To the editor:

So let’s be clear here. The Barrington School Committee failed to follow through with their original proposal to purchase solar panels for the new middle school, which the state required to be wired and ‘solar panel ready’, because of the lame excuse that they would piggy-back on another, obviously more sustainably-forward RI town’s solar tax credits, and because they might have to hire a crane to put them on the roof.

Instead, the school committee made the sustainably-backward decision to use its capital reserve funds, taxpayer money accumulated from previous years’ budget surpluses, i.e. their ‘rainy day fund’, on a necessary new track and an unnecessarily high end artificial turf field which is a thumb in the eyes of the taxpayers’ overwhelming vote against artificial turf in Barrington.

The product they’ve chosen, Pivot synthetic turf made by TenCate, claims to have ‘no detectable PFAS’, requires no infill, has a life expectancy of 12 years, and can be maintained by custodial staff using blowers or fans.

Because there is no infill, the product must be made 3 times thicker for the necessary bounce, and while they deny PFAS is used in the manufacturing process, apparently using a different chemical lubricant for the blades, all plastics contain ‘forever chemicals’ which breakdown over time, and so now we have 3 times more of the stuff.

Are the custodians aware of their new duties of blowing ‘organic debris’ off the field, and how will bodily fluids and solids, or mold be handled? Artificial turf must be sprayed down on occasion with anti-bacterial and antiseptic solutions. Will that be the custodians’ purview as well?

As to its purported 12-year life, the product was introduced by TenCate a mere 3 months ago and the longest test case has been in Texas for just over a year. A 12-year life in New England climate is an abstraction I’m not going to hold my breath for, but certainly, even half that time is long enough for it not to become this present school committee members’ problem and responsibility for the field’s disposal and replacement.

We have just learned that a resolution will be made at the upcoming FTM, to take money from a municipal line item and add it to the bottom line of the school budget, basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. Mind you, every year, the municipal side of government must account for every dime of every line item, while the schools only need to have their bottom line approved.

We also just learned that capital expenses, whether on the school or municipal side, are by ordinance, required to be reviewed by the planning board. Even more egregious, due to the extensive size of the project, and magnitude of construction, earth moving and disruption required, the proposal was supposed to be reviewed and approved by the planning board. It was never presented.

In view of these developments, I, who grew up in this town and have always been a strong supporter of our schools, will for the first time vote against the school budget until and unless the school committee changes course and doesn’t waste our money on an artificial turf field. 

If you are as fed up as I am, I encourage you to join me in protest.

Kate Weymouth

Barrington