After More Reductions, A Second Referendum

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA

June 11th 2025

RICHMOND – At a special Town Council meeting on Tuesday, councilors agreed on several additional budget cuts, which will go before voters in a second referendum.

The proposed Fiscal Year 2026 spending plan was rejected in the June 3 referendum by 18 votes: 398 opposed and 380 in favor.

There was no property tax in the new budget, but opponents nevertheless demanded a level-funded budget, which would have required reductions of $465,000.

Council members approved several budget reductions, which, in the end, totaled $244,000.

·        The grant writer position, which would have been new for the town, was first to be cut, saving $60,000.

The other cuts are:

·        130,000 for heavy equipment for the Department of Public Works

·        Part of the merit-based raises for town staff: a little over $34,000.

·        Park and playground equipment: $20,000

Items that survived the cuts are:

·        Road repairs

·        Retention funding for town staff, including a fully staffed police department

·        Community services for seniors, families and other residents

The Discussion

Town Council President Samantha Wilcox opened the meeting.

“We tried to plan ahead by investing in park upgrades and road repairs through our capital improvement plan to build a better future for everyone and reduce the need to go out to bond for expensive things like roads,” she said. “Although the proposed tax rate didn’t change, the budget failed and now, we have to revise the budget.”

The two options, Wilcox explained, were to level fund the budget, requiring $465,276 in reductions, with no referendum, or make fewer cuts and hold a second referendum.

While opponents have said that the rejection was final and that holding another referendum would cost the town an additional $2,000, the referendum on the second option is a requirement of the town charter.

Councilor Jim Palmisciano made a motion to remove the grant writer and the council, with Dan Madnick opposed, approved the motion.

Members then considered the merits of a second referendum.

Wilcox said,

“I personally think that going to another referendum would make more sense rather than completely gutting all the positive initiatives that we want to do.”

Jeffrey Dinsmore said he wanted to cut the $465,000 and not hold a referendum.

“I think the people spoke,” he said. “Paying $2,000, I know it’s not a lot, it’s something.”

Palmisciano disagreed with Dinsmore’s assertion that the people of Richmond had spoken, because the voter turnout was so low.

“The difference in the vote was 18,” he said. “I don’t think that’s a representative sample to determine which way the wind blows in this budget.”

Palmisciano said he favored a second referendum.

“I’ve heard from more than 18 people who last week that, a) were shocked that the budget didn’t pass and also, regret that they didn’t vote,” he said.

Madnick said he also opposed level funding with its incumbent steep cuts.

“I think it’s fiscally irresponsible to level fund this budget,” he said. “We have an opportunity, because we have money in savings right now, is what we’re using to fund the investments in community as Jim just stated.”

Madnick said the budget was an opportunity “to invest in ourselves” without going into debt.

“We did a good job with this budget with this budget, absorbing a 2% increase in our education spending, and there is no tax increase to the mill rate [$14.67] for any of our residents,” he added. “Over in Charlestown and Hopkinton, right now, all their budgets are going to have an increase in the mill rates, so that’s more taxes that are going to come out of their residents’ pockets. But not in Richmond.”

Council Vice President Mark Reynolds said the cuts would have to be deeper than the $60,000 grant writer.

“I think, in light of the referendum, you need to make a more significant adjustment,” he said. “With half the people that voted saying it was too much, you can’t just go back to them and say ‘well, we took $60,000 out’. That’s not going to satisfy those people, and you may not be able to satisfy them with more, but I think if you intend to go back to a second referendum, in order to have a better chance of it passing, you need to take out more than $60,000.”
Councilors discussed, at length, the subject of town staff salaries, and how the town loses employees to other municipalities that pay more than Richmond.

Wilcox and Madnick both asked Dinsmore where he wanted to make further cuts to come to $465,000, and a level funded budget.

“Mr. Dinsmore would like to level fund. I think he needs to take the opportunity here to tell us what he wants to cut,” Madnick said.

Wilcox said, a few minutes later,

“No pressure, Mr. Dinsmore, but I echo what Dan has already said.”

Dinsmore replied, 

“I understand. I’m taking into consideration what everybody said, that’s all.”

Several members of the public provided their opinions, both for and against the revised budget and second referendum.

Town Administrator Karen Pinch addressed an issue raised by one budget opponent, regarding the town’s fund balance.

“What fund balance is, is, if we budget for a position, or we budget for plowing, … we have money left over,” she said. “Money left over is what fund balance or surplus or whatever you want to call it is. And over the years, that accumulates, so there comes a point at which you want to use it. You don’t want to be holding the taxpayer money. So, this year, this council decided ‘we’re going to use some fund balance and we’re going to do some more roads than we’ve been able to do in the past’, because everyone’s been screaming about their roads.”

There appears to be a misconception that the fund balance is 75%. Pinch explained that the fund balance had been about 19%, and that the council reduced it to the 16.7% recommended by the town’s auditors.

The discussion returned to the issue of low staff salaries.

Madnick pointed out that Dinsmore, who works for the Westerly Department of Public Works, earns more than  the DPW employees in Richmond.

“All four of the councilors that are sitting here, including Mr. Dinsmore that works for a municipality, a municipality, actually, that has a unionized workforce that also pays more than Richmond does,” Madnick said. “So, our own council member is willing to go outside of Richmond to work for a different town. I’d rather have Mr. Dinsmore’s services in this town.”

In the end, however, Dinsmore joined the other councilors in a unanimous vote to adopt the amended budget and hold a second referendum.

Reached Wednesday, Wilcox sounded relieved.

“I’m glad that we worked together and found a middle ground, so I wasn’t surprised once the meeting started that it ended that way. It was what we were all hoping for: to leave with a unanimous vote,” she said.

The council will set the date for the referendum, and approve the ballot question, at the next regular meeting, on June 17.