Richmond Town Council Update for January 3rd 2023

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA

RICHMOND – A vote to deny an application by Nancy Hess for reappointment to the Planning Board has exacerbated tensions on the Town Council.

At Tuesday’s meeting, council members also debated the reappointment of Town Solicitor Karen Ellsworth before voting to renew her contract.

Nancy Hess

Hess, who did not attend the meeting, was seeking a three-year reappointment. Her contract expires on Jan. 31. Some council members said they objected to the manner in which Hess sometimes treated applicants, but Planning Board Chair Philip Damicis, who has served on the board for 30 years, about 20 of them with Hess, urged the council to reappoint her.

“I can assure you that every applicant she has treated fairly,” he said. “She has only been looking out for the best interests of our town and our residents. She’s been trying to protect the rural community that we live in. If she comes across as being strong, quite honestly, I feel it’s her passion for what she does.”

Hess, a supervisor in the Rhode Island Division of Statewide planning, has brought considerable knowledge and experience to the board.

Council member Samantha Wilcox, who supported the reappointment, said the town needed volunteers like Hess.

“We’re not in a position to turn down quality volunteers,” she said.

Councilors Michael Colasante and Helen Sheehan voted against Hess’s reappointment, and were joined by council President Mark Trimmer. With only Wilcox and council Vice President Richard Nassaney voting in favor, the motion to reappoint her was defeated.

Reached Wednesday morning, Trimmer said his vote to deny Hess’s reappointment had not been an easy one.

 “I was on the fence with it,” he said. “I really, really struggled with it. I lost two nights’ sleep over it, easily. On one hand, she [Hess] brings unrivaled expertise in her field. And on the other hand, she tended to get personal, and sometimes belligerent with applicants, and I felt that if any other volunteer, paid town employee, or Town Council person for that matter, were to approach the public the way she sometimes approached applicants, that we would ask [sic] to step down or we would be terminated, disciplined.”

Nassaney said he had believed Trimmer would support Hess. He recalled how, on Dec. 29, he had stopped at a local coffee shop and had come upon a meeting between Trimmer and Hess. He was invited to join the meeting, which, he said, ended with Trimmer telling Hess that he would support her.

“Nancy asked Mark if he would give her support for reappointment and he confirmed ‘yes,’” Nassaney said. “They shook hands and he said ‘you have my support’ and then they parted ways.”

Nassaney said that witnessing that coffee shop exchange made what happened at the council meeting even more shocking.

“Tuesday, everything came crashing down,” he said. “The internal screaming in my brain was overwhelming. I had to put my hand over my mouth. I had to put my head down. I was in utter disbelief.”

Neither Hess nor Damicis responded to a request for comment, but board member Dan Madnick said he was disappointed in the council’s vote.

“Nancy has been an integral part of the Planning Board for many years and has been instrumental in developing the Comprehensive Community Plan, along with being the town’s subject matter expert on land use,” he said. “Her expertise and knowledge is not easily replaceable. It’s unfortunate that the Town Council, while voting against her reappointment, did not provide any specific reasons or justification for their votes, and ignored all public input that favored her reappointment.”

Trimmer said it was essential that the town attract new businesses to relieve the tax burden on homeowners. In order to do that, he said the council would have to introduce new tax incentives to attract businesses and issue quicker approvals of development applications.

“The council needs to and will come up with a tax incentive plan to encourage business to locate and develop here,” he said. “We need to fast track the planning approvals, fast track the zoning approvals and set up some sort of incentive to bring the business in, because the homeowners are disproportionately burdened with taxes in our town.”

Ellsworth said the perception that Hess and other Planning Board members had delayed or obstructed applications was incorrect, and pointed out that the board has submitted favorable opinions to the council for every application it has received, with the exception of two commercial solar energy proposals.

“We have not missed deadlines for approvals,” she said.

Ellsworth also reminded council members that the board does not have the authority to deny applications.

“They don’t have any discretion not to approve, nor do they have any choice about how long it takes to approve,” she said.

“Those are not discretionary. That’s controlled by state law.”

The Preserve Connection 

The Preserve at Boulder Hills is Richmond’s largest commercial taxpayer. Trimmer is not a member of the private sporting club, however, state records posted on the Rhode Island Board of Elections’ website show that he and Colasante each received three, $1,000 campaign contributions from people connected with the club.

“There were residents who contributed money towards flyers,” Trimmer said.

The Preserve has sued the town for its actions and inaction on several projects. That suit, which claimed $100 million in damages, was recently dismissed, but The Preserve has vowed to appeal the decision.

The council discussed the case in executive session after Tuesday’s meeting, but before the regular meeting adjourned, Ellsworth asked if any councilors wanted to recuse themselves from the discussion.

“If anybody needs to recuse themselves, I think this is the time to do it, before the executive session,” she said. “I’m not saying anybody has to.” 

None of the councilors recused.

Solicitor contracts

Town Administrator Karen Pinch, who is charged with evaluating the performances of the town solicitors,  recommended that the council approve new, one-year contracts for Ellsworth and fellow Town Solicitor Michael Cozzolino. Their current contracts expire at the end of January.

Colasante and Sheehan said they wanted to approve a 90-day contract for Ellsworth rather than a full year, during which they would conduct their own performance review.

“It will give the new council people, there are three of us here, a chance to review her performance and make a better decision,” Colasante said. “Being basically on the council for 17 seconds, you’re asking me to make a decision on something like this.”

After pointing out that Ellsworth had won all the cases in which she had represented the town, Nassaney said he was comfortable leaving the responsibility for her performance review with Pinch.

However, Colasante said he, not Pinch, was accountable to taxpayers.

“I’m the one who is going to hear from the taxpayers,” he said. “Even though Karen Pinch is the administrator, she doesn’t have to really answer to the taxpayers like we do. So, when she makes her recommendations, I appreciate the recommendation and that’s what it is, a recommendation. I still have to do my due diligence and to really look at this, all right? To have clear conscience.”

Sheehan said she also needed more time to evaluate Ellsworth’s performance, however, in the end, the council voted, with Colasante abstaining, to approve Ellsworth’s contract.

Any discomfort that Colasante and Sheehan may have had with Ellsworth’s contract did not appear to apply to Cozzolino, whose new contract was quickly approved with no discussion.