Borough, Township prepare for November vote on consolidation

Residents of the Borough and Township will vote on a referendum proposing consolidation of the two communities this November. If the referendum passes with a majority in both the Borough and the Township, the two Princetons will become one municipality under a borough form of government.

Both municipal governing bodies voted to place the referendum on their November ballots at a joint meeting in July. The proposed plan for consolidation is the product of the Joint Consolidation/Shared Services Study Commission that met for several months earlier this year.

Consolidated, the Princetons could potentially save $3.3 million. The bulk of the savings, $2.1 million, comes from combining the two police departments, and the total savings represents about 5 percent of the municipalities’ combined budget of $60 million.

Before passing the final vote, the commission edited the language of its original resolution to reflect one commission member’s wish that the commission take less of advocacy role in the success or failure of the referendum. David Goldfarb of the finance subcommittee asked that the resolution be edited to read that the commission “accepts the recommendation,” rather than “approves and endorses” it.

Marc Pfeiffer, deputy director of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs’ Division of Local Government Services, said at the meeting that the state budget allows for appropriations to aid in municipal transition costs but that the state had not yet made a decision on aid.

“The request that the commission made is under review by our division. I can’t give you a time frame for when we will provide you a response,” he said. Answering a commission member’s inquiry that a response may come after the November decision, he added, “My inclination would be that we don’t think our decision should get in the way of the democratic process of what folks are going to do or not do here.”

The committee estimates transition costs at a total of $1.7 million. The report predicts that, if the municipalities receive no state aid, the impact on the average homeowner will be a one-time cost of $200, Patrick Simon of the finance committee explained.

Residents have been quick to advocate for and against the consolidation measure.

Some community members have formed a nonpartisan public commission, United Princeton, to advocate for consolidation. UP aims to raise at least $15,200 for mailings, flyers, advertisements and publicity, according to one of its founders, Peter Wolanin ’94. The group has begun collecting signatures to publish as a list of supporters in a local newspaper.

The most vocal opponents of consolidation have been Borough residents, many of whom are concerned about losing their “Borough identity” in the new municipality. The Borough population is estimated to include more than 13,000 residents, including University students, most of whom are not local voters, and the Township population is estimated at more than 17,000, according to the commission’s report. Because the new municipality’s council and mayor would be elected at large from the entire community, Borough residents who speak of certain qualities and interests specific to the Borough location and character fear that these interests would be disenfranchised.

At the July meeting, Borough resident Kate Warren cited a New Jersey Department of Community Affairs report which predicted that, if the University student population of some 5,000 is subtracted, the Borough’s voting-eligible population is just over 7,000.

“The Borough will be but 10 percent of the land mass in a combined Princeton,” and 30 percent of the population, Warren said. “It does not take much to see where the majority of improvements and municipal spending will go in a consolidated Princeton.”

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

“This urge to merge has never originated with Borough taxpayers,” she said, referring to previous times that the Borough has voted down consolidation measures. “The answer has always been thanks, but no thanks.”