By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
The two-year effort to clear up outstanding payments on old capital projects between Princeton Borough and Princeton Township will net the borough approximately $1.2 million, according to officials from both towns.
A meeting among both municipalities’ administrators and chief financial officers on Wednesday resulted in an agreement for the township to pay $1.8 million to the borough, and for the borough to pay approximately $600,000 to the township for projects over the last dozen years that had never been properly billed.
Both administrators said they expect the payments to be made within the next few weeks.
The money will be exchanged — instead of simply subtracting the difference — to keep the books accurate, Borough Administrator Bob Bruschi said Tuesday, noting that there is “$350,000 worth of projects on the borough side that still need some additional review and documentation.”
The effort to update the books stems from a set of documents sent to the township in June 2005 and September 2006 showing discrepancies in the payment of capital undertakings — some more than 10 years old — ranging from sewer projects to parks and recreation to the purchase of fire trucks.
Although both sides have spent the last few years digging up documentation on the various expenditures, all the money involved has already been appropriated, and the need to make payments won’t affect taxpayers, Mr. Bruschi said, noting that the funds from the township will turn into surplus for the borough.
Although Borough Councilman Roger Martindell estimated during Tuesday’s council meeting that the outstanding payments would have incurred approximately $200,000 in interest by now if they had been paid on time, Mr. Bruschi said interest will not be sought be either municipality.
”We just want to reconcile this,” he said. “Nobody’s debating that everybody owes everybody money. It’s really just to make sure that everyone has the appropriate backups (during audits).”
Mr. Bruschi said part of the confusion was precipitated by the fact that a less formal billing process was used in the past.
”There should have been a better job done keeping current with the billing,” he said. “We can’t operate that way.”
And the towns won’t operate that way anymore, according to Township Administrator Jim Pascale.
”It’ll be nice to put it behind us,” Mr. Pascale said Wednesday. “Most importantly, we have instructed our CFOs to ensure that we have timely billing prospectively.”
Council also heard comments Tuesday from Chip Meara, an addiction counselor for the Mercer Council on Alcoholism & Drug Addiction.
Mr. Meara said his organization is currently advocating the passage of an ordinance that would prohibit underage drinking on private property. He presented council with a draft of the ordinance that was passed in Hopewell Township, and said other municipalities in the county are considering it.
The borough last grappled with the issue in 2003 when council ultimately tabled an ordinance that would have allowed police officers to enforce underage drinking laws on private property, but only if they were invited inside or were responding to an emergency.
Councilman David Goldfarb, who said he has pushed for such an ordinance, told Mr. Meara that the main hurdle has been residents’ concerns about privacy and enforcement.
However, Mr. Meara said the agency has had little “backlash” from residents since the ordinance was passed in Hopewell.
