Today, the project’s price tag has ballooned to $2.16 million and officials say hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential donations and state aid may have been lost in the delay
By: John Tredrea
About two years ago, the cost of the Back Timberlane athletic complex was estimated at $1.3 million.
That estimate was made by those who supported the plan members of the Hopewell Valley Municipal Alliance, Recreation Roundtable, Valley youth athletic leagues and other proponents.
Today, the project’s price tag has ballooned to $2.16 million and officials say hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential donations and state aid may have been lost in the delay. Meanwhile, the price tag has increased significantly due to project revisions made to satisfy neighbors’ concerns.
In response to these developments, the Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education voted unanimously Dec. 10 to seek funding for nine new fields at Back Timberlane in a March 12 referendum.
The amount of money the district will propose to the voters has yet to be determined, but will probably be in the range of $1.9 million to $2.8 million. In addition to money for the new fields, the referendum also will propose spending about $100,000 for new playground equipment near the Timberlane building itself.
The nine fields will be built several hundred yards west of the school, on 48 acres of Timberlane’s extensive grounds.
Robert Sopko, the superintendent of schools, said the district may get help from Hopewell Township and the Recreation Foundation in paying the costs of clearing the land, grading and other site work, and constructing driveways and parking areas at the Back Timberlane site. He said the district is talking to the foundation and township about these items now.
"The amount of the referendum could easily be reduced by about $800,000" if the township and foundation agree to help pay for the new fields, he said. The tax impact, if voters approve the referendum, was summarized by school district business administrator John Nemeth, who is also school board secretary. He said the owner of a home assessed at $200,000 in any of the district’s three towns would pay $20 to $25 a year in new taxes for 10 years if the referendum sought funding for the full $2.77 million tab, which is the current estimate for the new fields and playground equipment. "That could be reduced to the range of $12 to $15 a year" if the district gets help in paying for the project from the Foundation and township and thus is able to reduce the amount of money it will propose spending in the March 12 referendum.
The largest potential donation that the Back Timberlane project lost was $400,000 worth of topsoil from Merrill Lynch.
Because of its construction schedule at the Southfields office park being built in southern Hopewell Township off I-95, Merrill set a deadline of Oct. 31 for the topsoil to be taken. But hearings at the township Planning Board on Back Timberlane continued into November, and so the topsoil was lost.
Just under $400,000 for topsoil is included in the current $2.16 million Back Timberlane cost estimate. In the referendum, the school district’s current plan is to seek voter approval for an additional $216,000, or 10 percent of the construction cost estimate, for contingencies. "That’s to help us be prepared for inflation and unforeseen circumstances that could come up during actual construction," Dr. Sopko said Tuesday.
During Back Timberlane’s torturous history, the school district took over, from the Recreation Foundation the role of being the lead agency in the Back Timberlane application that went before the township Planning Board. That lead-agency change to the school district from a nonprofit means the cost of paying workers to build Back Timberlane will go up significantly, said Ms. Stone and Dr. Sopko.
"The Recreation Foundation could have contracted for labor as a foundation instead of as a public body, which is what the school district will have to do" if the referendum passes and Back Timberlane is built, Ms. Stone said. "That can make a tremendous difference in cost."
Although he, like Ms. Stone, could not estimate what the difference in cost could be, Dr. Sopko agreed with her assessment. "State law requires us, as a school district, to pay the prevailing wage, or the wage comparable to what trade unions would charge, for whatever kind of work it is you’re talking about," Dr. Sopko said, adding that the district is, as a matter of routine, monitored by the state Department of Labor to make sure it complies with this requirement.
Dr. Sopko and Ms. Stone both said a second state grant of $200,000 for Back Timberlane very probably has been lost as a result of the "changed politics," as Ms. Stone put it. An earlier grant in the same amount made about a year and a half ago is now "in the bank," Ms. Stone said.
"And, though of course there’s no way I can be sure about this, I think other donations to Back Timberlane that would have come in have probably been lost as a result of the project’s notoriety," Dr. Sopko said.
"I think you also have to remember that this is a changed project," Dr. Sopko said, noting the changes made as a result of negotiations that went on for months between the school district, its three member towns, neighbors opposed to Back Timberlane, athletic groups, and other parties.
Some of the changes, incorporated into the project to make it more amenable to the neighbors, have significant price tags, the superintendent said. For example the revamped project now includes $33,750 for shade trees and $67,000 for buffer plantings in the 100-foot buffer.
A major concern about Back Timberlane during the hearings on the project was stormwater runoff. The stormwater drainage system that is part of the district’s revamped plan for the fields will cost an estimated $192,000, the district says.
Ms. Stone added that a traffic study and tree survey, both undertaken after opposition to the project surfaced, cost $5,000 each.