Council debates scope and membership of proposed Climate Resiliency Commission; removes requirement for EMA director as permanent member

The Richmond Town Council held a lengthy debate over a draft ordinance to create a Climate Resiliency Commission and voted on several amendments to narrow the commission’s duties and membership requirements.

Councilor Madnick (motion sponsor) and other proponents argued a volunteer commission would provide technical expertise and help the town pursue grants and partnerships without adding full‑time staff. “By law, we have to revise the hazard mitigation plan in 2 years anyway in 2027,” Madnick said, framing the commission as a vehicle to coordinate future updates and to serve as a point of contact for residents.

Nicholas Lemickrank, the town’s EMA director, urged clarity on the commission’s responsibilities and noted many hazard‑mitigation tasks already fall to planning, DPW and other departments. “So still trying to get some clarification on exactly what the resiliency committee is going to be doing,” Lemickrank said, describing the existing task‑force structure he participates in.

The council first voted on a motion to remove the requirement that the EMA director and other staff be permanent members of the commission; roll‑call results included abstentions and split Yes/No votes on that narrow change. Later, councilors approved a motion directing staff to revise the ordinance to remove duties requiring the commission to prepare the full Hazard Mitigation Plan, instead inserting language that the commission would monitor the HMP, provide recommendations and seek grant opportunities; town staff would serve in an advisory role when requested.

Opponents cautioned about assigning technical plan‑writing responsibilities to a volunteer commission and suggested the commission instead focus on monitoring, outreach and advising on severe‑weather impacts. Several councilors proposed replacing references to “climate change/global warming” with language focused on “severe weather events” and infrastructure risk to avoid politically charged framing and better match the commission’s operational remit.

The council voted to send the revised draft back to staff for redrafting and to return to the council for a public‑hearing schedule. The council also discussed timing: the Hazard Mitigation Plan must be revised within the statutory cycle (noted for 2027), and staff told the council that public outreach and consultant work may be required for any substantive plan update.

Next steps: staff will produce a revised ordinance reflecting narrowed duties and advisory staff roles, to be advertised for public hearing at a future council meeting.