By Victoria Hurley-Schubert, Staff Writer
Residents of the Princetons are inching closer to having their official say about whether to consolidate into one Princeton after the Joint Shared Services Consolidation Commission (JSSCC) voted to send that recommendation to the governing bodies of the borough and township for their approval.
Throughout the summer Princeton Borough Council and Princeton Township Committee will be examining the idea of consolidating into one community, to be known as Princeton, under the borough form of government with a six-member council and individually elected mayor.
Their approval is necessary for the commission’s recommendation to appear as a question on the ballot in November.
The recommendation means there would be one government, one police department and one public works department if voters approve. There would be some layoffs of people in duplicate positions.
”We have a fabulous opportunity in front of us in Princeton,” said Anton Lahnston, JSSCC chair as he introduced the motion. “An opportunity to be stronger, be more unified, be more efficient and to be a more harmonious community … I think we have an opportunity for better governance with one governing body as compared to two.”
Lone dissenter David Goldfarb, a borough councilman and mayoral candidate, agreed “there is a case for consolidation, there is no question about it and I believe the commission has presented the case in the strongest way and that case is worthy of consideration.”
But he voted no because he said he has concerns over language in the recommendation.
”If we’re willing to tone it down just a little bit and say we’re recommending to the two governing bodies that a referendum appear on the ballot in November considering consolidation based on our report, I would vote for that motion,” he said. He was looking to recommend that consolidation be put on the ballot and sent to the voters; not just a blanket endorsement of the commission.
”I did not vote for the motion that states that the commission recommends consolidation,” he said afterward. “I don’t think the case is strong enough to recommend consolidation to our residents … the case for consolidation has been made, the case against it was not considered carefully by the commission.”
Although he supports the commission’s work, Mr. Goldfarb is not behind the commission’s recommendation of consolidation. “I will not recommend to our residents that they vote in favor of consolidation.” After more thought and consideration he may or may not recommend consolidation to voters.
As a borough councilman and mayoral candidate, he is not convinced consolidation is the way to go. He is concerned about finances and transition costs.
Patrick Simon asked about having two questions one for consolidation and one for shared services on the ballot, which was sent to the municipal attorneys for clarification. According to the municipal attorneys’ report, two questions are not allowed to be on the ballot, according to state statute.
After the meeting, the mayors were in support of the commission’s recommendation.
”I haven’t supported consolidation in the past and I’ve been around for every one of them, but a lot of the concerns I had then have been addressed,” said Borough Mayor Mildred Trotman, who sits on the commission. “They were addressed before we started this with the local option law.
”Just one of the reasons I didn’t vote for consolidation in the past was because I didn’t see savings the way I can see them this time; not just those that you can quantify now, but down the road those that you can’t quantify but common sense tells you that you’re just going to save on after you settle down after that transition period.”
In the township, Mayor Chad Goerner was excited with the vote.
”As one of the main drivers behind consolidation and the author of the proposal put forth to the commission, I am pleased with the outcome and this serves as a unique opportunity to unite our town and build a stronger community,” he said.
”The commission clearly did its work and it was transparent and there is a clear case (for consolidation),” he said. “All the hard work everyone worked hard, no one lagged behind and it resulted in the results we had last night.”
The commission consisted of two elected officials from each municipality, citizens, Division of Community Affairs representatives and an outside consultant.
Borough mayoral candidate Yina Moore isn’t so sure about consolidation yet.
”I haven’t seen the numbers to justify it in a way that shows it to be significant for borough residents,” she said after the meeting.
According to revised figures from the finance subcommittee, the direct impact of consolidation is $201 in annual savings for the average borough homeowner and $240 for the average township property homeowner. The average borough property was valued at $747,665 and the average township property was valued at $826,636.
With secondary impacts equalization of other taxes such as county and school taxes factored in, it results in $591 savings for average borough property and $416 savings for average township property.
The commission also revealed some of the estimated transition costs of $621,000 for police costs; legal costs of $88,500; incidentals of $103,000 stationary, signage, website; implementation consulting, moving costs, $390,000 for a first-pass total $1.3 million.
The group has not been able to calculate retirement incentives and are working with DCA to prepare a request for transition costs from the state. The commission will continue its work throughout the summer as it works with the governing bodies and hold meetings with the community.
A draft of the estimated transition costs and a draft of the recommendations will be sent to DCA on or about June 3 with a request for support or reimbursements for transition costs; and on June 22 the commission will present its final report to the state.
The commission’s next meeting is scheduled for June 8, right before the meeting of Borough Council.
A joint governing body meeting will take place early in the summer to move the process forward. A date has not been determined.

