Delanco Town Council Faces Scrutiny Over Proposed $3.5 Million Property Purchase

The Delanco Town Council meeting on May 29, 2025, was dominated by discussions concerning the township’s proposed $3.5 million purchase of a property on Creek Road. The proposal has sparked debate among council members and residents, with concerns centering on financial implications, potential development plans, and environmental impacts. A special election scheduled for July 29, 2025, was announced to address a petition challenging the incurred indebtedness for the purchase, emphasizing the community’s divided stance on the acquisition.

02:23The property in question, approximately 11.5 acres in size, was previously purchased by Criterion Group in 2021 for $20 million. It is situated in an I3 zoning district, which prohibits warehousing. Criterion has plans to establish a truck and trailer repair facility on the site, which includes significant land modifications like removing 700 trees and paving a parking area. The township previously faced a lawsuit from Criterion and Pharaoh Point due to a zoning change, resulting in a redevelopment agreement in February 2024. The township’s interest in purchasing the property is driven by the desire to control its future use and prevent increased truck traffic, which could impact local quality of life.

20:33The meeting revealed that while the township intends to acquire the property at $3.5 million, the appraised value stands at $5.3 million. This discrepancy has raised questions about the financial prudence of the purchase. The township committee underscored the benefits of acquiring the property, such as potential land swaps to enhance the Field of Dreams Park and maintaining control over local development. However, concerns about the township’s budget and potential tax increases were prevalent. Although it was stated that there would be no property tax increase in the current year, the acquisition’s short-term maintenance costs were acknowledged.

56:02Residents expressed skepticism about the financial implications of the purchase. One resident, Austin Dasher, questioned the lack of a concrete plan for the property’s development and the absence of contact with developers or assessment of land preparation costs. Dasher also highlighted the potential tax increase of $104, unrelated to the purchase itself, and expressed concerns about the township’s financial obligations without knowing the bond’s interest rate.

01:01:09The council explained that the bond would be classified as for general municipal purposes to avoid taxation, with interest rates expected to hover around 4%. However, specifics would only be determined after bond approval. A special election was necessitated by an objection to the bond ordinance, delaying the process. The council discussed options like a bond anticipation note, providing up to nine years for securing long-term financing, with initial payments covering only interest.

36:41Some residents worried about the noise and disruption from potential truck traffic, while others highlighted flooding issues related to construction in wetland areas. The council’s past initiatives to prevent undesirable developments were noted, with historical precedents like the Zerbrook Mansion’s transformation into affordable housing cited as examples of successful community-enhancing projects.

01:21:33Amid these discussions, a resident critiqued the decision to hold a special election before the November general election, arguing that the $70,000 allocation was unnecessary. They criticized the interpretive statement attached to the referendum and a partisan statement on the municipal website. The township’s administration clarified that responses to misinformation were drafted by the attorney and were not partisan, with plans to make an environmental assessment report public following review.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

Trending meetings
across the country: