Fact check: Princeton Public Schools referendum “vote yes” lawn signs, board ethics, bond spending history
Several local residents have claimed that the Princeton Board of Education is improperly funding lawn signs in support of the upcoming $89 million bond referendum vote.
The school district did not fund the signs that have appeared around Princeton. A small group of parents paid for them, according to one parent who was part of the effort.
Princeton resident Jane Manners told Planet Princeton that she and nine other parents each contributed $180 for the signs, spending a total of $1,800.
“The signs were paid for by a group of parents who care enough about the referendum to put forward $180 of their own money and a lot more of their time,” Manners said.
Under New Jersey law, a ballot question is required if a school district seeks to issue new bonds for capital improvements to improve existing facilities or to build new ones. School boards are allowed to spend money to educate voters about bond referendums and speak at forums, but may not use taxpayer funds to advocate for one particular side.
Political action committees supporting or opposing referendums or other ballot questions must register with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) and comply with the state’s campaign finance regulations if they spend $2,800 or more. The parent group has not spent enough money to exceed this threshold and therefore does not have to file with ELEC.
“I spent a lot of time talking with a representative from ELEC to understand the reporting requirements,” Manners said. “We were told if the group is spending less than $2,800 and individuals are not spending more than $200, there is no reporting requirement.”
Manners said the group selected a name and rented a post office box. After the signs were printed, she said, people realized the identifier was too small, so they went around town putting stickers on the lawn signs. A QR code on the signs directs people to the school district’s referendum information page.
At an anti-referendum forum hosted by a former school board candidate Tuesday night, residents falsely claimed that school board members are committing ethical violations just by simply speaking at forums about what the bond referendum will fund. Residents were encouraged to get recordings of board members talking about the referendum to use to file ethics charges with the state against school board members.
Some people speculated that the school board paid for the lawn signs, while others said they thought the Princeton PTO Council did.
One resident bashed “PTO moms” and said the PTO does not represent all parents. “The PTO is the Board of Education’s personal p.r. machine,” the resident said in the audio recording of the meeting reviewed by Planet Princeton.
Voters will be asked to weigh in on the proposed $89 million referendum in a special election on Jan. 28. The school board has divided the referendum ballot into three separate questions.
If the referendum passes, the state will contribute an estimated $19.9 million in debt service aid if all three ballot questions pass.
The owner of a home assessed at the Princeton average of $853,136 would pay $222 more in school taxes per year if Question 1 passes. The average homeowner would pay $447 more per year in school taxes if Question One and Question Two pass. The average homeowner would pay $532 more per year in school taxes if all three questions pass.
Question 1
$37.9 million – Community Park Elementary School expansion/renovations and Princeton High School end-of-life HVAC replacement and rehabilitation.
Question 2
$38.3 million – Princeton Middle School expansion/renovations and Princeton High School renovations
Question 3:
$12.9 million – Littlebrook Elementary School expansion/renovations
Past referendums
During the anti-referendum forum Tuesday night, some residents claimed the school board historically gets residents to approve bond referendums for a particular purpose, then diverts the funds and spends them on whatever district officials want to use the money for. “The referendum is a $90 million Ponzi scheme,” one resident said.
School boards are not allowed to divert funds from bond referendums for whatever purpose they want to use them for. They must use the funds for the approved purposes.
A few residents also claimed that every referendum since 2018 was supposed to fund HVAC improvements at all the schools, but that the school board keeps asking residents to pay for the same HVAC improvements over and over in every referendum. People floated conspiracy theories, for example, that school districts like Princeton and Lawrence are promoting HVAC projects because the investment management firm BlackRock, accused by conservatives of placing left-leaning social and political goals ahead of maximizing returns for clients, has invested in several HVAC-related companies.
Following is the history of what bond referendums have funded in the Princeton Public Schools since 2018:
In 2023, Princeton voters approved a $13 million bond referendum for security, sustainability, maintenance, and technology upgrades at the district’s schools. The referendum funded playground upgrades at Princeton Middle School and elementary schools, and improvements at the middle school pool. Funding was also earmarked for kitchen, cafeteria, Ecolab, athletic field, and locker upgrades at Princeton High School. The referendum also earmarked money to replace fences at elementary schools.
In 2022, voters approved a $17.5 million referendum to replace and repair roofs and equipment at all six district schools and make other structural repairs at schools.
In 2018, voters approved a $26.9 bond referendum to fund elementary school HVAC upgrades in classrooms and cafeterias, electrical service upgrades, and library upgrades. The HVAC was upgraded in the middle school cafeteria and classrooms, electrical services were upgraded, the library was renovated, and the nurse’s suite was expanded. Improvements were also made to athletic fields. At Princeton High School, air conditioning was added to the Tiger Gym, the boiler and elevator were upgraded, some HVAC controls and systems were upgraded, fire alarms were repaired, and water and flooding issues were fixed in the auditorium wing. Improvements were made to the guidance office area, grab-and-go dining, a wellness studio, wrestling and fencing spaces, basketball backboards, and tennis court drainage. Four additional classrooms and a commons area were added to the high school.
Krystal Knapp is the founding editor of Planet Princeton. Follow her on Twitter @krystalknapp. She can be reached via email at editor AT planetprinceton.com. Send all letters to the editor and press releases to that email address.
This is unbelievable. The town and school governments exempt real estate developers from paying school or other taxes for 30 years and then turn around and ask us to compensate by raising property taxes on family homes. If these referenda pass on January 28 we, wage earners, will in effect be subsidizing Herring Properties and other developers’s profits. Reject all three bond measures! Make the developers pay up!
I’ve voted yes on all three referendum questions, after visiting two of the schools, listening to part of the forum presented, and reviewing the board’s website, but the aggressive campaigning really annoyed me and almost led me to vote no. The lawn signs and constant letters to the editor are just two examples. We get it, you want the best for your little darlings, but give us a break, all of us have to pay those higher property taxes. We want to evaluate what’s actually needed, not just want you want.
The thing I don’t understand is why existing residents need to pay for new capacity. The new residents will pay taxes too, I hope, but we have to pay for their kids to go to school? What’s going to happen to the new tax money from the new residents? Maybe they need the cash now because the tax comes later, but that’s where loans work.
This referendum is basically a vote on whether or not to approve a loan that will be paid back over 10-30 years (we will ask how long the bond will be for but the typical length is in that range). School districts can’t take out loans/borrow money/bond without voter approval. Towns and counties can borrow money for capital projects without voter approval and can approve PILOTS with developers without voter approval but school districts work under a different set of rules and are governed separately. If they voters decide not to approve the borrowing of money/loans for expansions and improvements, then the projects will not move forward. There is no other funding source beyond these kinds of loans.
You might have missed the point and got lost in the loan aspect? The key question is why isn’t the *new* money from *new* residents paying for *new* capacity? I assume they will pay tax once they move in.
Why do current residents also have to pay for new capacity when there is a flood of new money coming from the new residents?
There isn’t a flood of new money coming in from new residents. The town council gave 30-year payment in lieu of taxes deals to developers for the four new large apartment developments in Princeton. None of that money goes to the schools. That means the rest of the taxpayers will have to make up the difference to pay for educating the students from those new developments. The council did not consult with or work with the schools when these deals were made. Local government likes these deals because they get to keep all the money and not share it. Even if they were paying school taxes for these new developments it wouldn’t cover all of the improvements.
So the council gave the future tax money away? So now they are asking for new taxes to get the money that the expansion needs? Is that what you are saying? Why is this not a scandal? Why do we have well meaning people campaigning to support this? Why did the town council give away 30 years of future tax income from all these new properties? (I think that’s what you said they did).
This post may be helpful: https://planetprinceton.com/2023/11/30/fact-check-a-primer-on-how-payments-in-lieu-of-taxes-work-in-new-jersey/
Yes, super helpful thanks. It’s actually worse than I thought – the town in paying developers to build here! That leaves a shortfall, so the existing residents are being asked for more money to pay for the extra capacity (which will not generate any extra tax money for 30 years). Wow. Who thought that was a good idea?
I received my ballot today in the mail. It’s the first time I read carefully what we are being asked to vote on. It seems like a lot of borrowing. Our property values are inversely reflected by the property tax, as much or more than the good school system.
No one feels sorry for “Princeton Taxpayers” but each year these numbers go up and it gets to a point where one must ask, “is it worth it?”
Decisions made by unopposed leaders. Bond special elections in January when it can slide in without a lot of attention. Something seems off here.
No one really understands how the economics of this deal will work out. But I’m sure the usual people are going to make a lot of money. Is this the time to do this deal? I’m voting no.
People shouldn’t confuse the roles and responsibilities of the two independently elected bodies — the school board and the town’s governing body. The school board did NOT enter into a PILOT agreement. In fact, the schools were not allowed to be part of the discussion. In spite of the fact that a couple of council members now say they would be willing to talk about sharing the PILOT (still less than taxes), others are emailing constituents that there is no mechanism for sharing the PILOT with the schools. The school board has done their due diligence in examining their options, and I appreciate that they are improving existing buildings rather than building new with all the environmental impacts and increased operating expenses. Just like a home, systems only last so long, and the HS HVAC has reached the end of its useful life. We also know more about the importance of air quality. And we know more about education and how having the right kind of spaces enhances learning. No one likes paying more in taxes — especially when they are picking up the tab for developers — but it isn’t the school’s fault. Good schools, including good facilities, benefit everyone in town. Support the schools and consider running for council if you want to see change.
Wouldn’t it be prudent from the BOE to have the discussions with Council before a referendum?
I think that all these government officials, either council or BOE are failing us.
The schools have been having conversations with anyone and everyone who will listen. There have been many meetings over the years. I know for a fact they consulted w the previous town planner and assume they have been in touch w the current planner. They have considered multiple options, including a 4-5 school on the Valley Road site and utilizing some of the Westminster Choir College. Unless council members are former school board members, they really don’t have knowledge or expertise on school matters. Brian McDonald served on school board until recently and has been the council heir apparent for most of last year. There have been conversations. The fact is that enrollment is growing and the facilties need upgrades. This appears to be our best option. There is no indication that waiting is going make this less expensive.
Wouldn’t revise the Cranbury issue something that would provide much needed space?
Are they paying on time?
Are they paying more for Special Ed if determined it is needed?
Are they bringing diversity to our schools?
We need to think of Princeton tax payers first, and how much longer we are going to let Cranbury keep its taxes low and its real state booming thanks to their kids coming to PPS? In exchange of our taxes increasing every year, seriously?
Kids from other towns coming to PPS, if they are teachers and staff’s children, how much are they paying? Shouldn’t they pay more? And Special Ed even more?
It is easy to do charity when the money is not yours.
BOE must realise that the millions they deal with are not theirs, they are tax payers’ money.
The Council approved all of the new multi-story, densely packed housing which has turned our once charming University town into an Urban Hell Scape.
This housing along with the 24% affordable housing adds many students to the school system and now we need to make room. Soon we will also need to create Head Start Programs and other social services for the Subsidized Poor who are moving in.
Brace yourselves for further taxation Princeton, because this is what Democrats do.
-Hyper Taxation
-War on the Middle Class
-Rising Crime
-And wait till the School System begins to decline now…
Every Blue city becomes a place for the Very rich and the Very Poor, as the Middle Class can no longer afford the hyper-taxation.