By Lauren Otis, Staff Writer
Princeton Borough Council has directed Borough Administrator Robert Bruschi to put together a conceptual budget for the coming fiscal year which included no tax increase, despite his reservations that a zero-tax-increase budget could realistically be achieved.
”I don’t know how realistic that is,” said Mr. Bruschi of the possibility of coming up with revenues and/or expenditure reductions totaling slightly in excess of $1.2 million in order to balance a budget containing no tax increase. “I support the concept,” he said at a special budget meeting Thursday.Even with a 5-cent increase in the tax rate, the borough would need to find an additional $718,000 in savings and/or revenues to plug the estimated budget gap it faces, Mr. Bruschi said. This number doesn’t take into account the fact that the state, facing its own budgetary woes, is almost certain to further reduce its aid allotment at least as much as the $162,000 reduction in 2008, he said.
”We are probably looking at that. It may be more, but we have to come to grips with that,” Mr. Bruschi said.
Mr. Bruschi said the current 2009 budget stands at $24,946,281, a $317,933 reduction over last year’s $25,264,214. It was only the second time in his 30 years in municipal government that he had seen a municipal budget shrink rather than increase, he said.
Despite the difficulty in adopting a zero-tax-increase budget, Borough Council adopted a motion to make this their goal. The motion passed 4 to 2, with Councilmen Roger Martindell, David Goldfarb, Kevin Wilkes, and Councilwoman Barbara Trelstad voting for it, and Council President Andrew Koontz and Councilwoman Margaret Karcher voting against it.
In making the motion, Mr. Martindell noted that council’s budget deliberations should be conducted with the goal of no tax increase. “That’s not to say we are locked in,” should the financial situation necessitate some tax increase, Mr. Martindell said.
Mr. Wilkes said the motion would send the right message to the public, that Borough Council understands the difficult economic circumstances they are grappling with. “The truth of the matter is this is the time. The public is feeling significant impact,” Mr. Wilkes said.
”Having a zero tax increase would involve difficult decisions,” said Mr. Goldfarb, but noted that during the current recession the public understands the need to cut back so there will never be a better opportunity to make those decisions.
With a shrinking borough budget and residents with shrinking means, Borough Council cannot simply increase taxes year after year, Mr. Goldfarb said. “We can’t continue that forever, we are not going to stay in office if we continue that,” he said.
”I think it is an unwise decision. I think it is an emotional response to a crisis situation,” Mr. Koontz said, describing why he opposed the motion. “It will be the employees of the borough that will be affected if we adopt a zero percent tax increase,” he said.
The layoffs and cuts in services necessary to meet the goal “will compound our hardship later on when the economy comes back,” Mr. Koontz said, with the borough unable to bring back services quickly enough and Borough Council meetings full of residents “asking why can’t you provide these services?”
Ms. Karcher said not increasing taxes was a good goal but it was premature to make a motion to that effect. “We’ll keep that (goal) in our heads as we go through our discussions. I don’t think we need to formalize it,” she said.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Wilkes said after looking at municipal construction fees around the state, both for new construction and rehabilitation work, he found “basically we are lower than our surrounding communities for rehabilitation work, which is work on existing buildings.”
Mr. Wilkes suggested increasing borough fees for residential and commercial renovations, alterations and repairs, to bring them in line with surrounding communities and generate much-needed municipal revenue. He noted that, at Princeton University and in the borough, construction work continued despite the bad economy. At the university, “much of the work that falls in the borough consists of rehabilitation work,” Mr. Wilkes said.
After working with Princeton’s joint Department of Human Services, Mr. Wilkes also described reassignments of certain Human Services offerings, which would save costs, while continuing the organization’s core services. Borough Council has previously debated no longer participating in and funding the joint Human Services department.
Mr. Wilkes said Human Services advocacy and outreach for seniors and youth could be reassigned, and welfare services might continue to be offered in a pooled manner with surrounding municipalities. Outreach for Civil Rights and for the Latino community in Princeton could continue under the Human Services department, he said.
From a overall fiscal standpoint, Mr. Wilkes also recommended the borough adopt a strategy of putting a 10 percent reserve in every department budget, with each department subject to review in November prior to that final 10 percent being disbursed. “It is a mechanism by which we can make end-of-year adjustments,” he said, should actual department revenues and needs depart from those budgeted.
Mr. Wilkes’ suggestions were well received by fellow borough council members and borough staff at the meeting, although no formal action was taken on them.
Borough Council tentatively set its next special budget meeting for Feb. 12, and set a special debt management plan meeting for Feb. 17.

