Barrington voters will face an additional question regarding athletic fields when they cast their ballots this November. 

The first question will ask residents whether they want to use the $4.5 million approved at the recent FTM to install synthetic turf fields at the middle school. 

The second question will ask residents if they support the installation of a synthetic turf field at a municipally-controlled property, as an alternative to the middle school site. 

It took Council members a while to decide on the second question. At the July 22 meeting, Councilors debated various facets of the fields issue for nearly three hours. They spoke at length about a letter they received from the attorney for the Barrington School Committee, which offered a counterproposal for the middle school synthetic turf fields plan. Council members also discussed the idea of placing a second fields question before voters this fall.

Kate Berard was the driving force behind the second question, although she flip-flopped on whether it was needed. 

Initially, Berard said she wanted to pose a broader question to residents, basically asking them if they supported installing a synthetic turf field here in Barrington. Berard said that question would offer a definitive statement on whether the community supports synthetic turf. 

But just a few days before the Council’s July 22 meeting, members of the School Committee voted unanimously to install a synthetic turf field at the Victory Field athletic complex at the high school.

Berard, at one point in the Council discussion, said the idea of gauging the public’s voice on synthetic turf does not matter anymore because the School Committee has already approved the Victory Field work. 

Council member Rob Humm said there was no need for a second question to voters. He said the Council has only a plan for synthetic turf at the middle school and asking voters whether they support a project elsewhere in town would lead to confusion. Humm said the Council should stick to the first question, and if that does not get approved, the town can use the $4.5 million from the bond to make other improvements to athletic fields. 

A short time later after the public comment portion of the discussion, Berard said she had changed her mind — she called for a second question that would authorize the town to pursue a synthetic turf field project at a different, municipally-controlled (or non-school) property, still hoping it would offer a clear opinion on whether the community supports the installation of a synthetic turf field in town. 

Humm pushed back. Humm urged his fellow Councilors to watch the video recording of the July 18 School Committee meeting where the Victory Field improvements were approved. He said dozens of people attended the meeting to voice support for the synthetic turf field. There was not a single person who spoke in opposition to the proposal, Humm said. He said student-athletes, coaches, parents all spoke publicly in support of the work. 

“It was overwhelming,” he added. 

Berard said that was why she believes the second question is so important. She said if voters do support synthetic turf, she wants to know so town officials can continue to work on the issue. 

Berard also asked if the second question would have any impact on the School Committee’s decision to install synthetic turf at Victory Field. 

The town solicitor, Amy Goins, said the only way for the town to assume control over school properties would be to change the town charter. 

Berard later said her goal was two-fold: First, she wanted to capture the voice of the community regarding synthetic turf, and second, she wanted to have direction to guide the Council’s work on this issue. 

Humm said a second question should be specific to a second site. He asked what happens with the second question if voters approve the middle school turf question? Humm also said the Council does not currently have a second project in the works. Again, he cautioned that a second question would only confuse voters. He said Councilors were discussing hypotheticals. If the BMS question fails, there is nothing else on the table, Humm added.

Despite Humm’s protests, Berard eventually made a motion to add the second question. Kustell seconded the motion. 

Humm and Barrington Town Manager Phil Hervey both shared concerns about a second question, but when it came to a vote, the motion passed 4-0. 

Joint meeting

Members of the Barrington Town Council are working on a response to a counterproposal from the School Committee regarding the middle school synthetic turf field proposal.

Councilors discussed multiple sections of a letter they each received from the School Committee’s attorney that detailed the counterproposal. 

Councilors also voiced frustrations with the process. They questioned why the School Committee discussed the topic during the executive session portion of their July 18 meeting, under the allowance of “potential litigation.”

Eventually, Council members decided it was best to try to schedule a joint meeting with the School Committee to discuss the middle school synthetic turf proposal. That meeting will be held on Thursday night, Aug. 1, at 6:30 p.m. at Barrington Middle School.

The Council also met on Wednesday night, July 31, to further discuss the School Committee’s counter-proposal.