How Accurate is the Information in the Consolidation Commission's Report?

To the Editor:

How Accurate is the information in the Consolidation Commission's report?
I am wondering whether the information in the Consolidation Commission's Report is accurate. I began to wonder when a startling thing happened at the Joint Borough-Township Meeting on Consolidation on October 26.  David Goldfarb, a Borough Council member who also serves on the Consolidation Commission, asked Anton Lahnston, the Chair of the Consolidation Commission, "whether the Commission intentionally underestimated the costs of transition in order to make our application to the state look better."

Chad Goerner, Township Mayor and a Consolidation Commission member, intervened and accused Mr. Goldfarb of "making things up."

Eventually, after Mr. Goldfarb had asked his question three times, Mr. Lahnston answered, "No, no, the answer is no."

[A video of this incident can be found at  http://vimeo.com/31376802  at 0:35:00 to 0:37:00 minutes.]

Later in the meeting, Kate Warren, a member of the audience, read aloud from a September 26, 2011 e-mail that had been given to her anonymously.  The e-mail is from Mr. Lahnston and was sent to all members of the Commission. Mr. Lahnston confirmed that he had sent the e-mail.

The e-mail includes the following paragraph:

"Back in May and June 2011, the Commission prepared the submission for transition costs reimbursement to the DCA.  It is important to point out that one area that was especially complex was I.T.  The original estimate from I.T. was over $2.0M.  That estimate was well-documented but exceeded the funding options available from N.J. for Princeton, in our view.  Therefore, we closely reviewed the I.T. estimates and realizing that some of the costs could be deferred - and that a significant number of the costs are part of the normal municipal budgets - we reduced the amount significantly to $160K.  Indeed this is a conservative estimate, but workable.  However, we believe it was consistent with the guidelines provided by DCA and GCR."

What do the verbal exchange and the e-mail tell us?

• The Commission intentionally underestimated and/or deferred Information and Technology [I.T.] transition costs in order not to exceed NJ state funding guidelines.

•  Since he participated in underestimating and/or deferring I.T. transition costs in order not to exceed NJ state funding guidelines, Mr. Lahnston knew that the truthful answer to Mr. Goldfarb's question was "Yes."  But he answered "No." So Mr. Lahnston gave a false answer to the question, at a public meeting.

• Mr. Goerner, as a member of the Commission's Finance Committee, knew that Mr. Goldfarb was not "making things up".

• The Commission decreased the I.T. transition cost estimate by a very large amount–from $2 million to $160,000. This is a decrease to just 8% of the original estimate developed by the I.T. staff. 

• Transition costs will be significantly more than the $1.7 million projected by the Commission, since the I.T. estimate was decreased so much. Preserve Our Historic Borough, by contrast, estimates that total transition costs will be at least $5 million, and possibly much higher.

• "Deferred costs" won't go away; payment is simply deferred. These costs will eventually have to be paid out of the municipal budget, even though they were not included in the transition costs estimate.

• High transition costs and deferred costs will result in property taxes actually going up, rather than down, if we consolidate. 

• It is not too late for the Commission to give the public accurate information about the likely transition costs. The Commission could calculate and publicize a larger, more accurate figure before the election. If the Commission did that, Princeton residents would have a much better idea of how much it would cost to consolidate. 

Considering what was revealed at the October 26 meeting, we have to wonder–what other information in the Commission's report is not true?

Phyllis Teitelbaum
Hawthorne Avenue