Barrington’s move to a Financial Town Referendum was touted as a way to get more people involved in the town’s budget approval process.

On Wednesday night, April 15, Barrington taxpayers said the FTR has proven to be quite the opposite. 

Among those to criticize the new budget format was Dan O’Mahony. A member of the town’s Board of Canvassers, speaking only for himself, O’Mahony said the FTR process fails to hit two critical marks that had been prioritized by the public when people were considering whether to move away from the financial town meeting format.

O’Mahony said the first key failure of the new FTR is that it will only offer an “Approval” option on the voting ballot. There is no option to “Reject” the proposed budget. O’Mahony said the FTR also missed the mark with its signature requirement for taxpayer-generated amendments — anyone who wants to propose a change of more than $50,000 to the budget must collect more than 2,800 signatures of registered Barrington voters. 

O’Mahony, who has been deeply involved in the town’s move from FTM to FTR, said he has strong reservations about this year’s financial town referendum. He referred to working through the “initial gut punch” of the new process. 

O’Mahony was not alone. Barrington resident Neile Hartman said the transition to the FTR goes against better engagement by the public. She said she was really hoping that the FTR would have increased engagement.

“It feels like it’s doing the opposite,” Hartman said. 

Hartman said someone should accept responsibility, or blame, for the situation — she pointed to members of the Barrington Town Council who voted to approve the resolution that later went to before Barrington voters. That yielded a response from the council members who attended Wednesday’s budget hearing: Kate Berard, Braxton Cloutier and Jordan Jancosek. 

In a terse exchange with the councilors, Hartman said the town council members had full knowledge of the onerous signature threshold when they approved the resolution. She said they thought it was a good idea, and then she asked which councilors voted for it. 

Berard and Cloutier raised their hands and said they had. (Jancosek was not yet a member of the council.) Cloutier said they were being fully transparent. Barrington Committee on Appropriations Chair Cynthia Rosengard said there had been a flyer sent to Barrington households before residents were asked to vote on whether to transition to the FTR. (Later in the meeting, former council member Jacob Brier said he had voted against the move because of the signature requirement.)

Hartman refused to back down. She looked at town officials and said they thought this was a good idea, while the entire town was shocked about the FTR process. She also said Barrington residents deserved an explanation.

Assistant town solicitor Peter Skwirz said his office had drafted the language of the resolution that was later sent to the council. He also told Hartman that residents could begin collecting the signatures of registered voters earlier in the process. (The COA first shared its recommended budgets on April 8, which left less than 20 days before the April 27 amendment filing deadline.)

Kate Berard spoke at the microphone after Hartman was finished. She defended the process used and said the signature threshold came partly from the “fear of the unknown.” Berard said the intent was to get more people engaged in the process. She also spoke about the municipal budget, which called for the elimination of a DPW position and how the council had pushed for that position. (At the April 8 budget hearing, Rosengard explained that the DPW position that is being eliminated had not been filled in 12 years.)

Jancosek also spoke during the hearing. She said there was almost no areas in the municipal budget that could be cut. (The council did not cut anything from the municipal budget — they voted to move $2,606 from the capital budget to the library’s operating budget, and they later approved a new contract for trash and recycling collection that was $71,410 less than the 10% increased amount the manager had budgeted for the line item.)

“This year’s budget was incredibly thoughtfully put together,” Jancosek said. 

Longtime Barrington resident Pete Acciardo criticized the FTR. He said the process removes power from the residents — it is no longer democracy, he said. Acciardo said it is not democracy when you tell the public they have to show up and vote on something and then offer only one option: Approve. 

In addition, the new FTR removes from the public the ability to vote on a proposed override to the state-mandated 4 percent tax levy cap. With the FTR, the town council has the power to vote on the tax cap override. 

Budget increase decreased

Members of the COA shared the final budget recommendation during the April 15 hearing. The COA trimmed the school department budget increase by an additional $250,000, which moved the proposed total budget increase to 8.41%. Council members already voted to petition to exceed the 4 percent tax levy cap. The new tax rate stands to increase by 6.94%, if there are no amendments voted through. Town officials point to the debt service payments as a main driver for the increase; the town begins to pay on the $250 million school construction bond this year.

Barrington budget, at a glance

The Barrington Committee on Appropriations offered an updated summary of their review process with this year’s proposed budgets:

Municipal operating budget

• Town council recommendation: $23,651,507 (a 4.45% increase)

• Notable changes: School resource officer funding; community engagement officer funding (with grant off-set); elimination of an unfilled DPW position

• COA recommendation on April 8: $23,651,507 (a 4.45% increase)

• COA final budget: $23,615,097 (a 4.28% increase)

School operating budget

• School committee request: $71,539,603 (a 5.91% increase)

• Notable changes: No layoffs; six new positions proposed; equalizing supplies funding at the elementary schools; additional security measures

• COA recommendation on April 8: $70,983,603 (a 5.09% increase)

• COA final budget: $70,705,504 (a 4.68% increase)

Municipal capital budget

• Planning board recommendation: $1,517,655 (a .14% increase)

• Notable highlights: Fire equipment replacement; Bay Spring Community Center improvements; park and trail improvements

• COA recommendation on April 8: $1,517,655 (a .14% increase)

• COA final budget: $1,517,655 (a .14% increase)

School capital budget

• School administration request: $388,595 (0% change)

• Notable highlights: BMS and BHS devices; middle school access point replacement; staff devices; miscellaneous accessories replacement

• COA recommendation on April 8: $388,595 (0% change)

• COA final budget: $388,595 (0% change)

Debt service

• Original request: $10,559,592 (a 64.71% increase)

• COA recommendation: $10,559,592 (a 64.71% increase)

Total budget

Amount: $106,786,442

Change: 8.41% increase

Tax rate 

Current: $15.34 (per $1,000 of assessed value)

Proposed: $16.36 (per $1,000 of assessed value)

Change: 6.94% increase