Pacific, and CSX. Amtrak continues to maintain passenger service from 30th Street Station along the Northeast corridor.

Port services and facilities are available along 135 miles of the 40 feet-deep Delaware River and Bay from the Atlantic Ocean to Trenton. The ports handle container cargo and bulk cargo (includes crude oil, finished petroleum products not in containers, coal, iron ore, salt not in containers, etc.) On May 12, 1994 the Governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey signed legislation creating the bi-state "Ports of Philadelphia and Camden" that replaces the former Philadelphia Regional Port Authority and South Jersey Port Authority. The Port of Wilmington, with one terminal of the seven, is a separate, competitive entity.

The area is also served by a large and growing roadway system that includes Interstates 95, 76, 295 and 195, the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Turnpikes, major highway connectors (such as the “Blue Route” connecting the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-95), and numerous state and local highways. The area’s continuously expanding highway infrastructure provides excellent transportation alternatives to businesses seeking to market and distribute their products throughout the regional and national markets.

Social: As of 2010, the Greater Philadelphia, or Delaware Valley, Region ranks as the fifth largest U.S. metropolitan area in the United States, following New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas-Fort Worth. With a population of almost 5.6 million people in 2010, the 11-county Greater Philadelphia region, as defined by Select Greater Philadelphia, comprises five counties in Southeastern Pennsylvania

(Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia); five counties in southern New Jersey (Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem); and New Castle County in northern Delaware. Among all US metropolitan areas, the Greater Philadelphia region ranks sixth in gross metropolitan product, fifth in personal income, and is the nation’s fourth largest media market. (Source DVRPC: The

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) For the purposes of this report, the Delaware Valley Region will exclude Salem and New Castle Counties. Rich in History, Culture and Disadvantages The Delaware Valley Region is unlike any other region historically; however, the City of Philadelphia takes the spotlight not only for history but also for culture. By many considered to be the “Birthplace of the Nation”; and like most major cities, Philadelphia is a mecca of entertainment with fine dining, performing arts, and museums, and sports stadiums for the Delaware Valley Region. Camden City in Camden County may be a distant second to Philadelphia when it come to history and entertainment, but the city holds its own with waterfront attractions like; the State Adventure Aquarium, Susquehanna Bank Center Amphitheater, Campbell’s Field and Battleship New Jersey. In general, U.S. cities, like Philadelphia and Camden, are challenged with cleaning up urban blight and dealing with disproportionately large disadvantaged communities within the region’s population as they tend to cluster in large city centers, while rural areas and growing suburbs usually have lower levels of disadvantage people. The following map image illustrates the location of disadvantaged communities by mapping the degrees of disadvantage in the region by census tract.

Source: DVRPC

Clearly the preceding map image shows the areas of the most economically and socially disadvantaged communities of the region. Philadelphia and Camden show

areas of the deepest purple shading, thus indicating the highest concentrations of disadvantaged communities. Consequently, these two cities are notorious for having the highest violent crime rates in the country.

Population and Projections

According to the U.S. Census figures and ESRI forecasts, the population for the region was 2,369,620. Viewing population growth for the region over the last decades, then projecting to the year 2015, the above table reveals a modest population growth for the region overall at 0.01%. Modest population growth is the forecast for the years to come. Viewing current regional employment in a national context provides additional insight into the relative local strength of the region. In November 2011, the national unemployment rate was at 8.7% which was an improvement over 2010’s year-end figure of 9.4%. In comparison, the unemployment rates for the states of New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania, were 9.1%, 7.6%, and 7.9%, respectively.

Quick Facts

Unemployment From a comparative regional context, the Delaware Valley appears to be faring slightly better than the balance of the nation in terms of the unemployment rate. That is in light of the nation’s slow emergence from the “Great Recession” that that ended in 2009. The slightly better unemployment data for the area probably represents the diversity of the employment base that provides some opportunities for employment shifting in segments that have escaped the effects of the recession relatively unscathed.

Economic

Economic Base Industries The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce observes that the Delaware Valley Region is a major force within a number of key industries that have been instrumental to national economic growth. In particular, the region possesses high concentrations of health care resources, pharmaceutical producers, high-tech industries, telecommunications, and post-secondary education and training institutions that draw consumers and net income from both within and without the region’s borders.

Employment Allocation

In the preceding table, note that the industry catorgory “Services” make up over 50% of the employment of the region with a majority falling under “healthcare” employment. Primarily as a result of the Delaware Valley having more than 40 hospitals as well as the highest percentage of physicians engaged in research of all the nation’s metropolitan areas. The presence of over 125 biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and medical technology industries provide the region with a leading position within the global biopharmaceutical industry. The Delaware Valley Region is home to many of the very best educational institutions in the world. Over 80 post-secondary degree-granting institutions are located within a one-hour drive of the region’s Philadelphia center. They include New Jersey-based Princeton University, Rutgers University (Camden Campus), Rowan University, The College of New Jersey, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer County Community Colleges; Pennsylvania-based University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, LaSalle University, St. Joseph’s University, Villanova University, and the Community College of Philadelphia; and Delaware-based Widener University and the University of Delaware. These institutions offer opportunities for self- improvement and job training within academic, trade, and contemporary technological fields for the region’s inhabitants and attract students from all over the nation and the world.

Summary The Delaware Valley's steadily increasing population, skilled work force, variety of higher learning institutions, major road, rail, air, and water transportation infrastructure, and diversity of employment opportunities provide the region with a competitive edge within the economy. The large concentration of the region’s economic activity within the service sector, especially the healthcare, high technology, higher education, and telecommunication industries place the Delaware Valley in an excellent position to compete with other regions of the country. The combination of these factors with the excellent location of the region at the crossroads between the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic sections of the United States have sustained the Delaware Valley as a viable economic area for over 200 years; and, although the national economy weakened significantly during the most recent deep recessionary period, the highly diverse economic base of the region should continue to keep the region in a position of stability relative to competing and less diverse regions of the country.

County Analysis - Camden

History-Government

The first European settlers in the area that became Camden County were Irish Quakers who arrived in 1681. Subsequent European settlers came from England, Sweden, and the Netherlands, but, by the early part of the 18th century, it became clear that the English were becoming the dominant force. In 1844, Camden County was incorporated from the larger county, Gloucester, now Camden County's neighbor to the south. Cooper's Ferry, the settlement that became Camden City and the county seat, has always been linked to the larger settlement, Philadelphia, starting with a ferry service that began in 1688. The first bridge linking the City of Camden to the City of Philadelphia, the Benjamin Franklin, opened in 1926. The second bridge to span the Delaware River between Philadelphia and Camden County was the Walt Whitman, opened in 1957, followed by the Betsy Ross Bridge to the northeast in 1976. Camden County is governed by a five member Board of Chosen Freeholders who are elected at large and who retain executive and legislative power. Their term of office is for three years, and a Freeholder may be re-elected without limit. While Freeholders do not have the authority to adopt ordinances or pass laws, they may adopt resolutions and levy taxes. A Director is elected annually from among the Freeholders. The County government operations are organized under a full-time, appointed, County Administrator who oversees day-to-day activity. Of the twenty-one counties in New Jersey, fifteen have a county government similar to that of Camden. The County is home to thirty-seven (37) of the State’s five hundred and sixty-six (566) political subdivisions.7 Most basic public services such as local schools, trash collection and disposal, public works, tax assessment and collection, zoning, building construction licensing and regulation, fire and (in the majority of instances) police are provided directly or indirectly through local government structures like municipalities, school boards, and special districts8. Camden County provides a variety of services from alcohol abuse service to a work release department. Among the important departments are: Consumer Affairs, Economic Development, Jails, Probation Department, and Superior Courts. A county tax board, consisting of members appointed by the Governor, sits as a quasi-judicial forum for the hearing and rendering of tax assessment appeals.

7 $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . ) / + % & / 0 1 2 % - ) 3 , 4 ) , 0 5 5 5 6 ( % 6 ( , - . ) / 6 / 7 6 & 8 8 $ 9 ) ( : , ; < : 8 0 ' : ( 0 8 : / ( ; & . ) = > % ' ) ? , - 9 ; ) = @ : ' ) 3 ' % 0 ) ( 0 : % / , / . A ' , 8 B C ) - % D , ; . : 8 0 ' : ( 0 8

County Apportionment (Tax) Rate

While in New Jersey the county apportionment rate normally accounts for a small percentage (generally between 13 and 25 percent) of the total general tax rate, competitiveness in the county rates is nonetheless important. Counties aim to achieve an efficient rate of taxation to help ease the burden of the local and regional school tax rates, which generally account for approximately 50% to 65% of the total tax levy while posing the most upward pressure on the composite local tax bill. Generally, Camden County has one of the higher county tax rates in the State.

New Jersey County Tax Rates 2011

Source: New Jersey Property Tax Administration Office

Sussex 0.039

Cape May 0.182

Bergen 0.205

Morris 0.219

Monmouth 0.252

Ocean 0.283

Somerset 0.285

Hunterdon 0.288

Middlesex 0.306

Atlantic 0.308

Burlington 0.310

Union 0.412

Essex 0.425

Hudson 0.461

Mercer 0.486

Gloucester 0.501

Warren 0.528

Passaic 0.567

Camden 0.650

Salem 0.875

Cumberland 0.913

As of the date of this report, 2012 tax rates were not posted on the N.J. Treasury website.

As the previous table indicates, for 2011, the more densely populated counties and those with the larger commercial base had the lowest county tax rates. Sussex County had the lowest at $0.039. Cape May with its tourist industry and Bergen with its population were lowest with $0.182 and $0.205 respectively, while rural, southern Cumberland County and Salem County had the highest at $0.875 and $0.913 respectively. Camden County had an apportionment rate of $0.650, ranking 19th among the 21 New Jersey counties.

While in New Jersey the county apportionment rate normally accounts for a small percentage (generally between 13 and 25 percent) of the total general tax rate, competitiveness in the county rates is nonetheless important. Counties aim to achieve an efficient rate of taxation to help ease the burden of the local and regional school tax rates, which generally account for approximately 50% to 65% of the total tax levy while posing the most upward pressure on the composite local tax bill.

Physical Map of New Jersey

(Camden County Highlighted) Camden County Land Use Chart

Source: DVRPC http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/CountyProfiles/Burlington.aspx

With 222.27 square miles of land and water area, Camden County is the smallest of the seven counties that comprise southern New Jersey. Of the seven southern counties, the largest (and largest in the State) is Burlington County at 817.64 miles, Camden County's northerly neighbor. Camden County, along with two-thirds of the state, lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plane, a gently rolling land surface dotted in places with low rounded hills. Elevations range from sea level to 240' above sea level with most areas between 50' and 125'.

In addition to being bordered on the north by Burlington County, Camden County is bordered on the east by Atlantic County with its tourist/casino-driven economy,

on the south by Gloucester County (remaining partially rural despite recent moderate-to-rapid growth diminished by the recent 2007-2009 recession), and on the west by the Delaware River, which separates New Jersey from Pennsylvania.

According to the previous "Land Use" graph, approximately 1/3 of the land that comprises Camden County is wooded, followed by land used for residential. The Pine Barrens, a one million acre region of pine and oak forests, occupies approximately twenty percent of the county in the east and southeast. It is protected by federal and state legislation from high-density development.

Underlying the County are unconsolidated layers of sediment composed of sand, gravel and clay, and permeable layers known as aquifers. The aquifers provide the county with its water supply; however, because of rapid development over the past two to three decades, concern grew about the quality and quantity of the supply. As a result, New Jersey-American Water Company, a quasi-public utility, constructed a forty-mile long pipeline that carries treated water from the Delaware River to supplement the underground supply in Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties. Local water rates have been increased to pay for the water supplied by New Jersey-American Water Company.

Major roadways traversing the county include Interstate 295, New Jersey Turnpike, U.S. Route 130, and State Routes 73 and 42 crossing the County in a north/south direction; and, State Routes 38, 70 and 168 crossing the County in an east/west direction. In addition, the county maintains its own extensive road system.

The bridges connecting Camden County to the City of Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania are owned and operated by the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA). The DRPA also operates and subsidizes the PATCO High Speed Line, a commuter rail line completed in 1969 linking Lindenwold in central Camden County with center city Philadelphia. Through the 1970’s and 1980’s, the commuter line contributed to the growth of the County's central and southwestern municipalities. Additionally, the River Line train services the Delaware River communities of the Route 130 Corridor from Camden City to Trenton where it connects to Amtrak Northeast Corridor. The 34 mile long light rail passenger line has dramatically boosted the riverfront area economy since it started operating in 2004 and now services an average 9,000 commuters per day.

Non-passenger rail transportation is provided by Norfolk Southern (formerly Conrail) with two lines running in north/south and east/west directions. Water transportation is available along the Delaware River with services provided by the Delaware River and South Jersey Port Authorities. Air transportation is provided by the Philadelphia International Airport, which is within thirty minutes drive of the County, and the Newark International Airport, which is located within forty-five minutes. Local air transportation is available at the Albion Airport in the southeastern end of the County. New York commuter bus transportation is available at the Westampton (Burlington County) terminal and the Mount Laurel

(Burlington County) terminal. New Jersey Transit provides local bus service.

Social Economic

Population Growth:

Camden County is the most populous of the southern New Jersey counties. The previous table shows us that Camden County population growth is projected to be modest growing only 0.06% and household 0.13% from the years 2010 through 2015. A combination of economic factors may be contributing to the forecasted slow population growth. Factors such as: a very weak economy, scarcity of developable land, and residential new construction at a ten year low are the primary contributors. As the following table indicates, Camden County’s population growth has been stagnant relative to its fellow Delaware Valley counties throughout the period 2000 through 2010. Because it is nearly 100% built out, the County exhibited growth over the time frame that trailed the southern New Jersey counties of Burlington, Gloucester, and Mercer.

Delaware Valley Population by County: 1990 – 2010 Source: U.S. Census 2010

2000 2010 1990-2010 Change

1990-2010 % Change

Atlantic 252,552 272,417 19,865 07.87

Burlington 423,394 445,774 22,380 05.30

Camden 508,932 519,806 10,874 02.12

Gloucester 254,673 290,278 35,605 14.00

Mercer 350,761 367,014 16,253 05.00

Bucks 597,635 626,280 38,645 06.50

Chester 433,501 501,789 68,288 15.80

Delaware 550,864 559,776 8,912 01.60

Montgomery 750,097 789,862 39,765 05.30

Philadelphia 1,517,550 1,558,613 41,063 02.70

Note that the level of Camden’s population (508,932) at the beginning of the period was higher than neighboring Gloucester (254,673) and Burlington (423,394). The fact that these less populated counties grew faster than Camden was due, in part,

to a smaller base and in part to a long term movement toward equilibration of the Southern and Philadelphia Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) population growth rates. The latter makes intuitive sense given people move to lower cost location alternatives over time as infrastructure develops and commuting becomes cheaper. Still, the County’s relatively high tax rate is clearly detracting from its competitiveness as a desirable place to live compared to other counties in the region.

Dwelling Units Authorized By Permit The following table provides selected county housing permit data since 2002: E F G H I J K K J J K K L J K K M J K K N J K K O J K K P J K K Q J K K R J K S KT U V W X U Y Z [ \ ] X U ^ _ ` _ ` _ _ a b _ ` c b _ ` ` _ d a e f d d f g c e h h f e b d di j k l m n o p q n r q j n p s t u v w x y z v x v x { x | } v t } y | x z | z w } { { u x { y v~ � � � � � ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �H � � � � � � � � � H � � � � � f d ` f c h b g g g f ` c f c g a f f f g _ d d _ b _� � � � � � � � � � H � � � � � d a ` _ d a b e _ ` b ` _ ` c b d d h d e _ ` c a a _ b f c d f  � � � � � H � � � � � d h _ a d d a a d g h d d _ e g a h c c ` ` g _ b g _ b g h e¡ � � � � H � � � � � d c ` f ` c f f h _ e c _ e a d h a d e a d d f d ` b

As of the date of this report, 2011 Building Permit data was not available on the U.S. Census Bureau website.

As the previous table shows, Camden County is in new privately owned, residential units authorized by permit for the Southern New Jersey area throughout the 2000s decade. In recent years, as building has slowed, Burlington has experienced a negative impact as well but remains among the stronger areas for development.

On the other hand, very noteworthy for the economy of Camden County, is the recently approved by the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA), is an environmental impact study of a proposed commuter 18–mile light-rail line from Camden City to Glassboro. The study could take about two years to complete before any building can commence.

Jeff Nash, DRPA's vice chair and a Camden County freeholder, said “it is the largest transit project ever planned to serve Camden and Gloucester counties” and "it will be an economic stimulus for the region" and a "spark for the redevelopment" of towns along the rail line. If approved, the first phase of the project will be from Camden to Woodbury and could take five years to complete if financing is available, DRPA officials have said.

The proposed 1.6 billion dollar rail line would run alongside an existing Conrail freight line through Glassboro, Pitman, Mantua, Wenonah, Woodbury, Deptford, West Deptford, Westville, Bellmawr, Brooklawn, Gloucester City, and Camden City. It would connect to PATCO and River Line trains at the Walter Rand Transportation Center in Camden, where passengers could catch trains to Philadelphia or Trenton. Additionally, “Transit Villages” would be developed at the stations boosting the economy and population for Camden County and surrounding areas. (More on “Transit Villages” in the “Industry Trends” section)

The proposed commuter line would also impact the proposed restructuring of Camden Campus Rutgers to Rowan University that was recently unveiled by Governor Christie. The rail line would connect both Rowan Campuses; the existing Glassboro Campus to the proposed Camden City Campus. The proposed restructuring would have Rowan take control of the Rutgers law school and business school in Camden City. Rowan is scheduled to open its own medical school in the fall of this year 2012. The new Rowan Campus would be granted status as a public research university. Governor Christie and advocates of the restructuring believe this move is crucial to economic growth, as many others, like current Rutgers Camden students and faculty, think the restructuring will actually have a very negative impact on the area since Rowan University will not attract enrollment as Rutgers University name can.

Transit Village Trend

As previously mentioned, the River Line train services the Delaware River communities of the Route 130 Corridor from Camden City to Trenton. The light rail passenger line has dramatically boosted the area economy and with the collaborated efforts of the N.J. Department of Transportation and the Delaware River Planning Commission and other interested parties with the introduction of development plans called the “Transit Village Design Concept”.

The plan has encouraged transit-oriented development (TOD) by increasing interest to develop transit villages by developers to revitalize the river communities through “smart growth” and the “right way” to suburban revitalization. Residents and business owners of these transit communities would benefit from a decreased dependency of automobiles and more affordable housing choices which have become top priority for young proffessionals and aging baby-boomers alike.

The goal is to develop safe, convienient, pedestrian-friendly commuter villages around the staions of the River Line and PATCO stations. The complete plan

details could be found at: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/faq.shtm.

Employment:

The Unemployment Percentage Rate table further illuminates the relative "strength" of Camden County in the context of both southern New Jersey and the State as a whole.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ¢ £ £ ¤ 2010 2011

Burlington 4.8 4.1 3.9 4.1 3.8 5.0 ¥ ¦ § 8.1 8.6

Camden 6.1 5.3 4.8 5.2 4.7 6.1 ¨ © ª © © 9.7 9.9

Gloucester 5.4 4.7 4.4 4.7 4.3 5.5 ¤ ¦ « 9.3 9.0

Mercer 5.2 4.3 3.9 4.3 3.8 4.9 ¬ ¦ ¥ 7.3 7.4

New Jersey 5.9 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.2 5.5 ¤ ¦ ¢ 8.7 8.8

2003 2004 2005 2006 2011

Burlington 4.8 4.1 3.9 4.1 1 8.6

Camden 6.1 5.3 4.8 5.2 7 9.9

Gloucester 5.4 4.7 4.4 4.7 3 9.0

Mercer 5.2 4.3 3.9 4.3 3 7.4

New Jersey 5.9 4.9 4.5 4.7 7 8.84.2 5.5 ¤ ¦ ¢ 8.7 8

7.3 7¬ ¦ ¥8 4.93.8 4

9.3 9¤ ¦ «3 5.54.3 5

9.7 9¨ © ª © ©7 6.14.7 6

8.1 8¥ ¦ §8 5.03.8 5

2010¢ £ £ ¤20082007

The competitiveness of Camden County’s unemployment rate over the past nine years provides insight that the existing County labor force is being utilized in a decreased capacity in service to the local economy. Although the high rates are recession-related, most of this can be attributed to the issues surrounding Camden’s inner city.

Industry Trends:

As the following chart depicts, approximately 16.5% of all Camden County jobs exist in “Healthcare/Social Assistance” industry, with “Retail Trade” 2nd at 12.5%, and “Education” 3rd at 10%. These industries are projected to grow significantly due to the increasing presence of the universities, colleges, Cooper University Hospital and Our Lady Of Lourdes Medical Center. Cooper University Hospital is a leading employer in medical research, education, and health services for the County and soon with the opening of the Rowan School of Medicine in Camden City. Additionally, projections from the N. J. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, that ambulatory health care services will experience the greatest growth in the County by the year 2016 is due in part to the fast-growing population of age 65 + seniors.

Camden County has a diverse economy. The following tables list the top ranking private sector employers, fastest growing and largest employment sectors, and largest occupations for Camden County.

Source: NJ Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development

Camden County has an extensive thriving network of retail businesses, most notably the Cherry Hill Mall. When it was built in 1961, it was the east coast's first enclosed mall. The mall experienced a $218 million major renovation and expansion in between 2007-2009, and it has become a dominant mall in the south Jersey region with over 1,200,000 square feet of leasable area. The previous table shows us that ‘General Merchandise Stores” as those of the Cherry Hill mall, is the top ranking industry for the “Fastest Growing Employment Sector” for the county.

Culture and Education The residents of Camden County have access to a rich educational and cultural heritage that is part of the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area and the Delaware Valley. In this age of "high tech", education plays a key role in training people for technical jobs and in providing adequate research facilities. The County is home to Rutgers University (Camden Campus), a regional leader in the fields of education and state-of-the-art technology training (such as with Geographic

Information Systems). Within thirty minutes driving time of the County’s borders are the University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, Widener University, Rowan University, and the University of Delaware. Within one hour, commuters can reach Princeton University, The College of New Jersey, Rider University, The New Jersey Institute of Technology, The Burlington County Institute of Technology, and the Burlington, Camden and Mercer County Community Colleges.

Among cultural activities available within the area are the Opera Company of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Orchestra, Pennsylvania Ballet (residing in Philadelphia); the Philadelphia Art Museum among a number of lesser-known but world-class museums like the Atwater Kent, Philosophical Society, Brandywine River Museum, the Delaware Art Museum, the Philadelphia Free Library, Franklin Institute, and Academy of Natural Sciences.

The rich history to which county residents are exposed includes proximity to Philadelphia and the surrounding area such as: Independence Hall; the Liberty Bell, the Betsy Ross House, Brandywine, Valley Forge ; Trenton, and Washington's Crossing to name a few of the highlights of an area rich in American History.

Recreational opportunities for County residents include access to a broad array of sports entertainment within 30 minutes drive, anchored by the Philadelphia-based sports franchises in the major sports: the (baseball) Phillies, (hockey) Flyers, (basketball) Sixers, and (football) Eagles. The minor league Trenton Devils offer a lower cost, professional hockey alternative, and the minor league baseball franchise Trenton Thunder, residing within about a one hour commute. Additional stadia to house a minor league baseball team has been completed with Campbell’s Stadium for the Camden River Sharks, who began playing in May 2001.

Numerous projects have continued to enhance Camden County’s appeal with the intermittent rebirth of Camden City’s waterfront, which has completely transformed the former industrial area, and has brought exciting additions to Camden County, including the Battleship New Jersey, Adventure Aquarium, Susquehanna Bank Center music amphitheater, and Campbell’s Stadium. The former RCA building was rehabilitated and opened as luxury loft apartments in early 2004. Overall, the state of New Jersey invested $175 million into revitalizing the city and the River Line light rail added value to the Waterfront area with stops in communities associated with Route 130 corridor and also has scheduled stops at the Walter Rand Transportation Center (connected to Philadelphia by PATCO), Rutgers University Camden, the Susquehanna Bank Center, and Adventure Aquarium.

The 15 acre Riverfront State Prison, which has stigmatized the North Camden Waterfront area, was demolished in 2009 bringing even greater promise of economic and social growth to the area. The City of Camden has development plans of a linear waterfront park for this site. The relocation of the prison could just well be the catalyst of the rebirth of a city that has top rankings of the poorest

and crime riddled city in the nation.

The proceeding information from the 2010 U.S. Census shows us that Camden County is average in Educational attainment compared to the U.S. figures.

Summary

Camden County possesses the highest absolute levels of population and employment of all the Southern New Jersey Counties. Over the first decade of the 21st century, Camden County’s growth rates in population and employment have significantly lagged those for neighboring Burlington and Gloucester.

The County has a diverse economy, however, reflective of the Delaware Valley. The largest employment opportunities exist most prevalently within the trade, transportation, and utilities sector, followed closely by education and healthcare services. Of these, the service industry, similar to the larger regional and national economies, is projected to grow most rapidly over the next few years, followed by growth in retail and wholesale trade. These provide demand for skilled and semi-skilled levels for both white collar and blue-collar workers.

Consequently, Camden County’s private non-farm employment is projected to grow at a rate second only to the (formerly) rapidly growing, smaller base economies of Gloucester and Burlington Counties especially if the Glassboro to Camden City passenger rail-line is approved. Nevertheless, for the near term future, in line with most economic forecasts for the United States, slow growth is forecast for the next six months for the Region and Camden County, driven by an economy that went into a recession that began in 2007 and was exacerbated by the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market. Although the recession officially ended in 2009 and a variety of economic signs point to a recent recovery, that recovery is forecast to be long and slow.

Municipal Analysis: Haddonfield Borough

Map of Haddonfield Borough (highlighted) and Surrounding Area

History

Haddonfield Borough, incorporated on April 6, 1875, was formed from sections of Haddon Township, but did not officially separate from Haddon Township to become an independent municipality until 1894.

Founded in 1713, the town was named after John Haddon, a wealthy business Englishman and London Quaker who purchased large tracks of land in southwest New Jersey in the 1690's. He later sent his daughter, Elizabeth, to occupy land that he had purchased. Elizabeth built Haddon Plantation, and other now historical buildings, which led to the development of the town. Haddonfield now boasts of over 500 historical structures, many of which are over 300 years old. The town also played a role in the American Revolution; its Quaker cemetery holds the remains of British soldiers who died in battle against George Washington's forces more than two centuries ago.

Located on Kings Highway is the Indian King Tavern, a museum and one of the most well known historical buildings, dating back to 1750, named for the local Lenape Indians. Kings Highway was originally a wagon trail named in honor of the British monarchs that once ruled the area. Although the sale of liquor has been forbidden since 1873, it was at the Indian King Tavern in 1877 that the New Jersey General Assembly met and declared its independence and became a state. In 1903 the facility became New Jersey's first State Historic Site.

In the 1850's, Haddonfield was a vacation spot for Philadelphians ferried across the Delaware River. With their horse and buggies they wound through dirt roads shaded by cool woods until they reached the hamlet of Haddonfield, filling the cottages along the banks of Hopkins Pond and Cooper River.

Haddonfield was "put on the map" when it played a special role in the history of dinosaur discovery. The first nearly-complete dinosaur skeleton was excavated from a marl pit, near Cooper River, in1858. Today a modest-sized bronze and stone marker commemorates the site where the skeleton was unearthed. This event, also established the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, where the bones are kept.

Government

The Borough provides the following municipal services: municipal court, borough clerk, registrar, public works department, tax assessor, tax collector, community development and construction, local police, a library and a senior citizen's center. Volunteers provide fire and emergency medical service.

Physical

Haddonfield Borough, located in northern Camden County, consists of approximately 2.871 square miles. Cooper River forms a natural border between Haddonfield Borough and Cherry Hill Township. The Borough is also bordered by Haddon Township, Tavistock Borough, Barrington Boro, and Haddon Heights Borough.

U.S. State Highway 41 becomes Kings Highway at Haddonfield and is the main roadway, traversing Haddonfield in a northeast/southwest direction. A few main roadways also run through Haddonfield such as Haddon Ave., Grove Street, and Warwick Road. The Borough also is serviced by the PATCO High Speed Line, which travels from Philadelphia to Lindenwold.

Borough Overview

Located a short distance east, across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, Haddonfield is one of the Delaware Valley's most affluent communities. Aside from having one of the world's most significant paleontology sites, Haddonfield is also famous for its historic structures and quaint shops, many of which are virtual museums of American architecture. With 390 attorneys occupying former town-homes, Haddonfield has become a major legal center for the southern half of the state.

Haddonfield’s population of nearly 12,000 has a strong sense of identity as it is one of North America's oldest towns, and residents and visitors alike enjoy the "Rockwellesque" attribute of the community.

Within Haddonfield's nearly three square miles, the town boasts nearly ten thousand trees, many of which are massive, giving the town a unique genteel feel of nearly a century and a half ago. Streets are shaded by trees and lined with mansions featured in frequent walking tours and seasonal open-house programs.

Haddonfield's ability to retain much of that "old town feel" is a result of historical activists running the region's most aggressive historic preservation programs. Additionally, Borough Code requires property owners in the district to obtain permission from the Planning Board before making any exterior changes. The center of Haddonfield (Main Street) and certain residential areas surrounding the business district are part of Haddonfield’s Historic District with a variety of retail and office uses, many of which are converted residences.

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. Haddonfield's proximity to a vast network of roadways provides easy access to any north, south, east, or west location. The City of Philadelphia and other

employment centers are within easy commute; and two regional malls are within a ten minute drive. Haddonfield has little to offer in the way of large-scale restaurants because the retail sale of alcohol is prohibited. Since restaurants derive a significant portion of income from alcoholic beverage sales, large-scale restaurants do not normally operate in "dry" towns. Haddonfield has been dry since 1873 and the locals seem to be fine with BYOB.

Social- Economic

Over the last two decades, Haddonfield's population has decreased and is forecasted to continue to decrease modestly. This is due to the town being nearly built-up. Household figures have risen slightly, however, they also are forecasted to decrease for the next few years. The median age, as for most of North America, is increasing. (see table below:)

Haddonfield is considered to be an affluent town since most residents earn above average incomes compared to the area. Most residents are highly paid, skilled, and educated, which has an impact on the town's reputation. (See chart below:) mp pu (

A majority of the residents, 69.7%, are in professional, management, or business occupations. See chart below:

To live in Haddonfield, in any economic level, one must generally be willing to obtain a smaller house on a smaller lot, compared to competitive properties in nearby municipalities. For that sacrifice, residents have the privilege of living in one of the most desirable communities in South Jersey and sending their children to one of the best public school systems. (see charts and table below:)

The above table shows that 46.50% of the housing stock in Haddonfield dates back to 1939 or older with only 1.1% from 2005 or later.

Haddonfield's residents have a much more than normal educational attainment compared to the average U.S. figures for Bachelor's Degrees. They are also much higher than average for the area.

The public school system includes three elementary schools: (K-5); one middle school (6-8), and one high school. The Borough also has a few private schools; among them are Friends School (PK-8),and Bancroft (PK-12)

Summary 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 has had a positive impact on the town's reputation. Its proximity to a network of roadways provides easy access to any north, south, east, or west location. The City of Philadelphia and other employment centers are within easy commute; and two regional malls are within a ten minute drive.

Haddonfield is famous for its historic structures and quaint shops many of which are virtual museums of American architecture. Population growth in Haddonfield appears to be slowing down as the town is built out. However, much care and concern is taken to retain much of that "old town feel". This is a result of historical activists running the region's most aggressive historic preservation programs. While the economy has slowed development across the nation, state and county, Haddonfield has many positives in place to best meet this challenging time. It is better positioned to rebound past the current post-Great Recessionary conditions than many other area towns. Haddonfield remains a desirable location for commercial and residential activity. Property values are forecast to remain stable to decreasing for the next 12 months.

CURRICULUM VITAE Harry F. Renwick, Jr., CTA SCGREA No. 4200097200

Harry F. Renwick, Jr. is the founder and Chairman of Renwick and Associates, incorporated in 1973. Mr. Renwick represents the third of four generations of the Renwick family engaged in the real estate industry. Under the direction of Mr. Renwick, Renwick and Associates has grown from a two-person real estate appraisal firm to a multi-faceted valuation services company with a staff size in excess of 20 people offering real estate, business, and machinery and equipment valuation services. In addition to his leadership duties as its Chairman, Mr. Renwick is one of the area’s leading real estate appraisers and economic development consultants, specializing in litigation support and testimony. He is widely regarded as one of the top expert witnesses in the State of New Jersey and beyond, with over 300 appearances before courts; commissions; quasi-judiciary bodies; and, appointed by Superior Court as a Condemnation Commissioner. Mr. Renwick has taught for over 25 years within the real estate appraisal profession, lecturing at the professional and collegiate level on the Principles of Real Estate Appraisal, Real Estate Appraisal Procedures, and a variety of related subjects. He is a former national instructor for the Appraisal Institute and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. Mr. Renwick formerly served as Tax Assessor in numerous municipalities throughout Southern New Jersey. EDUCATION: Mr. Renwick attended Tusculum College in Greenville, Tennessee and Rutgers University in Camden, New Jersey, where he majored in Business Administration and minored in Education. He has received extensive professional education from the Appraisal Institute, the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, and the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers in the direct application and teaching of real estate appraisal theory.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Mr. Renwick is a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (SCGREA), the highest designation issued to real estate appraisers in the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He is a State of New Jersey Certified Tax Assessor (CTA). He is a member of the New Jersey Association of Municipal Assessors and is licensed as a real estate broker in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Renwick is on the approved appraiser list for a number of government agencies, including the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Department of Agriculture, Green Acres, and Department of Transportation. He is a past President of the South Jersey Chapter of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers.

CIVIC ACTIVITIES: Mr. Renwick is a founding Member of the Maple Shade Business Association and past Chairman of the Main Street Revitalization Committee. He is a former member of the Maple Shade Citizens Advisory Board and a former member of the Maple Shade Rotary Club. He is a past Chairman of the Maple Shade Zoning Board and a former External Vice President of the Maple Shade Jaycees.

CURRICULUM VITAE Daniel Connors

Daniel Connors is a Real Estate Appraiser Apprentice with Renwick and Associates.

EDUCATION: Mr. Connors attended The Institute of Computer Science where he earned an Associate Degree in Specialized Business.

Mr. Connors has successfully completed the Basic Appraisal Principals course from the Renwick and Associates School of Real Estate Appraisal and Basic Appraisal Procedures, 15-Hour Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) courses from the Appraisal Institute.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Mr. Connors has amassed the requisite number of experience hours for the State of New Jersey certification for mass appraisal inspections. He is currently accumulating experience hours toward the State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser designation and the Certified Tax Assessor designation.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Mr. Connors has performed property inspections for revaluation projects including residential (one to four family), commercial (office, apartments, warehouse, restaurant, mixed use), industrial (sand mine, chemical manufacturing), and exempt properties (schools, churches and government buildings). He has performed property valuations using the sales comparison, cost, and income approaches. He also has conducted informal taxpayer review meetings. In addition, Mr. Connors has worked on ad valorem tax consulting projects on behalf of property owners of banks, office complexes, strip malls and residential properties.

CIVIC ACTIVITIES: Knights of Columbus

EDUCATION: Basic Appraisal Principles Basic Appraisal Procedures 15-Hour National USPAP Equivalent Course Institute of Computer Science, Philadelphia, PA Associate Degree in Specialized Business

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Professional Member, Association of Information Technology Professionals (aitp) IEEE Computer Society

CERTIFICATIONS: ITIL V3 Foundation

CURRICULUM VITAE Richard K. Moule

Richard K. Moule is a Real Estate Appraiser Apprentice with Renwick and Associates.

EDUCATION: Mr. Moule attended West Chester University in West Chester, Pennsylvania, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Mathematics, with a concentration in Computer Science.

Mr. Moule has successfully completed real estate appraisal courses from the Renwick and Associates School of Real Estate Appraisal including Basic Principles, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Narrative Appraisal Report Writing, Residential Sales Analysis and Income Approach, and Residential Site Valuation and Cost approach.

Mr. Moule has successfully completed real estate appraisal courses from The Appraisal Institute including Real Estate Appraisal Procedures, Residential Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use, as well as the required curriculum for the State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser designation.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Mr. Moule has amassed the requisite number of experience hours for the State Certification for mass appraisal inspections and the required experience hours toward the State Certified, General Real Estate Appraiser designation. He is also an associate member of the Appraisal Institute.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Mr. Moule has performed property inspections for revaluation projects including residential (one to four family), commercial (office, apartments, warehouses, restaurants, mixed use), industrial (sand mines, chemical manufacturing), and exempt properties (schools, churches and government buildings). He also has conducted informal taxpayer review meetings. He has completed property valuations using the sales comparison, cost, and income approaches on various commercial and industrial properties.

Mr. Moule heads the tax appeal department and has worked on ad valorem tax consulting projects on behalf of the owners of a variety of commercial and industrial property types.

CIVIC ACTIVITIES: Mr. Moule is a past President, Vice President and Corresponding Secretary of Maple Shade Youth Baseball. He managed youth baseball teams for eight years and also volunteered as a high school football and girls track coach. Mr. Moule was also a member of the Maple Shade Jaycees.

CURRICULUM VITAE John J. Baldino, SLREA

John J. Baldino is a State Licensed Real Estate Appraiser with Renwick and Associates. He has 10 years’ experience in the appraisal of many types of residential, industrial, and commercial properties, including single-family, condominiums, 2-4 family residential, employee relocation, vacant land, mixed use commercial buildings, retail with residential buildings, warehouses, and manufacturing properties. He has been involved in mass appraisal projects including inspection and valuation duties, and has performed property valuations using the sales comparison, cost and income approaches. Mr. Baldino has performed ad valorem tax work. He has appeared before the Somerset, Mercer, Burlington, and Camden county tax boards as an expert witness. He has appeared before the state tax court as an expert witness.

EDUCATION: Mr. Baldino has a BS in Environmental Health from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He has taken professional and educational courses at Rutgers University, Rider University, and Johnson and Johnson Inc. He has taken continuing education courses in real estate appraising.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Mr. Baldino is a State Licensed Real Estate Appraiser. He is also taking continuing education classes to prepare for the state Certification examination for appraisers. He is also studying for the state certified tax assessor’s examination.

REVALUATION/REASSESSMENT EXPERIENCE: Mr. Baldino has performed residential and commercial inspections in several municipalities in which the company has performed revaluations and re-assessments and has participated in the valuation of numerous properties. He has also conducted informal taxpayer review meetings.

CURRICULUM VITAE Nancy Luciano

Nancy Luciano is a Real Estate Appraiser Apprentice with Renwick and Associates. EDUCATION: Ms. Luciano has successfully completed professional real estate courses from the Renwick and Associates School of Real Estate Appraisal including Basic Principles of Real Estate Appraisal, Real Estate Appraisal Procedures, Uniform Standards of Real Estate Appraisal Practice, and Narrative Real Estate Appraisal Report Writing Course. In addition, she has completed 30 credits from the State University at Buffalo, New York.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Ms. Luciano has the requisite number of experience hours required for the State of New Jersey certification for mass appraisal residential inspections. She is continuing to attend courses to prepare for the state examination for State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser. In addition, she currently holds a Real Estate Sales License with the State of New Jersey.

CIVIC ACTIVITIES: Ms. Luciano is a contributing volunteer for the last eight years as Audio-Visual engineer to her local church.

REVALUATION/REASSESSMENT EXPERIENCE Ms Luciano has performed residential inspections in several municipalities in which the company has performed revaluations and re-assessments and has participated in the valuation of numerous properties. She has also conducted informal taxpayer review interviews following the mailing of the new assessments. Ms. Luciano has assisted with numerous mass appraisal projects including inspection and valuation duties of residential, industrial, and commercial properties, including single-family residences, apartment complexes, gas stations, office buildings, and industrial warehouses.