Richmond Town Council Meeting Update for Tuesday June 20, 2023

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
June 21st 2023

RICHMOND – The saga of the failed enabling tax legislation continued at Tuesday’s Town Council meeting with state Rep. Megan Cotter, D-Richmond, asking why the town had not informed her of the proposed bill since as Representative, she would be required to present it.

And later in the meeting, more than a year of work came close to going down the drain when council members Michael Colasante and Helen Sheehan opposed a motion to hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the town’s aquifer protection ordinance.

Council Vice President Richard Nassaney chaired the meeting in the absence of council President Mark Trimmer, who was out of town.

Tax Stabilization for The Preserve

At the June 6 Town Council meeting, four members supported a resolution asking the General Assembly to approve enabling legislation that would make it possible for the town to sign a tax stabilization agreement with The Preserve Sporting Club and Residences. Councilor Samantha Wilcox was the only member to vote against the resolution.

Drafted by Town Solicitor Karen Ellsworth, the proposed bill was hand delivered to the State House shortly before the end of the legislative session, not by Megan Cotter, or a council member, but by a representative of The Preserve.

House bill H 6509 and Senate bill, S 1132 would have authorized the town to enter into tax exemption or stabilization agreements with owners of properties located in mixed - use commercial and residential developments.

The House bill states that the property must meet the following criteria:

*  “Has a total assessed value of not less than ten million  [$10,000,000] on the date on which the partial exemption or stabilization will take effect

* and is used for or available for use as short-term rental property for no fewer than twenty-six [26] weeks in each calendar year

* and an agreement to exempt or stabilize taxes on any one lot or on contiguous lots under the authority of this section shall be enacted in the form of a resolution.”

From its contents, to the discussion at the June 6 council meeting, to the manner in which it was delivered to the House of Representatives, the proposed legislation reeked of a last-minute attempt to give tax breaks to The Preserve.

Adding to the bad optics was the timing of the initiative, which closely followed the rejection of the town’s proposed 2023-24 budget and pleas from tearful homeowners to lower property taxes. In addition, the council had earlier declined to increase property tax exemptions for seniors.

In a statement that raised eyebrows, Preserve owner and developer Paul Mihailides told the council at the June 6 meeting that property taxes were too high, saying,

“It’s just too much for a third or fourth vacation home, somebody that’s here a few times a year, that is here because The Preserve offers so many intangible items.”

Despite assurances that the bill would stimulate economic development throughout the town, the enabling legislation appeared to have been written specifically for The Preserve, since no other properties in the town would meet the criteria.

Cotter pulls the bill

Citing her discomfort with many aspects of the bill, including its last-minute submission without her knowledge, Cotter said she had no choice but to pull it.

“I went to the State House and there was a piece of legislation on my desk that was ready to be submitted, and The Preserve had dropped it off at the State House,” she said. “I had no idea what it was, what was going on. It was drafted before I even got an email from the town, which is just – I mean, it’s not how things are done at all.”

Cotter said no one from the Town Council, or the Preserve, attended the hearing before the House Municipal Government and Housing committee, leaving her to answer questions about a bill she knew nothing about.

“The questions that the committee had asked…I didn’t have any answers for them,” she said. “I didn’t know why they’re giving this giant discount to people who are in short term rentals. I had no information whatsoever. It was disrespectful - to the process, to me, to the entire General Assembly to just rush legislation like that and not give any answers as to why.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Colasante stated that both he and Sheehan had attempted, without success, to telephone Cotter.

“They called me the day the bill was up for a vote on the floor,” Cotter said. “They did not call me prior to that. They should have called me when the legislation was put in. Mark Trimmer should have called me. He is the Town Council President. He did not. Mark Trimmer also called me the day the bill was being heard on the floor. … To say they reached out to try to work with me is completely disingenuous.”

Trimmer, reached while he was out of town, said the proposed legislation had not been adequately explained.

“There were time constraints because of the end of the legislative session,” he wrote in a text message. “I personally didn’t do a good job of explaining how this legislation would benefit our town.”

Sheehan has also promoted the legislation as encouraging further commercial development in the town and reducing the tax burden on residents. She argued that Wilcox and Cotter had misunderstood the purpose of the bill, which would have brought in an additional $100,000 a year in tax revenue.

But Cotter said the bill would have had the opposite effect.

“As much as this Town Council says that the average Richmond taxpayer, homeowner, is not going to see an increase, the money has to come from somewhere and it’s going to come from taxpayers,” she said. “And when you have senior citizens that were not able to get a tax stabilization increase this year, who are struggling to get by day to day with inflation being what it is, it’s just not right.”

Nassaney said Wednesday that he now regrets his earlier vote supporting the resolution.

“I thought it was going to be a simple ask to the legislature, with no specifics of any deals or any kind of detail of any project or any building or predetermined specific projects,” he said.

Nassaney did not see a draft of the enabling legislation.

“I never saw the final draft. I don’t think anyone else did,” he said.

During the public forum, several residents criticized the resolution. Town moderator Mark Reynolds reminded the council that two council members, Trimmer and Colasante, had received $3,000 each in campaign contributions from people connected with The Preserve.

Board of Tax Assessment Review member Jeffrey Noble said The Preserve had presented 47 appeals at the June 14 meeting.

“In their complaints, The Preserve residential units thought that instead of being taxed closer to the sale price of $1,000 per square foot, that the $410 per square foot that the assessors set the units at was too much,” he said. “They felt the value of the units was closer to $220 per square foot. Because of where they would want to be, the town would look at losing, per unit, revenue, the total would be about $150,000 if we went with The Preserve’s valuation.”

Reynolds told the council that before the town considers any tax breaks, the entity receiving the break should be current on its taxes.

“One other protection that I would encourage you to include, particularly with respect to The Preserve is, there’s a provision that they have to be up to date on their taxes,” he said. “But they also should be up to date on all the other fees that they owe the town. It’s my understanding that The Preserve owes the town almost $200,000 in affordable housing waiver fees that they were granted, so they wouldn’t have to build affordable housing in there.”

A close call for the APOD

After more than a year of deliberation, the Planning Board has proposed zoning amendments to the Aquifer Protection Overlay District, or APOD.

Town Planner Shaun Lacey asked the council to schedule a public hearing to consider the proposed changes, but Colasante and Sheehan voted against the hearing.

Lacey appeared surprised.

“If we’re not going to proceed with the public hearing, we are effectively shelving these amendments from further review,” he said.

Wilcox and Nassaney reminded the two councilors that the purpose of the hearing was to allow the public to weigh in on the proposed changes, not to approve the amendments themselves.

Colasante said his mind was made up.

“We already voted on this, so I’ll move it. The discussion’s over,” he said.

Lacey and Ellsworth said landowners were waiting for the new regulations so they could proceed with their development applications.

“This is something that the Planning Board has been working on for more than a year…and property owners in town are eagerly awaiting the enactment of these ordinance amendments, because it’s going to make it easier for them to develop,” Ellsworth said. “It would be really helpful if you could explain to us why you don’t want to go forward with the ordinance.”

Holding a map of the aquifer protection overlay district, Sheehan said,

“I had this map printed for myself, in color, and I’m worried that there are so many places that I’m afraid that there will be no development in the areas that are supposed to be development allowed, and in addition to that, those who do try to do a development, they’ll be priced out of the market because the requirements seem to be excessive in some areas.”

Ellsworth said landowners supported the amendments, but Colasante disagreed.

“I talked to large landowners and they’re not for this,” he said. “…The best use of an aquifer is to stifle or slow economic development in those areas where they claim to want to protect their water. The Internet is a beautiful thing. You can just Google that.”

In a final attempt to clarify the amendments, Ellsworth explained that they would actually be less restrictive to developers than the ordinance is now.

“This is not a new ordinance,” she said. “We already have an aquifer protection overlay district. The one that we’re proposing is less restrictive than the one we have now. Less restrictive.”

“I’m going to change my vote then,” Sheehan said. “I’ll support a public hearing.”

With Colasante opposing, the remaining councilors, including Sheehan, voted to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on July 18 at 5 p.m.