Redemption Rock News

By Danielle Ray, Senior Reporter
After the Princeton Fire and Police Departments did not receive the necessary two-thirds vote to approve funding of construction documents for a new public safety complex at the May 15 Town Meeting, the future of the building is unclear.
Selectboard Chair Karen Cruise, who is not speaking on behalf of the board, is part of the team that worked on the original public safety building proposal along with Fire Chief John Bennett, Police Chief Michele Powers, Advisory Committee member Rick McCowan, and town resident Ian Catlow.
“I am quite disappointed that funding of the design and construction documents was voted down,” Cruise said. “I know there were many reasons for the ‘no’ votes. Some still believe the existing facility is adequate. Some think we included unnecessary space in the design. However, what I heard the loudest and strongest was a fear that paying for a new public safety building along with PFAS remediation and potential litigation might be too much for taxpayers.”
According to Selectboard Member Matthew Moncreaff, the Advisory Committee projected a 29% increase in property taxes over the next five years.
While Cruise went on to say, “I can’t say whether the townspeople made the right or wrong decision,” Bennett feels that the vote from Town Meeting does not reflect the stance of enough Princeton residents.
“The townspeople did not make the decision, only 2.9% of registered voters made the decision,” he said. “The Public Safety Committee did their due diligence in reviewing over 12 proposed plans with a drive for fiscal responsibility and true needs assessment.”
Bennett believes the reason the Advisory Committee “did not provide unanimous support is that many false assumptions were made about where vehicles could be stored, the critical function of each vehicle, the capacity of Station #2, the need for two fire stations in Princeton due to ISO requirements, etc.”
While five of the seven Advisory Committee members opposed the article to fund the new public safety complex, Bennett raised concerns that those members did not tour the facility before the vote.
“Only two advisory council members took tours of our facilities,” Bennett continued, “(and) one abstained from the vote due to their spouse being on the fire department. One would hope that we can respect the professionalism, knowledge, training, and extensive years of experience of our public safety officials to guide us down the appropriate decision paths.”
Bennett said he believes the proposed project is “out of our hands now,” and that “there is a drive for a new committee where the police chief and fire chief are just outside consultants.”
In reference to the funding of any future construction, Cruise said, “I fear that we hurt our eligibility for grants by slowing down our progress to a shovel-ready project. Now we need to support the new Public Safety Committee as they work to significantly decrease the cost of the project.”
Bennett said he does not feel they will be able to fix any of the issues with the current building in the mean time.
“We really have no actions that we can take to improve the current facility other than hiring dumpsters to throw away items we don’t actively use to free up space,” he said. “This is our immediate intent. We have already spent hundreds of thousands on band-aids for a building that should be condemned.”
Bennett said it will take “active participation” by more residents than those who attended and voted at Town Meeting when it comes to making a new public safety building and/or an expansion or update a reality in the future.
“If memory serves, there were only 287 votes cast,” he said. “174 voted in support and 112 voted in opposition. Therefore, only 112 voters determined the fate of some 3,800 residents when it comes to supporting public safety.”