Committee on Appropriations 2024 Financial Town Meeting Message

Your Committee on Appropriations (COA) welcomes you to the 2024 Town of Barrington Financial Town Meeting. We have been working diligently on your behalf over the past several months to receive and review the Municipal and School budgets you will be voting on tonight.

Unlike many Rhode Island communities, Barrington’s Town Charter currently offers you the opportunity and responsibility to speak and then vote on how your town allocates and spends its revenue from property taxes and other sources each fiscal year.

THE CHARTER

By Charter, the Committee on Appropriations (the “Committee”) – five members elected at the Financial Town Meeting on staggered two-year terms - is charged with holding “a public meeting on the Wednesday two weeks prior to the Annual Financial Town Meeting at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of hearing all registered voters of the Town interested in preparing a budget to be presented to the Annual Financial Town Meeting…” That public meeting, referred to as the Budget Hearing, was held on May 8, 2024.

THE PROCESS

The 2024-2025 Budget process began in the fall of 2023 with the Budget Forecast Committee meeting to update the Budget Forecast. This valuable document projects spending and revenues over several years based on both known amounts and assumptions. It is not intended to predict the actual budget, as priorities and circumstances change. It does provide a baseline to aid the Administrations and COA in crafting budgets. The Committee is composed of two members of the Town Council, School Committee and COA and advised by the Municipal and School Finance Directors. The final Forecast document was presented by the Budget Forecast Committee and discussed at a joint meeting of the Town Council, School Committee and COA on January 23, 2024.

For this fiscal year and in anticipation of the Budget Hearing, the Committee held five meetings to review the proposed budgets (in addition to the aforementioned Budget Forecast

presentation). Meetings were in person, available on Zoom, and recorded and posted to our webpage on the Barrington Town website. All meetings were publicized in advance and allowed for public comment. The final vote on the budgets were taken at the April 9, 2024, meeting. The committee voted 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to the recommended Municipal and School budgets.

THE BUDGETS

The process leading up to the Committee on Appropriations’ review of five draft budgets - Municipal Operating, School Operating, Town Capital, School Capital, and Debt Service - began early this year, when the Town Council, School Committee, and Municipal and School

leadership began working with their management teams to assemble their recommendations for the budgets being presented tonight. (The Municipal Capital Budget was developed and presented by the Planning Board based on input from the Administration.) All budgets were

compared to last year’s approved numbers and multi-year expense history. The School Department applied a zero-based budgeting strategy again this year and continues to be guided by their Strategic Plan. Finally, the draft budgets were reviewed and approved by the Town Council for the three Municipal Budgets and by the School Committee for the School Operating and Capital Budgets, before being presented to the Committee on Appropriations.

Once received, the Committee conducted its own review of the five draft budgets. Municipal and School administrators were present at our meetings and remained involved throughout the process. They answered our many questions and explained their methods of setting budget needs, priorities and initiatives with the community and taxpayers in mind. They also informed us of efficiencies and reductions in their budgets and were challenged to defend their spending plans.

Significant Committee findings from our review process are: (1) compensation costs (contracts, parity and benefits) within the two operating budgets continue to account for large portions of the budget and spending increases; (2) new initiatives and reallocation of how services are provided are included in the School and Municipal budgets; (3) Town and School pensions are in compliance with all required contributions in accordance with State schedules, and continue to be monitored; (4) maintaining excellent bond agency ratings requires balanced budgets and robust reserves; (5) consistent funding for future capital needs has kept borrowing and related expenses to a minimum, and some School capital expenditures receive 35% matching funds from the RI Department of Education; (6) awards of grant dollars, and thousands of volunteer hours help mitigate costs and enhance the quality of life for Barrington residents; and (7) Increases in the Municipal and School Operating Budgets were partially offset by increased municipal revenue and an increase in State School Aid. These offsets allowed the tax levy to remain below the State mandated 4% increase even with a proposed increase of 4.78% in the Municipal Operating Budget and a 4.96% increase in the School Operating Budget.

Reserve Accounts

The status of reserve accounts often comes up at the FTM. Current balances are listed below. For a variety of reasons, the COA does not recommend using reserves to offset current spending.

School:

Operating Reserve (2% of budget): Current Balance = $1,195,271

Capital Reserve: Current balance = $5,813,131

Municipal:

Reserve: Current balance = $24,091,355

Total Town Budget

The Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Town of Barrington budgets, as recommended by the Committee on Appropriations and published in the Barrington Times on May 1, 2024, and May 8, 2024, total $95,844,395, an increase of 4.92% compared to Fiscal Year 2023-2024. This total is distributed across five major budget categories referenced below. The first two categories - Municipal Operating and School Operating Budgets -represent 91% of the total budget and have recommended increases of 4.78% and 4.96% compared to Fiscal Year 2023-2024. The combined increase of both operating budgets is 4.9%. The last three categories - Municipal Capital, School Capital, and Debt Service - represent the remaining 9% of the total budget and have a combined increase of 4.9% compared to the prior fiscal year.

1. Municipal Operating Budget

The Municipal Operating Budget as presented to the Committee was $21,912,238, a 4.78% increase compared to Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Notable budget increases were addition of an IT Coordinator; addition of a DPW/Sewer Assistant Superintendent and a DPW laborer.

2. School Operating Budget

The School Operating Budget as presented to the Committee was $65,596,225, a 4.96% increase compared to Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Notable department budget increases were Contractual obligations of $1,155,267, including staffing additions made in the past fiscal year that had not been budgeted of $208,979 and a net of $210,577 for two new FTE’s (including

benefits).

3. Municipal Capital Budget

The Municipal Capital Budget recommended by the Planning Board was $1,691,500, a 2.58% increase from fiscal year 2023-2024. Notable purchases were $430,000 for DPW equipment replacement $250,000, public safety building improvements $257,500, for fire apparatus replacement, police equipment replacement of $25,500, and a reduction for fire equipment replacement of $170,000. 

4. School Capital Budget

The School Capital budget request was $388,595, the same as fiscal year 2023-2024. Included in the request are $153,608 for BMS/BHS one-to-one devices, $95,108 devices for HMS, and

$72,876 for staff Apple devices and cases.

5. Debt Service Budget

The Debt Service Budget request was for $6,255,837, an increase of 5.93% from the prior year.

The COA voted 3 in favor and two in opposition to accepting the budgets as presented.

BUDGET SUMMARY

PROJECTED REVENUES

ANTICIPATED IMPACT ON TAX LEVY

The recommended Total Town Budget voted on by the Committee on Appropriations on April 9, 2024, and the subsequent Town of Barrington Notice of Proposed Property Tax Rate Change that was approved by the state, along with a report to the taxpayers on the current and proposed budgets and published on May 1, 2024, and May 8, 2024, is estimated to result in a proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2025 tax levy increase of 3.82%.

The final tax levy and related property tax rate for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 will be determined by the result of votes taken at tonight’s Financial Town Meeting. Furthermore, each individual property owner’s actual property tax increase or decrease may be further impacted by

any changes in assessed value of the owner’s property during the past year, such as exemptions and revaluation.

Sincerely,

TOWN OF BARRINGTON COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Cynthia Rosengard (Chair)

Steve Primiano (Vice Chair)

Bill DeWitt

Tinsley Kampmier-Williamson

John Stafford

Special Recognition:

Phil Hervey & Kathy Raposa

Mike Messore & Doug Fiore and

Meredith DeSisto

Motion by President Carl Kustell and seconded from a voter from the floor to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION OF THE FINANCIAL TOWN MEETING AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF EMERGENCY NOTES

TO FUND EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000

Be it resolved that:

Section 1.  In the event of an emergency threatening the public safety, health or welfare and requiring the immediate expenditure of money by the Town, the Town Council, on the written recommendation of the Town Manager, by resolution, may appropriate funds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 and for purposes in addition to those contained in the operating budget or in the capital budget.  Such a resolution shall include a brief statement of the facts that show the existence of such emergency.

Section 2.  To fund said appropriation, the Finance Director, with the approval of the Town Council, is authorized under Section 45-12-2 of the General Laws Rhode Island to issue emergency notes.

Section 3.  The manner of sale, denominations, maturities, principal amounts, interest rates, and other terms, conditions and details of any emergency notes issued pursuant to this authority may be fixed by proceedings of the Town Council authorizing the issue or by separate resolution of the Town Council or, to the extent provisions for these matters are not so made, they may be fixed by the officers authorized to sign the emergency notes.  The notes shall be signed by the Finance Director and by the President of the Town Council.

Section 4. The Finance Director and the President of the Town Council are hereby authorized to take all lawful action necessary or desirable under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), to insure that the interest on the emergency notes will remain exempt from federal income taxation to the extent provided in Section 103 of the Code, and to refrain from taking any action which will cause interest on the emergency notes to lose the benefit of exclusion from gross income provided by Section 103(a) of the Code.  The Treasurer and the President of the Town Council are further authorized to take all lawful action necessary or desirable to designate the emergency notes as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.

William Donahue Lamson Road, asked to define – one year note, grant, how does this emergency note get paid back.

President Kustell stated that it gives the town flexibility and consult with our budget director as we address the emergency situation as quick as possible by way of this emergency fund but not exceeding $5,000,000. 

Ann Strong, 55 Teed Avenue, stated that we did need to use this emergency appropriation because of a broken sewer pipe for $1,000,000.

Motion passed (Voice vote).

Motion by President Carl Kustell and seconded from a voter from the floor to adopt the following resolution:  

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES

IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000

Be it resolved that:

Section 1.  Pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws Section 45‑12‑4 and Section 6-5-2 of the Town of Barrington Home Rule Charter the Finance Director and the President of the Town Council acting on behalf of the Town, are authorized to issue and refund, from time to time, not to exceed $5,000,000 interest bearing notes issued in anticipation of the receipt of the proceeds of the annual tax assessed or to be assessed upon the taxable property within the said Town as of December 31, 2022 for the financial year July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 for the purpose of providing funds for the payment of the current liabilities and expenses of said Town. 

Section 2.  The manner of sale, amount, denominations, maturities

conversion or registration privileges, dated dates, due dates, interest rates, medium of payment, and other terms, conditions and details of the Notes authorized hereunder may be fixed by proceedings of the Town Council authorizing the issue or by separate resolution of the Town Council or, to the extent provisions for these matters are not so made, they may be fixed by the officers authorized to sign the Notes.

Section 3.  The Director of Finance/Treasurer and the President of the Town Council are authorized to take all actions necessary to comply with federal securities laws including Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Rule”) and to execute and deliver if required in connection with the Notes a Continuing Disclosure Agreement or a Material Events Disclosure Agreement in the form as shall be deemed advisable by the Director of Finance and the President of the Town Council in order to comply with the Rule. The Town hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all provisions of any such Continuing Disclosure Agreement or Material Events Disclosure Agreement, as either of them may be amended from time to time.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution or the Notes, failure of the Town to comply with any such Continuing Disclosure Agreement or Material Events Disclosure Agreement shall not be considered an event of default; however, any noteholder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking a mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the Town to comply with its obligations under this Section and under any such agreement.

Motion passed (Voice vote).

Town Manager Phil Hervey recused himself from the following discussion.

Resolution with regard to the Town’s property located at 25 Watson Avenue, Assessor’s Plat 7, Lot 4, formerly known as the Carmelite Monastery (the “Property”), to authorize the Town Council to redevelop the Property conditioned upon substantial conformance with the site plan layout approved by the Planning Board on October 3, 2023, and Town Council on January 8, 2024, and thereby demolish the structures formerly known as the Carmelite Monastery; sell one lot for development of twelve cottages as a “pocket neighborhood” (all units of which will be age restricted to residents 55 or older, and five units of which also will be affordable to low-and-moderate-income residents) for one dollar ($1); sell six single-family lots (individually and subject to deed restrictions that each lot may not be further subdivided or merged with any other lot) at fair market value; and create an approximately two-acre public park.

President Kustell stated that Solicitor Andy Teitz will be acting as the attorney for the Town for this resolution.  He explained the many public meetings and many deliberations from people within the neighborhood and outside of the neighborhood for over the past three (3) years.  He said that he believes we have proposed a balanced plan with everyone that has engaged in the discussion across the community.

President Kustell said that his predecessor set forth the purpose for making the Watson purchase with having senior housing, and some affordable housing, with some open space, some green space on the property.  He said the plan before you today meets all of those goals.

He said first of all we have 12 senior cottages and have not had new senior housing since the 1990’s.  He noted that you want to make sure that the development is keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and that it serves the interest of those in the community and that has been set forth in our comprehensive plan.

President Kustell said that the plan has the 12 senior cottages, 5 affordable and all in one location.  It has 6 single family market rate homes with the hope that we will make some progress on our 3.38% affordable housing rate.  He said with the 6 units, out of the 18 total, on the property that is over 25% that are affordable and we qualify for a comprehensive permit which the town can apply jointly with the develop and freezes the plan in place.

He said that we want to make sure that they will be deed restricted and the senior cottages will be for those that are 55 plus. And the 6 individual single-family homes is where we hope to recoup some of the cost and those lots will not be able to merge nor be able to be subdivided.  The deed restrictions will run with the land, as guarantee. 

President Kustell said that when you vote for the plan that this is transparent, straightforward and it is not going to change.   He said that our solicitor’s office assures that we have been able to freeze the plan as it is, as we sell with individual RFP’s the single-family lots will be able to fund a safe demolition of the Monastery (our architectural firm said that it is not financially feasible to rehab). He said that this plan can actually fund the demolition, with the first few individual single-family lots that are sold.  In addition, there are two acres of open space, on the picturesque south end of the property with a few daytime parking spaces will make it accessible to the entire community – making it a public benefit while making progress on senior living and affordable housing.  He said that it made sense to have single developer with a demand of sustainable construction, all electric cottages (a member of our Resilience and Energy Committee, Dr. Hans Scholl ensured that we would have solar ready roofs which means a car and electric conduit are ready to go sustainable/electric construction.  He said that we are forward thinking in our progress with the project and environmentally as well.

President Kustell discussed the costs of maintaining the property over the years (between $150-$300,000) in carrying costs.  If we delay there will be a fiscal hit as we maintain the property and we have a balanced plan and we need to move forward.  He also noted that as we develop the property, we will have a tax revenue in perpetuity on that property and the 55 Plus limit in the cottages reduces the pressure on the schools.

President Kustell said that we have talked to many through the community and it has been through a very long process but we have a balanced plan that supports senior housing, affordable housing, open space, sustainability, and fiscal responsibility and he believes that it is time to pass the plan.

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by a member on the floor to adopt the following resolution:

Resolution with regard to the Town’s property located at 25 Watson Avenue, Assessor’s Plat 7, Lot 4, formerly known as the Carmelite Monastery (the “Property”), to authorize the Town Council to redevelop the Property conditioned upon substantial conformance with the site plan layout approved by the Planning Board on October 3, 2023, and Town Council on January 8, 2024, and thereby demolish the structures formerly known as the Carmelite Monastery; sell one lot for development of twelve cottages as a “pocket neighborhood” (all units of which will be age restricted to residents 55 or older, and five units of which also will be affordable to low-and-moderate-income residents) for one dollar ($1); sell six single-family lots (individually and subject to deed restrictions that each lot may not be further subdivided or merged with any other lot) at fair market value; and create an approximately two-acre public park.

(Moderator Staples stated that to be clear there are six (6) single family lots before market rate lots.)

Moderator Staples opened PUBLIC COMMENT:

Joan Warren, 19 Adams Point Road, asked if there will be priority given to Barrington residents regarding the 55 Plus.  She said that her concern is for Barrington residents that should be given first preference.

President Kustell stated that there is no guarantee

Assistant Town Solicitor Andy Teitz stated that you are not allowed because that would be discriminating.  He said that it is not guaranteed for Barrington residents but we can provide some priority in ranking for the age restricted affordable units, but of the market rate ones, it would not be possible.

Paul Dulchinos, 20 Walnut Road, asked if the cottages are owner occupied.

President Kustell stated that is the intent.

Doug Caito, 108 Alfred Drown Road, asked questions regarding the cost to demolish:

President Kustell explained that the costs are in the range of $1.2 – $1.6 million and the price could be substantially less if we didn’t hire the contractor ourselves because we must pay prevailing wage.  But it is essential that we pick the best contractor, not necessarily the cheapest because we are looking to maximize public safety.  He said that we believe that we will cover the costs through the sale of the 6 individual lots at market rate.  Discussion ensued as to the cost of the lots, selling them one by one and we do not want to flood the market all at once with them but to sell them over a six- month period of time.  The discussion continued regarding the years to have a return on our investment but at this time it is undetermined because we do not know what the market rate will be at this time.  The concluding comment is that we must stop the bleeding of over $330,000 a year to maintain the property.

Jean Josephson, Maple Avenue, asked if the senior cottages are handicapped accessible.

Discussion ensued that the primary bedroom is located on the first floor and people can go to the website to review the sketches. 

Jack Siegel, Sowams Road questioned realtor involvement, property assessment, the many construction companies entering the neighborhood, asbestos run-off.

Discussion continued with the cost with a realtor and without, assessing the property values, construction equipment entering the neighborhood. Solicitor Teitz said that we expect to sell the six lots overtime and building overtime and not all at once.  He said that there will not be any runoff from asbestos to the beach and water because there will not be any asbestos released because the building will be sealed in plastic and as they go through each section of the building the asbestos will be contained and that there will be no net increase in impervious surface when all this is done. He said that we must comply with the law to make sure that there is no increase in the drainage at structures involved with the various construction.  He commented that we are pairing with the developer of the 12 cottages to work with them and that should give the neighborhood relief from competing construction companies.

Janine Wolf, 5 Atlantic Crossing stated that giving Barrington residents first dibs on the senior housing and does not believe that is discrimination because if it is filled by outsiders how does that serve the needs of this town.

Assistant Town Solicitor Andy Teitz said that we can try to ensure that we are within the bounds of the law.  He said that there can be preference for the five affordable one because we have the leverage that we are providing, we are sharing with them and some of the infrastructure and part of the plan with the market liberate ones, the developer is going to do it, we can obviously encourage them to give first priority.  He said that the developer is selling the cottages, we are selling the six lots.  He said that the goal is to offset the demolition and repay the cost to finance.  He said it is the affordable ones that we are selling the land for a $1 that he said that he is talking about for the seniors, for people to downsize.  That should be a priority for Barrington residents to buy.  But the market rate cottages would likely not be and would be in the control of the developer.

Ray Clark, 5 Mathewson Road, asked for clarification with buyers who are 55 Plus.

Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz said that federal law under the Fair Housing Act/Amendments, prohibits discrimination based on age, there is a major exception for age restricted communities, minimum age 55 or older.  He described certain scenarios in which the law would allow for children to live there so he said that he could never say there wouldn’t be children there but having 55 Plus reduces the impact on the schools.

Mark Hanchar, 25 Frederick Drive, discussed selling each parcel for at least $1 million each to offset costs. 

Discussion ensued regarding the carrying costs, paying less for the demolition of the Monastery but the longer the delay the more carrying costs are to be paid, you are not getting tax revenues to offset the expenditures. 

Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz stated that during these last three years we have made payments that have included some principle, about $600,000 in principle that has been paid off. 

Mr. Hanchar asked additional questions, regarding incentivizing a developer by selling him the parcel for $1.  He asked, what is the process, how was that developer selected, was there a process for how you are going to go about determining who gets the parcel for a $1.

Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz stated that the process went through an extensive RFP with a MOU in which the Town Council signed.  He said that if the voters approve through this evening, then the plan would be to negotiate a formal agreement, purchase and sales agreement with that developer over the next month (June).  Assistant Solicitor Teitz stated that FAQ’s have been posted.

Tom Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street, asked if language could be included in the deed to give first dibs to Barrington residents.

Discussion ensued as discussed earlier in the evening, we can limit the affordable but not the market rate.

Mr. Rimoshytus questioned the developer and what he will build for $1.

President Kustell said that you must look at this as the entire property this entire seven acres, this is 22% of the land roughly. We put all the affordable in one spot. We demanded a sustainable construction, we demanded solar ready moves, we demanded the features that you see in the sketches, primary bedrooms, and limited space that takes up 1.56 acres. Because we had those needs met, we felt that would enhance the value of the rest of the property, including the park for two acres and the six single family lots which are about half an acre each.

Mr. Rimoshytus said that no matter how you look at this, we are in the hole for $2.5 million.  So, coming into the real estate business for the Town of Barrington was not a good idea.

President Kustell stated that his predecessor did say at the very beginning of this process, three years ago, the town was not looking to make a profit – this is to serve our comprehensive plan with regard to affordable housing, senior housing, open space, and making sure that we have a safe demolition of the Monastery and what develops commensurate with the rest of the neighborhood. We did this for the town, this was not a profit-making enterprise and it was never sold as such.

Joe Strong, 55 Teed Avenue, raised concerns about the potential financial risks in the town’s real estate deal and then not even end up with the property.

President Kustell disagreed with the cost estimates and potential profitability of the project.

Ann Strong, 55 Teed Avenue, emphasized the importance of maintaining the Monastery and questioned that the Town has not kept their promise which was in the original motion.  She asked what is “substantial conformance”, which is contained in this resolution.

Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz explained that substantial compliance is necessary for technical issues, and government involvement in housing is not uncommon.  He explained that changing the layout of houses or moving them a few feet would be considered a substantial change.  If substantial changes were made you would have to come back to the Planning Board and approved by the Town Council and by the voters at another Financial Town Meeting.

William Donahue, Lamson Road, asked if there was a consideration to just sell the property.

Discussion ensued in which this wasn’t the plan.

Jack Siegel, Sowams Road asked about the debt service.

Finance Director Kathy Raposa said that the annual debt is about $285,000.00

Mary Alice Gasbarro, 14 Robbins Drive discussed the high cost of living in Barrington and the difficulty of finding affordable housing.  She expressed concern about the potential for development in Barrington, particularly on college land and the impact on property and the potential cost of these cottages.  She questioned the developers cost and figured it to be approximately $750,000 which she said is currently market-rate.

Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz explained that the if you go to the Barrington’s website there is an outline of 25 Watson with the proposal from the developer (page 9).  The developer estimates that the low to moderate income would sell five (5) of them would sell for at $395,000 each, two (2) would sell for $700,900 and five (5) would sell at $755,900.

Jeff Synder, 109 Massasoit Avenue asked if a motion can be made to amend the resolution to establish the age restricted units as a special tax district.

Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz answered no, because this is not one of the budgetary resolutions, where amendments can be made.  This resolution is set forth as one motion up or down, not amendable because it is dealing with the sale of the property.

Jeff Snyder asked after the resolution is made and after it is considered as part of defining how property tax revenues are collected?  He stated that what he is getting at is the problem has to do with affordability with our older residents.  He said selling these units at market rate is not going to help our older residents who are on a fixed income and the ever-increasing property tax.  He proposed a special tax district, seniors demonstrating a 10-year residency with a 20-25% tax property discount.

Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz stated that is a whole different argument and it is not part of the “Warrant”/(Public Notice) for this evenings meeting and would not be an appropriate motion even with regards to how the tax levies are collected.

Chris Brady, 6 Jenks Garden Lane said that he serves on the Housing Board of Trustees and supports the motion citing balance and fairness.

Janine Wolf, 5 Atlantic Crossing said that the plan does not consider senior housing needs – yes, a senior is selling their house at high rates but does not want to pay at high rates and taxes.

Annelise Conway (Councilwoman), 51 Bluff Road shared personal experience and concerns about senior issues in the community.  She said that the motion was voted down and we voted to preserve the Monastery.  She highlighted the need for tax relief and affordable housing options for senior citing expensive long-term care costs.  She said that we are working with Mr. Klepper to come up with tax relief for our seniors through the Spencer Trust to try to subsidize some of those expensive bills for our seniors.

David Butera, 275 Nayatt Road, argued that the proposed development will increase property values in Barrington but feels that this plan is the best that we can hope for and Barrington will recoup the investment.

Carl DeStefano, Chair of the Housing Board of Trustees, 23 Pine Cone Drive, supports the plan, citing affordability and preservation of neighborhood character.

Paige Barber, 46 Clarke Road, stated that we have worked on this for close to three-years and she is voting in favor of this plan.

Steve Sheehan 35 Adelaide Avenue abuts the Monastery and credits Planner Teresa Crean, Town Manager Hervey and the 25 Watson Ad hoc Committee and acknowledges all the neighbors for working together.  He said that he will vote yes because this is a thoughtful plan.  He commends the Town Council and community for a collaborative effort.

Mary Grenier, 10 Watson, said that she has attended most of the meetings.  She said that we fought against this and have come a long way and it is wonderful to have preservation land on the Narragansett Bay.

Tom Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street discussed the pocket homes (neighborhood)/affordable homes and raised questions regarding project management.

Discussion ensued regarding the single-family lots, the Request for Proposal (RFP), deed restrictions to freeze the property in place and the Comprehensive Plan.

Blaise Rein, 33 Waterway Avenue commented on the recusal of the Town Manager, concerned about affordable/senior housing in Barrington and questioned the six single family market value homes.

Assistant Town Solicitor Teitz said that the Town Manager Hervey has been recused from the discussion on 25 Watson Avenue due to a conflict of interest and designated Director of Planning Teresa Crean as the lead person for the Town.

Elizabeth Griesser, 42 Watson Avenue, thanked all those that have been involved.  She said that this plan has something for everyone but we need to get if off the books.  She said that she will be voting yes for this plan.

Mark Hanchar, 25 Frederick Drive, suggested using the Monastery for ballfields.

Discussion ensued regarding a bond to fund a field at the Barrington Middle School for a vote this evening to improve the fields in Barrington.

Joe Collins, 45 Nayatt Road, said that he was concerned about the taxes and proposes a tax break because he would like to live in Barrington for the rest of his life.

Debra Nyser, 30 Adelaide Avenue, stated that we have been discussing this for three years and we are now down to six (6) houses and some townhouses.   She commented that she would not want the Monastery to become like Belton Court.  She said that at the time the process was frustrating but you listened and there will be open space and hope that we are all winners.

Chris Coleman, 10 Foote Street called for a vote on agenda #7.

President Kustell stated that one of the rules governing the FTM in the State of RI is that debate/public comment cannot be cut off and all are to be heard before a vote.

Allan Klepper, 3 Henry Drive stated that obviously it was clear the idea was to save the Monastery and equally clear it can’t be saved.  He suggested that a memorial should be placed at this location.

Maria Bruce, 31 Maple Avenue stated that she commends the Carmelite neighbors and their coached coordinated, persistent efforts where they persevered at achieving their goal. In addition to the Barrington government, including all the boards and commissions, which endorsed and condoned these efforts, resulting in a very low impact density and low impact development, which is responsive and accommodating these neighborhood demands.  In that it preserves their property values and quality of life.  But in the name of fairness, will these same privileges, benefits and accommodations be made for the neighbors of design on development?

President Kustell stated that Zion is private property with a different scenario but we are certainly trying to do the best we can for every neighborhood in Town, including Lionshead in the neighborhoods around Zion.

Nora Aswad, 277 Nayatt Road, expressed concerns about development in Barrington due to flooding issues.

President Kustell stated that we have looked into the sewage issue, and we are confident that we are okay but will defer to an expert on water Town Planner Teresa Crean.

Director of Planning, Building and Resilience Teresa Crean said that in addition to the RFP, that is available on-line, there is an addendum to the RFP from our Consultant, Pare Corporation that explains the assessment that will be required for the upgrades to the sewer system and she further discussed how the new development at Watson will tie into the existing system.

Joe Strong, 55 Teed Avenue stated if we are paying for the sewer, the water and we own the land and the lot is already ours what do we need to develop and questioned that there is no one else that will develop this land without selling the land for a $1?

Discussion ensued with the developer’s track record and quality construction that are important to neighbors and renegotiation of the deal and the timeline and cost shifting is not recommended.

Mark Hilty, 14 Wildflower Road, commented that we have a good deal and that this plan serves the interests of the community as a whole and meets the needs.

John Fitta, 153 New Meadow Road, commented that we won’t get into the complexities of the plan – the plan looks good and said that he will be supporting it.  He discussed the costs but stated the point is not so much a question of the numbers but whatever loss we sustained, if any, do not ask the taxpayers to pay for but find the money in the general fund with finding excesses and reserves to cover potential losses that could be tapped – be creative for a change.

Moderator Staples stated that it is time for the vote.

Motion passed (Voice vote).

Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by a member on the floor to adopt the following resolution:

Resolution of the Financial Town Meeting appropriating funds to finance the Athletic Fields Project and the Annawamscutt Brook Culvert Project

and all other costs incidental or related thereto, through the issuance of bonds and/or notes in a principal amount not to exceed $5,000,000.

Vice President Humm discussed that Barrington has studied athletic field issues for over forty (40) years without any measurable improvements: not enough fields in town, existing fields are overused, fields are in poor condition because of overuse, not able to rest the fields and therefore the town is unable to maintain them properly. He proposed synthetic turf field at the Barrington Middle School to address these longstanding issues. 

Vice President Humm urged for the approval of the bond to improve the Town’s athletic fields and said that the vote tonight is for funding ($4.5 million, $500,000 is for the Annawamscutt Brook Culvert Project).  He said to be clear the vote tonight is not for synthetic turf field.  He said that a separate vote which will appear on the General Election ballot in November 2024 is for synthetic turf installation for the voters that will appear on the General election ballot.

Vice President Humm stated if a vote for a synthetic turf field is not approved at the November 2024 election, then the money designated within the bond will be used for other important field improvement projects as outlined in the consultant’s report (see website).

Moderator Staples opened PUBLIC COMMENT:

Hans Scholl, 71 Fales Avenue emphasized the importance of protecting the environment and children’s health which is presumed convenience, east of maintenance but with a huge piece of plastic into the environment that will have infill that will leak into the bay and be treated with antibiotics.  He said that he is for the motion in order to have good fields but he said he is in favor of investing the money into grass fields and not pollute the environment.

Mike Seward, 41 North lake Drive, shared his experience as a member of the Parks & Recreation Commission, highlighting the need for adequate field maintenance.  He commended this Town Council for stepping up to finally address this problem.

Chris Coleman, 10 Foote Street stressed that we must vote tonight in order to get the question to the voters in November and not take two and half hours to have a scientific discussion etc. but to vote to put this on the ballot in November.

Discussion ensued that this evening’s vote is for the $5 million bond to improve the fields.

John Taylor, 55 Fales Avenue stated that he was disappointed that the field was not placed at the high school.  He said that we are all happy to cut the ribbon when a project is completed but we need to maintain our infrastructure.

Vice President Humm commented on the lack of resources but not because the DPW isn’t doing their job but because there is a lack of funding for maintenance.  He said in this year’s budget the Council actually doubled the field maintenance fund to make improvements as well as that an additional full-time employee was added to the staff at the Department of Public Works to assist with field maintenance.

Eileen Small, 9 Hunt Drive, a member of the Conservation Committee expressed support for devoting more funds to field maintenance but opposed the synthetic turf field.

Andrew Reich, 21 Half Mile Road questioned the status of hybrid and grass fields if voters reject artificial turf in November.

Assistant Town Solicitor Goins stated that information on hybrid and grass fields will be provided before the November referendum.  Discussion ensued.

Janine Wolf, 5 Atlantic Crossing expressed concern about the bond vote being manipulative and not having enough options on the table.

Megan Douglas (School Committee member) 25 Rumstick Road stated that she fully supports the bond and that we need to move forward with improving our fields.  She said that she is concerned that specifies that it will absolutely be apparent in the Middle School.  She said that she was the school committee member that made the motion and said that she was very specific with the motion but that we would have to come to some agreement.  She said that it takes away the committee’s ability or the town’s ability to have a conversation about what is my understanding at the time that we made the motion for a November 5 vote would be an up down on turf, not specifically to where it was and there is a lot of options that get lost when we put just BMS.

Tom Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street discussed the town vs. school control of the school properties but he believes that the fields are controlled by Parks & Recreation, not the school department.

Kate Weymouth, 79 Alfred Drown Road questions why the $5 million is set aside for artificial turf can’t be used for other essential improvements.

Discussion ensued regarding that the vote is for the funding this evening to improve the fields.  The vote in November gets a bigger representation with the number of voters where 100’s turnout and the money will be held until the vote in November.  The vote tonight in terms of when that would be effective, and the vote in November would be effective July 1, the beginning of the fiscal year and it is just a period of time between July 1 and the vote in November that the money would be held. No improvements will be made between now and in November.  If synthetic turf is approved in November, it could be used for synthetic turf field the discussion included that $4.5 million would cover the cost of the field.

Melissa Obstfeld, 6 College Lane expressed concern regarding bond for artificial turf field and if the bond does not pass tonight is there the opportunity to vote on the bond in November.  She said because she does not know what the question exactly states for the November election she is confused and is less inclined to vote for this tonight.

Discussion ensued regarding the bond and the vote this evening and if fails this evening would need to be placed on a future FTM because it must be enacted by the electors at an FTM.

Kevin Fitta, 8 Indigo Road, said that he fully supports improvement to the fields and adding fields and questioned if turf field vote fails in November.

Discussion ensued that if the turf field vote fails in November, a prioritized projects lists will be discussed before implementation.

Scott Pickering, 5 Bittersweet Court emphasized the importance of investing in youth sports facilities for the community’s children.  He spoke of the poor conditions of the Barrington’s High School athletic facilities, calling them among the worst in the state.

Assistant Solicitor Goins explained that there are two sections to the resolution.  The first is to pass the bond for the total of $5 million.  The second half is to place a question on the ballot in November whether the athletic fields at the Barrington Middle School may be rebuilt as synthetic turf fields.  There is one vote with two components. 

Moderator Staples stated that it is time to vote

Motion passed (Voice vote).

Thomas Rimoshytus motioned to withdraw the below motion and it was seconded by a voter on the floor:

Motion:  I, Thomas A. Rimoshytus of 1 Howard Street, Barrington, RI move to add a new line-item to the Capital line-items and Reserve for Field/Turf Maintenance and Reconstruction to all fields in Town.  I propose an amount of $750,000.00 to be established at this Financial Town Meeting held in May of this year. This fund will fall in line with the Fields Study Report of 2023 to get some of our fields back in shape.  Respectfully submitted on March 13, 2024.  WITHDRAWN

Thomas Rimoshytus read the following motion into the record and it was seconded by a voter on the floor:

Motion:  I, Thomas A. Rimoshytus of 1 Howard Street, Barrington, RI move to remove the following line-item GF-51 Affordable Housing out of Capital Improvement.  I would like to remove the funds of $501,577.89 plus accruable interest that is in the account to the following new line-item GF-43 Athletic Field Improvements.  Respectfully submitted on April 15, 2024.

Mr. Rimoshytus said that this number of $501,577.89 was approved at the FTM of May 2021 and has not been used recently.  He proposed that the money could be used towards fields. 

Mr. Rimoshytus stated that the Town Council proposed adding $500,000 for affordable housing for the FY budget of 2022.  The Committee on Appropriations (COA) removed the request citing that it was premature as the state was in the process of adding programs and that proposed uses were in practical.  At the May 3, 2021, Council meeting, the President of the Council said he would file a motion at the FTM to get it back in.  But according to the Charter, except for appropriations recommended by the COA all motions in excess of $25,000 must be presented by a registered voter to the Town Clerk, at least 30 days prior to the FTM.  The money was restored to the budget by the voters at the FTM and has remained untouched and losing value to inflation ever since, except for the past year. The word at the recent council meeting was that if this would happen, it would make the town look bad to the state.

Mr. Rimoshytus said in his opinion, “we already looked bad in the state's eyes as we are well below the 10% of affordable housing goal, as the town has failed to use this money for the intended purpose, and the state has implemented several better programs with no deed restrictions.” He said that he feels it should be reallocated to the fields account. Furthermore, the Town should not be in the housing business, as he said earlier, just look at the time and money spent on the Watson project and what happened tonight. It was still up for discussion and finally passed.

President Kustell commented that this was sponsored by former President Carroll three years ago.  President Kustell said that when you set aside funds for affordable housing because of the appreciation to capture and deed restrict is difficult that the new build affordable, even if it is incremental was important.  But the message you are sending to the state, which is prioritizing affordable housing, by pulling this out, and then adding to an already $4.5 million athletic fields bottom, which we just passed, is the wrong message.  We rely on state grants, We have litigation in our state courts and what he refers to at the council meeting as an ideological spanning idea and plan to loosen up the restrictions.

President Kustell identified two members of the Housing Board of Trustees (HBT), Bill DeWitt and Michaela Carroll and said he believes that the HBT plans to move forward and does not want to abandon the commitment just because the $500,000 has not been spent as of yet.

President Kustell commented that this would not go to the line item that we just established, however, we also enhanced our field expenses on an annual basis as well; and if we pass this proposed budget tonight, we will be investing more in our DPW and our field maintenance as well as other smaller budgeted items to enhance our fields (field usage software or sand slips to improve the drainage in our fields).  He stated that we have made a commitment to our fields and tonight the community made a solid commitment to our fields tonight.

President Kustell said that when you have people of different ideological perspectives, both committed to an issue, and you have the opportunity to move forward he stated that he would let them move forward for another year and see what they come up with. He does not think the message to the state would be right to defund this now. And he does not think that that we should give up on the Housing Board of Trustees who are committed to the issue and are asking for more flexibility to be more aggressive.

Mr. Rimoshytus stated for three years, we have had no applications and we have had no discussion.  He said that it was even brought up at the May 6, Town Council meeting and there still hasn't been any applications

President Kustell said that we have members of the Housing Board who are telling us that that they want the flexibility to be able to invest it now and he would prefer to see them have the opportunity to do so.

Bill DeWitt, 4 Old Forge Road, said back in 2021, he was one of the members of the Committee on Appropriations, who voted to not fund this as part of the budget at that FTM.  He said that same year, he sat there and vehemently opposed the $500,000 being used for this again.  He said that he stands here today and in 2021 and is asking you to protect that $500,000.  He said that we did not use it over the last three years, we have felt that there was very little flexibility.  He explained that he joined the Housing Board of Trustees a little over a year ago as a way to try to understand this issue a little bit more. We did have a presentation in the meeting with the Town Council.  He stated that he takes back what he said in ‘21.   He said that he is here in ’24 to say you funded the dollars, let's protect the dollars and invest the dollars for seniors or other options.

Councilwoman Berard said that she believes Mr. DeWitt summed up some of the points that she wanted to get out.  She believes the holdup of spending the dollars for the taxpayers was that there was an understanding that it needed to be capital for affordable housing, which is the state regulations. During that meeting with Council, we wanted to give the flexibility to our Housing Board of Trustees to explore things such as tax relief and housing. (She said she thinks she was quoted in the paper as outsiders moving in). She said she wanted to convey things like teachers who live and are serving our town or DPW workers that we hire would be able to afford housing here but don't necessarily meet those state parameters. She encourages everyone, she does not care what the state thinks as far as where we vote and move money; but she believes that affordability in this town is a priority for those that live here and those that serve our community.

Janine Wolf, 5 Atlantic Crossing, echoed Councilwoman Berard’s sentiment of not caring what the state thinks.  She commented that at the last town council meeting it was stipulated that the intention of this affordable housing fund was to bring people into town.  She said that she does not believe that is in the interest of the residents of Barrington.  She said that she thinks that it is accurate to say that the $5 million bond that we just agreed to is going to be taking care of our funds because one who has sat through at least a dozen hours of conversations about this, if we get a synthetic or hybrid field, that money is instantly gone.  She said that there is no maintenance fund for either of those two new types of fields.  She said to say that this money is not needed in athletic fields, she thinks is inaccurate.  She said to think that we can make a house in Barrington affordable for the average Joe is never going to happen especially when this money has been sitting there for three years.  She said that the money belongs to Barringtonians and would serve the residents with the fields.

President Kustell emphasized practical considerations, such as state courts and grants in support the bond request and the Housing Board of Trustees is now asking for and granted more flexibility to address the problem and said that he wants to give them a chance to do it.

Paul Dulchinos, 20 Walnut Road stated that he went before the Council and suggested a plan to capture existing affordable homes through a grant process as well as to do improvements to existing homes and in return impose a 30- year deed restriction on that house and then thus increase our existing property inventory of affordable housing.  He said that this $500,000 could be used for that purpose.  He said that we must look at how we allocate and capture now and believes that it would meet the intent of helping Barringtonians because they are residents and currently may need a new roof or renovations and that money could be used in return for 30-year deed restriction.  He said he agrees that we need to revisit.

Chris Brady, 6 Jenks Garden Lane, stated that he has been a member of the Housing Board of Trustees for 10 years.  The Board has worked hard but we have been hamstrung by market forces and by strict adherence to the State’s definition.  He asked the voters to vote no on this motion.

Thomas Rimoshytus discussed that the original motion was to put $500,000 aside to have people come in from out of town with $50,000 for an affordable downpayment towards a home and not for repairs that is from Spencer Trust fund.

Hans Scholl, 71 Fales Avenue, argued that the town’s wealth and privilege come with a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, and moving funds intended for affordable housing sends the wrong message.

Michael Carroll, 24 Third Street, thanked the volunteers and acknowledged their sacrifice but believes we need to comply with this to help us at the state level but we must think about is the kind of people we bring into this town like Frank Murgo who have a huge effect on generations of people.

John Alessandro, 15 Meadowbrook Drive said that we are trying to do our part as a town and it would be disingenuous if to say we are not trying to make an effort but it doesn’t seem like the state counts our efforts.  He discussed that people come here, to this town, for a reason.  But we need to use the funds for athletic fields and supports TR’s motion.

Annelise Conway (Council member/President of Spencer Trust) and explained that due to market changes the $500,000 allocation has not been used as well as the lack of eligible homes for first-time buyers.  She said that the money was to give the Housing Board of Trustees more flexibility not just people who already live in Barrington but to allow our community members, firefighters, police officers, teachers single parents to live in this town.  She stated that the HBT charter says they must meet the state mandate and the intent is to get to the 10%, Barrington is at 3.3%.  She said without this funding we are not going to be able to move the needle and we need to be able to do more with tax reductions/tax relief for our seniors for our public service officials.  She stated that she disagreed with Mr. Rimoshytus and does not support this motion.

Vice President Humm said that because President Kustell refers to me as the Minister of fields and this involves fields, he felt compelled to say something.  He said while he admires Mr. Rimoshytus with creative thinking with respect to fields, he does not think that this is the money for it.  He said that he supported the $500,000 for affordable housing two years ago.  He said that he would like to see the Housing Board of Trustees plans for the funds and they deserve the opportunity to use the money for its intended purpose.

Moderator Staples explained that a yes vote will approve Mr. Rimoshytus’ motion, a no vote will not approve it

Moderator Staples stated that it is time to vote

Motion defeated. (Voice vote).

Moderator Staples asked the Board of Canvassers to conduct a quick count of voters to retain the quorum.  Over 100.

Mr. Staples said we can now turn to the BARRINGTON SCHOOL BUDGET.  By RI law, voters can only make motions to increase or decrease the bottom line of the school budget.  The School Committee has sole authority to determine how that bottom line is allocated.  You may, however, ask questions about individual budget items and make non-binding recommendations.

By the Barrington Town Charter, no motion to increase or decrease the school budget by more than $50,000 can be made unless it was pre-filed 5 business days before this meeting. This year, there are no pre-filed motions affecting the school budget.

Mr. Staples asked if anyone wishes to make a motion to increase or decrease the school budget in an amount up to $50,000 or less.

Kate Weymouth, 79 Alfred Drown Road questioned the members of the School Committee when will we see solar panels that were promised when we passed the bond for the new state of the arts Middle School.

Moderator Staples stated that the question is outside the scope of the budget discussion.

Moderator Staples said that it has been stated that the school budget is a bottom-line budget.

PROPOSED MUNICIPAL BUDGET

Unlike the school budget, the Municipal budget is a line-item budget. Motions may be made to increase or decrease any department budget, but, other than pre-filed motions relating to the municipal budget, no motion can be made to increase or decrease any department budget by more than $50,000 or 20% (whichever is less).

For instance, motions to increase or decrease the Town Council budget of $51,400 cannot exceed 20%, or $10,280, and motions to increase or decrease the budgets of the larger departments such as police, fire or DPW cannot exceed $50,000.  We have no pre-filed motions to consider this year.

We will now begin our review of the Proposed Town Budget.

Municipal Budget     

Moderator Staples asked if there were any further questions or comments; there were not.

Motion passed. (voice vote)

Moderator Staples said that you have approved the municipal budget.

Moderator Staples explained that the sewer utility is an enterprise fund.  The budget is fully funded by the sewer fees and that Revenues are established outside the authority of the town meeting.

850SE              Sewer Utility                                                                    4,277,191

Motion from the floor and seconded by a voter on the floor to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE-ON-APPROPRIATIONS

RESOLVED:  that the report of the Committee-on-Appropriations, appointed to prepare a budget, be adopted and in accordance therewith, the sum of $95,844,395.00 be and the same hereby is appropriated to be expended during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, and the Town Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to pay out of the several appropriations mentioned, said sums within the amounts appropriated, as may be required upon receipt by her of proper vouchers approved by the Town Manager, or otherwise as provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:  that the report of the Committee-on-Appropriations with regard to the Sewer Enterprise Fund be adopted and in accordance therewith the sum of $4,247,191.00 be and the same hereby is appropriated to be expended during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, and the Town Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to pay out of the Sewer Enterprise Fund said sums within the amount appropriated as may be required upon receipt by her of proper vouchers approved by the Town Manager or otherwise as provided by law.  The expenditure shall be supported by revenue generated by said fund.

Motion passed (voice vote).

Motion from the floor and seconded by a voter on the floor to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION ORDERING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF A TAX AND DEALING WITH KINDRED MATTERS

RESOLVED:  that the electors of the Town of Barrington, qualified to vote on any proposition to impose a tax, in Town Meeting assembled, on this 24^th day of May, a.d. 2023, hereby order the levy and collection of a tax on the ratable real estate, the ratable tangible personal property, ratable tangible personal property of manufacturer's machinery and equipment (the rate of said ratable tangible personal property of manufacturer's consisting of manufacturer's machinery and equipment to be in accordance with limitations and provisions of statutory law of the State of Rhode Island) in the sum not less than $72,081,803.00                            nor more than $72,279,128.00 , said tax to be for ordinary expenses and charges, for the payment of interest and indebtedness in full or in part of said Town and for other purposes authorized by law.

The Tax Assessor shall apportion said tax on the inhabitants and taxable property of said Town according to law, and shall, upon completion of said resulting tax roll, date, certify and sign the same and deliver to and deposit the same in the Office of the Town Clerk.  The Town Clerk, upon receipt of said assessments, shall forthwith make a copy of same and deliver it to the Finance Director with a warrant under her hand directed to the Collector of Taxes of said Town commanding him to proceed to collect said tax on the person and estates liable therefor.  Said tax shall be due and payable on the 1^st day of September, a.d. 2023, and all taxes remaining unpaid after September 29, 2023, shall carry until collected, a penalty at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the due date of any quarterly installment, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the persons assessed to pay their taxes shall have an option to pay the same in equal quarterly installments; the first installment of twenty-five per centum on or before the 29^th day of September 2023, and the remaining installments as follows:  twenty-five per centum on or before the 29^th day of December 2023, twenty-five per centum on or before the 29^th day of March 2024, and twenty-five per centum on or before the 28^th day of June 2024.

If the first installment or any succeeding installments of taxes is not paid by the last date of the respective installment period or periods as they occur, then the whole tax or remaining unpaid balance of the tax as the case may be shall immediately become due and payable and shall carry until collected a penalty at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

As of the 31^st day of December 2023, at twelve o'clock midnight, the Assessor of Taxes shall determine the assessed valuation of ratable property in the Town for tax purposes and against such assessed valuations so determined shall apportion the tax levy to be made by the electors in Financial Town Meeting on May 22, 2024, on the inhabitants of the Town and ratable property therein to meet appropriations.

RESOLVED:  that the Finance Director is hereby authorized to hire such sum or sums of money as may be necessary for the operation of the Town Government, and

RESOLVED:  that the Finance Director and Collector of Taxes and such other Town Officers as the Town Council may designate shall secure their bonds from some good surety company and the Town assume the expenses.     

Motion passed (voice vote).

Motion from the floor and seconded by a voter on the floor to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH TAX RATES

RESOLVED: that the real estate and personal property tax rate be set at not greater than $14.75         

per $1,000 valuation.

See motion after the conclusion of the discussion on any other business…

ANY OTHER BUSINESS AFFECTING APPROPRIATIONS:

Magus Thorsson, 18 Ernest Street stated that he had other business affecting appropriation (agenda item #12) in which he requested to propose an additional motion:

Motion by Magnus Thorsson and seconded by a voter from the floor to fund a conceptual design for public open space on South Lake Drive, which has been blighted and has been closed for a number of years, aimed at revitalizing the blighted area not to exceed $25,000.

The proposed open space would connect the bike path to Sowams Woods and include facilities for fishing, biking, walking, and outdoor environmental education.

Funds will be allocated to hire a professional landscape architect, conduct environmental assessments, and engage the community through the design phase.

Work overseen by Town in collaboration with boards and commissions, BPS, Barrington Land Conservation Trust, and any town-based organizations of interest.  

He continued his comments in which he said that there is an opportunity for us to create an outdoor environmental education space, for schools in the complete streets plan, a demand to connect bike paths and this would connect the bike path and curette connects directly to the Circle Park next to the bike path.  He said it would enable bicyclists and walkers as well as an estuary, lake with incredible bird life, fishing and it would create access parking and facilities for the students.

President Kustell stated that this has been something that the Open space Committee has talked about for years.  There is an opportunity to that and certainly something that the Middle School could take advantage of.  He said he has no objection but he didn’t want to give the impression that this was out of nowhere.  He said that this is something that has been conceived and talked about at the Committee level.

Tom Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street, stated that he believes there is a plan in place with the Parks & Recreation Commission holding a discussion regarding bike paths with handicap accessibility for people can walk or use a wheelchair; there has been testing done on pets on asphalt on the old roadway.  He said that Ms. Crean can talk further.

Hans Scholl, 71 Fales Avenue said that he likes this idea very much and will provide a connection to Washington Road; providing transportation and movement.  He said he thinks Magnus’ suggestion is to capitalize on the fact that we have a beautiful area with a lot of nature and a great opportunity to create an outdoor education classroom with an ideal location and to add to the school curriculum.

Vice President Humm stated that it is a great idea and not opposed to it at all but believes that there are plans but seems very sudden for purposes tonight.

Mary Grenier, 10 Watson Avenue commented that at one time students went there in the eighth grade but due to the blighted area but would hate to see more money spent when there are studies that have been done.

Joel Merrill, 22 Mason Road understands that DPW/Recreation is working on this and does not want any more money since there are studies on this.

Magnus Thorsson said that this is for a conceptional design and study no to be built out.  He stated that he is the Chair of Resilience and Energy Committee and have put a proposal together for the resilience landscape and don’t know of any other plan in the works and nothing in terms of preserving open land has come across these committees and moved to council.

President Kustell stated that the town has been developing working with an engineering firm to improve South Lake Drive which is unsafe and in terrible condition, converting that to a bike path.

Kelly Reese, Chair of Open Space and echoed what you have heard already.  She said that this particular project was talked about during the pandemic, it was one of those green spaces, we wanted the communities to really enjoy and to appreciate.  She said in 2021 a proposal was sent forward to the Council but at that time no action was taken on it.  She said that we put it in all of our annual reports on open space as a priority property.

Councilwoman Berard said that there is a plan being worked on.  She commented that we do have reserves in park and trail improvements budget with additional add ons and there may be more in climate mitigation projects.  She said she would like to work in conjunction with money already being spent to improve this spot.

Motion Defeated (Voice Vote).

Moderator Staples stated that the numbers presented prior to this discussion stand as is and the following was continued:

Motion from the floor and seconded by a voter on the floor to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH TAX RATES

RESOLVED: that the real estate and personal property tax rate be set at not greater than $14.75         

per $1,000 valuation.

Motion passed (voice vote).

Moderator Staples said by Barrington Town Charter, we elect members to the Committee on Appropriations for two-year, staggered terms. This year, we will elect or re-elect two members of the committee for terms ending in 2026.

We have received applications from one candidate: James Sanderson, 32 Primrose Hill Road.

Mr. Sanderson gave his comments regarding why he would like to be part of the Committee on Appropriations.

Moderator Staples asked if there are any other nominations from the floor? 

Michael Raia, 9 Alfred Drown Road placed his name forward to serve on the Committee on Appropriations and discussed why he would like to serve.

Moderator Staples stated that the nominations are now closed, and we will not be using paper ballots. He said that we have two (2) nominations for two (2) positions and we will vote on these individually with a voice vote.

Moderator Staples asked all in favor of appointing Mr. James Sanderson to the Committee on Appropriations?

Motion passes: (voice vote)

Moderator Staples asked all in favor of appointing Mr. Michael Raia to the Committee on Appropriations?

Motion passes: (voice vote)

RESOLUTION ELECTING A COMMITTEE TO PREPARE A BUDGET AND SUBMIT A REPORT

(3 Positions for Re-election)

RESOLVED: that a Committee of Appropriations, consisting of five (5), is ordered to hold a public meeting

on the second Wednesday in May 2023 at 7:00 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of hearing all persons interested in preparing a budget to be presented to the Financial Town Meeting and to submit a printed report of their recommendations for expenditures to the Financial Town Meeting, and the amount of tax which will be necessary to levy to pay such expenses, and

RESOLVED:  that, Mr. James Sanderson and Michael Raia are hereby elected to two (2) year terms on the Committee of Appropriations ending May 2026 and will serve with Dr. Cynthia Rosengard, 374 Sowams Road, Tinsley Kampmier-William, 19 Meadowbrook Drive and John Stafford, 4 Strawberry Drive with terms ending May 2025, and

RESOLVED:  that, in case of a vacancy in the Committee on Appropriations, after the election of its five (5) members, such vacancy shall be filled immediately by the Town Council, and

RESOLVED:  further, that, the Town Clerk with the said Committee-on-Appropriations shall prepare and have printed an order of business for each Financial Town Meeting.

Moderator Staples said that the work for the 2024 Financial Town Meeting is complete.  The 2025 Financial Town Meeting is scheduled for May 28, 2025, and encourage you to place it on your digital calendars.

Moderator Staples thanked Steve Primiano and bill DeWitt for their service with the Committee on Appropriations.

Moderator Staples asked for a motion to dissolve, Tom Rimoshytus made that motion and Moderator Staples declared the 2024 Barrington Financial Town Meeting dissolved at 10:55pm.

Motion passed (voice vote).