The HERD (Haddonfield Encouraging Responsible Development) proposal suggests a borough-led development of a stand-alone 10-unit affordable housing project on 1.1 acres, similar to The Place at Haddonfield (Snowden Affordable Units). This presents a stark contrast to the nine private redevelopment proposals, which incorporate affordable units within larger mixed-use or residential developments. Below I will break down some of the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal and how it compares against our other stand-alone affordable development The Place at Haddonfield commonly known as Snowden as well as how it compares against any of the 9 proposals. This is my work and thought process, not the official opinion of the Borough of Haddonfield. 

Key Considerations for the HERD Proposal:

Potential Advantages:

1. Minimal School Impact
   • Since it’s a small-scale, 10-unit project, the number of additional school-aged children would likely be lower than larger projects with market-rate housing.
   • The Snowden units likely provide a precedent for estimating school-aged children impacts.
2. Smaller Land Footprint (1.1 acres instead of 8.2 acres)
   • Preserves a significant portion of the Bancroft site for other uses.
   • Could align with community concerns about overdevelopment.
3. Direct Borough Control
   • The Borough would control design, construction, and long-term affordability.
   • Eliminates reliance on private developers, who may prioritize profit over community goals.
4. Meets the 10-unit Affordable Housing Requirement
   • Fulfills the minimum mandate without additional market-rate housing.
5. Potentially Lower Density and Traffic Impact
   • Avoids large-scale developments that could add significant traffic and congestion.

Challenges & Risks:

1. Financial Burden on the Borough
   • Unlike private developments that fund affordable housing through market-rate unit profits, the borough would bear the full cost.
   • Would taxpayers fund construction, or would state/federal grants be available?
   • How does Snowden’s funding model compare to what HERD is proposing?
2. Lost Potential Tax Revenue
   • Unlike private development, which contributes to tax revenue, a borough-run project may not generate substantial PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) contributions.
   • How does this compare to the estimated $18M+ in projected 30-year revenue from some private proposals?
3. Legal/COAH (Council on Affordable Housing) Compliance Risks
   • Would the courts and NJ COAH accept a borough-led 10-unit project as fulfilling all obligations?
   • Could this open the door to builders’ remedy lawsuits if it’s deemed inadequate?
4. Cost Comparison with Snowden Affordable Units
   • The Place at Haddonfield was developed in partnership with a private developer—how much would it cost if fully borough-funded?
   • What was Snowden’s per-unit development cost?
   • Would state funding programs like NJHMFA (New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency) be available?

Next Steps & Further Analysis:

1. Compare the per-unit cost of Snowden to HERD’s estimates.
   • Does it make financial sense compared to private proposals?
2. Project revenue vs. cost.
   • What’s the net financial impact if Haddonfield self-develops vs. sells to a private developer?
3. Assess school-aged children impact.
   • Snowden’s data could help estimate how many students a standalone 10-unit project might add.
4. Legal Feasibility.
   • Would a 10-unit solution fully satisfy affordable housing obligations?
5. Public Sentiment & Political Feasibility.
   • Would residents and leadership back a borough-led project over private development?

Cost Comparison: Snowden vs. Just Build 10

Key Takeaways:

1. Higher Cost Per Unit for Just Build 10:
   • Snowden's cost per unit: $235K
   • Just Build 10’s estimated cost per unit: $385K (due to site prep and roadwork costs).
2. Additional Infrastructure Costs for Just Build 10:
   • $1M for approvals (SHPO, EPA, etc.).
   • $1.5M for Hopkins Lane road widening & paving.
3. Total Cost Comparison:
   • Snowden's total cost: $4.7M for 20 units.
   • Just Build 10’s total cost: $3.85M for 10 units (making it less cost-efficient per unit).

Financial Trade-offs: Borough-Funded "Just Build 10" vs. Private Developer Proposals

Since the HERD Just Build 10 proposal relies entirely on borough funding, let’s evaluate its financial impact compared to private developer proposals.

1. Borough Funding Sources

If Haddonfield fully funds the Just Build 10 project ($3.85M), potential funding options include:

1. Municipal Bonds (Debt Financing)

• The borough could issue bonds to finance the project.
• Trade-offs:
  • Adds long-term debt to the borough’s finances.
  • Interest payments increase total cost (e.g., at 3.5% over 20 years, the borough could pay $1.4M+ in interest).
  • May limit borrowing capacity for other projects (e.g., roads, public safety upgrades).

1. Grants & State Funding

• Snowden was funded by NJ Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
• If similar funding is secured, borough costs could be significantly reduced.
• Trade-offs:
  • Uncertain eligibility & approval timelines.
  • Could be competitive with other NJ towns.

1. PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) on Other Projects

• Haddonfield could leverage PILOT agreements from other developments.
• Trade-offs:
  • Funds diverted from other borough needs.
  • Reduces tax revenue in the short term.

1. Opportunity Cost: Loss of Private Developer Revenue

If the borough self-develops affordable housing, it forfeits revenue from selling the 8.2-acre Bancroft parcel to a private developer.

Comparison with Developer Proposals

• Trade-offs:
  • Private development generates taxes + fulfills affordable housing via inclusionary zoning.
  • Borough-led project keeps land under public control but adds debt or tax burden.

1. School Impact: Lower But Still Costly

• Private proposals add more school-aged children (which increases costs).
• Just Build 10 keeps school impact lower, but 10 units still generate some school costs.
• Trade-offs:
  • Private projects generate school taxes from market-rate homes.
  • Borough-funded housing doesn’t generate sufficient taxes to offset school costs.

1. Long-Term Affordability Control

• Just Build 10 gives Haddonfield direct control over affordable housing.
• Private developer proposals require deed restrictions, but affordability terms may expire in 30+ years.
• Trade-offs:
  • Borough maintains affordable units permanently.
  • Borough must fund long-term maintenance & management.

Key Takeaways

Final Considerations

• Best for Borough Financial Stability? → Private Development (less financial burden, more tax revenue).
• Best for Controlling Development? → Just Build 10 (limits large-scale development but is costly).
• Best for Affordable Housing Compliance? → Depends – both meet the 10-unit requirement, but Just Build 10 offers permanent affordability.

Here is the 30-year financial projection for the Just Build 10 borough-funded project:

Key Findings:

1. Total cost over 30 years = ~$9.45M, including loan payments and maintenance.
2. Total revenue (from rent/PILOT) = ~$1.5M, assuming limited affordability-based rents.
3. Net loss to the borough over 30 years = ~$7.95M (compared to private proposals, which generate $18M+ in revenue).

Trade-offs to Consider:

• Borough control vs. financial burden: Haddonfield maintains ownership and affordability but takes a long-term financial hit.
• Developer proposals generate revenue but increase density.
• Funding grants (if secured) could lower the borough’s financial risk.