By Donald Gilpin

“It’s going to be a hotly debated item on the November ballot,” said Princeton Mayor Liz Lempert, commenting on the planned $129.6M Princeton Public Schools facilities bond referendum. The debate continues in various forums, public and private, throughout the Princeton community.

“I applaud the school district,” Lempert said at a Monday press conference. “They’ve been out there in the community holding forums.” Declining to take sides, Lempert added, “The most important thing about this is that it’s going to be a community vote. There are challenging issues here. To not invest comes with a cost too. it’s an important process. I’m glad there’s a high level of community involvement.”

Councilman Tim Quinn also weighed in, not pro or con on the question, but supporting the process as “democracy in its purest form, a straight up-and-down vote.”

The Princeton Board of Education at its July 17 meeting voted to separate the referendum into two questions for voters on November 6.

The first question authorizes $82.5M to fund a new 5/6 school at Valley Road; four additional classrooms at Princeton High School (PHS); safety measures and security upgrades at all district schools; HVAC upgrades; the purchase of 15 acres and two existing office buildings at Thanet Circle for administration, maintenance, and transportation employees currently at Valley Road; and upgraded athletic facilities.

The second question authorizes $47M more for creation of additional capacity at PHS through transformation of three interior courtyards, renovations of existing space at PHS, and addition of turf to an athletic field. The second question cannot pass unless the first question passes.

Last Saturday morning about 35 residents with a wide range of concerns and questions came to the Community Room of the Princeton Public Library for a two-hour Q&A session on the referendum with PPS Superintendent Steve Cochrane and project architect Scott Downie.

Not surprisingly, many concerns focused on the financial implications of the referendum and its impact on property taxes. A number of speakers sought further explanation and clarification of the plan and the process, in some cases questioning the need for certain facets of the investment. There were also questions about state aid, additional investment from institutions and individuals in the community, and about the design and its effect on student learning.

Cochrane and Downie delivered an informative opening presentation, and a number of others also noted urgent needs that the referendum proposal addresses.

“I especially appreciated the time that the superintendent and our architect spent on process questions, the reasons why so many options were considered and rejected,” said Board member Gregory Stankiewicz, noting the “robust discussion” between school officials and the public.

“I welcomed the superintendent’s statement that he and the Board will look to engage the public in multiple venues and formats” between now and November 6, Stankiewicz continued. “I also appreciated the acknowledgment that the district and Board fully realize the sacrifices that families are being asked to make to continue to support public education in our community.”

Cochrane described the session as “testimony to the care and thoughtfulness of our community. People may have entered the session with a variety of views on the referendum, but everyone in attendance was there to learn.”

He added, “I was glad we could provide clarity around the tax impact by showing the cost per $100,000 of assessed home value, as well as clarity around the diligence that went into the process to develop the 5/6 model and the other specific projects included in the referendum.”

Further information on the referendum questions and their financial implications can be found on the referendum website at www.princetonk12.org/district/about_us/facilities_referendum.