Following setback from court ruling, new strategies emerge to win back tax payment
By: Nick Norlen
If comments from Princeton Borough officials are any indication, the Cottage Club won’t be seeing its $320,00 in back taxes anytime soon.
At Wednesday’s meeting, Borough Council members passed a resolution and discussed more aggressive options aimed at getting the Princeton University student eating club back on the tax rolls.
The council’s resolution supports state legislation that would negate last week’s state Supreme Court decision to grant a tax exemption, which the Prospect Avenue eating club applied for in 2002.
Borough Administrator Robert Bruschi said Cottage Club has paid approximately $60,000 in taxes each year 25 percent of which went to the borough.
The club, which initially applied for an exemption under claims that it is a historic site and a nonprofit organization, is on both the state and National Register of Historic Places.
According to club attorney Thomas Olson, the club is open to the public 12 days a year.
Now, the borough is banking on legislation, bill A-4126, introduced by state Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Princeton) that would require the Cottage Club to abide by a state statute passed in 2004 requiring tax-exempt historic sites to be open to the public for at least 96 days a year.
Mr. Gusciora said the Assembly’s Housing and Local Government Committee will hold a public hearing on the proposed bill Thursday.
During Wednesday’s meeting, Councilman Andrew Koontz reiterated the borough’s frustration with the recent ruling.
"What’s most remarkable about the state Supreme Court’s decision is that they found an exception to legislative intent that exempted the Cottage Club," he said. "What is ironic about this is that the legislation passed in 2004 was specifically intended to not allow the Cottage Club a tax exemption."
However, Councilman David Goldfarb said the borough has recourse.
"Clearly, the Supreme Court left us an opening. The Legislature can, with the right legislation, force the Cottage Club to pay taxes. And I think that’s where we ought to focus our attention in the short term."
Although Mayor Mildred Trotman said she was optimistic about the passing of the legislation, she said there are "still options on the plate should that fail."
In that vein, Mr. Koontz proposed pursuing ordinances that would prohibit the consumption of alcohol at the Cottage Club, or requiring the club to apply for permits "on every occasion that they would have an event where alcohol would be consumed."
He added, "I’m not saying that we should immediately move forward, but I think this is the kind of ordinance that we need to explore in order to put pressure on the Cottage Club.
Councilman Roger Martindell agreed.
"We should not rely only on our legislative remedies," he said. "I think we should be fairly aggressive about it."
He proposed taking full advantage of the 12 days that facility is open for public use, as well as communicating with Princeton University about the issue.
When asked by a resident if the borough would use its surplus in the event that it was ultimately required to pay the taxes, Mr. Martindell said the borough could, but, in doing so, would lose an "opportunity to highlight the issue."
He added, "For example, I would say, ‘We shouldn’t pay the money. Let’s not pay the money. I’m not in any hurry to pay the money. Let them wait for it,’" he said. "And then I think you’d join me, as a taxpayer, in saying, ‘Let’s be in no hurry to pay.’ "

