Concerns raised about impact next year.
By: Jennifer Potash
The Princeton Borough Council debated Tuesday how great a pinch the municipal budget should inflict on the taxpayers in a given year.
In the end, the council decided to inflict a lesser pinch this year, voting 5-0 to introduce a 2003 budget with a 4-cent tax increase instead of a 5-cent increase. Council President Mildred Trotman was absent for the vote.
During the discussion that preceded the vote, some council members supported the lower 4-cent increase in the municipal tax rate while others backed a 5-cent increase, arguing the borough’s one-shot use of surplus funds could leave a hole for the next budget if even greater shortfalls occur.
The proposed $19.4 million budget includes a tax rate of 71.5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.
The owner of a home assessed at the borough average of $348,200 will pay $2,489 in municipal property taxes if the proposed budget is approved. The new tax rate represents an increase of $139, or 5.9 percent, over the 2002 tax bill for the average home. The $19.4 million budget is a 4.3-percent increase over the $18.6 million budget last year.
Huge increases for insurance costs, up $538,852 this year, was one driving factor pushing up the budget, officials said. No services or personnel were added or eliminated in the budget.
But Councilwoman Peggy Karcher said insurance costs will only continue to increase and the borough must make hefty pension contributions next year.
"I feel that moving forward into next year, we are not allowing ourselves any leeway and I think we are painting ourselves into a corner," she said.
Ms. Karcher did vote to introduce the budget at the lower rate but asked the administration for more information about large projected revenues such as $800,000 for uniform construction code fees that she said seemed too optimistic.
Council members Roger Martindell and David Goldfarb supported the smaller increase, arguing the borough should provide relief to the taxpayers whenever possible.
"I think we need to look at some hard numbers and impose some discipline on ourselves," Mr. Martindell said. "One way to do that is to starve the beast, as some people might put it."
Despite dipping into some reserve and surplus accounts for the 2003 budget, some accounts will regenerate a portion of the funds and the borough will have "a significant nest egg for next year if we need a cushion," predicted Mr. Martindell, who serves as chairman of the Finance Committee.
To minimize either painful cuts in services or the need for larger tax hikes in the future, the Borough Council must immediately review its capital projects program, he said. The borough’s road maintenance and repair program would not be affected, however, Mr. Martindell said.
Regarding other cuts, Mr. Goldfarb said the borough might not be able to afford full health-care coverage to municipal employees’ families any longer. He also suggested the borough not fill an expected vacancy in the police department this year.
Borough Administrator Robert Bruschi said the administration is examining the borough’s health-care program and the coverage will be a major issue during collective bargaining negotiations later this year with several of the unions.
He cautioned the council that cuts in the relatively small borough staff would not have a great impact on budget but would affect the provision of services to the community.
The public hearing on the budget will be held June 4.

