To the Editor:

November 6 is a watershed moment for the Princeton Board of Education (BOE). It is clear that we need people with fresh perspectives and new skill sets to fill the three open seats.

One of many challenges is that the facilities originally planned by the BOE, the $130 million referendum, carried with them operating costs that exceeded our ability to pay. Costs that would have taken us beyond the revenue we are allowed to raise under the 2 percent state cap. In another words — we have just pulled back from the brink.

The referendum is only a vote on the costs to be borrowed via bonds. The referendum does NOT cover associated operating costs. Our current operating levy is $76 million. Under the 2 percent cap set by state statute for operating expenses, the Princeton School District is only allowed an increase of $1.5 million for next year, and yet, using Superintendent Cochrane’s own numbers, $1.9 million would have been required to cover operating costs for projects that would have been authorized by the full referendum, putting us $400,000 into the red immediately, And since, with regular growth in operating costs, we have been absorbing each year the maximum allowable levy increase. If the referendum projects were on-line now, we would be running a $1.9 million levy deficit.

In my opinion, immediate action is needed to get the school budget under control.

In announcing that there will be just one referendum question for critical projects on the December 11 ballot, President Pat Sullivan also said that the School District would support the creation of stakeholder groups (made up of users — faculty, students, and residents), which would start a true public participation process in future referendums. In my view, we shouldn’t wait. Stakeholder groups should be set up now to begin reviewing the details of the referendum projects now being proposed.

It is also very important to set up focused citizen advisory committees of relevant experts for each component of the referendum. These committees should be made up of residents with relevant technical expertise in security, HVAC, classroom design (for PHS), and athletic fields. These advisory committees, in my view, should be set up to develop overall design and operational goals for each component of the referendum: looking at feasibility, sustainability, quality, and cost effectiveness. From this there should emerge a “building program,” a narrative that describes each project and becomes the basis for the detailed design. This has not been done.

In considering security, goals might be to maintain a sense of transparency and openness, integrating these designs as seamlessly as possible into our existing buildings. Similarly, it is important to evaluate alternative HVAC systems, including solar and geothermal systems, so that we can choose the most sustainable and cost effective systems. We also need to consider other alternatives, such as adding small additions to existing elementary schools vs. considering a new 5/6 school. One advantage of the small additions approach is that if additions in enrollment don’t materialize as projected, you can adjust the timing and sizes of the small additions you construct.

Finally, I want to see some administrative solutions, particularly for PHS — things that are pretty easy to do, and pretty inexpensive — two sittings for the cafeteria, a portable café that could be set up at strategic locations, opening skylights that have been shut, adding murals and LED lighting in hallways that are dim.

Kip Cherry
Dempsey Avenue