City Council - Regular Meeting

Hello, and welcome, everyone. We did start early tonight with an executive session to interview an applicant for boards and commissions. As such, we will now resume our normally scheduled public meeting. I'd like to take a moment and welcome everyone who's here tonight in attendance as well as those who may be watching remotely via the HCTV video feed. We will now resume with section three.

Would you please stand if you are able and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, everyone. We will continue on with item four on our agenda, which is approval of the minutes. Item a number two six dash

Roll call.

Oh, my

bad. I completely left that off as I was scrambling to get here. Sorry. We'll move on to section four for roll call. Missus Wheeler, will you please call the roll?

Doctor Bird? Here. Mister Brezovich?

Here.

Mister Ramo? Here. Doctor Getz? Here. Mister Sutton?

Here.

Doctor Weinstein? Here. Mister White?

Here.

Thank you, missus Wheeler. We do have a quorum tonight with all seven members of council present. We will now move on to section five for approval of the minutes. My apologies earlier. Item A number twenty six dash zero zero three seven will include the 05/05/2026 council meeting minutes and the 05/12/2026 council workshop minutes. Therefore, do we have a motion from council to approve the minutes as provided?

I move we approve the minutes as provided.

Thank you. Councilor Goetz, do we have a second? Second. Thank you, councilor Brezovich. Is there any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote?

Mister Brezovich?

Yes.

Mister Ramo? Yes. Doctor Getz? Yes. Mister Sutton? Yes. Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mister White? Yes. Doctor Bird?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The approval of the minutes as provided passes by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. We will move on to section six in our agenda tonight, which is a proclamation.

It's item a number two six dash zero zero three eight, special recognition of the Hudson Inclusive Playground Group. I will read that in its entirety. Proclamation, special recognition of the Hudson Inclusive Playground Group. Whereas the Hudson Inclusive Playground Group has demonstrated extraordinary dedication and vision in championing the creation of an inclusive playground that welcomes children, persons, and families of all abilities. And whereas the members of the Hudson Inclusive Playground Group devoted countless hours to community engagement, fundraising, research, planning, and advocacy to ensure that the dream playground would not only meet but exceed the standards for universal design and inclusive play.

And whereas through their efforts, the group has strengthened our community by helping to provide a space that fosters connection, empathy, creativity, and joy for all who visit. And whereas the Inclusive Playground project stands as a testament to what can be accomplished when residents and stakeholders unite around a shared belief in equity, accessibility, and opportunity for every user. And whereas the Hudson Inclusive Playground Group's contributions will positively impact generations of families, promoting a more welcoming and inclusive Hudson for years to come. Now therefore, I, Jeffrey L. Anzavino, mayor of the city of, Hudson, Ohio, do hereby recognize the Hudson Inclusive Playground Group in the City Of Hudson, and I urge residents to recognize their hard work and contributions to the city.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the city Of Hudson to be affixed on this May 2026. Are there any comments from council tonight? Councilor Gaetz?

I am really excited for this playground to open. I can't wait to bring my handicapped daughter, Meredith, who's in a wheelchair, and to have her be able to swing with my grandkids, Silas and Alice. So I appreciate all the things you have done to this group. You've been amazing, and thank you.

Thank you, councilor Goetz. Additional comments from council members? Councilor Durema?

Yes. I just wanna thank the hip group for your endless, determination and hard work and countless hours and everything. And we're so excited. And hopefully, this is the first of many, inclusive playgrounds.

Thank you, Councilor Duremo. Additional comments from any council member? Councilor White?

Yeah. Just wanna say, attending a lot of baseball games over at Elk Grove, the number one topic is the dream playground, and everyone's very excited. And just wanted to thank you all for your time and effort in putting this together.

Thank you, councilor White. Additional council comment tonight? Councilor Weinstein?

I just wanna say thank you. I appreciate all of your hard work, and, you are a model to the community in what it what can happen when people have a good idea, it's supported by the community, and you step up, and you do the hard work, and get the community behind you. So well done.

Thank you, councilor Weinstein. Council president Byrd?

Yeah. So, when was it? Three or four years ago when you guys started? I mean, I and and I think when you started talking about it, people thought you were nuts. And and there's no way you're gonna raise all that money. And and you did. And it it's awesome. You're you're building like the the gold standard playground that's and people are gonna come from all over the country trying to learn about this and how you guys did it and and expect you to keep on doing more great stuff. So thank you very much.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Any additional comments from council members who have not spoken? Any comments from staff?

Yes. Just a brief comment. I wanna thank the HIP group for their tireless work that they did on this project. We couldn't have got to this point without them. It was a great collaboration between the city and the HIP Group, and I just wanna thank everyone who's been involved in this project because it has really been a great project for the city. So

Thank you, mister Sheridan. I will just add briefly from my side. Thank you again for your dedication. The new Dream Playground will be a key asset to the city, and I know it will be enjoyed by many residents and visitors in the very near future. So congratulations. And, if members of the hip group would please come forward, it'd be my honor to officially present the proclamation.

Thank you so much for acknowledging all of the hard work that we have done over the past four years. It's been quite a journey. I've gotten to know so many of you on a very personal level, more so than I ever thought I would have, as a resident of the city. And I wanna thank our city employees for everything that they have done. We would not have been able to do this without their collaboration and help from the very beginning.

And I know we've had so many ups and downs, and the city has always championed us. All the employees have always been there to help guide us, help us every step of the way. And I know our group, we've any one time, there's been one of us that has been ready to say, this isn't gonna happen. We're we're gonna walk away from it. And, we all really we're there for each other, and I think we've developed a relationship that we're a family now and and this means a lot.

As a parent of a child with disability, especially this year has been really hard and it means a lot that my daughter is gonna have a place to play with her friends and that, you know, it just that we're seen and heard and it I I'm so excited. It's finally gonna happen. So thank you so much.

And I So thank you, Megan, and thank you to everybody. Thank you, counsel, for letting this just to let this resonate with the date. Piper passed away, who I'm doing this in memory. Tomorrow will be six years, so this is a really sweet thing to kick off her six year anniversary in heaven, but also to know that children can play and it looks great and I appreciate all of your support. These are the little things that matter and they matter to our youngest citizens, so thank you. Thank you.

Thank you and congratulations again. We will close section six and move on to section seven for public comments. Counsel and myself value and respect comments from the public, aligned with the city of Hudson codified ordinance two two zero point zero three titled rules item g subtitled decorum. I'm kindly asking everyone in attendance to remain respectful of the process and display courtesy, professionalism, and order at all times. Please mute your electronic devices if you've not already done so.

You must leave before our meeting is concluded. Please do so as quiet as possible. Also, per ordinance two two zero point zero three and sub item g, public comments will be kept to five minutes maximum. There is a device on the lectern with lights that will help you know when that time limit is approaching. It will turn orange at one minute, start blinking at twenty seconds, and then turn red at the end of that five minute period.

Therefore, per the City Of Hudson Charter article three section 3.02, if there is any resident of the municipality here tonight who would like to speak to city council regarding any topic that's relevant to the City Of Hudson? Kindly raise your hand, gain my attention, and as you are verbally called upon, please approach the lectern, state your name and address, and council will hear your remarks. Is there anyone here tonight who would like to speak to counsel? Missus Curtin? Name and address, please.

Cynthia Curtin, eleven o two Cutler Lane, longtime Hudson resident and former Planning Commission chair. Tonight, I wanted to wrap up, for you my opinions that I've been giving all along since February concerning the proposed District 11. At its core, this legislation has multiple conflicts with the comprehensive plan. The residential component, which is not in the comprehensive plan. Further, any planned development would detract from the downtown, which is in direct contradiction to the comprehensive plan and the vision of Hudson's growth management plan, which has remained the same for decades.

It's always been Hudson's goal not to detract from the downtown and put plant development in the southern part of the city. That's not a new concept. Additionally, this process and proposal legislation, the way it's being done is in violation of city code twelve oh four point zero one. City councils and planning commissions prior to 2025 have always been governed by the comprehensive plan, and this council should be no different. It's important to note that Hudson is not anti development nor anti developer, but Hudson is protective.

It's protective of the type of development that comes into town, whether it's appropriate for the zone, the timing of the city, the timing of the business climate, the timing of what's happening in our world, the city services and facilities. And yes, you should listen to experts. That's always a good practice, when you are considering something out of your realm of knowledge. However, I would submit as city council members, representatives, your experts are the people that you represent. The citizens of Hudson, their combined knowledge and expert expertise should be heavily considered.

And most importantly, I don't see how you can pass the present legislation creating this district, especially in light of new information that came out in the last meeting on May 5. Number one, there's a host of governance issues that are at risk. Number two, a trigger of the growth management plan. Number three, unknown chemicals underground. And four, a traffic study that the public nor planning commission had a chance to review in time to provide any comment with respect to this legislation.

I don't know what the rush is to have this pass. This was something I asked at the very first meeting back at no. First meeting for me back in February. I still haven't had a response as to what the rush is to get this legislation done now. I understand that there are amendments being proposed

to the

legislation, and at this point, I'm not sure that they all that they cure all the defects. So again, what is the rush? Maybe give it some more time and let Planning Commission do its job. I don't see how you can pass the legislation. To do so would be irresponsible and a breach of your fiduciary duty. I'm asking you to do the right thing, and I would urge you to vote no on this proposed legislation. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, missus Curtin. We would have gotten it to the right place. Are there any additional public comments? Ma'am, in the slate blue sweater up front, you had your hand up as well. Ma'am, you had your hand up as well if you'd like to make a public comment. Yes.

I'd like to have other people speak before I

do. That's fine. You can defer. Missus Norman?

Sarah Norman, 2212 Edgeview Drive. I did not have comments planned this evening. May be grateful. They may go short. But I looked at the additions to the agenda that included all of the recommended amendments to District 11.

And that was after I sort of chewed on that over the course of the weekend that I really felt like I probably needed to come point out a few obvious things. You have had a public hearing where you heard plenty of residents come and issue criticisms, complaints, concerns, and those kinds of things. But the reality is through this whole process, starting really from the fall when the Planning Commission first opened up the public hearing on this, we have seen no public champion come forward District 11. And and I think that's what concerns me about the prospect of council voting this forward this evening. The amendments themselves aren't aren't bad.

It's not wrong to remove the residential. It's not wrong to remove the grocery store, I would say it makes it better. My concern is that we are rushing through this because I think the real underlying issue is that District 8 isn't right. That's why we need District 11, but maybe we don't need this District 11. And so I I really would encourage counsel to reflect on that and see if we could back this process up a few steps, look more broadly at District 8.

I I don't have specifics for you. Look at a way to incorporate the things that we think we love about District 11 into District 8 or maybe create two completely different districts. I just think there's a way for us to collaborate between the planning commission and the council to make that happen so it's really good for Hudson, and I'm just not convinced that this amended version is that thing. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, missus Norman.

Is there additional public comment tonight from anyone in the audience? Ma'am, in the black?

Susan Newman, 2694 Stonebridge Court in Hudson. So I'm here again just to talk about District 11, hopefully, one last time. I think this issue deserves clarity and some transparency. I've sat through many council meetings. At one of the previous meetings, one of the council members asked how we got this far from the subcommittee, away from the comprehensive plan.

So I wanted to understand that myself, and I went back and actually found the subcommittee meeting minutes. They're not easy to find, but I did find them. And after reading them carefully, I believe they tell an important story about how this process evolved, how it gradually shifted away from the press the priorities residents established. The first subcommittee meeting was held on 04/22/2025. The minutes note several important points.

A focus on generating taxable revenue for the city, a recognition that the site should align with the light industrial flex uses recommended in the comprehensive plan, and not competing with downtown. Those priorities align with what residents supported during the comprehensive planning process, tax generation, protection of downtown, and light industrial flex uses. One example shared in this meeting, which was point six, is the Kinross Lakes Parkway in Richfield, essentially an office complex with very limited surrounding amenities, just a McDonald's. At that stage, there was still no discussion of housing or the kind of mixed use development District 11 has now become. At the second meeting on 05/19/2025, the minutes again focused on developmental categories.

But point seven states the committee considered residential uses and expressed, quote, a preference to not consider such, end quote, unless it was part of a planned development. That's the first mention of housing or a planned development concept. Later in that same meeting, the minutes state that the staff introduced the Valor Acres project in Brecksville as a comparable example, a huge shift from Kinross Lakes. Yet even then, the minutes still acknowledge the comprehensive plan priorities of light industrial flex. But after Valor Acres entered the discussion, the direction of the minutes significantly changed.

There are no publicly available minutes from the meeting that occurred at Valor Acres itself, but the subsequent June 16 minutes state that the committee discussed, considering a mix of uses as part of a large anchor tenant effort and adjusting zoning ahead of a project to focus on mixed uses within a planned development. The minutes also reference engaging with the property owner regarding building height anchor tenants and the need for a trusted partnership while identifying items with the development that were non negotiable for all sides. All sides, yet the public was not included in these discussions. The focus has shifted away from the comprehensive plan and towards accommodating the priorities of a developer. Then at the July 21 meeting, the subcommittee minutes begin by welcoming attendees from Industrial Realty Group or IRG, which is the developer for Valor Acres.

They were introduced by staff into the discussion. The minutes state that the subcommittee members reviewed draft use charts with IRG attendees to discuss additional uses and whether they would be permitted by right, conditionally, or through planned development. So when residents hear statements from counsel that there were no meetings with developers, it's simply false. The subcommittee minutes clearly show developers participating directly in a meeting and discussions about zoning districts permitted uses and development strategy, and that matters because this process has effectively allowed outside development corporation to shape the proposed District 11 and Hudson zoning while shifting priorities away from the comprehensive plan. When I look at the past year for council, the introduction of Valor Acres by staff, the inclusion of developers in subcommittee meetings, and proposals to expand authority for unelected staff, I believe residents are justified in asking what direction is council taking.

Who are you representing? This is not just about housing in District 11. The issue, even with the proposed amendments without residential, without the grocery stores, but still maintaining the possibility of some type of planned development, will still impact the downtown district. This is about whether Hudson remains guided by transparent planning, resident input, and adopted policy, or whether those principles can gradually be sidelined through closed door collaboration and shifting policy priorities. Thirty seconds, ma'am. Thank you. Residents participated in the comprehensive planning process in good faith. They deserve a city council that honors that effort. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here tonight who would like to make a public comment? Ma'am, in the blue? You just state your name and address. Sure.

Just activate? Okay. Yes.

Hi. My name is Lisa Leifsig. I live at 2553 Blue Heron Drive. I live across from the high school and I wanted to encourage the council to reconsider prioritizing sidewalks L and GG for the HPE neighborhood, specifically because I have a student entering high school next year and safety is a top concern for me and the bus facilities only transport kiddos within one and a half miles of the school. Traffic can be pretty fast on Blue Heron as folks cut through the neighborhood and we have a mix of drivers both very new and very experienced, so it can be a little bit treacherous.

I'd also encourage the council to reconsider prioritizing sidewalks in general, especially within the Northeast quadrant of the city because that's where our schools are located and all those bus transport restrictions are applicable to that area. And just looking at the map, I've noticed there are some gaps, especially for the high school kiddos, but more particularly also for grades three through five. Thank you. Appreciate your dedication to the community and all your service.

Thank you. Are there additional public comments tonight? Ma'am, in the slate blue sweater. You just state your name and address, please.

My name is Raya Daley. I live we have moved. We have downsized. I live on Barlow Road now at 1275. And I would like to thank many of the people who have already encouraged the council to think about this big change that will be happening, and it will happen.

But I would like to encourage the council to preserve Hudson, its character, its beautiful. Moved here in 1988, and it has changed quite a bit, especially with the traffic on 91. That's where we used to live at 132 South Main Street. And I would like to encourage you to take your time and listen to the people. They are the ones who will be affected by this change of Zone 11. And, I'm sorry. I should have mentioned that earlier. So, anyway, please listen to them and, preserve Hudson. Okay? That's it.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anybody else here tonight who would like to make a public comment to counsel? Mister Avita?

Anthony Ravita, 1746 Edgar Drive. Again, I wanna this was a guide from the United States Air Force on leadership, and I wanted this to directly go to mister Sheridan, mister Pitchford, and mister Hannon. Undermining the rule of law, compliance becomes insufficient. Order is based on rules, and rules are not optional. Carefully crafted narratives are dishonorable and invite hypocrisy.

Power that is secure doesn't silence its own citizens. Real leadership requires scrutiny. Weak leadership abandons restraint and seeks immediate retaliation. Let truth and justice be the final arbiter. I had, given you the council a printout of my common pleas.

And if you look at the front page, it says, you know, on June 4, this case will start all over again. So mister Pitchford, sought default judgment. It cost the city nearly $50,000 for this default judgment. And if you look at the second page, you'll see defendant Anthony Revita, which is me, also appeared representing himself, pros a. On the fourth page, you'll see the, court's of their conclusions, and I, highlighted it for you.

Plaintiff's exhibits consistent with defendant's position, and he had not yet been formally served. For example, at 05/20/2025 city council meeting, the defendant referenced being involved in a third case with the city while stating I haven't got the the case yet. So this five pages, everybody in the city of Pleasant just paid $50,000 for this. It was a default judgment. It wasn't on the, the merits of the case.

I was able to attain all the invoices for this $50,000 case. Mister Sheridan has a signature on every one of them. Mister Pittsford's law firm is the one who, got the $50,000. And if you look through this, which I gave you guys a copy of, they they were scheming against their own citizen. They were they have two sets of books against me.

One is the one that the the staff had put together, and that staff had did a final inspection pass. Mister Hannon then erased this and and and then I was able to get a little a hold of the timeline, and the timeline states that I passed twice. I guess what I'm saying here more than anything else is we got three gentlemen here that are running the city as if if if they're that's their city. I told mister Sheridan that mister Foster had made a false police report on me. It's on record.

The police did the did the investigation, and it was a false report. Nothing has been done to him. I have reported that to mister Pittsford and the, miss Fagnelli, the prosecutor. Just ignored it. Mister Hannon has numerous times broken the Sunshine Laws.

These are all, attainable facts. I can get all this information to you. The reason why these guys aren't being held, responsible is mister Pittsford isn't going to do it. He gets paid $600,000 last year for ignoring whatever mister Sheridan wants to wants to present and what he doesn't wanna present. So what he's doing is weaponizing the city's the city's mister mister Sheridan's position, he's weaponizing it with the law to take guys like me that actually passed and taking it to court to say, this is our law, and this is what we we need to do.

This isn't the way it works. When you do a permit, a permit is a pretty much a check and balance type situation. I didn't know one person that came out to my house that did their in for the permit. Every one of them passed me. Mister mister mister Sheridan then takes the case, which is closed, and I have no no understanding why he would do this. The case was closed. The file was shut. Mister Bellis told me, congratulations. Mister Bellis is no longer with, seven with Hudson. Miss

miss Ravida, your time is up, but I'll let you finish that thought. They have two minutes. I will let you finish that thought only, sir.

Okay.

Other people, Joe Joe from the engineering department and Amanda, both wonderful people. All of them passed this. They're now they're now no longer with Hudson. I would encourage this the city to please not vote and hold the vote to another period till you can find these facts so you don't vote mister Pitchford in and the prosecutor, sir sir Fagdelli.

Thank you very much. Thank you, mister Avida. Is there additional public comment, mister Beam?

Hello. Ryan Beam. 2633 Hudson Aurora Road. I'm actually speaking to hadn't planned to speak tonight, but when I got here, I noticed an item on the agenda that I wasn't quite expecting, and that was a consent item number or a letter g, which is a resolution to reappoint the city solicitor. Now I don't know mister Pitchford personally.

I'm sure he's a very nice guy. But I do know that while he's been city solicitor, there's been a number of things that I have found incredibly concerning that have occurred in the city's legal activities. That ranges everything from the secret lawsuit that was filed against Jane Howington that the courts determined were was filed improperly, and ultimately found was baseless, result resulting in the city having to pay another financial settlement to miss Howington, to the fight with former councilman Nicole Kowalski over whether or not documents had been waived privilege. I felt that we all witnessed that there was a waiving of privilege that occurred in city council, and then a subsequent attempt to reinvoke privilege. I felt that poor legal advice was given, which resulted unnecessarily and had the city having to fight that lawsuit.

I observed the, after the past ward elections that mister Pitchford attempted to involve himself in the unusual conspiracy theories of meddling in the election and with the Ohio Election Commission in what appeared to be an attempt to block the seating of doctor Byrd and doctor Goetz from their positions. And I've noticed multiple other things, whether it be from mister Revita's suits to whatnot. But during his tenure, the city has racked up enormous amounts of unnecessary legal expenses on lawsuits that should never have taken place, probably based predicated on potentially unsound legal advice in my opinion, resulting in the city having to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses and settlements that we never should have. Money that could have gone towards infrastructure or other important projects. And for that purpose, I would ask the council to consider not reappointing mister Pitchford and seeking better council that will basically try and limit the city's legal expenses instead of expand them.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister Beam. Are there any additional comments from the public tonight? There are no additional public comments. We will close section seven and move on to section eight, which is correspondence and council comments. Any council member has correspondence that has not already been generally distributed and or council comments, we will hear those now. Again, please gain my attention and allow me to verbally recognize you and assign you the floor. Are there any comments from counsel tonight? Mister Bresovic?

Thank you. I attended the park board meeting yesterday evening. Some highlights from the meeting include, obviously, the great news about the playground as addressed in our proclamation earlier. Additionally, the splash pad is now open at Veterans Way. The staff is moving forward on plans to expand the parking at Hudson Springs Park.

That currently is 85 parking spots and will be increasing to approximately 130. Golf revenue is currently up $300,000 compared to last year. That is mainly due to the simulators in food and beverage and expected to continue through the season. Additionally, Middleton Park has a meeting on May 28 to solicit resident feedback. That meeting is at the park, looking for feedback on that being the next playground and park that will be revamped by by the park board.

That's all.

Thank you, councilor Bresovic. Is there any additional comments from council tonight? Councilor Goetz?

I've been asked by a resident to read his letter. It's a bit long, but I will read it. This is from Todd Zedak, 18 Hudson Common Drive. My dear fellow citizens, I'm unfortunately unable to be with you in person today. I've asked my ward representative, which is me, to read my thoughts into the record.

We are all getting a real lesson in democracy from this exercise. I would suggest it is a needless exercise, but here we are. We have solid processes in place to control and manage zoning and building in our community. There are no shortages of communities where zoning has not been well managed and controlled, and it results in a visual aesthetic that is less than desirable. For instance, Solon once looked much like Hudson.

Our town looks the way it does and feels the way it does because we have had leaders, and more importantly, an engaged citizenry that have paid attention and remained involved. Our city charter mandates that every ten years, a forward thinking plan is to be created that is intended to guide and direct the evolution of our community's development over the following ten years. This plan is intended to be thoughtful, big picture in its scope, and careful in its language. I would respectfully submit that our current comprehensive plan is just that. It clearly and quite unambiguously states that the intention is regarding development in each of our communities 10 districts.

These directions were created after careful and statistically valid polling of the community regarding their values and attitudes. There was no developer input because developers do not live here. People do. We did, however, do our best to include the views of local business owners because they are certainly meaningful and important members of our community. This idea that another district needed to be created and carved out of an existing district solely to appease the wants of a developer and their future profits is completely wrong headed.

Our best and highest concern should be in service of majority of the people who actually live in our community. These citizens were able to articulate through statistically valid survey what those values are. Should zoning and land use modifications need to be made for whatever change in circumstance may arise, there is a process to achieve that exact end. It is called the planning commission. They are charged with careful carefully evaluating and clarifying whatever changes need to be made.

It's been made clear that our zoning rules are well past due for an update. Whatever rules and laws need to be followed to allow this process to begin or to continue should be engaged. I urge all of our city council to listen and respect the views and opinions of the vast majority of the citizenry and not to be moved by the members of the city staff or private developer whose interest do not lie with the state of the city twenty, thirty, or fifty years from now, but instead are concerned about the next earning cycle. Please vote no on this legislation and stop spending time and energy on an effort that is completely unnecessary. Sincerely, Todd Zidek.

Thank you, councilor Gatz. Was there additional comments from yourself? Were you complete? I'm Thank you. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure you had additional comments. Additional comments from council members tonight? Councilor White?

Yeah. Thanks. I just wanted to publicly congratulate Hudson resident Ashton Swinford for her fifth straight Cleveland Marathon win. Incredible to do it one time, five times in a row is pretty amazing. So just congratulations, and I'm tired just thinking about it. Thank

you, councilor White. Additional comment from council tonight? Council president Byrd?

So I appreciate the comment about sidewalks. We had to pump the brakes a little bit with closing of Joanne's and the loss of city revenue getting more in. Certainly, at some point, in the next few months, we can reevaluate our financial situation and reinitiate a discussion around sidewalks.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Any additional comments from council members who have not spoken yet? Seeing none, I will just add a few quick things from my side, in regards to Ashton Swinford winning her fifth, marathon. If you look closely at all of her pictures, she has her hands up. So she's crossing the finish line and this time she had five. Last year she had four, three and so on. So just a interesting little note about her accomplishments and achievements. So congratulations to her again as well. Two other quick things, both congratulations as well. I'd like to officially recognize Hudson High School student, Mira, on winning the best supporting actress at the DAZZLE Awards held in Cleveland this past weekend.

Mira was nominated for her role as pillar in the drama club's recent production of Legally Blonde. Congratulations to Mira. And last note, from my side as well as another congratulations to the u eleven Sunday squad in conjunction with the Hudson Rugby Club on your state championship win this past week. Those are my comments in section eight. Is there any additional comments from council tonight? Seeing none, we will close section eight and move on to section nine, report of the city manager. Mister Sheridan, I would like to turn the floor over to you in case you have anything to update council on.

Thank you, mayor. You left me some big ones. I thought somebody would grab all these. Memorial Day Parade is this Monday at 10AM, and it'll start downtown on Milford Road. So hopefully everyone can come out.

The staff has done a great job of planning this, and we're all ready to go. Summer bandstand kickoff will also be on May 25 at 06:30PM. Due to the renovations of the gazebo, they will be doing the bandstand on Church Street between the Clock Tower and gazebo greens, so it's not too far away from where it normally is being held. And they poured the pad today, the plaza for the gazebo. Steps will be going in in about two weeks, and then the handrailing and all the painting will be completed in time for the July 4 and the American two fiftieth.

The lift is out to bid and opens next week, and we hope to have that in by Labor Day time period. Manufacturing, it takes twelve to sixteen weeks

to

get here. Just a note to the council and the mayor and the public, we did receive another 1,400,000 for Hinesville Bridge, thanks to the Ohio Rail Commission. They were gracious enough to give us that additional money for our contingency on that bridge, so that takes us up to about 18,000,000, which I think is a record for the Lake Forest sidewalk is nearing complete. There's a few little things left to do. The intersection has been redesigned and is open to traffic, which is good for the country club, especially at the end of the street there.

Oak Grove, as you all heard, is moving along. I check it usually almost every day as I walk by with my dog. And today, it was in good shape. They poured the concrete pads for the pavilion type areas inside the playground. And then Barlow Road, the resurfacing started today. Ground out in front of Little Tikes. That was a grant we received from the state of Ohio, and that is coming along well, so it'll probably be done, I'd say, in the next ten days. And then Ravenna Street sidewalk is over half complete, and we're into the open field areas heading our way towards Stowe Road. And then Stowe Road will also be getting a sidewalk from Ravenna all the way up to 3003 this year. Just to remind everybody. That's all I had to report. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, mister Sheridan. Does any council member have a question for mister Sheridan? Councilor Gaetz?

You did not add that the architectural review board actually did approve the lift, at their last meeting.

Yes. They did.

Yes. They did.

Thank you, mister Sheridan and councilor Goetz. Any additional questions for mister Sheridan from council? Seeing none, we'll close section nine, report to the manager, and move on to section 10 on our agenda for appointments. Council president Byrd, do we have any appointments tonight?

We do not have any appointments tonight, but, we anticipate some at the next council meeting.

Thank you, council president Byrd. We will close section 10 and move on to section 11 for the consent agenda. Council members, if there are any items on the consent agenda that you wish to have considered separately, please allow me to read the item, gain my attention, and state your wishes. Item A on consent is number twenty six dash thirty nine, a motion to acknowledge the timely receipt of the April 2026 monthly financial report. Item b on consent is number 26Dash0040, a 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 at 200 North Main Street in Hudson.

Moving on to item c on consent is number two six dash eight zero. This is a resolution to approve a then and now certificate for a purchase made and declaring an emergency. Item d on consent is number 26Dash81, a resolution authorizing the city manager to amend the current golf cart lease agreement with Lake Erie Golf Cars. Item e on consent is number 26Dash82. This is a resolution authorizing the installation of a Hudson sign public art sculpture at Veterans Way Park donated by Leadership Hudson class of 2024.

Moving on to item f on consent is number 26Dash83. This is a resolution approving the city manager's reappointment of Sarah j Fagnelli as city prosecutor and authorizing the city manager to enter an agreement for legal services and declaring an emergency. Emergency. The last item on consent is item g, number two six Dash84. This is a resolution approving the city manager's reappointment of marshal m pitchford as a city solicitor and special counsel and authorizing an agreement with Decado, pitchford, and Yoder for solicitor assistance to city solicitor and special counsel legal services and declaring an emergency.

Councilor Gaetz?

Could we pull that, please?

Noted. Councilor Gaetz, we will pull item two six dash eight four, which we will consider separately. That is the last item on consent. Therefore, do we have a motion to suspend the rules to allow passage of the items on the consent agenda, less item two six dash eight four?

I move to suspend the rules, less item two six dash eight four.

Thank you, councilor Brezovich. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, council president Byrd. Missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote?

Miss Ramo?

Yes.

Doctor Getz? Yes. Mister Sutton? Yes. Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mister White?

Yes.

Doctor Bird? Yes. Mister Brezovich?

Yes. Thank you, missus Wheeler. The rules are so suspended by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. Do we have a motion from counsel to approve the consent agenda less item two six dash eight four.

Move to approve consent less item 26 dash eight four.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Do we have a second to that motion?

Second.

Thank you, councilor White. Are there any comments from council? Seeing none, missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the approval of the consent agenda, less item two six dash eight four.

Doctor Getz? Yes. Mister Sutton? Yes. Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mister White? Yes. Doctor Bird?

Yes.

Mister Brezovag? Yes. Miss Joraimo? Yes.

Thank you, missus Wheeler. The consent agenda less item two six dash eight four passes unanimously by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. And going back to item g number two six dash eight four, since that was pulled by councilor Goetz, we will handle this separately. Do we have a motion to suspend the rules on item two six dash eight four?

I move we suspend the, rules on item two six dash eight four.

Thank you, counselor Goetz. Do we have a second to that motion of suspending the rules on two six dash eight four?

Second.

Thank you, counselor DeRaimo. Missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote? Mister Sutton?

Yes. Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mister White? Yes. Doctor Bird?

Yes.

Mister Brezovich?

Yes.

Mister Ramo? Yes. Doctor. Goetz? Yes.

Thank you, missus Wheeler. The rules on consent agenda item two six dash eight four are suspended by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. The next item would be if council wishes to enter a motion on two six eight four to action that piece of legislation. Do we have a motion from council to pass consent agenda two six dash eight four so that we can open this up for discussion?

Pass two six Dash84.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Thank you, councilor Brezovic. We will move on to opening up discussion on consent two six dash eight four. Counselor Goetz, since you had pulled this item, I would like to offer the floor to you first if you would so accept.

I just have concerns about a number of things that mister Pitchford has done over the years. I also have concerns that the city didn't reach out far enough. I know they did not reach out to the Ohio State Bar Association. I don't know if they went in the job boards at the Akron Bar Association, the Cleveland Metro Bar Association, the Ohio Municipal League, or the Ohio Municipal Attorneys Association. So I would wish that we could open up this idea again, and see if we can get more, people to apply.

Thank you, councilor Katz. Is there any additional discussion on consent two six dash eight four? House president Byrd?

So I appreciate the, one of the speakers, listed a number of things that, number of lawsuits that were, in this person's opinion, questionable, and I would agree with, many of those as well. However, the the city solicitor has to kind of follow the lead and, do what council majority asks him or her to do. And so so it's it's it's some way, he's a he's a tool and other people are hammering him, I guess, or something. Maybe that's not a a good metaphor. But he's he's gotta do the the the the council majority's bidding and and requests.

I some of us have different political viewpoints that that we have in our personal lives or lives outside of here. But when I've interacted with the solicitor, I have not seen him bringing those those partisan political viewpoints to to the work that he's doing here. And then finally, this is this is a role that is and we we as council must concern concur with the city manager's appointment, the city solicitor. And I think we have tried, again, because of political histories and backgrounds, tried to this this has been a decision that the sitting manager the interviewing process, involves the staff, very objective, and then he brings his recommendations for us. And I don't, not wanted us to be involved in in micromanaging up that process because that is something that the city manager's role is to do.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Are there any other comments or notes from council? Councilor Brezovich?

Thank you. As council president Byrd, spoke on the background and political aspects of this, I I think he he covered that well enough, I won't go into detail on that. I would just like to add that, on the point of the the city manager facilitating the interview process, and bringing him bringing us his recommendation, after after going through that with staff, This this was not only the recommendation, but to address the costs that, you know, have been brought up. One of the aspects of this agreement does include, a full time assistant city solicitor being supplied by the law firm. This is someone who will be in the office on-site Monday through Thursday each week.

This provides staff a direct support from a legal standpoint that they haven't had before, and this represents a fixed cost on things that we would have traditionally been doing ad hoc. So it represents opportunity for cost savings. The interview process showed DPNY to be the preferred candidate for everyone who applied through open enrollment. I would love to hear city manager's response to Doctor. Goetz's ideas other bar associations maybe that we didn't reach out to.

But as of this moment, I don't feel we have a valid alternative, with the state of the contract for the current solicitor ending at the end of the month and the recommendations from staff.

Thank you, councilor Brezovich. Is there any additional comment or action by council members? Councilor Weinstein?

I'll just say, I agree with doctor Bird's comments. Far, I have less experience in Doctor. Bird and Doctor. Goetz with the solicitor, but he's been available to me every time I've needed him, and I think we've worked through to get legislation in a better spot. Some of the legislation we'll be reviewing today, is legislation that we worked on, and I've had a good experience so far.

Thank you, councilor Weinstein. Additional comment or action by council from any member who has not spoken yet? Seeing none, I will just add from my standpoint just from a procedural standpoint. Councilor Brezovic did mention the existing contract which is up in May, the May. Consent agenda item two six dash eight four is with emergency language, which requires six of seven votes to pass with emergency language.

Otherwise, this would resort to a regular measure passing. And the reason for me stating that is if this does not pass with emergency language then we have to wait thirty days before we can take action on this which does then lapse with the existing contract, which is up here at the May. So just a point of, detail for council as they consider their next step. With that, is there any additional comment from council? Otherwise, we'll move to calling a vote. Mister Sheridan, would you like to make a comment?

I just wanted to answer, the council's question, that doctor gets brought up to is

Please do.

The Cuyahoga County, I believe in order to submit to them, you have to be a member of that bar association. We had done this years ago and the previous solicitor gave us his membership and ordered, you know, he more or less put the application on their board. We weren't able to do that because we don't have anybody anymore. So that was the reason about the Bar Association. And again, this was a unanimous decision, individually ranked.

They all gave their rankings. The staff gave their rankings to my office manager on both the resumes and application process, and then also on the interview process. So at the end, it was a unanimous decision by all four of us that this firm should be the solicitor. And they came up with a good approach as we've heard here tonight to help lower down the cost. I went back and I looked and somebody had asked me, wow, I can't believe we spend two thousand four hundred hours.

But I went back to 2016 and on average, we spend about two thousand four hundred hours when we had a full time solicitor who is now in a city north of us. So I have all that information I can provide to counsel. But basically, we're running about that amount of time and kind of looking out what we spent back then to what we're spending today, I think it's comparable. Obviously, the $600,000 you heard here tonight at the podium, the whole entire process was for us to bring that cost down. I think we have with the flat rates that we have for an assistant and a solicitor, The amount of hours ends up being two thousand two hundred hours that they're gonna be giving us for that amount of money.

And if I can just add one last thing, the second firm that was next to this firm, which I don't think had as much qualifications, basically were double the amount. And they wanted to change council meeting night, and they also wanted to bring in different people to sit in the solicitor seat, which I know council likes to see consistency. So for all those things is the reason we chose, this firm. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you, mister Sheridan. The motion on the floor is to pass two six dash eight four. If there is no other comment or action by counsel, we will roll call a vote. Just wanted to give counsel that last opportunity. Seeing no additional discussion, missus Wheeler, will you roll call a vote on the passage of consent agenda item two six dash eight four?

Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mr White?

Yes.

Doctor Bird? Yes. Mr Brezovic? Yes. Ms. DeRaimo? No. Doctor. Goetz? No. Mr. Sutton?

No.

Thank you, missus Wheeler. Consent agenda item two six dash eight four does pass by a vote of four in favor to three against. However, this does not carry emergency language and will be passed as a regular measure, which will enact our thirty day pause. And at the moment, if there is not, another solution, we will have a lapse in legal services for the city of Hudson. Thank you.

That does conclude our consent agenda. We will move on to section 12 for legislation. Item a is number two five dash one four six. In ordinance amending the official zoning district map of the city of Hudson and 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. This legislation has already had theory readings, and it is actionable tonight.

And just a point of clarification as well, any changes to the city's zoning laws or land development code does require five votes for passage in addition above and beyond the standard four votes for legislation. With that, is there any action that council would like to take on legislation two five dash one four six? Councilor Drama, was that your hand up? Yes.

I moved to pass legislation two two five dash four six that was amended. So based off of the revised ordinance

Just to clarify, you are 2026. You're motioning to pass legislation two five dash one four six substituted with the language revised and dated for 05/19/2026. Was that correct? That's the last one on there. Thank you for that confirmation. Do we have a second to that motion to pass? Second. Thank you, counselor Getz. For your second on that motion to pass, this will then open up discussion on legislation two five dash one four six. Is there any discussion or comments from counsel tonight on two five dash one four six?

So I think it might be helpful if we if we read the different amendments were included. One was removing the specialty grocery store, removes this proposed use from District 11 previous draft and allowed a specialty grocery store of up to 4,000 square 40,000 square feet. And actually, the current District 8 allows up to 40,000 square feet as well. Correct,

Mr. Ham? The current district date allows that 40,000 square feet as a ratio for the building. For example, the former Joann site would would have that opportunity at both

twenty quarter was the first

second quarter nineteen. 20,000 square feet. The revised draft would allow these uses by right with a cap of 10,000 square feet per use or building. Next one is reducing the allowed location for retail restaurant service usage. The revised draft limits these uses to an area east of and within 600 feet of Darrow Road from the from Terex Road to Georgetown Road.

Previous draft allowed these uses district wide. And then lastly, four is remove residential. The revised draft fully removes residential uses from distant 11. Previous draft had proposed allowances for townhomes and multifamily dwellings. And then if I could, can I ask staff a question? Please do. So Greg, I just wanna make sure that referencing this table that was created several months ago around keep, add, and remove.

I'd I'd have to I I can see that's in the council files. I'd have to pull it out to

Yeah. Yeah. No. I'm just I'm just making sure that what we're voting on today includes the removal of things like auto repair, vehicle storage, vehicle renting, vehicle rental. I I don't I don't see some of those struck out, but they're also not included. So I just wanted to confirm that those are not allowed allowed with this new District 11.

That is correct. The clarification is that those are uses that currently are permitted in District 8. So the establishment of the District 11 would prohibit those uses. One other one other use of notes that would would now also be prohibited would be heavy industrial, which which is permitted under District 8.

So I think that almost done. People talk about the urgency to this. If we don't do anything now, then somebody tomorrow can submit a proposal for a 4,000 square foot retail, vehicle or boat storage, auto repair, vehicle rental, etcetera. Thanks.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Mister Hannon, didn't know if you had an additional comment to mister council president Byrd's last statement. No. Just wanted to give you that opportunity. Okay. Thank you, sir. Additional comment or discussion from any council member? Councilor Goetz?

I think in addition, it's important to note that it's only gonna be light industrial instead of heavy industrial, which means there wouldn't be a AI, you know, it it couldn't be a data center there, anything like that, none of which I've heard anybody in Hudson wanting that. So we do need to make these changes as as doctor Bert said, so that some of these other things don't come in because they could right now.

Thank you, counselor Gatz. Additional comment or discussion from council members? Councilor Weinstein?

So I I think I've said a lot of this before, but just to reiterate, I just want to acknowledge those that showed up today to give their feedback, and for all of the residents who showed up at the town hall and through Facebook, who stopped me to mention and have the discussion. I appreciate all the discussions that we had and disagreements we had, and I think it can get us to a better place by having those discussions. And I think a lot of what we've seen with the discussions and the feedback, and I think we even see this with planning commission with suggestions that we reduce the density and then also suggestions that we remove housing altogether. And I think what you see a lot of that is this tension that I think the community does want to see this as income generating. We do want to see especially uses of office and industry.

And I think where the conflict is is how do we get there? When we look around the market situation in Northeast Ohio and beyond Northeast Ohio, we see through research data, and then some of those markets that the best way to attract and keep those, that industry and offices, is through adding some amenities, including housing. But also understanding that we need to weigh resident feedback and what residents would like to see in that community. So some of the strongest things that I heard were opposing housing and then also concerns that Hynens would move. So those two amendments are the biggest ones I see that I heard from residents, and I think has the majority of support to remove that housing and reduce the risk of Hynens moving through the grocery.

The rest, I don't really have strong feelings on, but I agree with those two amendments in this. And I appreciate the community and having the discussion, and just wanna remind folks that the zoning provides a framework. I have seen no plan for development and don't of any, so I don't know of any plans. But this just is kind of this framework or guide for what could potentially happen, and it could be that nothing happens there. We just don't know.

And so we're hoping to get a framework to where we can return this site to income generating. And I think this amendment is a nice compromise to get us to a place where potentially we might be able to attract that or get that space back in income generating while also listening to the feedback residents.

Thank you, Councilor Weinstein. Additional comments from council members who have not spoken yet? Councilor Brezovic? Thank you.

In general, I I agree with, doctor Weinstein's comments, removing the residential and grocery store, I feel addresses the vast majority of residential concerns we've heard to this point. Overall, zoning, city planning isn't exactly something that is a strong background of mine. I definitely rely on experts, in in this case, our planning commission, to guide, me and this council in these decisions. I've corresponded with our, chair of our planning commission, a number of times along the way of this process, to get their input. They spoke this evening saying, you know, they they do feel a lot of these changes were were good, but but still continue we would like to continue work on this District 11.

For for one final time, I would just like to consider sending the legislation back to planning commission. So I believe, mister mayor, I need to make a motion, to do that now as a submotion.

Before that, councilor Brezovich, I just want to confirm with the solicitor that this can go back to Planning Commission one more time. I believe there was maybe an error in some of the, notes on page six where it said on March 3, well, excuse me, going all the way back to 09/16/2025, it did say first reading and referral to planning commission, is normal. But you go down to the 03/03/2026 in the first line in that same date, there's two dates of March 3. It does say referred to planning commission, I don't believe that happened. I believe that is an error, because on March 3, we just postponed it to a date certain, which was May 19.

So mister Pitchford, don't know if you'd like to comment on that. And ultimately, we're just looking to make sure that we can refer this back to planning commission one additional time. Mister please, mister Fisher.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. Under charter section 9.02, any amendment to the land development code can be referred back to the Planning Commission one additional time. So you do have that rule correct. It is my understanding that on March 3, there was a motion made and you stated it correctly that it was postponed until this evening. It was not in fact referred back to planning commission. So the short answer is yes, it can be referred back to planning commission if the vote is successful.

Thank you, Mr. Pitchford. So mister Bresovic, yes. Thank you for being patient. So if you would like to make a motion to refer legislation item two five dash one four six back

to the Planning Commission, you can do so. Thank you. At this time, I would like to move that we refer legislation item two five dash one four six at Planning Commission for a period of a hundred and twenty days for further consideration.

Thank you, mister Brezovic. Is there a second to councilor Brezovic's motion? Thank you. Councilor Sutton and councilor mister Bitchford, I believe this motion is still debatable to go back to the Planning Commission.

Yes. And so under the charter, it requires four votes.

For a referral back. Yes. So the motion to refer two five dash one four six to the Planning Commission as done by Councilor Brezovic and seconded by Councilor Sutton does open this up for debate. Is there any additional comment discussion from council on the motion on the floor, which is to refer two five dash one four six back to the Planning Commission? Any discussion from council members? Council president Byrd?

So the the consequence though of referring it back is still that we are, I guess, term is vulnerable the next up to one hundred and twenty days. That's that things like auto repair, vehicle rental, whatever submitted and in that district along with 40,000 square foot retail. So any if pass it tonight, it doesn't preclude the planning commission from, giving changes that they'd like to see.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Additional comment or discussion from council on the motion to refer two five dash one four six back to the Planning Commission. Councilor Bresovic? Thank you.

I agree with council president Byrd's comments. And, if this motion does not pass, I'd be very much in support of the term wouldn't be move, I believe, but, requesting the planning commission continue further work on on the new d 11, and we we would be, I'm sure, very receptive to any suggested changes, alongside of their work that they, I believe, currently are doing on planned developments for the city as a whole.

Thank you, Councilor Brozovic. Is there any additional comment or discussion on the motion to refer 25Dash146 to the Planning Commission? Seeing no additional comment or discussion from counsel, missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the motion on the floor to refer 25Dash146 to back to the Planning Commission.

Mister White? Yes. Doctor Bird? No. Mister Brosovic?

Yes.

Miss Doremo? No. Doctor Goetz? No. Mister Sutton? Yes. Doctor Weinstein? No.

Thank you, missus Wheeler. That motion to refer 25Dash146 back to the Planning Commission does fail by a vote of four against and only three in favor. That returns us back to the main motion, which is to pass legislation two five dash one four six as substituted with the language dated and revised for 05/19/2026. Is there any additional discussion on that motion to pass as substituted with the 05/19/2026? What language?

Additional comment on that motion to pass as substituted by council. Seeing none, missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the passage of legislation two five dash one four six as substituted with the language dated and revised for 05/19/2026.

Mayor, can we clarify the motion? There's ordinance number two five dash one four six revised for 05/19 at the bottom, and then there's also an exhibit a district eleven regulations draft at the top revised for 05/1926.

Thank you, missus Wheeler. So I will, ask mister Pitchford or mister Hannan, are both of those revisions for 05/19/2026 to be included in the are those combined together, I guess, your correction is your clarification. Is there someone from staff that can clarify that? Do those two documents go hand in hand?

They do. Ordinance, 25 dash one forty six revised for 05/1926 is the legislation. And then the first attachment exhibit a, District 11 regulations draft revised for 05/1926 is the exhibit to that legislation. So those two documents go together.

Thank you, mister Hannon. So I will go back to councilor Duremo since you made the original motion to pass as substituted. Do you agree to modify your motion to pass two five dash one four six to include the ordinance number two five dash one four six revised for 05/19/2026 as well as including exhibit a, District 11 regulations draft revised for 05/19/2026.

Can I just say yes?

Yes.

Repeat all that?

Yes. And then, counselor Getz, you had seconded that, motion to substitute. I would just want your verbal clarification that you were okay with that amended motion and second.

Yes. I'm okay.

Okay. Thank you, counselor Getz. Thank you, counselor DeRaimo. Thank you, missus Wheeler. So therefore, the item that we are moving to a roll call vote is to pass legislation two five dash one four six, substituted with the ordinance number two five dash one four six language revised for 05/19/2026 as well as the exhibit a District 11 regulations draft, also with, the revision for 05/19/2026. Missus Wheeler, will you please roll call?

Point of information, mister mayor.

Mister Bresovic, yes.

If this, vote does not pass with the required five votes today, the process at this point, I believe, would essentially start over. This piece of legislation would be dead, and we would have to, you know, engage planning commission to start from square one.

Your point of information is well taken, and that is correct. This legislation, if it did not pass with five votes, would essentially die.

Thank you. And then a follow-up to that point then would be pointing out that the motion to resend to Planning Commission failed as a vote of four to three. If a member of the winning side of that vote were to feel they wanted to make a move to reconsider, they could and give another vote to, sending this back to planning commission in order to avoid ending this piece of legislation if they do not feel we will reach five votes.

Your point, I will address that point and I will look to mister, Pitchford as well. My understanding is for council to reconsider, action that has already happened, there has to be new information provided to allow for a reconsideration. So the question is, is your comment that this will die on the floor if it does not pass with five votes? Therefore, does that make counsel reconsider or think that, hey, we don't wanna start from scratch. Is that new information?

Or is the outcome of the vote new information?

So for that, I would, defer to mister Pitchford to provide your advice on that. Can we call for a reconsideration of the motion to refer 25 dash one four six to the Planning Commission?

I believe that we still can call for a reconsideration of that. It must be made by someone who was in the affirmative. Someone who voted

not to refer.

That's correct. So since just for clarification, the majority of this council body voted not to refer, two five dash one four six to the Planning Commission. So for somebody to make the motion to reconsider, it would have to be one of those four votes who voted not to refer this to the Planning Commission. Mister Brezovich, you voted in favor of referring this to the Planning Commission, so you are not eligible to make that motion. But your point is well taken given your statements.

Therefore, I will pause to see if there is any additional action that council wishes to take before we roll call a vote on legislation two five dash one four six as substituted with the language of ordinance revised for 05/19/2026 as well as exhibit a District 11 regulations revised for 05/19/2026. The motion on the floor is to pass that item as substituted. Is there any additional comments from council? Seeing none, missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the passage of legislation two five dash one four six as substituted with the language dated for 05/19/2026 on the ordinance number two five dash one four six as well as exhibit a District 11 regulations draft also dated and revised for 05/19/2026.

Doctor Byrd? Yes. Mister Brezovich? Yes. Mister Ramo? Yes. Doctor Getz? Yes. Mister Sutton? No. Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mister White?

Yes.

Thank you, missus Wheeler. Legislation two five dash one four six does pass by a vote of six in favor to one against, and that is with the substitution language dated for 05/19/2026 for ordinance number two five dash one four six as well as exhibit a District 11 regulations draft also dated and noted as revised for 05/19/2026. Thank you. We will move on to item b on legislation, which is number two six dash seven zero. This is an ordinance to repeal chapter two two six of the codified ordinances relating to campaign finance limits and regulations.

This is also a third reading this evening and actionable by council, And I just wish to note that there is revised proposed language, ordinance number two six dash seven zero from doctor Byrd dated 05/12/2026. Therefore, does council wish to enter a motion or take action on legislation item two six dash seven zero?

I move to pass item two six dash seven

zero. Thank you, councilor Brezovic. And that is in its original form.

I thank you. I move to pass item two six dash seven zero as amended by, doctor Byrd five dash 12 dash 26.

Thank you for that clarification. Councilor Brezovic, is there a second motion to pass two six dash seven zero as substituted with the ordinance number two six dash seven zero with updated language noted as bird, 05/12/2026.

Second.

Thank you, Councilor Weinstein. Is there any discussion on '26? Excuse me. One second, was just catch checking my notes. Yes. Is there any discussion then on 02/06 dash seven zero? The motion on the floor to pass that with the amended language listed as ordinance number two six dash seven zero with bird five twelve two thousand twenty six language. Discussion from any council member. Councilor Durema?

I just wanted to say I think, you know, after reviewing this a little bit more, we are a unique unique city, And to kind of blanket it with everyone else in Summit County might not be appropriate for our city, just different circumstances. And like I said, I think we're kind of a outlier in that regard. So I think having a a limit but increasing it is more appropriate than just going, completely unlimited at this point in time. You know, maybe not to say that can't change later, but I think based off circumstances, it's more appropriate, and to give everyone a fair playing ground, hopefully.

Thank you, councilor Duremo. Additional comment from any council members. Councilor White?

Just wanted to state as at the previous workshop, I said I would be abstaining from dialogue and, voting on this, so I just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you, councilor White. Councilor Goetz?

I did some research research into Akron's campaign finance and also the state. And one of my concerns is when we had the $100 limit, it was said to not be enforceable. And but what be enforceable with $500. What Akron and the state does is if somebody gives more money than the limit, they have to triple give triple the money back. So if if it's a $500 limit and somebody gives a thousand dollars, they would have to be fined $3,000 and give back the thousand dollars.

So it makes it more something that people would think about that they wouldn't do. So I have concerns that this legislation doesn't have any kind of enforcement to it. Otherwise, I think it's just I don't know, Mr. Pitchford, dollars 100 wasn't enforceable, does $500 make it enforceable?

Mr. Pitchford?

Yeah. I am, quite comfortable with the 500, dollar per election. We've researched this, for years, myself included, with prior attorneys for the city. And, based on my research, a $500 limit in this, community, in this context would be enforceable.

So why did they not enforce the $100?

So the the legal standard, that started with the ninth case from 1976, it was Buckley versus Valeo. And there's been multiple cases since then. And really to kind of simplify everything, it really boils down to whether or not the particular limit would be constraint on allowing a challenger to an incumbent to the magic languages to mount an effective campaign. And so in this particular community, in this context, would a $100 be held to be insufficient to allow a challenger to mount

want to go

out say no. In the event, of course, this legislation does not pass tonight, it would be my duty to defend the 100, but I certainly think that the $500 limit would be something that we could defend. Doctor Bird had presented some research I believe workshop also giving some examples to why that made made sense. And I and I agree with doctor Byrd.

Thank you, mister Pittsford. Counselor Gantz, did you have any other comments?

I suppose I could ask for an amendment to use the, how would I word, standards that the state uses. That's the state's language for state candidates. Returning the original amount.

Need you to be a little more specific. Would you want to be creating a separate subsection that in the event that against the candidate, against the campaign?

Candidate. If

I may, if we're if doctor Goetz, if you're considering a motion to amend legislation two six dash seven zero with or without, the language dated for 05/12/2026, I may suggest if it's very detailed and more than what we could accurately and make sure that we are covering here that we may wanna postpone this legislation so that we can draft that up to have it reviewed by all council members before we vote on it depending on how in involved your thought process is. If it cannot be clearly conveyed in a motion to amend, we may want to consider that as a potential. But that I would leave that to you based on the detail of what you're thinking.

So it would we could consider postponing it?

Yes. We can. Yes.

So I move You

can move that motion.

I move that we consider postponing this legislation.

And we would need to postpone that to a date certain? Date certain. And we would have to look at the calendar and see what makes the most sense. And I would add, we would need time for yourself and the solicitor to review that language and then have time for counsel to review that. So does anybody have the calendar up in front of them so that we can look at potential options for a motion to postpone two six seven zero to a date certain? Mrs. Wheeler?

June 2 is the next meeting, and then June 16.

So, yes, the next, it would be one of potentially one of the council regular council meetings in June, which would be the second or the sixteenth. The second allows us to have one workshop in between, which I would ask mister Pitchford and yourself if you feel that we'd have enough time to review that on a workshop. If not, the June 16 will allow us two workshops before that.

Sixteenth, I think, makes more sense.

Okay. So just to clarify, counselor Gatz is making a motion to postpone legislation two six dash seven zero to a date certain of June 16. Correct, counselor Gertz?

Yes.

We have a second to that motion to postpone two six dash seven zero to June 16.

Point of clarification Yes. Information. I'm wondering if the, portion that doctor Guezz is referring to amending is in a different section of our code, or if it's within the same, where does it refer to the penalties?

Mr. Pitchford, I would defer to you. I have not looked at that given no knowledge of this motion. You can take time to make sure we understand that point of information, Councilor Weinstein.

So I believe we would have to ask Doctor. Goetz for further clarification, but the enforcement mechanism for this particular clause is a criminal offense. It's a minor misdemeanor is the violation currently. She is talking about is adding a civil fine which would go right into this particular section.

Got it. Thank you. Okay.

So thank you for that clarification. Mister Bitchford. Therefore, we, have the motion on the floor to postpone two six dash seven zero to a date certain of June 16. It does require a second. Does council wish to second the motion to postpone two six dash seven zero to June 16? Second. Thank you, councilor Brezovic. Is there any discussion on the motion to postpone two six dash seven zero to June 16? Comments or discussion? Council president Byrd.

So, well, I appreciate the, the desire or or interest in establishing a more rigorous fine or consequence to violating this. I think that in if we look at over the case of our fifteen years that it's been in place, a $100 or at least how long, I think it's been one or two candidates that have violated that. The real strength in the, I mean, real enforcement is that this is what the city has decided is their limit and candidates abide by that because this is what the city decided is their limits and they want to be good candidates and good future elected officials. So I what we're saying about the the the enforcement piece, but I just I I don't think it's it's that necessary.

Thank you, council president Berg. Any additional discussion on the motion that's on the floor to postpone two six dash seven zero to a date certain of June 16? Councilor Duremo?

I just wanted to add, I, you know, I I can see both sides. I do think it gets I agree with doctor Bird though. It kinda get a little sticky doing something like that. And, you know, if everyone we just hope people are following the rules and doing the right thing and

add that.

Thank you, councilor Dramo. Additional council comment or discussion on the motion on the floor to postpone two six dash seven zero to a date certain of June 16. Councilor Brezovic?

So as a point of process and procedure, I don't generally like leaving things to hope people do the right thing. Now, I'm not saying that not including a civil penalty is doing that. It is a criminal offense, a misdemeanor at that, but it is one. I would like to ask a point of information of the city solicitor. This legislation which we're considering, whether it goes into effect, you know, thirty days if we were vote on till today or thirty days from a date certain, Is it effective for campaigns being run for the November ballot of this year?

If you have taken some contributions to this point and then the legislation passes and you're still campaigning, and now suddenly the limit is lifted, can you return to those people? How would that work?

Outpoint. Mister Fitchburg, do you have comment?

Not sure I've got your fact pattern exactly. So if a candidate were to have accepted a $500 donation yesterday, or would you say it for tomorrow in the event of past? I'm trying to understand your example.

I guess what I'm saying is let's say you had already accepted a 100 donation from an individual a week ago, and we passed today or whenever we pass it, and after passing, I assume you could then return to that $100 person and ask for an additional $400 and that would now be valid just as of that date?

And I'll just make one comment. This does not have emergency language, so it would not go in effect for thirty days. So in your example, if somebody thirty days from day of

of the the '30 date certain of the June 16, yes.

So if it passed substituted, your question is could somebody go back and say after the thirty day pause, can they go solicit an additional form?

Mainly, I'm looking to know, are we debating legislation that's going to affect this November election that's currently in theory, you know, campaign season starting right now?

Mr. Richford?

Yeah. On that last point, the answer is absolutely. And if someone could if, let's say, a legislation passes tonight and we're out thirty days, could the candidate go back to the prior donor and solicit an additional $400 The answer is after the thirty days are up, yes. Thank you.

Agree. Interesting. Mr. Brezovich, additional comment?

On this, as far as postponement, I don't have strong thoughts. It doesn't sound to me like postponing to give Doctor. Getz time to make an amended version of this would really be you know, there it doesn't seem like there's a time restriction to be that would cause an issue. So I just buy principle of of giving another council member time to make the amendment that they want, I'm fine with it.

Thank you, councilor Brezovich. Additional comment or discussion from council members who haven't spoken yet on the motion on the floor to postpone two six dash seven zero to a date certain of June 16. Any additional comment? Councilor Weinstein?

Yeah. I'll just say I, so I was the one that originally proposed rescinding the law altogether. I see a lot of valid reasons to do that. I also see reasons, you know, for Hudson and our community hearing from residents to have it at 500. I think it's a step in the right direction.

I worry about creating a lot of punitive actions that create an environment where it looks like we're going after candidates who are really trying to follow these rules that are not frankly that easy to follow when you have to pay attention to their household size, the name of their minors, report their minors, that I think raising this helps with that, but I also worry about worrying too much about the punitive actions when it does appear that people are really trying to follow it and don't always know someone's exact household size and the age of their minors.

Thank you, Councilor Weinstein. Additional comment on the motion? Councilor Goetz?

The way the language will read when we get it going is if somebody gets, say, 1,000 when we have the 500 limit, that there's a certain time limit that they have to give it back without any kind of consequence. So that can be put in so that it wouldn't be punitive if somebody makes a mistake or somebody sends it to them and

they didn't

realize it for right away. So it takes away that that somebody innocently got something that they didn't know.

Thank you, Councilor Gatz. Additional comment from council members who have not spoken yet on the motion on the floor to postpone two six dash seven zero to a date certain of June 16. Councilor Weinstein, one moment. I'll just, councilor Sutton, you had not spoken, and councilor White, you haven't spoken. I wanna offer you the floor before we go to round two. You're good, councilor White. Councilor Sutton, are you have a comment, or would you defer to round two? Thank you. Councilor Weinstein?

I'm I mean, I know we don't have an amendment on the floor specifically to that, but I'm just wondering how long would we give candidates to check the household size and age of every minor that they interacted with?

Thank you, councilor Weinstein. Councilor Goetz, do you have any comment? I'll offer you the floor since

I'm not sure I understand what councilor Weinstein's talking about.

I will say that was why I had made the suggestion to postpone so that we could make sure we all understood what, the details were and the implications to that.

I mean, so my question is, in theory, we would now, you know, an honest mistake could be made, right? So we'd give someone time to adjust, give the money back, but that adjustment also requires knowledge of their household size and that this amount didn't match their household size. And so that would then, At some point, we would have to give time to candidates to check household size and ages of minors. And it's just hard for me to think about what is that timeframe that's appropriate for someone to check and make sure they did it right, checking household size, checking minors, checking their ages.

Thank you, Councilor Weinstein. I will add again that that is why I suggested postponing this so that we can review those details and have those discussions in a workshop and look into this with more detail. We are on round two of discussion on the motion on the floor to postpone 26 Dash seven zero to a dated certain of June 16. Councilor Weinstein and Councilor Goetz have commented in round two. Is there any additional comment from council members? Councilor Durema?

I agree with councilman Weinstein. It is confusing. I completely understand what you're saying. And like I said, I think it I think it just actually makes it a little bit more confusing.

Thank you, counselor Dramo. Additional round two comment from any council member who has not spoken. The motion on the floor is to postpone two six dash seven zero to a date certain of June 16. If there's no additional comment, we will move to a vote on that motion. Missus Wheeler, will you please roll call the vote on the motion on the floor to postpone legislation two six dash seven zero to a date certain of 06/16/2026.

Mister Brezovich? Yes. Miss Jorima? No. Doctor Getz? Yes. Mister Sutton? Doctor Weinstein? No. Mr White? Obst. Doctor Bird?

No. Thank you, missus Wheeler. That motion to postpone two six dash seven zero to a date certain of June 16 does fail, with four votes against, with only two in favor and one abstention. That takes us back to the prior motion, which was the motion to pass two six dash seven zero as substituted with the language, listed and dated ordinance number two six dash seven zero, Bird, 05/12/2026. We are back to the discussion point of the process here in regards to that motion on the floor to pass as substituted.

Is there any additional comment or action this council would like take on the motion to pass two six dash seven zero as substituted? Councilor Weinstein?

I'll just say, I think I've stated this in some version before, but the current $100 limit has clearly not kept pace, with inflation or the cost of campaigns, and has potentially incentivized some to go outside of campaigns and use out of state PACs, to kind of, funnel money essentially just support or go against these campaigns. And the very low limits also then increase the likelihood you would have to report minors' names, know the ages of minors. I don't like reporting minors' names ever in any public document, especially when they're not my minors. I think this is a step in the right direction, adjusting this to avoid having to do that as much. And I like that it is a step in the right direction even though it might not be perfect or viewed as perfect by some.

Thank you, Councilor Weinstein. Any additional comment on the motion on the floor to pass two six dash seven zero as substituted? Councilor Bresbeck.

Yes. I think when you're trying to combat what should my opinion is, you know, a nationwide federal problem of campaign finance at a local level. You're very limited in your tools. There's no legislation that we can pass via the complete abolishment of this ordinance or a limit increase or any other variation that's going to solve everything and pull every lever we want. I think as Doctor.

Weinstein pointed out, this really does a good job of addressing the incentive of needing to use minors while still preventing the great examples that Doctor. Bird pointed out of, right here, our school boards can essentially be a single donor is all your campaign needs. So I think this strikes a good middle ground. It may not be perfect. Perhaps another council six, seven years from now will have to readdress this, but I think it's a step in the right direction and we can see how it plays out over the next few years.

Thank you, Councilor Brezovic. Additional discussion from council members and just keeping track of who has spoken on this motion, Councilor Deremo, Councilor White, Councilor Goetz, Councilor Weinstein, and Councilor Brezovic have made a comment. If there's any additional comments from council members who haven't spoken, Council President Byrd. Just to sort of piggyback on Kyle's comments.

Initially were looking at repealing it and having it unlimited. And what's interesting about this, this is a very bipartisan issue. It's like there's some people on the right that want us to stick it with $100 and some of them want us to be unlimited and vice versa on the left. But so as we referenced about the school board, not the same of course, but it's a, the school board members run basically at large campaigns. They are candidates for the entire city for the school board.

They have unlimited campaign contribution. There are no limits to their contributions and in the past just a few years ago one candidate had a campaign that cost $11,000 and one donor provided $10,000 of that funding. So that's a considerable amount of influence that one person will have could have on the on the candidate and therefore than the elected official if they get elected. We've also seen a donor who has given gave $5,000 each to three candidates. And that was about 50% of of each of those candidates total contribution.

So again significant influence from small disproportionately sized small donor donors. So there's no you know some some somewhere the perfect number is between $1 and you know 100,000. We're increasing it by five times taking into account inflation but not just overall inflation but inflation of of campaigns as well. And I think this is a right now this is a sweet spot that can be reevaluated. Now we're gonna have a new number and we can look at it.

What happens in twenty six, twenty seven, twenty nine, and and go from there.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Any additional comment from council or any remarks? Seeing none, we will move on to a roll call vote. Missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the motion on the floor, which is to pass two six dash seven zero as substituted with the language noted as ordinance number two six dash seven zero, Bird, 05/12/2026.

Miss Zuraimo? Yes. Doctor Getz? No. Mister Sutton? Yes. Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mister White?

Abstain.

Doctor Bird?

Yes.

Mister Presovich?

Yes. Thank you, missus Wheeler. Legislation two six dash seven zero substituted with the ordinance number two six dash seven zero language notify noticed as Byrd, 05/12/2026 does pass by a vote of five in favor, one against, and one abstention. Thank you. We will move on to item c on legislation, which is number two six dash seven one.

This is an an excuse me, an 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 ordinances to allow the introductions of ordinances and resolutions on regular and special city council agendas after consideration at a workshop. This is also on a third reading tonight and actionable by council, and there are again several different versions of the ordinance language noted for council's consideration. Therefore, does council wish to make and enter a motion on legislation item two six dash seven one?

Move to pass two six dash seven one.

Thank you, council president Byrd. And just for clarification, are you making that motion to pass two six dash seven one in its original language and format?

Sorry about that. I did a Kyle. Ordinance number two six seven one revised for 05/05/2026.

Thank you. So for clarification, the motion from council president Byrd is to pass legislation two six six dash 71 with the substituted language noted as ordinance number 26 dash 71 revised for 05/05/2026. Correct, council president Byrd?

Correct.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Thank you, councilor Gatz. Is there any comment or discussion from council on the motion to pass two six dash seven one as substituted with the language dated 05/05/2026? Discussion or comment from council? Councilor Sutton?

Yeah. Thank you. I was contacted by three members of the Charter Review Committee individually, not not together. And all three of them indicated that the committee desired to retain a strong council form of government and that this proposal, or at least a portion of this proposal, is not supported by their discussions or by the current charter language. I'd like to quote a few things from the charter here under the council powers section three zero five.

All legislative powers of the municipality are granted to the council. Under the mayor section, four zero two powers, the mayor shall have the right to introduce or sorry, introduce ordinances, resolutions, and motions. But under the manager section five zero four powers and duties, it explicitly says the manager may only recommend the adoption or repeal of legislation by council. That's a little bit bit pedantic here, but I'm gonna give you some definitions. As defined by Merriam Webster, to introduce is to present or formally announce by an official reading.

To recommend is to an endorse an action or course of action. As such, I am in agreement with those charter review committee members. I do not believe our charter grants grants us the power or the desire to give the city manager the ability to introduce legislation. So I'm going to move to amend two six seven one by striking section three in its entirety and renumbering the remaining sections accordingly.

Thank you, councilor Sutton. So your motion is to amend the language of two six dash seven one, and is that in its original format or the revised 05/05/2026?

Yes. To amend the two six seven one five five revision by striking section three and renumbering the remaining accordingly.

Thank you for that clarification. So the motion on the floor from councilor Sutton is to move to amend two six dash seven one as, substituted for the revised language of 05/05/2026 and striking section three in its entirety and renumbering given that strike. Is there a second to that motion from councilor Sutton? Second. Thank you, councilor Brezovic. That does allow us now to discuss the motion on the floor. Is there any comment or discussion that council would like to make on the motion on the floor? Councilor Durema.

Just for my clarity to understand, by allowing the steam manager doesn't mean that then the council members would approve said legislation. It's kind of I'm asking a question. Is that right? I mean, so in theory, we hire the city manager. So I don't see why we we wouldn't want the knowledge of city manager. And if we didn't agree with that legislation, then we would not pass it. I'm I'm actually asking for clarity if if that makes sense.

So you're asking for a point of information on

long winded there.

That's okay. Well, just for clarity. So you're asking for a point of information on whether or not your interpretation, I guess, is Yeah. Is correct.

Mhmm.

Mister Pitchford, is there anything you'd like to add to that? The way I understand your question, counselor D'Aramo, is if I understood your comment correctly, you're saying the the final power is with the council to then either agree or not agree with a city manager recommendation. Was that Yes. Kind of where you're going? Okay.

I understand your question. Councilor Sutton, if I understand, he can comment. His concern is that the city manager should not be able to even do that. He can recommend and have council take action, but councilor Sutton's description under what I understand is that the way this language in the 05/05/2026 substitution is that it may be considered giving the city manager the authority to put legislation on an agenda that to your point, ultimately, council would vote on. But I believe councilor Sutton's concern is the city manager does not have the power to put legislation on an agenda.

He has the ability to recommend to city council in a workshop that, hey. I think this legislation should be considered by council. So if I understand that correctly and councilor Sutton, maybe you can comment if I understood that point of information correctly. Okay. Thank you, councilor Sutton. Mister Pitchford, is there anything else you'd like to add?

Unless there's any specific questions.

Okay. Wanted to give you that opportunity. Councilor Gatz?

Mister Pitchford, I thought you said there was already an ordinance that said he could introduce.

Short answer to that is yes. So to specifically address not only that question but kind of the bigger picture that we're we're talking about here. I believe that mister Sutton is making the point that the charter states that city council is vested with the legislative authority and and with that I agree. And there but there's also a section in the charter that specifically states it's the last item as the catchall provision under the city manager provision. In addition to the fact that it states that the city manager may recommend legislation, it also says the city manager has any other authority that is provided to him or her by city council.

And we already have in our code under codified ordinance two two zero point zero three one subpart b, which has to do with the workshop agenda. The second sentence in that clause states that members of council, the mayor, or the city manager may place any item, quote item, on the workshop agenda. An item would, you know, broadly defined would include legislation. So council historically has already provided that through the charter amendment allowing the city manager. They've added they've already given that authority to him.

We're not saying that the city manager has the authority to vote. We're saying that the city manager has the authority to place that particular item on the agenda. Just like the mayor has the ability to place legislation on the agenda, he does not have the right to vote either. Right? So I'm not disputing the fact that the legislative authority is vested in city council.

I'm saying that the the way the code is currently written, the city manager already has the authority to place items, whether it's a discussion item or proclamation, for example, like a suggested proclamation or legislation. It already exists. It codified the two two zero point zero three one b. If the city council wants to take the position that the city manager does not have the right to put legislation on the agenda, then I would suggest that we we would accept mister Sutton's amendment, but then we should also change this particular item, the code as it currently exists and remove the city manager from that particular sentence as well. Right?

Because the the these two provisions are intended to, in my word, like speak to each other. They are they they coincide. If we are taking the position that the particular legislation here is invalid, then that would mean this the current code is also invalid and we should amend that as well.

You explain again the part in the charter under the city manager that makes it okay?

Yep, so if you pull up and I don't have it here in front of me, but the city charter, there's each, if you will, body, right? So the city manager, the mayor, city council, they each have their own subsection in the charter. The very last provision in that section regarding the city manager specifically refers to when it's describing the duties and the powers of the city manager, it specifically says and all other powers that are given to that office by city council. So it's a catch all. If

I can clarify something to what you had stated Mr. Pitchford and I'll give an example. So I want to make sure we understand this correctly. Anybody can put something on a workshop agenda. So that is not a legislative agenda.

So if I understand this correctly, and and I'll give an example, mister Sheridan has come in here and workshops and said, hey, my 5.1 kilovolt transformer went down. I need this to be on the consent agenda to go get a firm in here to repair it. He has recommended in that workshop to say and I know I got those numbers all botched wrong. But he is coming to counsel with new information in a workshop and saying and recommending that we put something on a consent or legislative agenda or whatnot for a regular or special city council meeting because of information that he has through the operate running the operations of the city on a daily basis. So I see that as he's recommending that in a workshop because everything has to be introduced in a workshop.

So mister Pitchford, to your explanation, I would like to think that council is okay with the city manager recommending things on a workshop for any type of legislation as the city needs to continue business. That workshop then is the time for council to discuss and say, no, mister Sheridan, you know, don't repair that. We're not going to take your recommendation. We do not want that on the next regular city council meeting. That's where that discussion and process lies.

Now if we're talking about mister Sheridan, I guess maybe that's back to councilor Draymond what you said. Do we have the council has that authority in a workshop to not take mister Sheridan's recommendation on on on any request for consent or legislative items. So that process, in my opinion, works. It's set up. It works fine.

So the question I have, and back to counselor Sutton's motion and concerns, is there some other language in this 05/05/2026 revision that goes against what I just said that would seemingly potentially give Mr. Sheridan the ability to say, this has to be on the consent agenda. Counsel, you unanimously said, no, but I need this, so I'm going to put it on the next council meeting agenda. That's what we're talking about here to boil it down. So does the language in the 05/05/2026 revision somehow allow that to happen and circumvent council's ability to make a decision and move forward from a workshop to what then gets on to an official agenda in a regular or special city council meeting.

So sorry that was very long winded. Hopefully everybody followed me. Mr. Pitchford, I would like to give you the floor back to make any additional based on that understanding and your previous discussion.

I understood your your comment. The short answer is the city manager cannot force legislation from the workshop agenda forward to a regular or a special council meeting agenda under the under any of the proposed versions that we have. The only power that he would be we are reaffirming is his ability to place an item, legislation or discussion item or any other item on a workshop agenda. The logic then follows because we are we have a rule that if something flows from the workshop, it automatically goes to the to the regular agenda. Question was does this empower the city manager to push legislation forward to a regular or special council meeting?

The answer is no. He would not have that power.

And that's what I think is at, the root of the discussion here. So thank you. Councilor Sutton, I would offer you the floor back on that discussion.

Yeah. If you wanna wait till second round, that's fine. But if I could respond to that, I would

You can. You you made the motion, but you have not commented on the motion. So you you're and you're right to comment.

Frankly, I don't think mister Pitchford's interpretation is supported by history. I think it's a pretty wild and new interpretation of the charter. The city managers had the power to always add a item to the agenda. And if you think of that in the form of discussions, the city manager's report, any anything that's nonlegislative. That that's a long established precedent and tradition.

They've never had the ability to add legislation. Point blank, never. In fact, they never have. If you notice, things will always be sponsored by the mayor or the council president. If this really was a problem, why hasn't, why haven't we seen anything from the city manager come in with their name on it to date if we're claiming that they've had this power the entire time? And why have we always seen it come in with the mayor or the council president's name to date? Which to me would support that this is not a power the city manager currently has or historically has ever been interpreted to have.

Thank you, councilor Sutton. Mister Pitchford, is there anything else you would like to comment? I would offer you the floor based on that statement from councilor Sutton.

And I'm not trying to, debate the the the merits of the question. I think that the plain language of the current code specifically states item. I think that a court interpreting the plain language would irregardless of past practice or tradition, I think that the word item includes all of those things. If council has a concern, I would recommend that we change it or add words perhaps, say non legislative items. You could clarify that so the city manager could have placed those things there or you would remove the city manager title from the current code.

And at this point at at best it is open, vague, but I I believe that the language is clear that item includes legislation and therefore counsel previously has given them that authority irregardless of whether it's been exercised.

Thank you, mister Pitchford. We are in the discussion phase of councilor Sutton's motion to amend two six dash seven one with the revised language for 05/05/2026 to strike section three in its entirety and renumber. Councilor Deremo, councilor Gatz, and councilor Sutton have commented. Are there

any additional discussions? Councilor Brezovic? Thank you. My first question is a a point of information. I understand from a judiciary standpoint, precedent is, you know, something that is established. You would point to previous rulings and case law to make an argument. Is precedent and history something that would be used in this case of interpreting legislation?

Mister Pitchford?

It's a very good question. The the answer is courts first look to the plain language of a statute or if it's a contract, they will look to it. If if the language itself is ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations in the eyes of the court, then you can look to things that are beyond the plain language. My position is that item, plain definition of item would include legislative items. I don't think there's any language here that says items are not legislation. So the answer is no. The the past practice would not be relevant. The court would look first to the language of the statute and the charter. And if there if it finds it to be vague, then and only then would it look to the precedent.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister Pitchford. Additional comment. Councilor Brunswick?

I wonder if and just I don't know of a procedural way to do this. Mister Sutton's original comment when making the motion included some reference to the city charter and then some definitions he gave, and I just wasn't prepared, when he made the statements with that in front of me. I wondered if he might be able to restate, the portion of the charter he was referring to for the powers of the city manager. There there was specific language he was prescribing to the city manager and then the definition of that, language he gave. He could restate it for my knowledge.

For clarity, I will, defer and allow mister Sutton to comment. I believe, mister Sutton, you were making the comment referring charter on the city manager section. But if you'd please Please.

Yep. The council section is section three zero five, and I referenced the first sentence. The mayor section is four zero two, and I referenced the second paragraph. And the manager section is section five zero four. I was specifically referencing item d, itemized as item d.

I'm sorry. And then the definitions which you gave.

Definitions introduce is to present or formally announce at an official reading, specifically under the context of example introduced legislation, and recommend is to endorse and act for course of action as advisable.

Thank you. Additional comment, councilor Brezovich?

Not at this time. If there's a second round perhaps.

Thank you. We are still on the discussion stage of the motion on the floor to amend two six dash seven one with a substituted language dated 05/05/2026 as motion by councilor Sutton to strike section three in its entirety and renumber. Is there any additional comment from council? Councilor Weinstein?

I I mean, just looking at our agenda tonight and what we have traditionally done, there are many things on our agenda tonight that is our legislation that only the city and the city manager would really be aware of, and would have to introduce or add that item on here for us to even be aware of. When we look at the consent agenda, which, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, the consent agenda is still legislation. It's just legislation under the consent agenda. A lot of that is from our city manager who knows to put it on because he knows that, you know, we need to approve a certificate for a purchase made for $3,066.56. I don't think any member of council would truly introduce that knowing even that number.

We don't have that knowledge. So I think even, like, history, if you look at even tonight's legislation, there's clearly on here that we have always done that was introduced by the city manager, an item put on the agenda that is legislation.

Thank you, councilor Weinstein. And that was my point in saying that those would have still been introduced at a workshop and recommended, and council would have agreed or disagreed with moving those to a regular special council meeting. Thank you. Additional comment from council members who have not spoken yet. Councilor Byrd and White have not. Council president Byrd?

So I just wanna have Marshall just repeat, again the connection between there's language in the charter that says that we can give city manager a duty, and there is an ordinance that says he can submit submit legislation, and now we're referencing policy, this ordinance. Is that correct? So, to put it

succinctly under section 5.04 subpart l. Essentially, the sentence reads, the city manager shall manage all divisions and departments of the municipal government, and

to

this end shall have the power and be required to there's a long list. And then the last item which is subpart l, perform all other duties prescribed for the city manager in this charter or by council. So it's or by council, this language would be and also the current language under the codified ordinance two twenty point zero three one b, them to introduce legislation. There is no specific provision in the charter that says the city manager cannot

do so,

and therefore, silence on that point, and the fact that the city manager is not being given the right to vote on the legislation only to propose it just like the mayor, I do not find there to be any

Thank you, mister Pittsford. Additional comment. Councilor White, you're the only one who has not spoken. If you would like to, I will offer you the floor. Otherwise, we'll open up to a round two of comment or discussion on the motion on the floor to amend the five five two thousand two 26 language by striking section three in its entirety and rewording.

The only question I have is, I mean, if the city manager brought something to workshop, council could choose to not bring it forward to the meeting. Right? So that's happening today. That is correct. So this doesn't really change anything. Yeah. Thank you.

Councilor White, we'll enter a round two of comment or discussion on the motion on the floor from councilor Sutton. Councilor Brezovich did have his hand up first. Thank you.

Right now, as as doctor Weinstein mentioned,

a lot

of these consent items come essentially from the city manager. Is my understanding that the city manager, know, has a weekly meeting with the president, and it kind of flows from the city manager and then is it introduced by the president by way of the city manager? Is that the current flow for these, you know, for example, the consent item that was referenced for pay in I can't find it here. Then now. Thank you.

And I'll respond to that. Yes. There is a weekly agenda review meeting generally on Thursday mornings. The council president is invited. I am invited, and up to two other council members are invited so that we do not create a quorum. And the city manager and any of his staff or designees that he so chooses. And we do go over, those agendas and we talk about, if it is a agenda review meeting for a workshop, we are talking about those things that, may have knowledge only from the city manager. So we do discuss and understand why those are being proposed for the agenda.

So so the agenda that is presented at that review meeting, and I am familiar with those meetings, that agenda has been created and those items added by the city manager hasn't been reviewed by the president prior to the agenda review?

I guess my response to that is there could be things on there that council or myself have requested. So it there's multiple inputs to that, creation of that for review to decide whether or not it is then finalized. So the city manager does a lot of that with him and his staff or the clerk, but there could be other things that are requested to be added by other council members or myself.

Sure. I I guess what I'm trying to get to is the city manager there is there anything between the city manager and an item ending up on that agenda that we review on Thursday, or does he directly say, I'm putting this on the agenda for review on Thursday?

I wanted you to repeat that question, but mister Pitchford, you had a response to that.

No. No. I I wanna make sure I understand the question, but I let me just answer the question I think you're asking is are there things that show up on the draft workshop agenda that were placed there and the council president and the mayor have not yet seen it? The answer is yes.

Thank you. Okay. So we get to the point of agenda review and items have theoretically could have been put there before the mayor or the president have reviewed them. They have not been sponsored by anyone. They are there on review. We go into that meeting. Generally, as you said, the mayor, the president, and two other members says to not make a quorum, Then we approve that item. We can, at that point, pool it and say, No, we don't want it. But it's gotten to that point.

The codified ordinances state that the city manager, as an administrative matter, prepares the agenda.

Thank you. So, we're allowing it to get to that point and then we need approval. Guess how is it any different I shouldn't say that. I can see how it's a bit different, but it doesn't seem different enough to me that, okay, the city manager has sponsored this item. He's put it here, and we are, you know, we are seeing it in draft review, and then it's going to to agenda.

That's the official time it's going. I I kind of see the difference. It it seems minute. I I guess the last thing I would submit is in the very real circumstance that occurred last year where we were without a sitting president for a serious know, I can't remember the exact time frame, but let's say about a month. How did that affect our ability to take suggested legislative suggested items from the city manager and get them on to, agendas and then, you know, city council workshops. Sorry. That was very long winded.

One moment, counselor Sutton. I'm I'm trying to procedurally understand if if myself or mister Pitchford needs to respond to that before. Is that a comment or a question I or a point of

don't know if it really falls properly under point of information, right? I'm asking I think it does, right? This was procedure that I was not available to understand at the time. I wasn't there. I was not seated. So what is the process that occurs when we have no president and, in theory, the city manager cannot place items on the agenda if if we're saying that's how the language is right now. We need to amend that. So, what was that process and what was the risk?

So, I will take that as a point of information or a point of, procedural process, and state from my standpoint, and mister Pitchford or even mister Sheridan may be able to join in. But we didn't want the city business to to be delayed. We needed to continue the business of the city. I'm trying to remember if I was in any of those agenda review meetings without an official council president. I honestly can't remember back to that and distinguish that because you're right.

It was a few weeks, maybe a month. So business got done. Did we need a council president to continue with that process of the agenda review?

Yeah. Because my comment is directly related to that.

Councilor Brezovic, if you're okay with me I'm yes, please. Councilor Sutton, please.

So my comment, which originally was in response to missus Weinstein and mister, mister White's comment. You look at two six eight zero, the specific con consented item, referenced in a previous statement, it's offered by the mayor. It's not introduced by the city manager. It's introduced by the mayor. The mayor put this on the agenda.

The city manager may have brought it to the agenda planning session, but the mayor is the one who put this on the agenda. And to answer mister Brezovich's question of how did city business get done, if you go back and look at them, every single one of them has the mayor's name in the top right corner offered by mayor Anzavino. The charter gives the mayor that power. It also gives it to the to, any council member. In particular, it could have been the council president, but it could have been any council member at that agenda planning meeting as well.

This is the key difference. You never see the city manager's name under the offered by blank. They're the ones putting it on the actual agenda. Not the the agenda planning meeting isn't really an agenda. It's just a discussion that happens between a couple people who work for the city officials.

The actual agenda has an elected official sponsoring and placing something on the agenda, and that's a very important point, that these are elected officials. They're accountable to the voters. They're the ones putting their names on the things that are on the agenda. One more comment. Under mister Pitcher's interpretation of item l, that this council could give the city manager any authority we want.

Let's use a silly example. We could give the city manager a $100,000 spending limit. That's in direct violation of a charter line item that says he can only spend $25,000. I think everyone would agree that that's in violation of the charter, and we cannot actually give the city manager that authority. I'm arguing that we cannot actually give the city manager the authority to place something on the agenda because the charter explicitly says his power is limited to recommending.

Thank you, councilor Sutton. Mayor. Yes. Councilor Gantz.

We did have a council president during that month. It was a temporary. We voted on it, so there was a president. And then for the new council members, there were not at least if there were any council agenda meetings every Thursday for two years, I was never invited to that. I don't think Doctor.

Bird was ever invited. I'm not even sure if there were any of those. Mayor, maybe you know if there were any. So, you know, this is a new thing that's happening now as far as I understand. I think maybe former city councils maybe four years ago had it or six years ago, I'm not sure. But, just so that you know historically, Mr. Brezovic, that this is, at least in my time here, this is something new that's going on.

Thank you, councilor Gatz. Additional comment from council. We are in the second round of discussion on councilor Sutton's motion on two six dash seven one to amend and strike section three. Additional comment from council. Councilor Brezovich, I would hold, offering you the floor just to make sure that any other council member who has not spoken yet has the opportunity before I go back to a round three since you have spoken already in round two. Any comment from members who have not spoken in round two? Vice president Byrd?

So can we ask the city manager what the consequence would be? This was removed from the legislation.

And for clarification, you're talking about the motion on the floor to strike section three? The revised language dated 05/05/2026.

And I guess, I also need to ask Skyler why we would wanna we need to strike the whole three rather than just the city manager.

So council president Byrd, are you looking for a point of information from the city manager?

Yes. And then mister Sutton.

My quick answer is there is no difference between if you strike it and what's going on today. I am recommending, but I guess I'm sitting here. We have a sixty day tracker, and you all see that, and it it has all the items. I I don't ask anyone to put them on the sixty day tracker. Things that I bring that you all brought up tonight, that comes from the administration. I bring them up. They're on the sixty day. We write up the staff report and legislation. They're two weeks in advance of any of the workshops that we have to have those in. And then but, for example, counsel can bring any piece of legislation that they would like.

They work with a solicitor, most recently, some of these items we're talking about tonight. They bring those items up too to the counsel. Basically, the clerk puts all this stuff together and we determined, basically, the only thing I hear in agenda meetings in the previous years and then today is do you want this on consent or do you want this on legislation? Do we want, you know, how do we want to move these around? Or maybe you don't like the date, you wanna move back.

But other than that, no other real discussion. So from my standpoint, I don't I don't offer anything. That's as mister Sutton said, the mayor or the president of council typically will sponsor that. I would the clerk usually works with them. I know I'm not part of that in the sense of who's sponsoring it. Which one? I of of our stuff. I believe they're all count are all the mayor. Is that correct, department?

The mayor is the default sponsor.

Yeah. Right. So that's just how that all works. I wanted to make sure everybody I heard that question several minutes ago. So, anyhow, my answer is nothing changes for me. Thank you, mister Sheridan.

Council president Burden, you still have the floor if you'd like to make additional comment.

Can you answer that question?

Respond. Yes. If other members who haven't spoken are okay with councilor Sutton responding. Councilor Sutton, please.

Section three displays the changes to two 2006, The only change proposed to 22006 is the city manager. Striking the words the city manager means we just have a whole section that we're not changing. We're we're keeping in the ordinance, but not changing anything in it.

Thank you, councilor Sutton. Council president Byrd, the floor was still yours. I will. Good. Okay. Additional comment and discussion. Councilor Brezovich, I would just hold if there was anybody else who had not spoken. Councilor White, councilor Weinstein, councilor Duremo. If no comment, I will go to a third round with councilor Brezovich.

Thank you. I understand councilman Sutton's points about section I under, city powers and duties of the city manager. We cannot, you know, explicitly give him the power that goes, against something direct else directly in the charter. I personally feel the example of then saying that section d recommend the adoption or repeal of any legislation by council, isn't the equivalent of the $25,000 limit, and one is an explicit this is the limit of the city manager, whereas Diaz, okay. He has the right to recommend, but it doesn't explicitly say it, but he doesn't have the right, to introduce, I believe would be the language.

All of that said, I think Marshall's interpretation, I think the city solicitor's interpretation, is probably valid. This probably isn't all as cut and dry as we as maybe he feels it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not a lawyer. The end of the day, city manager doesn't feel this is going to change anything for him. I don't see a point of failure as discussed. It doesn't need to be the president. It doesn't need to be the mayor. Any person can sponsor the legislation. The process, as currently exists, works. And so I fall back to what is the problem we are trying to solve?

I guess I'm not seeing one, so I don't have issue with, councilman Sutton's revision motion, motion to amend.

Thank you, councilor Brezovic. We are in the third round of council discussion and comment. Councilor Brezovic had made a comment. Is there any additional comment from council on councilor Sutton's motion, which is on the floor, to amend two six dash seven one with the language revised for 05/05/2026 striking section three in its in its entirety and renumbering. Additional discussion from council on that motion.

Seeing no further discussion, we will move to a roll call vote on councilor Sutton's motion to, let me get this correct. The motion on the floor is to amend two six dash seven one, which is already substituted for the revised language for 05/05/2026, but amending that to strike section three in its entirety and renumber the remaining sections. Missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on that motion?

Doctor. Getz? No. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Doctor. Weinstein? No. Mr. White? No. Doctor. Bird?

Yes.

Mr. Brezovich?

Yes.

Mr. Ramo?

Yes.

Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. That motion to amend the substituted language for twenty six-seventy one, again substituted with 05/05/2026 to then amend that to strike section three in its entirety and renumber the remaining sections does pass by a vote of four in favor to three against. Therefore, I will go back to the prior motion that was on the floor, which was to pass two six dash seven one as substituted with the language revised for 05/05/2026, now amended to strike section three in its entirety and renumber the remaining sections. Council President Byrd, you did make that initial motion to pass.

Do you agree to amend your motion to pass with now the amended language striking section three?

I agree.

Thank you. And Councilor Goetz, you had originally made the second to that original motion. Just looking for your agreement or disagreement to disagree. I would confer with the solicitor then if we do not have an agreement on the second, can I open that up to a second from an additional member of council? Is that

My position is that it's on the table. We simply need a vote. So

the the motion

We don't need an agreement from doctor Byrd. We don't need

an agreement

from, excuse me, from doctor Dettz. The legislation has been amended. The main motion is still pending.

But the main motion was not including that amendment. But since the amendment passed, you're saying that supersedes and we can then still move forward with the Okay.

Now the roll call is on the legislation as amended.

Okay.

It does not need another motion to revise.

Understand, but I just thought that we had to go back to the original motion to to get approval. So you're saying we did not need that step? Correct. Okay. My apologies. So, conferring with the Solicitor 201 substituted with the language revised for 05/05/2026 now amended successfully to strike section three in its entirety and rewording the remaining sections, per the city solicitor is eligible for a roll call vote. Missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on that?

Mister Sutton? Yes. Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mister White? Yes. Doctor Bird? Yes. Mister Brezovic?

Yes.

Miss Duremo? Yes. Doctor Getz? Yes.

Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. Legislation two six dash seven one as substituted with the language revised for 05/05/2026, as well as amended to strike section three in its entirety and renumber the remaining sections of that legislation does pass unanimously by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. Thank you. We will move on to item d on legislation, which is two six dash seven two.

This is an ordinance amending part two of the codified ordinances of the city of Hudson to create chapter two one six public records. This is a third reading and also actionable tonight. Therefore, does council wish to take action on legislation two six dash seven two? Move to pass two six dash seven two. Thank you, council president Byrd. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, councilor Brezovic. Is there any discussion on the motion to pass legislation two six Dash72? There is no comment or discussion from counsel.

We will move to a roll call vote. Missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the passage of legislation 26Dash72.

Doctor Weinstein? Yes. Mister White? Yes. Doctor Bird? Yes. Mister Brezovich? Yes. Mister Ramo? Yes. Doctor Getz? Yes. Mister Sutton?

Yes. You, missus Wheeler. Legislation two six dash seven two passes by vote unanimously of seven in favor to zero against. We will move on to item e on legislation, which is number two six dash seven three. This is a resolution authorizing the city manager to adopt and implement a policy on accepting funds from nonprofit organizations for public projects. This is also a third reading and actionable tonight. And noting for council, again, there are different revisions of this resolution out there in the notes. Therefore, does counsel wish to make a motion or take action on legislation item two six dash seven three?

Pass two six dash seven three Weinstein revision five eight twenty six.

Thank you, Council President Byrd. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Councilor Brezovic. Is there any discussion on the motion to pass legislation two six dash seven three as substituted with the city nonprofit donations and funding policy, Weinstein revision 05/08/2026 as a substitution. Substitution. Discussion Discussion from from council. Council. Vice President Byrd?

I would just like to thank Amanda and Tom and Marshall for working on this. Lots of iterations, it sounds like, but you guys got got to a good place.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Any additional comment or discussion from council before we roll call a vote? Seeing none, missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the passage of legislation two six dash seven three as substituted with the language as noted city nonprofit donations and funding policy Weinstein revision, 05/08/2026.

Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich? Yes. Mr. Ramo? Yes. Doctor. Goetz? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Doctor. Weinstein?

Yes. Thank you, missus Wheeler. Legislation 26Dash73 as substituted with the language listed as city nonprofit donations and funding policy Weinstein revision 05/08/2026 passes unanimously by a vote of seven in favor, two zero against. We move on to item f on legislation, which is two six dash seven eight. This is an ordinance amending chapter eight seven six short term rental operations.

This is a second of three readings this evening. Moving on to item g on legislation is number two six dash seven nine, a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement with Hudson Community Foundation regarding a senior transportation program and accepting a donation for a passenger van. This is also a second of three readings tonight. Item h on legislation is number two six dash eight five, an ordinance amending section 206.07 of the codified ordinances for the purpose of updating specific information. This is a first of three readings tonight.

Moving on to item I, which is the last item on legislation. This is number two six dash eight six, a 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 is a first of three readings tonight. Therefore, that will conclude our legislative agenda in section 12. We will move on to section 13 for adjournment. As there is no further public business covered by this regular city council meeting, do we have a motion to adjourn? I move to adjourn. Thank you, councilor Brezovich. Do we have a second? Second.

Thank you, councilor Goetz. All in favor of adjourning, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, this regular city council meeting is so adjourned at 10:13PM on 05/19/2026. Thank you.