Hudson City Council Special Meeting and Workshop - February 11, 2025

The Hudson City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, February 11, 2025, at 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall, immediately followed by a regular Council workshop. President of Council (Ward 2) Foster presided in the absence of Mayor Anzevino. The special meeting consisted of the second reading of Resolution 25-19, which would authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease termination and asset purchase agreement with Destination Hudson, Inc. No public comment was offered, and the meeting adjourned after about two minutes. The workshop that followed included updates on a proposed recreation center, a public comment ordinance, and other items slated for the February 18 Council meeting. (Note: the meeting time provided with the source materials, 12:30:00+00:00, differs from the 7:30 p.m. start time in the agenda; the date, February 11, 2025, is consistent.)

Consent Calendar

• No consent calendar was adopted on February 11. Council reviewed a proposed consent agenda for the February 18, 2025 meeting, including: a resolution authorizing the City Manager's designee to apply for a Reworks community assistance recycling grant and accept awarded funds; a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into the City's 2025 annual agreement with the legal counsel vendor; a resolution amending the purchase price of a large-capacity rough mower listed in Resolution 24-149 due to a lesser trade-in allowance than expected; and a resolution renewing the designation of Republic Services as the City's preferred trash and recycling vendor.

Public Comments and Testimony

• No public comments were made during the special meeting.
• During the workshop, a council member who said they practice fair housing and ADA law discussed the appeal process for decisions of the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission. They noted there had been few such appeals between 2015 and 2022, with two additional appeals involving community development director determinations, and argued that Council is not the ARC and should review appeals under an abuse of discretion or findings-of-fact standard. They also noted that Cleveland Heights was the only other Northeast Ohio municipality they found that had addressed the issue, placing the power with its Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Another council member observed that the relevant exception had generally been granted in the past and that the board had experienced complete membership turnover, reducing its institutional knowledge.

Discussion Items

• Recreation center update (Item 25-0018): City staff and a council subcommittee presented research on a potential recreation center identified in the 2024 comprehensive plan. A council member recalled that the original recreation center study from approximately 2003 concluded the community could not support such a facility. The subcommittee visited Stow and Mentor, and reported that Stow's facility cost roughly $20 million, about half of the $42 million original estimate, while Mentor purchased a former company club for $5 million and renovated it for approximately $2.5 million and is making money. A YMCA database reportedly showed no other municipal-city partnerships like Stow and Hudson. Council members stated the project is not ready for the 2025 ballot at a $50 million cost and that more specific survey information is needed because the statistically valid community survey produced conflicting, eye-opening data about what residents want and what they are willing to pay. Operational costs cannot be determined until the building scope is defined, so the financial feasibility study must come before specific planning. An August date was discussed for any charter review changes, but the internal consensus was that the project is not ready for this year's ballot.
• Public comment at boards and commissions (Ordinance 25-22): Council Member Kowalski expressed concerns about limiting public comment and asked for clarification. President Foster explained the ordinance would allow the public to speak at all boards and commission meetings on relevant topics while providing boards tools to reject comments that are not relevant. Foster clarified that this is separate from Ordinance 25-23, which streamlines parliamentary procedures for adopting legislation with specified amendments.
• Appeals process: Council discussed the de novo standard of review for board appeals. Council expressed no interest in moving to a de novo review standard. City Manager Sheridan stated he will bring the item back at a future date with the requested information.
• Sheridan requested postponement of an agenda item to the next workshop because a meeting with ODOT and city staff had been rescheduled.

Key Outcomes

• Resolution 25-19 (Destination Hudson, Inc. lease termination and asset purchase agreement) completed its second reading; a third reading was scheduled for February 18, 2025. Council Member Banweg stated it was important to quell any misunderstanding about the legislation and that Council supports the measure.
• No votes were taken during the workshop. The following items were forwarded for the February 18, 2025 meeting: 25-12 (third reading), 25-19 (third reading), 25-22 (public comment), 25-23 (parliamentary procedures), 25-24 through 25-27 (various resolutions), and the Brown Farms current agricultural use district application under ORC 929.02, scheduled for first reading and public hearing.
• The workshop adjourned at 8:39 p.m.