City Council - workshop

Thirty. We're gonna go ahead and get started. I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is a duly noticed workshop meeting of Hudson City Council held in accordance with the Sunshine Laws of the State of Ohio Section 121.22 in the City of Hudson Charter Article III Section 3.02 for Tuesday, 05/12/2026. It is 07:30 p. M. For Ordinance 220.031 titled Workshop Minutes or Meetings, excuse me, and Item C. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Council President Byrd so as to continue through the remaining workshop agenda items. Council President Byrd, the floor and workshop meeting is yours.

All right, thank you Mayor Anzavino. Next up is correspondence and council comments. Anybody has anything they wanna share? Hand or head and get my attention. Linda.

I went to the Veterans Commission meeting on the sixth. We sworn two new members, Kate Disney and Nathan Butzier. Congratulations to them. The Veterans Commission also started doing certificates for high school students from Hudson High School and Western Reserve that have chosen to, do military service, either through enlisting or through one of the military academies. So they will all be getting certificates at their award ceremony that's new this year.

So congratulations to those students. They also discussed Memorial Day planning. Moving ahead with that seems to be good. And on the eleventh or yesterday, I was at the Planning Commission meeting. They approved the Western Reserve addition to the Wang Innovation Center, and they also, with a consultant, discussed planned developments where the consultant compared various planned developments with other cities, Medina, Solon, Twinsburg, and various other cities, and they had a discussion about that. So if anyone's interested, there's an attachment to last night's Planning Commission meeting that has the consultants kind of comparison on planned developments, comparing Hudson's ordinances on planned developments to those communities.

Daniel.

Thank you. Just a quick update on some of the FirstEnergy updates that we had from last month. Bridgewater should start to receive the promised work this week. It could be starting as soon as tomorrow. We are still working with FirstEnergy for confirmation on the Wilshire and Tilbridge areas, but we are pushing for that to happen this year.

There's nobody else. Just a few things from my side. I will be attending a Hudson Senior Network event tomorrow at lunchtime. And I've been asked to talk a bit about the proposed senior van legislation that will be on a second reading next week. And I know our mature residents are excited about this potential service and maybe even more so than the successful senior snowplow program which was implemented a few years ago.

Another topic, the City of Hudson Memorial Day Parade and ceremony will soon be here. Just a reminder that the parade will be on Monday, May 25 and will start at 10AM from the Milford Road and 303 Intersection. The ceremony at Marquilli Cemetery will take place shortly after at 11:15AM. So please join us to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. And a couple of the quick things.

I do want to say congratulations to all of our area students as the school year will soon be coming to a close. And good luck as well to all of our student athletes with an extra special shout out to middle school track and field athletes who will be going to state this weekend. The young men's 4x1 and 4x4 relays, Hudson is ranked number three and number eight respectfully in the state in those two events. The young ladies 4x800 will also be competing and they are currently ranked fifth in the state. And there's another one of

our local speedsters who will also

be competing in the four hundred and eight hundred. A total of 11 athletes will be representing Hudson Middle School at the state tournament in Columbus this weekend. So way to go. Nice job and good luck. Last comment. I was asked by a resident to mention that there is a resident led open forum that will be at the library in the Flood Room tomorrow at 6PM. The topic from the resident is to discuss District 11 and Clinton Crossing. Councillor White, I didn't know if you wanted to give any update on the meeting we had with Doritu Hart about the Birdsong project.

Sure. Yeah. We the mayor and I met with Adriana Caso from the Birdsong project, Door to Art. And we're working on next steps to make that a permanent fixture within the city of Hudson. Our first idea is potentially integrating into the parks. And that's we've reached out to Councilor Rezovic to reach out to the park board and present that idea.

We'll be presenting that on Monday. Perfect.

And I'll just add to that. Adriana has been great to work with over the last several years. She's super passionate and super excited to give back to the city and to do that through public art and other art type projects. So very willing and very giving in regards to her time and even supplies and stuff that they have donated free of charge for several of the programs. I'm glad to be working with her as well as additional members on council. Thank you.

Okay. I just came from the Leadership Hudson class of 2026 celebration. Wasn't able to stay there the entire time, but they were graduating and congratulations to all of them. I know that they're going to be revealing their class project tonight and we may hear more about that later. And already they are planning a strong class for 2027.

So congratulations to them. Anybody else? No. Okay, moving on, we're gonna do this nice segue to three a TMP dash 8628 Resolution authorizing the installation of a Hudson sign public art sculpture at Veterans Way Park donated by Leadership Hudson class of 2024. So we have a couple of those members here tonight.

Yes. Good evening. That was

a nice segue. Thank you.

I'm Nick Scherger. I'm representing the class of 2024. I'm here with Marietta Marcart, and we have a few of our class members with us as well. So we're here to give you an update on our on our class project, which is the Hudson sign, which is the renderings in your packet and some of the materials there. But our intent is to construct and donate the sign.

It would be located at Veterans Park on the South Side west of the skate skateboarding parking lot. We took we initially met with council in July 2024 and discussed the project. Then we took about a year to for public outreach, reached out to the public. We worked on developing our project team, which includes the Kent Roosevelt High School Career Technical Education Program. That's a makerspace.

It's part of the sixth district educational compact, so Hudson's included in that. They will be fabricating the sign letters for us. And we've also partnered with KGK Landscaping. Derek's here from KGK. They would be installing the brick base and pavers and affixing the letters that that would be fabricated by Kent Roosevelt. And finally, we've partnered with Steven York, co owner of AR Workshop, and he will be providing the engraving services. Our intent is to sell donor bricks with names engraved on them. That would be how we would fundraise for the sign. So we've worked very closely with the Parks Department. Part of that public outreach steered us to the Parks locations.

Then that honed in, talking with the Parks that we honed in on Veterans Park. So we had two meetings with them. The last meeting we got kind of into a little more technical with the materials and the specific location, things like that. So we've chosen materials that are low maintenance and quality. The AZEK on the letters can be power washed and painted and things like that.

So we understand this would be taken over by the city, so we wanted to be cognizant of all that. Yes, we just really appreciate your continued support and guidance to the project. If you have any questions for us, but we're requesting your authorization so we can kind of take that next step into fundraising and make us know that we have the project to location and all of that. We appreciate it. Thank you.

As for your presentation, what is the theoretical right now timeline for the project fundraising through installation?

Well,

when we're at a comfortable place that we have your authorization to proceed forward, we will plan on fundraising throughout the summer. Our hope is to install it in the fall if something that's not always realistic. If something happens with the weather or other delays, it would be the '27, but I can tell you, I've already got the big five of the big 16 by 16 pavers that are $22,500 each committed. So I think the $250 pavers are gonna fly. So we're not we're not anticipating any problem getting the money together over the summer.

We're a little tied to the school's timeline too. So they're coming up against the end of the school year. So it may be in the spring if they can get back to school in the fall with their students to help fabricate the letters.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming in again. I just wanted to say I've been supportive of this project from the initial submission and discussions. I know it always kind of centered around where is the right spot, what makes the most sense, where is the good fit. So how do you feel about the spot being back in Veterans Way Park because we talked about something a lot more visible in the past, which I like that, but again it was trying to find where does it make the most sense. So how do you feel about the spot and do you think, I hate to even say this, but do you think any type of vandalism is going happen?

Is it going to be a concern there? I know it's real close to the road, so I'd like to think not, but I always looked at this as something that's going to draw people there, and I could see people wanting to take pictures with this and have it in a spot that promotes that and then carries over to the city.

We feel really good about the spot.

We feel like it's a very active space.

And as far as the the vandalism, we did look into that. That's why part of why we chose our materials, and I know the Parks asked that question, and they they were they were gonna power wash the Yep. We have a sample piece of letters that we left with them, so they were comfortable from my understanding of the materials.

We've also each letter is going to be installed individually into the base. So if something happens to one letter, it's not the whole sign. We can work on replacing the letter. And we have, in our fundraising for, you know, rising costs, we have a 20% contingency built in just to play it safe. Any extra money that we raise, it is our intention to gift the money from the account to the city for that line item of taking care of the sign in the future. And I do feel there will be, don't quote me, but I do feel there

will Oh, you're on the record. Well,

doing the math, I feel that

there

Yeah. Will be leftover

Thank you.

I think it's a great location because, especially given the, when we transition that rail to trail, just bikers love to do those. Up in Cleveland, there's always bikers around the Cleveland sign. This is a great spot. Comments about vandalism does not at all align with skateboarders. So skateboarders are good people, and I think the concern was just it's sort of out of the way, maybe less traffic, but nothing at all disparaging about skateboarders.

Well, thought it was about coffee drinkers.

Right. Any other questions or comments?

Awesome. I

just wanna say, love the idea. I think it's a great idea. I think people will love taking the pictures with it. I love that it's got the brick, and it's got kind of the Hudson letterings that's kind of unique to Hudson. I love the idea, and I'm glad you guys did it. Thank you.

I was just gonna say you mentioned approval. Do you need kind of a formal yes from us here tonight?

Not tonight, but it'll be the ordinance. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. So this is gonna be legislation? Okay. Yeah. I was just

This would be similar to the Lincoln dedication.

Thank

you very much. Yes. Thank you.

Thanks.

Alright. Next up is b three B26 Dash78, an ordinance amending chapter eight seven six short term rental operations.

I just want to give counsel a brief orientation, as a follow-up from the April 28 discussion, preparing additional memo for you in tracking three amendments based on the discussions from the two. The first is the bed tax proposal of 3%. The second is the permit increase from $100 to $150 And then the additional item based on last council discussion was to incorporate a 1,000 foot separation between short term rentals and then we would also be proposing an allowance for existing permitted sites to remain. The hope here with this is that kind of a collective discussion we tracked was council's desire not to fully ban the program at this time, to not overly penalize existing operations, but find some measure to slow or reduce growth. And we thought that this tracked based on the comments that we heard from council.

So those three items are before you and if council is comfortable with that, then we would propose or prepare a revised ordinance for your consideration next week.

Tricia? A resident had an interesting idea, apparently up in Kelly's Island, is they require each of the homeowners to have a professional inspection that they pay for yearly, and I thought that was a good idea. I know they're expensive, but and then secondly, a thousand feet, I just figured it out, that's like the length of Church Street. So that's really not that far. We could still have a bunch more in the historic district.

So I was wondering if we could increase that feat, if we're gonna go that way with the feat. I still support it being Hudson owners, not outsiders, And I know that makes a problem for people that are already have bought and are using them. But they bought them with the idea knowing that yearly, they were gonna have to be looked at whether that would continue, and so we're saying that it would only continue until December. I don't know. I've heard more people say that that's not fair.

But I think for the especially for the historic district, it would make more sense if we decrease the number. Because there are 12 there now.

I certainly understand. And then just for one reference, we had done this exercise to map a 500 foot circle around each property. Maybe we can zoom in a bit to the central part of the community. And then on the right is the 1,000 foot. So based on that 1,000 foot, it strikes me that within the historic district, over time we're going to lose a couple spaces.

There would not be the ability for any additional in the central part of the community. 18 total are on the map there. And you can see just above the three zero three, that's the one site for reference on Elm Street, this kind of mid block. And example, that absorbs all of Elm Street and a couple of the adjacent blocks as well within their 1,000 foot.

Received a couple comments from residents. I thought I'd pass them along. One of them suggested shortening the window instead of an annual a license to operate for the duration of the entire year, perhaps it made sense to allow people to do something like snowbirds who have a maximum of ninety days or something to that effect So you have folks who maintain long term residency in those properties. The other comment I got on was on the thousand foot. Several people made this comment.

Most of them supported the idea of spacing them out with distance. Their concern was the the number picked of a thousand feet. Put it in perspective, in the historic village, at 1,000 feet, that's one out of every 16 houses could be a short term rental. In the rural residential district, that's one out of every five houses that could be a short term rental. The suggestion was to take the minimum lot width and apply some sort of multiplier.

So if we're saying we only want every sixteenth house to be a short term rental, then it's 1,000 for the historic district, but it's 3,200 for rural residential. And that effectively scales the setback with the minimum lot.

Greg, would that be easier to kind of administer than sort of a fixed limit per ward or something like that?

From an administration standpoint, certainly the easiest to explain to residents would be a standard across the city. But if council would like to capture that on a per zoning district basis, we could set something up to capture something relative to the size of development or size of lots.

How many rentals are outside of Ward 1?

Think I may have that from the past. I think we had that in the previous memo. I

should note specifically that residents concern was that we'll force the short term rentals out of the village and into the outer line area.

I originally thought it was easier just to have like five in each ward. Do it that way. Four in each ward or five in Ward 1 because that's where most people want it and maybe two in each of the other boards. It makes it simpler. People understand it more that way, but I don't know if that's a terrible way of thinking of it.

Why you ward over zoning district? I mean, with wards, they can theoretically change. I can't remember the cadence at which wards are theoretically remapped

or at least looked at for being remapped, but was it was small, but it wasn't a lot of change the last time.

Sure. But I just why not your idea with zoning districts.

What would be the zoning areas?

Bring that map up.

So Districts 4 And 5 capture the historic district, the downtown commercial and the East Case, West Case neighborhoods in simple terms. That allows the smallest lot size, the most compact development. So four and five would be one threshold. One and three are very similar in their zoning, so that might be a mid tier. And then District 2 is your rural residential, that might be a third tier.

And based on the map there of on the right with the 1,000 foot, It looks like over time we would lose, what, 50% of those,

Ward 1 village. Looking at the cluster from Ravenna Street up up to Hudson Street and the area around Ogilby, we'll probably lose about half of them over time.

Why do you think you would lose them over time? I mean, would they leave?

Because every year they have to renew and they will not be replaced with something within a thousand feet.

Right. But if they renew it, you're going to let you're going to renew it, right?

Sure. Yeah.

So that's what I'm saying. All of these that are there right now may remain for the next ten years.

As I note, that's correct. It would be a sunset clause if they let their permit expire or if the property is transferred, they would lose that. But correct, that could take quite a few years to pull back.

Council doesn't have to do the sunset clause. I mean, you could just, at the beginning of next year, put that in. It would just be who gets the I

think that we started this conversation with that it's not a concern now. We want to make it so it doesn't become a concern. And we because we don't have any data to suggest that people are complaining about these.

I think Skyler's idea isn't a bad idea. I don't know how easy that is to put out into legislation. Don't know.

I think we could capture that. I know we've got apologize, I'm not sure if we're set for a second reading or a third reading next week, but we could certainly map Districts 4 And 5 at 1,000 if that general looks okay. Then we could try one in three at 1,500 or 2,000 and then some increase from there for District 2. I don't know if, Councillor Sutton, if you have specific thoughts on measurement. Know you said maybe look at the lot width requirement to find a rationale.

Yeah.

Yeah, I don't have a specific number in mind. I just used onesixteen because that was what it calculated out for District 4. I think that's for counsel to decide what's the maximum, for lack of a better term, density of short term rentals they want to accept?

Tom? Just had a question. If you did go with awards, what was counsel's feeling on how many you wanted per award? Because I believe that would be the easiest for us to manage. Per ward.

Right, it just doesn't the zoning districts give some rationale to density or intensity of use, so there's some logic to bundling the zoning districts. The wards may include a mix of compact neighborhoods and spread out neighborhoods.

I guess what's the magic number, Doctor. Goetz, that you think your constituents want to see in the downtown is it five?

Five or or six.

Yeah. Six? So could you just set it at six per each ward?

Still more than we've got now.

Correct. But I'm saying that's a maximum. My only other question is, Greg, is could people have a short term rental but really not use it, but keep it kind of on the books?

Yeah. People could certainly use it on a seasonal basis.

Isn't the idea, though, that they want to be downtown, that's why you want to have the short term in proximity to the city? You're not going to ever have that many outside of the city, I mean, you would think, right? So I on the other side of those, Skyler, is it's like people want a short term rental to be where everything's at. Western Reserve, downtown, walkable.

Kyle?

I can respond to that. Both of the parties that got out of hand were at rentals in the outer neighborhoods.

They were

not downtown. They were desirable for exactly that use because they were separate from a lot of other residences that made for a great party house.

So we had talked about the noise

Detector.

Detector, requiring that. That would also cut down on some of some of the problems if there are. I I know you say there aren't problems, but the residents feel that this takes away, especially in the historic district, from their sense of neighborhood. And that's why they're Tom and I spent a whole Saturday morning with a whole group of residents that were really concerned. And some of the residents have brought up that there are now these are bigger cities, but they've developed some real problems with Airbnb in the cities.

So I think we want to be proactive and try to prevent anything from occurring.

I think that's why we got to do a setback. If we have that in place now, then it's going to prevent more people coming into downtown. I don't know how we can

take away from what we have right now.

Jeffrey.

Do we have data that shows the turnover of the existing ones? How long have they been out there? I mean, back to the whole discussion on the potential sunset clause and if there was a 1,000 foot or maybe it's Counselor Sutton's idea of frontage and some ratio multiplier. If we had an idea of the normal turnover, then that would maybe give us a better idea as okay if we did have a sunset option in there and the people who wanted to continue it would, but we know X amount turns over every couple of years, then we'll start filtering that down, which will appease the residents, but then not maybe it's a happy balance, I guess. So do we have any idea of that?

I can look into that, but I don't have that front of me.

If you came back and said all 18 of them have been there for twenty years, then you know. But would think that there's some turnover. And back to if they didn't put their permits in annually or it transferred ownership, then we've got things in place that will start to whittle that down even if it is a long tenure

for all

of them.

Just be curious The see that

law went in 2019. When did it actually start having them?

I think we started that year, '20 So

we've had six to seven years of it.

I'm sure that we've had a few turnover, but I don't anticipate it's more than a few.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any comments or questions, Kyle?

I mean I'd like to be somewhat decisive on this here tonight. I think we've talked a lot about a lot of ideas. Doctor. Goetz, to me, if you don't mind responding to this, it sounds like you would prefer something that just right off the bat cuts us to a certain number rather than a phase out. Am I correct in that understanding?

Yes, I would prefer that. I know it's probably not popular, but I think

Well, this, you know, this legislation, we've had this on a couple of, agendas, and I don't think we've had a single person representing wanting to keep. Has anyone received message from a resident saying, I don't restrict my right to Airbnbs? I think we've gotten a lot of this is how I would go about restricting them comments.

I had one person.

You had one. Mhmm.

That used to live here, worked at Western Reserve, and found it beneficial to have these short term for the families of Western Reserve.

And then we contacted Western Reserve, and they said this is really not something we need. So to me, I don't feel a strong need to not do a sunset. I'm fine with, you know, let's set a limit and go with it strongly.

So if we set I'll limit by ward. So if we set is that what you're

saying? Ward or zone. I'm not the details on that, more of a let's first do we want do a sunset thing or not? Getsy really doesn't want to. Does anyone feel strongly that we should?

I don't like the kind of pulling a rug out from under someone who has it this year and suddenly they can't and they've operated in good faith and got along, you know, and they have no complaints. So it feels a little unfair to me to kind of pull it out from someone who has, you know, been an outstanding member. So I like the idea of, you know, doing I like the idea of, you know, allowing the ones that exist now, putting the radius or whatever on so that, you know, new ones can't, so we don't get a neighborhood that's only rentals. And I haven't reached out to them. And I think that would be other thing if we did that, I would I would want to reach out to those rentals and just let them know. I think that would be unfair to do it without letting them at least know.

Only seven of the 18 are Hudson residents.

Have you contacted them?

Seven? No.

And so if we were if we were gonna eliminate it, I think it would be fair to contact them to let them know ahead of time because they might want to say something to us.

Or would we wanna sunset the current ones, give them a two year window, and then everybody start over?

So So I agree with Amanda. I think somebody who has put in time, has this business, is providing a service to visitors to Hudson and maybe people who have family who are visiting the Hudson and they don't want to stay in their house. And there's no complaints. I think it's a in some ways, it's a solution that's looking for a problem. Here, the concerns about the neighborhood, I think the setback will handle that.

If there's only one Airbnb every 1,000 feet or every 3,400 feet, I don't think that's gonna ruin the neighborhood feel.

Right. The other thing that may happen is if you add some of these other items like bed tax, increase the permit fee, professional inspection, noise detector, whichever one you some people might not want to renew because it's becoming more difficult to have it.

Greg, did you have any concerns about the noise detectors?

I don't. We can implement that. I just put a brief note in the memo that I did review that and I see that a couple national level tourist cities had them like Fort Lauderdale and New Orleans and I think one town in Missouri was all I could find in the Midwest that had such a program, but we could certainly

implement that. Are very expensive? I did not check

the It's like

a What about the yearly

$20 a month or something.

What about the yearly, where the houses are inspected by a professional?

I had not reviewed that. We do have an annual inspection by fire and zoning, but I haven't looked at a professional, I don't I That strikes me that it could be in larger cities where they have to inspect thousands and the municipalities may not have the staff to do that. Or I don't know, or if it's meant as just an extra safeguard to ensure a higher level of inspection.

Well, that the property is kept in good repair. Apparently, they do it on Kelly's Island, so it's not a big city.

Certainly look at that.

But I can't remember. You bought a house, among us, inspections are $1,500 maybe, something The like

city of Pittsburgh, Greg, had for the NFL draft, that was a recent within the last month. We'll come back to you, 1,000 in the downtown, and then we'll do a multiplier like Mr. Sutton mentioned.

And see what the turnover is?

Yeah. Does that sound good?

Yeah. Inspection and the noise detectors.

Thank you. Again, we can always change this next year.

And we're not going to go with Hudson residents as the owner?

I don't want to do that.

You don't want to do that? Okay.

I don't think we've seen evidence that the non owner is a problem. Kyle?

To me, the non owner thing

was really just a

methodology of cutting the number. I understand the thought behind it of saying part of the community, etcetera, and I get that. But from a purely logistic standpoint, that's

what it was to me. We can cut the number that way.

If we go with the mathematical ratio of setback depending on zoning district, How do we make that approachable for somebody who is looking to have a VRBO, any of these short term rentals, and say, can I have it? Is there an easy way for them to look up the ones that exist, a map that shows where one can versus cannot be, especially if we're going to have them different by zoning district? I know we've got some cool software that we use. Is that something we can do with that to make it?

I would assume we would do just like you did here, but what, GIS?

Yeah, I anticipate we could have a map that shows all the areas that

Yeah, okay.

So if we're going make it

kind of semi complicated with different advice, it would be really nice for any prospective resident who wants to do this to have an easy way to determine whether they actually can do this or not.

It would be like the

first step,

which if it's within 500 feet, in the downtown, we would say, sorry, you can't.

Is everyone comfortable with we used the 1,000. It was one out of every 16, I think, down there. Mean, that is everybody comfortable with because it's gonna be a math problem to figure out, you know, what those are. So is that where you wanna stay, like, one out of every 16 can be? Scalar done the math, so I'm just trying to figure out what numbers we need to use for the math problem.

Of course, I would like it more, 1,500.

Is that the only thing we have to question? We can bring that up on the next workshop later this month. Isn't it up

for vote next week? Second reading. Second reading? Okay.

We can look at a couple different ones and I guess give what a thousand would be. Yeah, we'll bring a

map to that meeting if that works for everybody with a multiplier.

Yeah. Skyler, when you did that math, was it like linear or was it a circle with a radius of 1,000 feet?

I didn't do anything with the map. The minimum lot width for the historic village is 60 feet. 1,000 foot,

that would be 116.

I can add for one additional note, I anticipate how we would actually map this. The brief exhibit shows a pinpoint for each property. I anticipate we will do it as we do our public notice where it's the parcel. It can't be within a thousand feet of that parcel or 2,000 feet of parcel. So you'll see a little different layout. But that full map will give you that picture of where they can and can't go.

Will residents have any input at all? I mean, now a sign goes up but they just hear about it. They don't have any

We have not tracked any amendments related to feedback from surrounding property owners. What

you could theoretically do if it was really important to you then, you don't want any short term rentals by you, you apply for the permit for your own house. Never actually list it, but hold the permit and keep yourself at the cost of, you know, a $150.

Interesting concept.

Alright. We good?

Okay. All

right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is twenty five twenty five dash one four six ordinance amending the official zoning district map of the city of Hudson in chapter one two zero five, chapter one two zero six, and chapter one two one three of the land development code to establish Zoning District 11.

Real quick update for everyone. I apologize. We have added another attachment to this file on the agenda. It's quite lengthy. The one move we wanted to close was the traffic information that everyone had talked about.

We had TMS do a trip generation report. Basically, we had them look at if we just refilled the property, the join property as it was, and then we had we did five other scenarios. All of those scenarios, and I have the here's the graph that shows the bottom line is if this just refilled and then these show the other five scenarios that we did. We did them based on down here you can see the scenarios, but they were done based on what would be allowed in District 8 currently, comp plan, and then proposed in District 11. So you can see the different ones.

All of them at peak times create additional traffic than what would have been there, so you can see varying degrees of increase. The largest increase actually is if you just put the residential that's on the frontage that's called for in District 11 and in the comp plan on there. So it's varying degrees of increase. And so yeah, retail, sorry. And the one other thing I did want to bring up while you're talking, we brought up the AMATs traffic counts over the past twenty years. You can see that 2025 on 91 in that area is actually the lowest. So traffic is down in general in '91 quarter right now. It would potentially offset some of the increase of traffic if that was a problem.

When you compare the trip generation, was that Joann's when they were in business or today?

That would be if they just refilled it now based on their the counts that the trip generation use. It wasn't actual Joanne counts. So it'd just be refilling it with someone like Joanne. It wasn't using Joanne's numbers.

But from what period of time?

The trip generation, they don't actually come out and count. They they use scenarios based on on different things that they different counts that they've actually gone out and done of developments. So there wasn't time to get a full traffic study. This is just them doing a mathematical calculation of what they've seen at other places on these scenarios.

For example, for Joann's, they capture 263,000 square feet of office and 1,130,000 square feet of industrial. So that great ratio is for a concept full use of the JoAnth property. And this is one of the challenges with trip generation scenarios. There are many different potential developments that could be envisioned and quite a few of them are permitted under current District 8 and would be allowed under the proposed District 11 and both might align with the comprehensive plan. So it gives us some generalized insights but there are a myriad of different proposals that we could put to this.

Just wanted to ask one other question about that. We know I believe we know what the employee headcount was. So that doesn't come into account when they're doing that calculation. They're looking at square footage and what it's used for and then making an assumption of there must be x amount of people filling that space, which could have

a wide range of error then.

There's an industry standard. So each of these types of uses are used throughout the country on traffic analysis. And they base those ratios on square footage. And then there's a detailed list of all sorts of different types of restaurants, different types of offices, different types of industrial. Some projections were made.

And the whole TMS, if anybody wants to look at it, is attached around 68 pages, I think. It's attached to each other.

One other note of reference, Brian touched on the reduction in traffic flow in the immediate neighborhood. Also, TMS helped us with pulling ODOT's traffic forecast models. And, for reference at least, ODOT is not forecasted forecasted minimal to no increase, for the coming decades for this corridor. Just one more piece of information.

Regardless of what goes in there, they're predicting.

Yeah. For Odd Eye, think that's just a generalized analysis that they do for corridors or regions to look at previous growth trends in traffic and development and population, what might we anticipate in the coming decades.

And do they have any predictions or estimates of percentage of traffic on '91 or three zero three, for example, is just simply going from Stowe to Solon versus Hudson

people.

I'm sure there are analysis that track those destinations, but we don't have that today or before us.

AMATs does. AMATs can tell you how many people are coming into Hudson and where they're coming from. They have that data. We always try

to give

that out to anybody who's trying to build a plant or

something here.

The other thing about trip generations is this is the number of trips that are gonna be experienced. So if you had a Starbucks, it's a lot of trips. I mean, people coming and going to Starbucks. But when you have a Joann's, think of it this way, people come in on ship, they stay, they eat their lunches there, they work eight hours. This doesn't correct me if I'm wrong, Greg. This doesn't tell you what the trip issues are during peak morning and peak afternoon. They don't look at

peaks. That's actually the peak up there.

I don't know if this fully addresses your comments, Tom. Right. So they charted at peak AM and PM.

These are just showing the increases in the AM peak and the PM peak for each of those scenarios.

So they're saying they're going up a thousand?

Depending on the scenario.

Yeah. Well, I mean the refill Julian site's about 700 peak hour and then these models show anywhere from 900 to 1,200.

And above that or is that it would be

like 300? Total, right, from 600 and some peak hour to 1,000 peak hour or 12 times. And the generalized things that you see is that office and retail in very broad terms have similar amounts of traffic, but office is a heavier AM peak hour, retail is a heavier PM peak hour. In very broad general terms, residential has a little less impact because people come and go throughout the day. It's not as concentrated. But of course, any development might have parts and pieces of those, so that's just kind of a generalized rule of thumb.

Comments or questions about that?

Anything else on district, if there's any other district related questions?

We talk about housing?

I like all the amendments that came, and I, based off of everyone's request, I think we should remove residential.

Residential, I agree.

So I think that I anticipate some several amendments next week. Think so there are five votes that are needed to pass any land development code changes. And think Marshall didn't say for sure, but I think it's it's safe to assume that we also should have five votes to pass any amendments as well. So that's what we need to plan on next week.

I have a question for Greg. I think you said this at the last time we discussed it, that if we don't have residential and we have all the commercial being 10,000 feet or less, then it's no longer a mixed use development. Is that correct?

With removal of the residential, I mean, may still have a mix of office, industrial and retail. I don't know. You could have a mix of those uses, but obviously you wouldn't have a what often people consider an entertainment district or a live or play district because you won't have a live piece of it.

So we'll have to have it be considered a mixed use development? Mean Marcus,

you mean planned development?

Planned development, yeah.

Under the planned development, there are two things in the proposal to date to encourage or consider a developer pursuing a planned development to do a larger scale reinvestment and to allow the city some additional controls. And that was the residential and the consideration of a 40,000 square foot grocery. If you remove those, planned development would still be available to the district as it is to almost the entire city, but it would be I would anticipate quite unlikely that a developer would pursue a planned development. There's no obvious extra benefit for them going through the planned development process.

Kyle.

First, on your note about the amendment, Doctor. Bird. So I would think we still just need a simple majority to propose and amend the legislation. The main motion is the legislation. Someone suggests an amendment. We want that to be amended. And as the text that we're going to vote on, when we return to the main motion as amended, Now you need your five. I don't think you need your five to amend it, though.

I can get the clarification from Marshall. Yeah, I

see your point.

Second, I don't know if we want to discuss this at all today or if we want to just wait and discuss at the actual meeting, but we've gathered over these past sixty days, we've had the hold on this legislation. We've gathered a ton of community input. City staff has documented that. We've gotten this traffic study now that Planning Commission has requested. I do believe, you know, Planning, they've given us some memos on their suggestions, I do believe to this point they still would like the legislation back to consider for their additional one hundred and twenty days. Does anybody want to consider that?

I don't, and the reason why, I relistened to the meeting last night from August 26 from the subcommittee from last year, which those meetings started a year ago, and it was specifically said we want the vision of our community to be in place before the area became occupied using the framework of the comprehensive plan. I think what we've done in the last year and with the previous subcommittee is making sure that this is what the comprehensive plan wants and has in place so we can see if there is even gonna be a plan because we don't know what's gonna happen, and it still has to go on from there. But, you know, this gives us some framework to hone down and restrict the zoning based off of what is wanted by the residents in the comprehensive plan. That's how I see it.

Not suggesting that they have to go together. You're just saying that we vote on District 11 and then we also consider sending it back to the Planning Commission.

No. I I would I would just kind of asking if anyone wanted to comment on their thoughts on rather than because, you know, it's actionable on next week. We don't but we have the option of taking the action of just saying, we're not gonna vote on this today. Let's refer it back to planning commission for the hundred and twenty days. So that would be kind of theoretically option number one. Right? We don't even vote, and we send it back. And then if we don't wanna do that, then we do, you know, consider these amendments, you know, make a motion and vote on that. I was just wanting to see if we wanted to have a discussion here during this workshop, candid discussion on does anyone have interest in that option and why or why not.

I was just gonna add, we talked to Marshall about this. I believe we talked about it in the agenda review meeting. I believe this can go back to Planning Commission one time. After that it could not go back again. We could postpone it to a date certain again if we chose to. We can motion to table it. There's several options other than voting on it to pass, we could go through the amendment and substitution process through the motions to get to a vote because like you said, it's actionable, but there are several different courses this council could take.

Yes, guess there's plenty of options. I guess the most likely of them, from the way discussion has gone, I figured was either whether we wanted to entertain a referral back to Planning Commission or if we want to just kind of come up with, do we want to go with all four of the suggested amendments from the memo, a subset of them, then plan was for next week.

So I can just add, and then you can watch the Planning Commission meeting last night. So they discussed a little bit about District 11, but really they discussed about plan developments and their concerns with our current Land Development Code when it comes to planned developments, so I think that was, at least on last night's meeting, that was kind of the biggest concern that I heard, but it sounds like if you don't have housing in there, then that kind of takes that off the table as being a significant concern, and that still gives Planning Commission time if they want to propose changes to specifically the planned development part of the code, they can still do that, it seems like that would not be a significant concern for District 11.

My concern is that there is some urgency because if we don't send it or don't pass it next week, then we still have this 40,000 square foot retail potential out there for the next one hundred and twenty days, which somebody could submit something tomorrow. And that would meet the cope. So that's the concern of waiting.

So the pushback that I continue to hear is residential and grocery. And so if we decided to strip those, and I think doctor Weinstein last workshop mentioned potentially amending them out for now, seeing how the process plays out if anything goes in there, that gives planning commission, I would think, time to work on the land development code to potentially bring back plan development if nothing fills that area. So we can at least pass it with the pieces that seem to be controversial with the public while letting Planning Commission work through the other details. Is that an option? Is there anything stopping that? Okay.

Just 10,000 square feet?

Greg, do you want to give up three sentences on that piece?

We did touch on that briefly in the previous council sessions memo. We noted here the current proposal before you has up to 10,000 square feet as a use by rate and between 10,020 square feet as conditional use. Conditional use requires that public hearing and compatibility consideration and pad consideration within the neighborhood. And then we gave you some references on square footages. For example, yours truly is 7,400 square feet.

CVS and hunt Hudson is 10,000 square feet. Ace Hardware is 13,000 square feet. Just from a staff standpoint, I think capping it at 10,000 square feet does seem does seem reasonable to target service and amenities for the corridor rather than as much what could become more destination retail.

And keep the conditional use?

No. Just make them by right, right. But cap them at the 10,000.

So am I to understand that we feel generally that we want all four of the proposed amendments, which would be remove specialty grocery store, to reduce the size allowances, as Greg just said, around retail restaurant services areas, would be keeping the use by right, but removing the conditional use. Mhmm. And then reduce the allowed location for retail restaurant service use to the the frontage area, and then finally, obviously, residential.

From what I've heard from residents and what I hear, I think the biggest ones were the 40,000 square foot grocery and then also the housing. I personally haven't heard as much about the other things, but those are the two big ones. So for me, those are the two big ones that I would like to see changed, and the rest I haven't heard quite as much about.

And we're also keeping it light commercial, light industrial, I mean. Yeah.

I like the location of the retail restaurant based off of what the comprehensive plan, what they came and presented to us because it kind of lines up with the aesthetic of the city. So I think that was a nice idea.

Okay.

For final confirmation then, at least, so you could see what that would look like. Would council like to see a draft that incorporates all four of those items? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Next is 4A44 consent agenda for 05/19/2026. A is TMP dash eight six five seven. Motion to acknowledge the timely receipt of the April 2026 monthly financial report. Anything to highlight, Thomas?

Yeah. Just, doctor Byrd and counsel. The income tax are coming back up, and, the finance director, assistant city manager, hopes that by June, we'll be seeing we're back on target with income tax. We're hopeful. And one red item you see on your first page of the chart there is Hudson Cable Television. We're still losing franchise fees, so it is something we'll be bringing back to council here in the next couple of months on different options that we might have in the future for that to make sure that we can get it out of that red. And that's all.

Questions or comments? B is TMPDash8621. Motion directing the clerk to send notice to the Ohio division of Liquor Control indicating no request for a hearing regarding a new permit to sell alcoholic beverages for Veg Restaurant Group LLC 200 North Main Street Hudson. And I'd like to welcome Veg Plus to Hudson. Thank you for coming.

Concerns about that?

Nope. I've talked to the owner, Betsy. She will be much pleased to have this come through. Alright.

4CTMPDash8640 resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and to enter into a contract for the installation of hydrants along Middleton Road and Stowe Road.

This was something that came out of the retreat. This is on the Akron water lines. Several years ago, we did these for the fire chief, a previous fire chief, that's how long ago it was, to put hydrants on their lines in order to have our tanker trucks because a lot of the northern northeastern part of our town doesn't have them. They do have water lines in those areas. So these would be going along Middleton And Stowe Road. And there's a map attached.

And these were recommended by chief? Correct.

The locations were all recommended by fire.

Tyler?

I have some questions for staff. What's the current balance that Akron Water claims were in arrears on hydrant maintenance?

I have to get it to you for the next meeting. I don't have it in front of me.

Say it was like over half 1,000,000, was it?

It's over half 1,000,000.

Is this going to open us up to having to pay that balance? Are they gonna take a position that because we've done something with hydrants on their main, we now have to pay that balance.

In my opinion, in all the negotiations I've been in with Akron over the years, and it's been decades, they need an agreement, and we don't have one with them. So this isn't an agreement. We've already done it in the past, Mr. Sutton. We did, Adam. I agree. You and

I have had this discussion many times. My question is, is it gonna give them legal leverage to say, well, you're expanding your hydrants on our main. You now owe us this half million. Because by adding a hydrant, you've inadvertently agreed to something. I don't know.

I appreciate the question. I can give you that legal answer next week. But again, it was done in the past and I never initiated that, and it's always been my understanding with all the previously lawyers that you had to have that agreement.

And are we gonna have an agreement on these new hydrants, or are we gonna take over maintenance on these new hydrants?

We currently do the maintenance on all their hydrants above ground. We did that again about a decade ago, and they do all the maintenance below ground on their hydrants. We were having issues with restoration, and council wanted to get these we had too many hydrants that were out of service and we just decided that we would do the maintenance on the above ground with our own staff and then they do everything below ground. So again, no agreement. That agreement was fifteen, eighteen years ago.

Any questions? Hey, Jeff.

Just wanted to say to Councilor Sutton, we had brought that up in the agenda review meeting and had several discussions on that topic. It would be good to double check with the solicitor on that just to appease any lingering concerns. The one thing we did ask Mr. Sheridan was the cost of all of this since this is on consent for installing. Do we have an estimate of that or was that?

Yeah, it's in the staff report. In there. 200 and some. 245,000 coming out of the fire fund, and that was Council Okay. Want an executive session on bringing everyone up to date on the Akron agreement because the last discussions we had with Akron were probably 2018 before the pandemic, and we haven't really talked to them since. So we can put a summary together just to give you the highlights and then go further down if you need to.

Okay. Next is d t m p dash eight six two six, a resolution to to approve a then and now certificate for a purchase made and declaring an emergency. Birthday shred of it.

It was just for the shred it that we used at Earth Day. They didn't have a PO put in place.

E TMP dash eight six two five resolution authorizing city manager to amend the current golf cart lease agreement with Lake Lake Erie Golf Cars.

Doctor Bird, this one, we currently are in the last year of our our six year contract on the lease. The carts because we've had so much play over the last six years since we put in the paved cart pass and obviously the clubhouse is helping. We've been upwards of 50,000 rounds a year when we were normally at 35. They're seeing a lot more maintenance on these. So what this is a co op program.

So this is like state bid. You don't have to have it go out to bid for. They would give us new carts this year, and they would pass the $66,000 on. They would not require us to send it in this year. And then in three years, they would give us another set of new carts in the six year contract. So based on all that, we're recommending council approval for next week. Next

is FTMPDash8628. Resolution authorizing the Hudson public art sculpture at Veterans Way Park donated by leadership Hudson class of 2024. We just heard about that tonight. Good. G T m PDash8655 resolution approving the city manager's reappointment of Sarah j.

The city prosecutor and authorizing the city manager to enter an agreement for legal services and declaring an emergency.

Just to say one thing, Sarah has done an outstanding job for us over the last six or seven years that I've been involved with her, and her reputation in the legal community is stellar, and we saw that recently in interviews that we did with other attorneys. So

H is TMPDash8656. Resolution approving the city manager's reappointment of Marshall m Pitchford as the city solicitor and special counsel and authorizing an agreement with Decado, Pitchford, and Yoder for its solicitor, assistant city solicitor, and special counsel legal services in declaring an emergency.

Again, doctor Bird. On this one, we we did a a full advertisement, interviewed multiple candidates for the position and firms, and we had a team put it put together at the city with several members on staff and myself. And we interviewed all of them. EPNY came out on top, I believe, on their resumes that they submitted and also their presentation to all of us, and obviously their knowledge of the city. That's why we're

Okay. So next moving on to five proposed legislation for the 05/19/2026 council meeting. A is 25 dash one four six we just discussed an ordinance amending the official zoning district map of the city of Hudson in chapter one two zero five, chapter one two zero six, and chapter one two one three of the land development code to establish Zoning District 11. So that is next week. That is the third reading and actionable on May 19.

B b 26 dash seven zero ordinance to repeal chapter two two six of the codified ordinance laid the campaign finance limits and regulations. So I'm gonna hand out something that explains my amendment that I'm proposing for the campaign limits.

So

so we've been we've been kicking this around. I did some deep dive into a number of different scenarios and situations in parts around the city, in parts around Hudson, or neighborhoods around, or cities around Hudson. What we do not find is that the limits decrease the amount of a campaign expenditure. So for example, surrounding communities do not have limits. We do.

Our campaigns are as expensive or more than surrounding communities. So those are campaign contribution limits do not decrease the amount that is spent on campaigns. However, what we do find is that in campaigns where they are not limited, there is huge kind of disproportionate influence by a small number of campaign dollars. So and and, for example, what what kind of is a good good test case or example for us here in this community is the school board elections, which have no limits whatsoever. And so this, they were an example of a very small number of donors funding campaign having disproportionate amount of influence on the candidates.

And some of these examples, a couple from 2021, one candidate, one donor gave $10,000 out of a $14,000 campaign. Another donor gave 10,000 out of an 11,000 campaign. 2023, one donor contributed 5,000 each to three different candidates, and that was approximately 40% of the contributions to for each one of those candidates. And then surrounding communities, just example in Stowe, one candidate received $6,000 from one donor, over 60% of the contributions for that person, and then three donors contributed 80% of the contributions to one candidate. So that speaks to the challenge of if there is unlimited, you can have one or two people playing a very disproportionate influence on or having a very disproportionate influence on the candidate and if elected then the office holder.

So it might, I think it helps us to have some sort of a limit that we can. The concerns about, you know, is it are the limits constitutional? If it if it is something that is being adjusted for inflation and also acknowledges the expenses of a modern day campaign, it is more suspense defensible to have such a limit in place. So so this just kind of breaks down. We've had campaigns from $5,000 up to $20,000 in costs and total donations.

So a $500 limit seems to kind of be a good balance that isn't is allows, again, easier to raise money, not so burdensome, but still still the limit that doesn't allow a disproportionate amount of influence.

So it's 500 per person? Same

as just

current.

It's only changed to 500.

I think some of the, from my read of some of the laws on, or some of the reasons why a court would uphold a limit is to reduce the chance of any type of corruption or quid pro quo type system. So when you have a candidate, for example, where 90% of their contributions are from one donor, that could be a concern that you are kind of beholden to that donor, where if it's 2.5%, 5%, that concern is significantly lower.

Is the seven or eight year old thing law still going to be in place?

I think that's an Ohio thing.

That's That's an an Ohio thing? Yeah. Okay. I was just curious.

Yeah. Yes. It is an Ohio thing that anyone of eight years of age or older is eligible to contribute to a campaign. Now by increasing the limit, you disincentivize the need for that, right? Like you've got a couple of good examples here from the school board of large donations, but those are by number of people who will spend that kind of money few and far between.

I think a vast majority of your donations, even if there was no limit, would by number of donations be likely under this. So I think it's a good number in that regard. I think it significantly lowers near eliminates the likelihood of minors being used to contribute to campaigns. I like this. There's a lot you know, I've been thinking about this legislation a lot, it's like every time you pull one lever, you kind of increase another theoretical issue.

So I don't think there's any one perfect piece of legislation that our small state can do to to make our campaigns as perfectly equitable and nice and civil and and and perfect as we'd like them to be. There's just too many outside issues. But I do like this $500 limit. I think it addresses a large number of our problems while still keeping a reasonable cap. I like it.

Other comments? Dan, we'll have you stay quiet mostly.

Yeah. I was gonna say I'm gonna abstain from dialogue or voting on to my running for election shortly.

I like this. Any

other comments or questions?

I'll just say the higher limit also I would hope and encourage people to donate to campaigns rather than using a pack, and the rules are different between the two. So when you donate to a campaign, have to do you have to report all of that, so it's all accountable money. You know who is donating to the campaign. Where you don't have that same accountability with a PAC, can't, I've had residents ask me about that, we can't do anything about outside PAC spending. We don't have that authority, that's the US Supreme Court.

So right now there's nothing that we can do to limit outside PAC spending. And so this, at least raising the limit, like, because it gets closer to fairness in allowing residents to have a voice, but acknowledging outside spending is still unlimited. There's nothing we can do about it.

Question about a ceiling. Can we bring that up?

So so there's an email from Marshall Right. Tonight? It's not legal. Explain why that

was a challenge.

On the you're talking about on the spending of the campaign?

Was confidential but it was a question from mister Sutton, so I didn't know if that was something that should be discussed in the open.

Was a

site confidential and privilege. You can't discuss it in the open. I guess I was confused why it would be confidential. Well, we can ask Marshall to opine on it next week. I I just know that that was a question you had and it's only fair to you that it be answered. Okay,

thank you. We'll see that. Is that It's actionable,

I believe.

The week. Yep. Correct. C is 26 dash seven one, ordinance amending sections two two zero point zero three, two two zero point zero three one, and two two zero point zero six of the codified ordinance to allow the introduction of ordinances and resolutions on regular and special city council agendas after consideration at a workshop. This is scheduled for a third reading next week.

The 26 dash seven two, ordinance amending part two of the ordinances of the city of Hudson to create chapter two one six public records. This is also scheduled for the third reading on May 9. He is 26 dash seven three resolution authorizing city manager to adopt and implement a policy on accepting funds from nonprofit organizations for public projects. The recent one is five eight twenty six. Doctor. Weinstein?

Sorry, was going just ask if we can go if we wanted to go over the five eight amendments that I worked through with Marshall. Any chance we can pull it up on the screen so everybody can see it? The five eight five eight city nonprofit donations and funding policy. You should be able to see the red line stuff, right? Was thinking we just go over the red lines and we can talk a little bit about my thinking.

So the first one we talked about, the first red line you see, originally, it was as written, was only we would only be allowed to accept money from nonprofits that were within the state of Ohio, so we made that more inclusive. Know, should there be a nonprofit that is, you know, headquartered in a different state, it doesn't limit us to only having nonprofits within the state of Ohio, so that's that first red line. The second or the blue line that's below is just basically making sure it's clear that when someone donates money to a nonprofit, sometimes they ask to be anonymous and the nonprofit is actually not allowed to give us that donor list. So just make sure it's clear that they, when allowed to, they can give us the names but they can't be required to give us the names. So the next red line is just to make sure that, trying to make sure that it's clear to both the nonprofit that is donating the money and also to counsel what the money is used for and that we get the purpose of the money in writing, and that should there be changes, right, things happen, should there be changes that we make sure that both the city and the donor are happy with the changes so that we're using the money the way the donor wants, kind of allows the donor flexibility to change it.

The next one, this C, basically now this is to align with Ohio ethics requirements where, anyone on city council, for example, if there is any type of conflict of interest, they would have to recuse themselves from the vote. This is standard with Ohio ethics requirements. The next ones are basically just to make it clear that the city is going to make reasonable efforts to make sure that the donated funds are used for the intended purpose. So, right, when someone donates money to a nonprofit and says it has to go for a certain thing, it has to go for that certain thing that they donated the city. For example, council can't vote to use it for something else.

That's just not that's not allowed. So just making it clear that we're going make reasonable efforts to make sure the money is used for the purpose intended by the donor. And then the last one just gives us more flexibility that should something happen where we can't use it for the intended purpose, that we work with a donor to use it the way the donor would like to use those funds, or potentially give back the remaining funds if we can't use it the way the donor had requested the funds to be used for. Oh, this is also just making it clear to the donor, I know city and city council is very aware of our, processes of when we have an RFP, how we have to put it out for bid, but donors and residents may not be aware so they may think, oh, I have already spoken with this person and I want them to install it, not realizing that we're not actually allowed to do that. So just so I think all of these changes kind of make it clear, for any city council member and also any donor, how these processes work, and I hope that will make a smoother process so that we can kind of respect the wishes of donors while also kind of understanding what city processes are.

Also, the last one is also, if it is monetary donation, the example here would be Hudson Community Foundation donating money just to fireworks. If it's just if they're just simply writing the check, that they're not held liable for the thing that they're writing the check for.

I know if this is proper or not. If Tom could comment if he has any thoughts on use of funds, Section three, the changes there. I feel like that most. It

does. I look through everything of these revisions, and everything's in line with what we're looking for.

I had a question about, on the forms, the affirmation of no political involvement. What if there is somebody on the board, say say Derek Hall gets on the board of the Hudson Community Foundation, and he's a politician, but the donation is not for anything political. That is okay based on how you have this written now? Yes, that's right. So they could still be I

think the I can't remember what the form is, if the form still requires that. But they can still give us the money, even if they, for example, had DARE call on their board. But Ohio ethics laws don't require that. So to be in line with Ohio ethics laws, it would be if, for example, we're voting on something that directly impacts me, I would have to recuse myself. But other than that,

it would be fine.

Any other questions or comments? K. F is 26Dash78, ordinance amending chapter eight seven six short term rental operations. We just discussed that tonight. That is a second reading next week on May 19.

G is 26 dash seven nine. Resolution authorizing city manager enter an agreement with the Hudson Community Foundation regarding a senior transport program and accepting donation for a Pratt passenger van. That is scheduled for a second reading next week, May 19. HTMPDash8623, ordinance amending section two zero six point zero seven of the codified ordinances for the purpose of updating specific information. This is a first reading next week. And explain.

This was brought up by the solicitor and the clerk of counsel. Some of the locations and the dates and phone numbers and things like that that were out of date. So that's all they're trying to do is correct that on this.

And where information will be, websites and phone numbers?

We did set up a through IT, they were able to put in a city council general number, so a council clerk. So she still has her office line number, and then there is now a general number for city council that she'll be checking on also.

It's mail in. Correct. Okay. Any items for future agendas? This next week, there's gonna be a proclamation for the Hudson Inclusive Playground Group.

Correct. Aparna helped me get some of the building blocks for that. I had finalized that, sent that off to the team there for their review, allowing them the opportunity to review that and provide feedback. They have come back with one sentence we're trying to optimize. So we're 95% there. We will have that in the next day or so. Aparna is aware so that we can make sure it's correct and optimized for the agenda for the deadline at the end of this week.

Okay. So, Tom, I'd like to thank you and AV staff and everybody that made this new layout possible. I think it worked well. So thanks a lot.

If I can, so we'll have council meetings when we have those dual meetings. The council will be up at the desk, then we take that break, we can easily move the tables together, and then you can have your workshop after that. If there's anything else anybody wants on this setup, happy to make sure we get it. I did talk to Kyle about working the screens and the computer at the same time instead of doing both. So I can hopefully work help streamline this also.

And then Amanda was talking a lot in that policy about ethics. And just a reminder, the your for council members, your to the Ohio Ethics Commission is due by May 15, and if you haven't submitted it, then there might be an opening next week.

I forgot to check one little thing, so they sent me one paper back, So I sent it registered mail.

Okay, if there's nothing else, a move to adjourn. Okay, all in favor?

Aye. All right.

We are done at twenty one zero one.