City Council - workshop

I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is a duly noticed workshop meeting of Hudson City Council, held in accordance with the Sunshine Laws of the State of Ohio, Section 121.22, in the City of Hudson Charter, Article 3, Section 3.02, for Tuesday, September 8th, 2026. It is 7.30 p.m. Per Ordinance 220.031, titled Workshop Meetings and Item C, I would now like to turn the meeting over to Council President Byrd so as to continue through the remaining workshop agenda items. Council President Byrd, the floor and workshop meeting is yours.

Okay, thank you, Mayor. Next, number two, Correspondence and Council Comments. If you have any comments... get my attention, please.

Thanks. First, I was happy to make it back to Ohio just in time for the community picnic over the weekend. Really great event. I was really happy to see so many people come out and enjoy the perfect weather and the events that we had there. A big thank you to city staff and all the volunteers that helped put that together. It was extremely well done and I hope we see that again in the future. Also wanted to speak to the home committee we met last week, which reminder includes council, schools, parks, library, and the mayor. And a few topics we discussed. are the transportation issues that we're seeing at the schools. The school buses seem to be running a bit late. So Tom, the city manager, is going to be working with school administration to better understand what is happening and see how we could help. Also discussed e-bikes and e-scooters, which is something that we've been discussing quite a bit. The schools and parks share many of our same safety concerns. So we're going to be working together on educational communication. And then we're looking to have another meeting, which I just told Councilwoman Guillermo about, We're going to meet with the school board, the parks, the mayor, the police chief to kind of come together and just make sure we're tackling everything that we're seeing. From there, we'd like to have another forum at the schools where the students will be able to speak on what they're seeing since primarily they're the ones using these vehicles. And the last thing I wanted to mention is a bird song. I did speak with Linda at the home committee meeting. The park board is very supportive of using the parks to display the birds and continue this tradition in a broader sense. So I'm going to continue working with the mayor and Adriana on a path forward for 2027. That's all. Thanks.

I, too, want to say that Sunday was terrific and want to say that Mayor did an excellent job with the song that we played, Gettysburg. If you haven't heard that song, it's very, very moving. It's from an old movie, and the mayor recited the Gettysburg Address as the band played. So it was really perfect for our 250th anniversary. And then I didn't get this email in time last week, and this resident, Mr. Todd Zedak, really wanted it read into the record, so I will read it. Please read the following during tonight's city council meeting during the comment section. Thank you. I'm sorry I cannot be there tonight in person. My disgust with the proceedings surrounding the ridiculous retraction of Nicole Kowalski's censure still rankles. and the goofy continues. Developers care about one thing, making a profit. At no time is anything presented regarding how cramming 32 large homes is in the best interest of our community. Are these homes going to be ranch, single style, single story, zero height entry, first floor master type homes? I'll bet not. And why doesn't the council push this developer to create what many members of council think that Clinton Crossing could be? Where's the charrettes? Please ask the city solicitor what the council needs to do to shut this down permanently. Thanks, Todd Zedek.

Anything else?

The Veterans Commission met last week, and just a reminder, sorry to steal anyone's thunder here, but the stair climb is on 9-11 this Friday. It starts at 8 with a ceremony, and then the stair climb is after. You can still register for it. You can go online and register to attend. And it's at the Hudson High School Memorial Stadium.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President Byrd. Just a few reminders from my side. I was going to talk about the 9-11 stair climb. It's the second year that the city's been doing it. Mr. Sheridan, I saw that we had a limit. Is that because of safety? Or I believe one of the advertisements said the first 150 people, but I thought it was open to whomever could come. Or is there a safety issue?

The water bottles and the towels.

Maybe that's what it is. Okay. So there's no restriction from people who want to come. Well,

And that was a request from me that we get towels and water bottles from last year.

Okay. Okay. That was a great event last year, obviously with the 25th anniversary this coming Friday. I encourage anybody to come out and do as many stairs or none if you just want to be there and participate in the event. This Friday, the 11th, will also be the Hudson High School homecoming football game against North Royalton. The game starts at 7 p.m. also at Memorial Stadium. This Saturday, the 12th, will be the Hudson trike and bike event starting at 9 a.m. in the Hudson Park Estates. The pool and tennis club, I believe that starts in the parking lot there, if I'm correct, which benefits the Velozano Pediatric Cancer Research through the Cleveland Clinic. So I will be out there myself helping out, and I believe you can still register or donate to a team that is riding that day. So I didn't make it last year. Council President Byrd stood in for me, and I think it would be a great event to see all the kids out there riding for that cause. Following the Hudson High School, excuse me, that Saturday, then the 12th, is followed by the Hudson High School Homecoming Dance. Just so everybody is aware, that's from 8 to 1030, so there will be a lot of kids in restaurants, traveling around the city to and from that dance, whether they're driving themselves or being picked up. So for students and travelers, just please be cautious and alert this weekend. To the young adults, have a great time and be safe. Thank you.

Dr. Byrd, it was 150 participants. The first 150 get a water bottle and a cooling towel. We're not limited for the event itself, though.

Yeah, as many people can fit on the stands and going up and down.

You can register the day of, right?

I believe so. Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else? No? Okay. Next up, we will do discussion items. 3A26-0072, Hudson Innovation Park Update. Katie. Katie.

Good evening. So we last talked about Hudson Innovation Park in May, so this is just a little bit of an update on some of the items that we've advanced during that time, and of course an opportunity to ask questions if you have any new ones at this time. One of the things we talked about most recently was the need to relocate the salt barn, if you can picture where it's located currently, it's our auxiliary salt barn on the western side of the development site, right in the middle of the flat area of the site. So if we're looking to sell the property, we need to relocate that to somewhere we can keep. We've worked with engineering, public works, and even some other communities to look across Hudson, inside, outside of Hudson, and then really specifically at the site to see if there was somewhere else that we could put that that serves the area of town we want. We've aligned now on a small sliver of the parcel that's right up against Tides Hill Road in the very western corner as our best opportunity. It allows for easy access in and out of the salt barn area without having to cut through the rest of the development site. It's also surrounded by two small pockets of wetlands that would make it hard to connect it to a larger building that's gonna be built there. It wouldn't really serve well as a parking lot or other road network, so you can kind of nestle this front corner off. So that's the current proposal. Engineering has been great partners and is currently working on a detailed drawing with the intent that would ultimately go to Planning Commission as an application. So we're working through that process now and I'm sure you'll see renderings before long. The next item to mention is if you've driven by the site, you may notice that there is some excess fill on the site now. I know you're all aware that there was extra soil from the public works site that needed to go somewhere. It's been tested. We know it's good soil. We also know we're going to need soil for the bridge project, the rail overpass over there. So some of that soil has been moved over. As our understanding, much more of it also may be moved over to the Hudson Innovation Park site. we would just need to have a discussion as a group about what happens if an offer that we were excited about came for that property sooner rather than later before the bridge project was complete. So just be aware that that may come up. The third item on our list was property tax abatement. When we spoke in May, I had given a list of different options of ways that we could consider property tax abatement structures for this site and at that time we agreed I should speak with the county and just understand what really is available to us. I did have that preliminary conversation. They were aligned with our assessment that a community reinvestment area, CRA, is probably not the correct tool for this site, given the characteristics of what's going on around it. They did find in the record that there is an enterprise zone that from everything they can see is still valid, that that site, including much of the other property in Hudson, is included in. So we may need to explore that a little bit further with them. We have not used that enterprise zone from what I can tell on any projects, but it's something that we could explore and look at more or we could look to create our own enterprise zone specific to just this site or this area of town. So there are some paths in front of us if we wanted to look at property tax abatement, and I think really at this point in time, if it's something that was of interest to council, we would formally notify the schools, we'd work on legislation, we'd come up with a map and a zone and really dive into the work, and then that, once it's passed all of our local approvals, would go to the county for their considerations. That would be the path forward. So I think really we're at a point now where it's, just from a big picture standpoint, are we interested in having property tax abatement available at this site? And I know there have been differing opinions here, so I'm just really looking for some council guidance on if it's something to move forward with or to discuss.

So I guess I'll start. I think it might be helpful if there was like a one pager you created for us that said, you know, this is what it could look like, you know, for so many years, what percentage, how much, you know, if we're saying that this is gonna, you know, this is gonna be a $10 million facility, it's gonna be a 20 million whatever. And then maybe some of the data behind How did these work or how did they work? You know, is it, are you giving up, you know, X million to save and to generate, you know, X million or what is the, what's the evidence behind how successful these have been?

I think I can absolutely create a one pager like that. And to your point, there's definitely mixed views on property tax abatement in general right now for commercial development. I know that there's concern that they tend to move jobs around more than create new jobs. I think the challenge that we're in is we're surrounded by communities that offer property tax abatement, so I don't want Hudson to be in the position where, yeah, they're just moving jobs around, they're moving them out of Hudson, right? We need to consider our competitive landscape with our neighboring communities as well. But... We are in a good position on this, because we're the land owners, so we control the sales price, and we can certainly look to lean more heavily on something like tax increment financing, which is when we'd be investing more so in the infrastructure upgrades that need to happen, and then we would know there'd be that tangible benefit to what the community invested in a little bit more directly. But I can put together a sheet of the options, kind of matrix it out and show... here's what the different districts could offer, here's maybe some pros, cons on each structure, and then bring that back or even submit it as a memo to council, however you prefer.

Thank you. To your point about moving the jobs around in comparative communities, a part of that one pager or an additional page I think would really help me is of comparable or within reason comparable land similar to YDC? Do they have economic zones that they are in? What essentially are competitors offering right now?

I'll pull it for the other ones that were in that JobsOhio program, the Site Ready program, and I'll include those in the matrix. I know anecdotally I've gotten feedback from organizations that kind of want to be in this area that splits Cleveland and Akron. And Stowe, for example, their CRAs, it's just a chart. You look up where you are in the size of your building and you know what abatement you're getting. We are not at that place, nor do I think that we should be. You still have to fill out an application, you have to show that there is a need, and we only negotiate a CRA or an abatement up to the level that helps your deal pencil. So we do make it a little bit harder to get than some of our neighbors, but I've heard in a site selection process more than once oh, it's so easy and still, we'll probably just do that. We're so close. It's a matter of moving across the street from them, in that case, depending on what site they're looking at. And so that's a challenge. And so I like knowing that we can have the discussion, but I'm very open to if we want to lean heavier on a TIF or be more flexible on the purchase price, and that's the messaging up front that I should have, if that's the guidance from this group, then that too.

Just real quick, we should have its own discussion on this, I think, so Katie can put together a one-page, get you all the information, and then we can decide on how council wants to proceed at that time. The salt barn, real quick, just on that, we are looking to partner, just for the public out there, the administration has been working with Summit County Engineer to help partner with the cost of this salt barn. They need a salt barn in the northern part of Summit County. They would just use a little bit of the salt each year, We'd work out an agreement with them. The soils, just so the public knows, that is not the city's cost. There was an issue and an error in the design, and I just want the people to know that we're not paying for the soils to be relocated up to this area from the public works building. The contractor is 100%. and we had a meeting today with them and their insurance agent and everything. So it was made clear to them that the city is not performing any of this work. So just wanted to make sure everybody heard that, that's all. That wasn't in economic development, but this excess soils is an issue out there in our public works and engineering departments.

Last two items on the list. We had, oh, I'm sorry, I missed.

Just had a quick question on the salt barn then, Tom. When we met about the excess carryover, it was like 600-some grand. If we're sharing with the county, is it possible that's going to come down in cost? Okay. Do you know? Rough estimate or no idea? And then I know it's got to go through all these steps, but is there an idea of when it will be moved or could be moved hypothetically?

It has to be moved next summer after we use the salt. We'll deplete the salt. We're going to start stockpiling salt in it from Cargill out of Cleveland. they'll be hauling down and stockpiling it for the winter we'll use that first and then when it's depleted we won't be putting any more in it and we'll only be putting it hudson drive so this is a good question but then it'll be empty and come next summer we'll be able to move it then and we'll have all of our permits and everything and as katie mentioned the engineering department's working on that site plan so

Public Works asked us to have it ready to be used for the first salt delivery at the beginning of August is the hope. Next August.

All right.

Cool. All right.

Sam. Katie, the enterprise zone, I know we're going to talk more. Is the idea of looking into that just the making it more attractive for... potential suitors?

Yes, that's the feedback that we've gotten. So we currently have the jobs creation grant program, which is based on income tax generated, and then certain areas of town are already in existing property tax abatement zones. And we've just heard from developers as we've been talking with them that the property tax abatement is much more attractive to them. Like, oh, but we have this other tool that gets you money back every year, pays a grant. Yeah, we just, it's, they prefer the property tax abatement. Doesn't mean that's what we have to offer, but that's the feedback we're getting. There's a little bit more of a safety net for us, though, in the income tax grant program in that it's based on what they actually create, their actual REDA filings, so if they don't generate the payroll that they were anticipating for whatever reason, they don't get paid out the grant to the same level, whereas the property tax abatement, It just exists for the number of years, and you review it, and you can take it away, but they get abated the same percentage of property tax during the duration unless you pass legislation that changes their agreement. That actually leads perfectly into the next point. We had some discussions around whether we'd like to have this continue to be a city-led process or if it should transition over to a developer-led development at some point during the process. I've continued to field interest from the development community and just wanted to highlight three things that I keep hearing as recurring messages in some of those preliminary conversations. a need to improve Heinz Hill Road between Route 8 and the Turnpike interchange over to the site. We know that that comes with challenges, because that is not all just the City of Hudson's property and road system. That's partnership with neighboring communities. The need to ensure light pollution at this development doesn't impact the residential uses, so just being mindful in design so that that would not be an issue in the long run. And then one that we've already kind of touched on pretty strongly, but this consideration for incentives like property tax abatements, is a recurring theme during these initial discussions. And then lastly, we, oh, I'm so sorry.

So you're not suggesting that the Hinds Hill has to be improved before somebody was interested, but there'd be an expectation that that would happen?

Yeah, I think from what I'm sensing is that there's a willingness to continue the conversation, but there needs to be a pretty clear path as to what that road improvement could look like in the future. And maybe something more than just theoretical, like what is the timeline? What is the budget? Who is paying for it? How are we getting it done? So more than just a, oh yeah, no, we'll make sure it gets improved sort of statement, but a little bit more of a clear path towards improvement. or at least incorporation of turn lanes and widening of shoulders at a minimum.

Do you have an estimate on that?

And then lastly in April we had touched base briefly on involving a real estate broker. I think at this time, or at that time we had said let's just kind of see the interest we get from the developer community and determine if we felt like we needed a broker at this point in time. So we haven't taken any further action on that but I just wanted to confirm that back to you all at this time. So I know that I need to come back with a matrix explaining some of the property tax abatements and program offers and what is maybe being done in some of our comparable or competitive communities. Is there anything else I can answer for you tonight or the next time I'm back?

Mina?

Um, I, I like having all the options, um, and you already mentioned working with the school. So I think that's really important. Um, and I think the other thing that, um, Tom mentioned is just, what does it look like to make that road up to snuff for what they would want to see? Like cost. Yeah. Yep.

Yeah. I know we had been looking at that, so I'll follow up and get that number.

I think Costco can have that done in about 20 minutes.

Can we get someone else? Can we talk really slowly for a few minutes?

Amanda, if you could, if there's any good scholarly articles on tax payments that you could share that could be understood by non-economists, that'd be great.

That might be tough.

Chats for her. Thank you, Katie. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Okay, next up is 3B, 260073, Clinton Crossing Engagement.

Greg. Yes, good evening. We submitted some additional information for you for this evening and I'll just touch on a few brief highlights. We've been really pleased with the community engagement over recent months and we feel like we got good attendance and good support and strong feedback. A brief reminder and snapshot again, in June we had the Charette sessions with 125 residents participating to create the 17 small group plans. July 1st we had 120 residents attend a session to see those 17 plans Over 100 completed a survey at that time. We then came back July 22nd, had over 200 residents attend with 234 surveys completed as we narrowed that 17 down to three. And then we also had the Council and Planning Commission joint session August 10th. And then on August 22nd, we had our most recent community session to present a preferred plan based on all the tiered and funneling down efforts over recent months. And with that survey, we had 145 surveys submitted. and some quick snapshots. We are targeting for planning commission introduction in October and a public hearing potential in November. And we provide you some brief snapshots from the survey completed by the community. This survey was pretty brief because we were down to one plan, so it was largely a confirmation or direct feedback of what's before you as we weren't trying to funnel and compare between different plans. One strong piece that we had with the survey was looking at the plan in general. We had 60% were in favor or strongly in favor compared to 27% opposed or strongly opposed. So we felt that over two to one support of the general plan was quite strong. And then a few brief notes from page two of the memo. We also did look at what is feasible regarding a statistically valid survey if council wanted any additional engagement before we proceed further along with the preferred plan. A brief touch on financials. We are continuing to work with Pricker, Gray, and Wyatt. They have been doing the TIF projections to date and property value assessments. Our information to date is tracking that the project will have a strong likelihood to recoup the city's cost based on the 20-year TIF that's been established for the north. a 30-year non-school TIF that has been previously anticipated for the South and selling the land at market value. We do have Bricker still completing their final work, which may be influenced on your confirmation of the final site plan. And they're also preparing a memo for us about some other financial tools that we might want to consider to benefit the project or the district as a whole. We've targeted having them attend October 13th. It is in their scope to attend one council meeting. So we thought at that time you'd have their full work plus the opportunity to ask them questions directly. and then briefly on the final concept plan. As noted, we've just done some very minor adjustments from what was presented to the community August 22nd. That plan directly showed 63 housing units and referenced a potential range of 63 to 74. We anticipate the housing as well as the non-residential uses all having some window of square footage which is gonna need to be fully determined by further review and engagement with the developer. And we know that there was some interest in at least seeing what would additional housing units look like on the site. So the design team with RDL did keep the street network as it has currently been proposed, but look at what it would consider with additional town homes rather than single family. So that was also shown before you of a model depicting 81 housing units. Council could refer to this sketch to view how additional town homes could be considered for all or portions of the site. And just briefly before Council this evening, we're of course glad to answer any questions and get you additional information. Key next steps that we see are to finalize the concept plan, including the final unit count, and then to confirm that the project is ready for forwarding to Planning Commission for consideration of the concept plan. and then in October we would anticipate October 13th discussions on the financial details with Brooker presenting, and then coming back late October to proceed with the RFQ, RFP process for developer selection. Thank you.

Questions or comments for Greg, Dan?

Are we still doing the traffic study or do we know where that's at right now?

We do. I can see here. I don't have too much report on the traffic study, but I think we gave a brief snapshot. The traffic study is underway. It will be prepared for planning commissions, public hearing by November.

Is that the same 20 intersections we studied the last time? 20 intersections in the area, signaled intersections.

Thank you. On the financial report that we're anticipating, do we have an understanding of how granular they're going to get, especially regarding the southern portion, the financials of the hotel, the financials of the flex space? I know it says community flex space. I don't know if that, more the market hall, I suppose, than the community flex space, but...

They will have a fair bit of detail and I'll turn it over to Katie who's done the lion's share of the work. But it does anticipate that the market hall and the hotel will be privately owned and thus generating property tax. Thank you. I think it acknowledges that the community square footage may be under public ownership.

Yep, that's exactly right. And the work that's being done by Bricker Green is about the value of the property and what type of property tax that would create for the community or could be captured within a TIF. The hotel feasibility study is separately than looking at the financials and how successful or not, but it's looking positive. How successful a hotel could be, including a detailed P&L, and when that would be forecasted to stabilize as well as an operation. So there's kind of those two different components of financials. There's operational financials, but then just the value and property tax creation.

Very nice, okay. And then the hotel's reasonably straightforward. A hotel is a hotel. How exactly, what is the operating model that they are assuming with this market hall? What does that look like?

Yeah, so it would be privately owned is the first thing, is not a city entity. And I don't know that they're putting, Brickergate and Wyatt specifically has not been putting a specific ownership, I'm sorry, like financial structure together for that. They're looking at the value of the building. But we had Silverload Consulting do some feasibility study and provide commentary on what a market hall could look like. They pulled examples like the Van Aken Market Hall. They looked a little bit at a few others across Northeast Ohio as well as I think one in Columbus to include in that group.

Just add a brief note to that. From the feedback we've gotten, the market hall at least has Right, some question to it. The housing is very stable, very predictable. It seems like the hotel study has given strong feedback. So we do still have to learn a bit about the market hall as we go forward. As we speak with developers, we do sense, and we've heard from our consultants that those three uses help each other, the community space, the hotel and the market hall, they all will generate some business for each other. So there's benefit in keeping them together. And then also we anticipate that as council looks to find a developer, there'll certainly be negotiations, negotiations needed on is it some type of you know, booking, joint operating, some mechanism where potentially it's property owned, but there's structure to how it's run or how the community has access to the facility. Thank you.

Samantha. I just have a comment. I do like increasing the total units and adding more townhouses. I just think it gives... people that wanna live in the area some more options and especially being downtown. So I'm personally in favor of increasing the density and for the townhouses.

Do you know how many units the Fairmont plan was residential?

Yeah, I apologize. I don't have the number in front of me. Is it higher? It was higher. I wanna say it's probably- 2015? 70s through 80s, you know, 70 to 90 units, but I'm not, I don't have it in front of me.

That's the plan was even higher than that.

That's the plan started higher. I think their final plan after quite a few reductions landed that I believe 102.

and we went to 70 units in the hotel. Did you guys speak to that about why the consultant felt 70 was better, I think, than the 48?

Yeah, we had targeted 48 working with the design team, but the hotel feasibility study recommended using a target of 70 rooms. So that's what it's been captured at the moment. And the anticipation being that that also would help stabilize the site to get bookings under a Marriott or Hilton large chain. Although it could still have an independent and local branding. Okay, if you want to add anything to that, you've spent a lot of time on that.

Yeah, no, I learned some interesting things in talking with our consultants, HBS, they shared that if you decrease the room count, maybe you want to go as more of an independent hotel as opposed to a larger one, that your occupancy tends to dip a bit because you don't have people that are just loyal Marriott or Hyatt or Hilton customers going right to their app. So you're kind of like losing that market share. But then also your average room night, I would have thought perhaps that would increase, but at a smaller hotel room count at a 48 or lower, it's much easier to fill the rooms. They don't have to rely on dynamic pricing. So just a few interesting tidbits. But yes, they did strongly recommend the 70 room to get that national flag. And they said the amount of marketing expense at an independent hotel, particularly one in a suburban market like this, would have to do to drum up the room traffic that they would need. not be as desirable as leveraging one of those well-known brands.

Thank you for the information. My question is, you mentioned the market hall and the hotel, different uses. Do we envision that different developers would piece that out based on those specific uses, or do we think it's going to be split up and

somebody's gonna build this and somebody's gonna build that just because of the different use. Brief orientation, we certainly anticipate that a developer might have a team, but we like targeting this for a single developer. The strong return on the housing hopefully will help balance some of the risk on the non-residential. Okay.

AND I THINK THE MARKET HALL IS RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD MAYBE IN USE, OPERATION AND VALUE. I DO LIKE THE THOUGHT OF A BOUTIQUE HOTEL IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE CITY OF HUDSON. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MUCH RESEARCH HAVE WE DONE TO UNDERSTAND IS IT VIABLE IN THIS SPOT AND MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE RAILROAD TRACKS. is a hotel with rooms that close to that very active line, is it even feasible? Is a hotel person that's experienced the knowledge of that gonna come in and look at this and say, there's no way I'm building a hotel there? I mean, how much work have we done to look at that?

So I've taken inquiries from developers who have been knocking on our door about the idea of hotel prior to this project really gaining steam. And a few that I've talked with have said they're not concerned about that. They have similar products near railroads elsewhere. There's more noise installation you can do. But right on the other side, we've got the villas of Hudson, and they don't have a vacancy problem either. So I think we've got... an example of people choosing to live there every single day as well. Fair point. We did bring that up with HBS Consulting as well. They came on site. They flew in from Chicago, came, walked the site, walked the downtown area to really get a feel and a sense. And they actually said, oh, it's not as close. The way that we were talking, they thought it was going to be much even closer to the real than it is. So they felt comfortable that it's possible.

Thank you.

I apologize, if I can just add one note. Tom had asked about the site layouts when Fairmont was studying the project, and at that time they were looking at 90 units.

So as far as the hotel, you're saying that the market study, you said, you talked about a 70 bigger hotel that can be more consistent, Marriott, Hyatt. But in the study, you actually suggested that this community could support that size. Yes.

Yes. The initial question went to them exactly as it was drawn in the plans. What would a 40-room boutique hotel look like? And they said, we think you need 70. So that came back as a direct recommendation from their group to show that higher room count number. It was specific to our market share. They looked at the product that's offered around us, and they noted a few things. There's not a lot of higher-end product in our area, in our market area. They have the Shared in Cuyahoga Falls was a direct comp, but there aren't a lot of others right here in the area. They noted that there's not a lot of higher end hotels that serve the national park. And that if you look at a map, you really do see a bubble right around Hudson. There's nothing being met. They felt that our occupancy level would, stabilized in I think it was three years just south of the rest of the market's occupancy which is like 70% and they thought we were going to be like very upper 60s and that our average daily rate would stabilize just above because we were going to be that higher end or more luxury and the math worked on that.

What about the traffic study? Will that be able to take into account this larger?

It will, yes. And then just maybe to help for some local comparisons, downtown Medina is opening a new hotel in the coming months. Our privately built hotel in downtown and that's 70 some rooms. Also branded locally but it's connected through Marriott for booking. And another one in downtown Akron is called the Blue Teak Hotel. Also 70-some rooms, independent branding, but it has the national chain booking.

One other thought since you had brought that up. Mr. Sheridan, with the potential of looking at increased room count on the hotel, potentially increased density with the townhomes, how does that then parlay into the county and the pump station upgrades and the sewer credits? After some of the things we dealt with earlier today, does that present additional risk? What does that do? No more risk.

The county is on hold right now with the MOU. We asked them if we can enter into one just to back up. We have 14 credits out there on this property. That does not include the Farinacci Pizza townhomes. They have their own credits. And those credits are like homes. So 14 homes is currently what can go there. We need the county to build this pump station in Force, Maine. And basically that'll... turn the water into this pump station from where it's going now which is all the way down to Atterbury and I won't go into all the specifics but it gets really flat and level through Atterbury and back when I started here we fixed an Atterbury sewer problem and partially this was it. A lot of the western reserve area and the other historic areas have still clean water going into the sanitary so when it rains A lot of homes on Owen Brown have backflow preventers and technically they can't flush their toilets during rain events because the water will not let that go out because the backflow is closed because the water sitting on the other side of that and they need that to recede. So in order to correct all this stuff and as we all been waiting for the county to do the Owen Brown through Heinens over to Clinton is kind of the phase one part of that. The county asked me as part of the MOU, give me what the worst scenario you guys are looking at here so we know how to size our pump station so that's a great question mayor in the sense i'd like to know tonight is you know and i think the staff does too because they want to finish this conceptual plan is you know do we want to go with a certain amount of town homes who want to go with the recommendations of our of the hotel to get that minimum of 70 I prefer to go a little higher conservatively with the MOU. If that goes to Planning Commission, obviously it would be higher density and more units in the hotel, but I think that would be the better way to go with the county and get them to sign off on this MOU. So that's a little background. One question on the TIF, Greg, and I know we talked about this a month ago. We had an existing TIF. And just for council, did that clock already start ticking? Because we were looking at legal with that and I never kind of heard back what they thought.

Yeah, we actually asked Bricker's legal consultants to look at that. And their interpretation was that that 20 year clock has started. Is that correct, Katie? So we anticipate that we'll need some additional discussion with the schools in the coming months.

What year did that start up? Was that? we'll check that's not right we're like maybe not that far okay well we'll look into it but i just wanted council to know that they did do their due diligence and looked into the tiff that was already out there and we weren't sure since we didn't develop yet if it started and it sounds like according to the legal team at bricker that it did so

The agreement was written that the TIF period began when the first increase in value was on the site. That was with the intention that would be construction, but actually the first county reassessment happened before then, which caused our timer to start.

You said it's 10 years, so we're back to 16?

20 year to the north. I think it's just a few years that it potentially started. Okay.

Greg, with the Fairmont proposal back then, what was the mix of housing on that? Because there was reasonably positive feedback from the community on that that I remember.

There was, and I hesitated a little bit because I'm sure that they had some planned changes and we didn't go too far, but they had a mix of some single family, a fair number of duplex, and townhomes.

Just for the record, Dr. Goetz, when we got to the retreat that year, it turned over to engineering and administration, and the plan was being changed from what the public saw. And when we presented that to council, it was unanimous that that's not the plan that the people approved, and that's why we stopped that. So the people out there saw something different than what was being designed when they got to detailed design, so.

From what it seems like, bringing up the new proposal from 63 to 81 is more in line with the reduction from Fairmount and Testa from like down to 102 and down to 90, which was what they were recommending. I don't know what everyone else thinks, but I think we should offer more townhouses.

So, Greg, can we give, what kind of specificity do we need for townhouses? to go to play and can we give a range or can we give, we want us to be conservative.

Well, it's certainly up to council how you'd wish to proceed, but it would be helpful for us to land on a specific number that will help Bricker to complete their financials. It will give us a specific number for traffic and parking studies. So the range is a little bit more challenging. You know, we know as it gets past constant plan to development, developer engagement, there'll certainly be some adjustment at that time as well. but we do need the specifics for a concept plan. One more reference point. So the plan that we had been engaging with the community on showed 63 units. But it did at least acknowledge a range of 63 to 74. And then the extra exhibit before you depicted an example with 81 units. So it's appropriate to hear council expressing some interest in additional units. One other piece of keeping in mind would be that we had discussed a range up to 74. That also could be a target or number to land on. Dr. Schell?

Does an increased number of units help us financially?

It would. You know, Bricker would need to do those analysis. Each townhome will likely sell for a bit less than the single family, but we certainly anticipate As the total number goes up, so will the benefit from the property tax generation.

How does it line up with the comp plan, either one of these?

The comp plan has general discussions about medium density and being compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. So it doesn't give a bright line discussion.

I like the townhomes on the parking lot food hall side because the scale seems to match. I know that the Owen Brown residents want that feel to continue, but it's not gonna feel like Owen Brown when you see a parking lot and you see a food hall, it's gonna feel different. But I do really like the single family homes that go up Morse. To me, I feel like that connects the Owen Brown neighborhood up north to the residences that are up north on Morse Road. And it continues that neighborhood north rather than thinking the neighborhood continues in a straight line west. So I would rather have those townhomes on Owen Brown there across from the parking lot and the food hall seems to be a better fit. I think somewhere between what you have there and that 74 would be good. And I like the finances with the recommendation of the 70 rooms. Um, I personally am fine giving some proposal with more units and more rooms to planning commission as a concept. And then let's see what they say. Let's let them have their input. Um, next.

with with some if if you can provide some kind of estimate of you know lowest to the highest how much more funds much more tax revenue does that mean for us That's, you know, the people that, many folks are not as involved in this kind of decision-making as many of us have been. But when we go to the community and talk about, you know, This is going to generate additional tax revenue for the schools, for the city. I don't understand why we might be doing...

It sounds like we're generally in agreement on the 70 hotel rooms. I'll say myself, I'm also... I'm fine with that. I think it makes sense to allow for the national branding. That makes a big difference in marketing. A lot of companies will only use their approved whatever brands of hotels. So I'm completely on board with that. I like Dr. Bird's suggestion on It's hard for me to just sit here and say, let's go with this number of units without some amount of data in front of me that says, for every additional unit, you see X amount more of income tax, and this property is this much more likely to be, or rather this entire development is this much more likely to be successful. I don't really wanna just pick a number that feels right. That's all.

I agree, Kyle, with what you're saying. I just think we also just need to remember that residents want more other options for living and when we sent it to Planning Commission, they're very passionate and I think going on a higher number and letting them see what they want to do with the density is a better option than going on the lower end personally.

How would this affect the public space, Greg?

As we're currently tracking, it would, in essence, be the same public acreage, same public space.

I don't mean the space. I mean the success of it or maybe the ability for a developer to partner with us on... the space, or?

Correct, I mean, as there is additional housing units, as that helps the property tax generation, it would put the project in a stronger position to repay the city's debt, and it has potential to generate some additional funds that could be used for the plaza improvements, or perhaps some funds for general maintenance or enhancement to the downtown district as a whole. So it does give the option for some additional benefits for the project beyond just recouping debt.

Oh, I was just going to flag. I know the planning commission flagged zoning for a market hall. My understanding is if it's not zoned specifically for a market hall and you do have separate vendors, they would just have to come forward each with separate applications or something. So it still could go forward, but it might be a little bit of a hassle where if it's zoned specifically for a market hall, it just makes it easier that it's kind of. Can we also start getting what it looks like to define a market hall in our code?

We have started to look at that. We had a pre-application meeting with the development team. RDL will be leading the architecture. OHM advisors will be leading the civil design. So we've already gotten the base code discussions with them and one of the things that we've targeted is market hall definitions. So we anticipate engaging on that and potentially a couple other new definitions or parameters.

Thank you.

just a suggestion for council is would you like to just make it around number, go with 80 and then say what percentage of single family homes you want here versus town homes that are connected. I think that's important. If I were designing this, those would be the two aspects I would like is to, is the planning commission is we're, we're going to have a maximum of 80 units and so much percentage can only be in town homes versus single family residential.

Are you thinking? Yeah. Okay. It's not a bad idea. It's just to me the way the percentage changes also changes the number of units, right? they're correlated um i i want to stay within pretty close to the parameters that we've been showing the public right i i don't want you know we've done all these charrettes and all of this community engagement and then us to sit here and say that's great and i'm glad they liked it now let's make it you know 80 units of townhouses obviously we're not going to do that but uh The number we give, I want it to be pretty close to what we've been showing. And I really just, like I said, once again, I want to have something data in front of me that tells me why I'm picking this number. To just say I want 20% townhomes, 80% single family. I mean, it's round numbers and it sounds nice. Maybe that's what we do. But I don't have data as to why I'm choosing those numbers. And I don't like that.

So you'd like us to get you this information before you vote to send it to Planning Commission as a conceptual plan by next Tuesday?

Yes. But I'm fine giving your question on the sewage for this county. I think 70 hotel rooms and 80 whatever residential, give or take, and then do whatever conservative rounding you want to do. I think you have a number for that.

I have to give them the actual conceptual plan that you send to. Okay. So it's not. Okay. These are apologies. I thought these were two separate things. We're all on the same page. Okay. We'll get you the information and hopefully get us there. So that's not a problem.

Yeah. Is it so important the percentage of units or the...

I didn't hear you.

Is it so important the percentage of units or the actual, like, square footage? I mean, because it's kind of... For what, sanitary? No, for, like, you're saying, let's come up with a ratio.

oh i was just saying the dark brown is the town homes that are pushed together and basically you know i'm not trying to change anything that the public has seen um but if you want the 81 or whatever this is what it's going to look like and we'll we'll get that information on over and above 65 or whatever this each one is going to give you this much more in property taxes so

You know, 54 is about two-thirds. But if you look at the area, it's about 50%, half-half and townhomes, half-houses.

I just want to be able to say to the developer down the road that there's the number. You know, I don't want them to sit there and have to count. Usually you say, you know, there's this many units and you have to build to that. It's either a percentage or a number. And it's always good just to point back at that and tell them that, you know, when we do the design, the final engineering design, that they're going to meet those units.

Can I just, we want to do an updated, you would like to request from Bricker, Graydon, Wyatt, an updated financial model for what's drawn here, the 81, or what's depicted there, the 81 units, 27 single family, 54 townhome.

just wanted to make a point of reference mr hannon you said that the concept plan now and i've pulled it back up and it does say residential 63 to 74 units if the residents through the surveys and everything have come back two to one basically saying they want something developed here they like this plan versus i'm assuming the the no side was they didn't want any development whether that's green space open space gardens whatever If the majority of residents want something developed here and we have gone back out to the public and said 63 to 74 units is just a point of reference and to Councilor Brzezic's comment, I personally would not go above that 74 number.

Thank you. Because you think that's what, that's the one that people want.

That's what we have presented to Councilor Brzovic's point. When we had some of the previous plans here, correct me if I'm wrong, those kept creeping. Density always kept creeping because developers came back and said I need to creep the density to make it worth my while and get the proper return on investment. I don't think we should be going down that path as well. So if we have presented 63 to 74, I think 74 is the cap. It's just my opinion based on what we've said here, what we've presented and what we've shown. So again, just that point of reference for everyone's consideration.

i think the challenge is now we're getting into a little bit more granularity and more detail and the financial piece where we if we're going to tell folks like you said that that number we also want to say you know it'd be goodness for them to know if we up to 81 this is the additional revenue that could fund the public space more because again that's what you know the majority of hudsonites um are really going to appreciate that this because of the public space most people aren't going to be living in those houses so so the what we can do to make that public space as successful as possible is is i think pretty important

In response to that comment, I understand and I hear what you're saying, but what part of all the work that we have done is potentially questioned or invalid because we've now changed and increased density beyond what we have presented. We need to take that into account as well as to what the residents may think. Financially justifying it as to what the benefit is to have X number higher, That's one point of view. The other point of view is we haven't looked at this. Your plans haven't shown that and now we're going outside of that.

I'm fine with making it 74. I mean, I'm also not going to be that picky on the exact numbers. The Planning Commission is going to have opinions on a concept plan. So I expect this to change. I think it's, you know, they're going to have thoughts. So I'm not going to be too picky on the exact numbers. So I'm fine going with a max of 74. And then, I mean, that in that concept plan is just the initial and then after that you still have the initial and then you also have the final. And in between there you need a developer. So in between the concept and initial it's also gonna look different. In between the initial and final it's likely gonna look different. So I'm kind of, I don't need to see the exact numbers. I think a max number of 74 is logical. That's what we showed people. I'm fine with that. I think there's some benefits to moving it up. I think especially having town homes across the parking lot, having a town home next to, I forget the building that's there, is a little bit better of a layout than having a house right there on the west side. Yeah, that one. That's where I see the biggest benefit to adding a town home just to make it rather than a financial number, although there are financial numbers, it makes it for, I think, a better feel as you step down from something that feels more built up towards something that feels like a single family home.

Yeah, and then along with what the number we suggest, having that financial piece would be very helpful for iterations. Sam.

Mayor, you made a valid point. I just don't know how we quantify how many single family versus townhouses we do based out of that 74 when there was feedback that said 90% wanted small single family houses, 1600 to 2200 square feet. You know, that's just, I don't know how we would determine what is what, but I don't know if that's relevant right now or not.

Okay, great. What else do you need? So besides 74 and 70,

to confirm then on would council like to see a revised concept plan for next week before authorization before the planning commission just want to confirm that and and we'll show you a plan that targets that 70 to 74 window something that's appropriate but and um so we can we can advance the discussions more to be looking in in the 70s rather than the 60s for that unit count um that's what we can use for the projections um I think that is as much as we need, and Katie, I just want to verify if we've got enough direction for Bricker.

Yeah, I just wanted to confirm, did we have alignment across the board on the number of rooms for the hotel model? We're waiting to finalize the hotel feasibility study until we have this conversation, so is somebody comfortable to finalize the study at this point in time? Okay, thank you. Yeah, and we'll go.

74 and we'll let rdl determine the mix between single family and townhomes or did you want to provide stronger direction on that thing i heard was dr weinstein mentioning the townhomes across the street from the parking lot from the boulevard to hudson heating instead of the single family so we would change that and then still getting the financials because it sounds like we're landing on 74.

I need to help add to that, Tom. These six units here that are being talked about likely could be accommodated into 12 townhomes. So that gains us six units, that's 69 units. RDL, probably the best thing would be just have them look at this full block, both sides of this alleyway, and try to get to something around 70 to 74 units. I think we have the single family relatively max, I don't think we can push them together just to gain more single family. The unit count's going to be converting single family to townhomes.

So is it a range or are we going to 74? I'm sorry, I think we just need to settle on a number. It's easier to draw from the consent.

I think we're going, let's submit at the max that we gave to the residents. Let's go 74. And it sounds like the geography of the space does the math for us on the percentages. So I think that's your direction.

Great. That's helpful. We will have a site plan for you for council's consideration next week depicting the 74 units.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys.

Next up is for the proposed consent agenda for September 15th, 2026 council meeting for a TMP dash eight, eight, seven, seven, a motion to acknowledge the timely receipt of the August 2026 monthly financial report. No book.

Sure, just a couple of highlights. We've mentioned these in the past, the past several months, HGTV franchise fees, they continue to be below estimate. They continue to show a declining. revenue trend based on the franchise fees and folks cutting the cord. But that'll be a point of discussion at the upcoming budget meetings. And then through August, this is reports through August 2026, income tax revenue is 3% or just under 700,000 above August, where we were in August of 2025. It's 3.2% or 739,000 above estimate through and there's there's a correction on this memo. I will fix it. It says through July of 2026. It should say August of 2026 so. We're above where we were last year and also above estimate. So last month you'll recall we were. 0.8% above actual and 0.9% above estimates, so we're, as I mentioned, I think a couple months ago, we're gonna bounce up and down a little bit from month to month, but through the end of August, we're trending in a positive direction.

Any questions for Jeff?

I apologize. So yes, we've had this statement on HCTV a couple of times now. You said it's going to be a topic of discussion. Do we have any preliminary ideas, plans on how we're going to address that, or is that just a topic for another time?

Yeah, there's a couple options. Just to touch, I mean, right, the HCT, they're their own separate fund, and the general fund has been transferring money to them for the past few years, so we could increase the transfer from the general fund is one option. We could make it a part of the general fund, make it kind of, dissolve, if you will, their fund and fold HCTD into the general fund. It really wouldn't solve the financial issue, but we could just make it a department within the general fund and then balance out the general fund based on the additional staffing there. They're primarily, HGTV is I would say probably 85, probably roughly 85% personnel. The majority of their costs, they do have some small capital that you've seen where they have to replace that and that's really a lot of what the general fund transfer has gone toward is their capital replacement. So that's something we could certainly look at is the staffing. That's really...

So essentially just admitting that we're subsidizing it is kind of option one. Is there any other thoughts out there yet or do we need to have a separate discussion item on this?

We were planning to bring this as a separate site. So we have a nice dialogue to talk about.

Thank you. I feel like we've had this note on this every month. And so I just wanted to have a bit of a discussion on it. Okay. We know we're losing money here. What's the plan? Okay. All right.

I thought there had been some discussion about putting some kind of money from Velocity. Each person who would be on the plan would contribute some money towards us. I thought that was a plan.

That's correct. Unfortunately, that hasn't generated enough to... fill that gap, yeah, no, and with the recent stoppage, if you will, that's, you know, made it even more difficult. In the future it's possible, sure. But we gotta get the, just as a reminder, it's a $1.50 adder to the Velocity Broadband, the monthly fee that goes to HCTV, so.

Thanks, Jeff. Next is for B, TMP-8845, resolution authorizing city manager to advertise for bids entered into a contract and approve the pre-purchase of retaining wall blocks from Mack Industries for the Ellsworth Meadows Golf Course Hole 17 retaining wall installation phase two project and declaring an emergency.

These next two go together, but I'll let Brad talk about both of them now.

The seam manager's correct in that they both go together. We're planning on bidding and constructing both of these at the same time. This first particular project for the retaining wall is largely a maintenance project at Hole 17, which is next to the large lake. Wave action is eroding that bank edge. Last year, we successfully installed about half of that retaining wall. It's held up very well, so we'd like to proceed with the second phase. This is budgeted. Because the blocks take a number of weeks to manufacture, that's why you see that language in there about pre-ordering, which is a little unconventional for us. But we'd like to pre-order those so they're ready to go in the wintertime, and then we can build this project in the winter along with the stormwater management project over the course of the winter when there's not as many golfers out on site.

Questions about 4B? And the next one is for CTMP-8846, resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and to enter into a contract for the Ellsworth Meadows Golf Course Stormwater Management Project.

Yeah, so this stormwater management project was actually identified a number of years ago when we were getting ready to construct the trail that goes along the west side of Ellsworth Golf Course. There's a couple of homes along Nicholson Drive that experience some overland flooding in there. So we're always looking for opportunities for stormwater storage on city-owned properties. We looked at a number of locations on the golf course and modifications to the trail itself to back up water on the golf course to provide stormwater management. This particular area is an area that the golf course has always looked at beautifying in some way. Hand in hand, we'll build a storm water management park out of a low, or storm water management pond, out of a low lying area that's kind of a rough area at this point. So it's proximity to hole 17 works really well for the retaining wall project, and we're right there, one contractor, one stop shopping for a project.

You're gonna make play harder.

I'm not a golfer, so I don't know. Are you creating a water hazard then?

I think it's going to be dry for maintenance purposes. Okay. Yeah, it'll be a dry maintainable pond, yeah. So you can retrieve your ball, city manager.

All right, any questions about that? Dan? So is this the list of core properties that we've been talking about?

This would be primarily a benefit to properties on Nicholson Drive that's directly downstream of the golf course. Alyssa Court area is downstream of that, but the watershed drain to Alyssa Court is much, much larger.

It does have benefits to that whole area. It's their storage area of our property. This is all upstream of that area, so... any little bit we do will help. It's actually helped somewhat.

Amanda.

I'll say the course is very well maintained and it's a beautiful course. So keep on doing whatever you're doing.

I could take some credit for that, but that's certainly the golf course managers. I'll let them know.

Pass that along to the golf course people.

Thanks, Brad. Oh, are you still up for D? 4D, TMP-8871, resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids to enter into a contract for the North Main Street stormwater improvement project and declaring an emergency.

Yeah, so for this particular project, we had residents on Owen Brown Street who approached the city staff during our design of the Owen Brown Street reconstruction project. That project keeps getting postponed as we wait for the county to come through and do some sanitary sewer upgrades along Owen Brown Street and down through Clinton Street. So we were working with those few owners on a small stormwater project that would have helped alleviate some structural flooding and backyard flooding to three or four homes in that area and keep on kicking the can on doing the roadway project. Here comes a property owner upstream of them who has shown a willingness to partner with the city on doing a stormwater project. He's doing, or I should say the property owner is doing an addition to their home, and so the city staff approached him and said if the city's willing to extend a storm sewer, if the city's willing to storm a storm sewer up North Main Street, would you be willing to tie into it and tie your downspouts and your new addition to it? And he said, yes, I would be happy to help my neighbors out if the city gets me the tie-in points. So this one is another unconventional approach. Usually we wouldn't be approaching council for permission to bid award a project that's not budgeted, but we do have funds available to build this project this year. because it's over 25,000. We need your permission to bid and award the project and we want to line it up with the owner doing the addition work.

This will solve the problems with the Owen Brown residents and what they're seeing impact. Yes.

I would be in favor of that because the residents on Owen Brown have had multiple meetings with Brad and this would save you time.

Thank you. And then 4E is TMP-8872, resolution to forward the Clinton Crossing preferred site plan to the Planning Commission for concept plan review. That's what we just discussed a few minutes ago.

That is correct.

Okay. Next five is proposed legislation for the September 15th, 2026 council meeting. 5A is 26-78, ordinance amending chapter 876, short-term rental operations. It is scheduled for the third reading next week. Patricia.

We're going to postpone that. A motion to put it at another date.

Okay. Do you want to have any discussion about it right now? Do you want to have any discussion about this, Kyle?

I guess... SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT. I GUESS I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. I ASSUME STAFF NEEDS FURTHER TIME TO GATHER INFORMATION, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE ORIGINAL REASON WE POSTPONED THIS HOWEVER MANY MONTHS AGO IT IS NOW WAS TO GATHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SO WE COULD TAKE ACTION ON IT. I JUST WOULD LIKE SOME IDEA OF WHY.

We just had a forum where we had over 40 people there and the staff is collating a lot of their suggestions and we're still working on that and it wouldn't be ready for next week.

One thing I would like to make sure that everyone saw the survey from residents that lived around the short-term rentals. I think a letter was mailed to, it says 158 properties that lived within 100 feet of a short-term rental and got their input as to what it's like to live next to a short-term rental. What's really interesting about this is that, well, first of all, the response rate was very low, 30%, and so we don't know if that's because 70% of the people were just like, meh, they don't bother me at all, I'm not gonna reply, or are there other reasons why they didn't respond? And then the other thing I thought was really interesting was that there were a number of concerns that people expressed. I mean, a lot of them, noise, parking, maintenance. But then when they were asked, did you contact anybody? Did you contact the property owner, manager, city council, or other city departments? And eight people said that they had. And so I'm just wondering if there's more work that we can do to connect people to improve communication to make sure that the neighbors know who the owner is and how they can contact them and everything like that. It seems like there was, a lot of people with concerns but not enough concerns that they call, they're contacted and maybe some of these things can just be solved with a phone call with the owner and saying hey, you know, you're not getting the trash right or something like that. So I think there's some opportunities to improve that communication with the folks that own SDRs. entertain a motion next week and. Get.

See Samantha, so we're not talking about it anymore than today.

Do you want to have some more? Make another comment, yes.

The eight that made contact. Do we know like what was that over the last 10 years? Do we know like when those?

Do we know that I don't think that was that question. Get that granular Greg.

I don't believe that that question got to that detail. It didn't ask if it was within the last year. I'm just curious. Over the operation of that short-term rental in their neighborhood. But it's a good point. It didn't track a specific window of time.

How long have they been short-term rentals in the city?

Right. So we've had short-term rentals for six, seven years. And the survey was just sent to everybody that lived within 100 feet of an existing short-term rental.

so we probably can't drill down to that level i have a resident that attended i'll make sure that everyone got the email because i thought we were discussing this more but um she made the comment a lot of the opposition was based on the fear of potential issues rather than documented problems and so that's why i was referring to the eight you know what were those substantial um problems and then I just also want a clarification. If we increased, like I like the 3% tax and increasing to the 500, but is that just covering our cost? If we do the inspections, or and then we're making a little bit of money or where do we come up with the 500? Or is that more in line with other states? Because I know we're on the lower end for that number right now. So I'm just curious about that.

Yeah, I can look to provide council additional information on that. I believe that was looking at other cities and making sure we're getting something closer to the full cost to administer the program. But certainly it wasn't any intent to capture more than what the city spends administering the program.

So if we do postpone to a date certain while we have Greg up here, do we have a date in mind? I didn't know how long it was going to take staff to compile the information. Are we looking in October, Dr. Goetz, or is that too soon?

The end of October, do you think?

End of October is certainly fine. End of October?

So we discussed it at the workshop prior to that. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Greg. Next is 5B26-118, resolution authorizing settlement of the Prestige Builder Group LLC versus City of Hudson lawsuit and related claims surrounding the Canterbury Meadows development. This is scheduled for a public hearing and a second reading next week. 5C, TMP-8864. Jeffrey, can you? Okay, let me read this. And then TMP-8864 ordinance providing the issuance and sale of $740,000 of taxable economic development non-tax revenue anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of acquiring approximately 4.0 acres of real property located near the southwest corner of Owen Brown Street and Morse Road. Can you just explain for everyone in total what these are all about with regards to financing, refinancing, and why we do it pretty much every year?

So the first three there, the $740,000, the very next two, the $925,000, and the following $6.8 million, those are all related to Clinton Crossing, to the downtown. And so what we had done, the first one, the $740,000, we issued a note to purchase the property second one was to purchase the property at 94 to build the salt dome and we borrowed money to build the salt dome and bus garage so all three of those will participate doing is that's temporary financing and notes are one year and so what happens is they after one year they mature and and we typically will roll them in this case we roll them over each year and then ultimately when the clinton crossing is finished and we're you know the property taxes are assessed and so forth we will issue bonds and permanently finance the notes and so right now we don't have revenue coming in from clinton crossing to pay on those bonds so we do this we do a temporary financing So, and that's, that's not unusual. Um, we. And you'll see with some of the other projects, the reason we do the 1 year, the notes, the short term financing is if there's some uncertainty as to. when we can permanent there's some uncertainty as to the the cost that are uh that we're going to the total cost of the projects uh or in this case that's a cash flow issue um we want to we want to stay in short term short-term notes until uh until we have solid numbers we have cash flow coming in and we can permanently finance them because once you issue bonds you're you're locked in for 10 So is that okay? Yes. And so I don't know if you're going to go ahead.

Yeah, let me read those. Let me read D&E then. So that was C. Next is 5D TMP-8865 ordinance providing this issuance and sale of $925,000 of taxable economic development non-tax revenue bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of acquiring approximately 1.0 acre of real property located at 94 Owen Brown Street. So this was the Windstream property. Thank you. And next is 5E, TMP-8866, ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of not to exceed $6,825,000 of notes in anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of improving city-owned property located at 5810 Hudson Drive by constructing, furnishing, equipping, and otherwise improving a new salt storage facility a new bus maintenance and storage facility and clearing improving and equipping the site. That was the new Okay, next is 5F TMP-8867, ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of bonds in the maximum principal amount of $21 million for the purpose of paying costs of constructing, furnishing, and equipping a facility housing functions of the city's Department of Public Works and clearing, equipping, and improving the site thereof.

Just you'll recall last year, we issued a note for $31 million and the cost of the project came in roughly $10 million less than we had. And that's one advantage of issuing a short-term note. Had we issued bonds right off the bat, we would have permanently financed $10 million more than we needed to. We will pay down the note when it comes due in December. We'll pay down the note from 31 million down to 21 million and issue bonds for the 21 million. I should say, the reason these are, we take these through three readings, these all go through three readings, and we don't sell the, we don't issue the debt. It doesn't close until December, but because we have the three readings in the 30 days, and we have to go through a rating, presentation, and so forth, that's why we're here so early in the year, so.

Okay. 5G TMP-8868 ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of not to exceed $15 million of notes in anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of improving and expanding the city's velocity broadband fiber optic system by acquiring and installing infrastructure equipment to enable provision of residential internet service.

This one is fiber to the home project. Last year, we issued $7.5 million in notes for the pilot year one and half of year two. This is to cover the cost of the other half of year two and all of year three. These are estimates. We don't want to issue. We don't want to sell bond. We don't want to permanently finance it. until we're all done and all costs.

5H TMP-8869 ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of not to exceed $5 million of notes in anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of remodeling, renovating, enlarging, furnishing, equipping, and otherwise improving the city's fire EMS facility including construction. constructing a new detached garage building on and clearing, improving and equipping the site.

This is the fire department renovations. We still have to go out to bid for the garage and there may be some additional storm water improvements that need to be done and so that's why we're recommending we just roll this for one more year until we have all the costs in and then this time next year we would very likely go out for bonds to permanently finance the project five million does include the garage building and the pond

Okay. Five I ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of not to exceed $3 million of notes in anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of installing an advanced in an advanced metering infrastructure. AMI project for the city's water resources and public power utilities.

This is, um, This is something that it was in last year's five-year plan. I don't think we went into a whole lot of detail on it, but it's the advanced metering system for, it would be split between roughly two-thirds of it will be for Hudson Public Power, $2 million. Staff memo, just a... I love what this does for us. provided alerts if there's something going on with if you have a leak or something unusual within you know in this case customers can track their usage better if they're also changing the meters out they correct So I'll come back to, it'll have to go out to bid. It's just right now I need to get this, the financing lined up.

He needs to have that done before the end of the year, but this is on the Capitol for 2027 when we bring the capital projects and it's been on the Capitol. And now's the time that we're going ahead with it for water and for Hudson public power.

Thanks. Yeah, I guess you're done, Jeff. Six is items to be added to future agendas. Proclamations will be appearing next week. Mighty Vincent Day 2026, Jacob Meacham Proclamation, Kiwanis 75th Anniversary, and Constitution Week. Anything else besides that, Jeff?

Not at the moment.

Okay. All right. Anything else? to discuss, no, all right. Is there a motion to adjourn? All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, we are adjourned at 21-04.