City Council - workshop

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NUMBER TWO IS CORRESPONDENTS AND COUNCIL COMMENTS. IF THERE'S ANY CORRESPONDENTS OR COMMENTS THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT TO GET MY ATTENTION. SAM.

Thank you. Last night we had a park board meeting. We generally have these meetings every other month. We had one last month in order to finish getting the prioritization of park board ready for the budgeting season. So this was our normal regularly scheduled meeting. There was some additional discussion on pickleball presentation by a resident on how to do the various IT WAS JUST KIND OF AN EXPANSION IT WAS JUST KIND OF AN EXPANSION ON THE DISCUSSION FROM LAST MONTH. ON THE DISCUSSION FROM LAST MONTH. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THAT YET. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THAT YET. THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION

Thanks. That was that was good in that there's a lots of there's lots of unknowns. And we we are estimating how much longer it's going to take with this new safer process. But so we can't can't be completely definitive yet. Try to get some specificity around it in the next few months. Patricia

Thank you, so I'll just follow that up with, I would just like to thank city staff for all the work that they did last week after that meeting, after the council meeting to pull together responses and information slash facts around following, in response to the questions that the residents had and we will continue to respond to questions that come in and specifically from residents surrounding the areas and ones that had questions about that needed a better understanding of what this development meant and how we can mitigate things like stormwater, for example, as one of the concerns that some

SECOND ROUND, IF I MIGHT. APOLOGIES. THANK YOU. I DID FORGET ONE PIECE THAT I WANTED TO COVER, AS I DIDN'T HAVE IT ON THE PARK BOARD AGENDA. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN DISSEMINATED IN A MEETING, BUT I DID GIVE IT AS A PART OF MY COUNCIL UPDATE AT PARK BOARD YESTERDAY THAT WE HAVE REACHED A VERBAL AGREEMENT WITH SUMMIT COUNTY ON THE basically repurchasing, reimbursement, however you want to word it, of Maple Grove Park. For those who are unaware, a few months ago, Metro Parks decided they wanted to kind of back out of their portion of the Maple Grove Park, which is their legal right. We had some

Fantastic. So I did give that update to Park Board, and they're very excited about it.

NOW, 3A, 26-0080, TRUCK TRAFFIC ALONG STATE ROUTE 91 AND STATE ROUTE 303, CITY ENGINEER BRAD COSCO.

Yeah, so you could have a long truck that would be light if it was empty and heavy full and how would you tell that driving through town?

Are there any cities in the area that do do this to some degree that we're aware of?

Right. I mean, theoretically, even if it's an infrastructure restriction, that is the underlying reason they would theoretically still have all these issues of enforcement, et cetera, et cetera. And I'm just curious how they handle it.

you know i just wonder if you guys could spend you know five or ten minutes at the next traffic safety committee meeting brainstorming about anything we could do to uh... improved that turning because i think that the intersection peace because i think that's what really uh... kind of raises awareness and gets people concerned about the trucks is that when they're turning from 303 ON TO 91 AND YOU KNOW THEY'RE BLOCKING DRIVING OVER SIDEWALKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT SO SOMETHING MAYBE THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE THAT BETTER BUT YEAH JEFF.

I don't think that's where but yeah an exception to the rules is what they would be calling it an exception All right, well, thanks, thanks for researching that Next is 3b and 86-0081, West Barlow Road Railroad Exemption.

So to me this sounds like this is basically a temporary solution until the rails to trails implementation and all it really costs us is some signage once we've done the legislative part? That's correct, yes.

Okay. The delay up till now is because Norfolk still owned it, they were technically, I mean they were their tracks and they could maybe use it sometime.

That's consent worthy. Okay. Next is 3C TMP-8883, resolution authorizing the city manager to bid an award for the printing services for the Focus on Hudson newsletter.

Yeah, I guess I'd like to get Kathleen's input on, you know, not just the, like, the workload and whether you guys can do it, but whether there is some, whether there's enough material. Would there be lulls? But I would feel good about moving it, increasing the frequency as long as we can, you know, we want to be able to then measure that, you know, six months or a year later and ask, you know, is this coming too frequently? Is it too much? Is it a whole lot better? You know, what's the public think?

Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Next is proposed consent agenda for October 6, 2026 council meeting for a TMP dash 8892 resolution authorizing city manager to advertise for bids and enter into contracts for the salt barn pad construction and relocation of existing salt storage foundation.

to answer any questions questions for tom or brad it sounds like a good plan um remind us what this is going to be the closest house will be 550 feet it's on the exhibit we attached

Okay. Thanks, Brad. For a 4B, TMP-8883, resolution authorizing the city manager to bid an award for printing services for the Focus on Hudson newsletter. That's what we just discussed. 4C is TMP-8903, resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and to enter into a contract with the lowest and best bidder for construction of the second phase of the fiber to the home project and declaring an emergency.

I just want to correct. I think I misspoke when I was giving my update once we read this and I was thinking back. I believe I said the areas to be rebid would start construction this fall. Obviously, the bidding is to be this fall with construction expected to start in spring 2027. So I wanted to make sure I corrected that. But otherwise, exactly as Tom said.

The PUCO report did not have any, like, strong recommendations for changes for communities to do differently. But you still might expect a fire marshal report?

And that may or may not include specific recommendations that need to be implemented by cities.

Okay. Thanks, Brad. Next is five. A PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR THE OCTOBER 6, 2026 COUNCIL MEETING. 5A IS 26-113, ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 478 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. MY MEMO OR MY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY LEGAL AND WILL BE UPLOADED. JUST SOME VERY MINOR CHANGES THAT ALIGN MOSTLY WITH WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED BY COUNSELOR SUTTON AND CHIEF TABEK. I WOULD NOTE THAT WE DID HEAR FROM SOME FAMILIES THAT WERE INTERESTED IN DRIVING AROUND AND THERE WAS SOME FAMILY CAME UP WITH WHAT APPEARED TO ME LIKE SMALL CHILDREN AND I THINK THAT ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT HA

I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE US TO TRY AND HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS TONIGHT. I THINK WE HAVE A PRETTY SIZABLE LIST OF DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS NOW. IT IS JUST MY OPINION THAT WE'RE UNLIKELY, I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I FEEL WE'RE UNLIKELY TO FIND A COMPROMISE THAT EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL IS HAPPY TO VOTE YES ON. And so I feel like we should maybe take this opportunity to try and come to some amount of consensus of which of these amendments or some combination of these amendments that we feel has a good chance of being successful in a vote. Just this seems like the best opportunity to have that

That is in my amendment and that is in what Chief Tabak originally presented. They are permitted in Sutton's amendment.

Comments or questions? Yeah, so my amendment, again, aligning what the chief of police was recommending, and I think in a situation like this, we really need to defer to the expertise of those safety forces that we have. I don't like the idea of speed differentials on roads. So I don't want under speed vehicles that go 15 miles an hour that go on 25 mile an hour roads. I think that is one risk for injuries. Those smaller under speed vehicles even have less limited occupant protection you know hardened zones they're more prone to ejection and rollover so mine was again like the chief of police

My only comment is that Byrd's amendment contains a poison pill that effectively bans all these vehicles from the road, specifically the tire requirement. Again, there is no such thing as a DOT-certified tire for these vehicles. Maintaining that means none of these vehicles can be on the road at all.

That's something we can certainly look at, and I can add to that before.

I don't know why we would need to look at it again.

I'm getting the feeling there seems to be Dr. Weinstein seemed to agree with my general statement, which is more or less comfort with, uh, either maybe one of, one of the versions of Mr. Sutton's amendments. Um, obviously Dr. Bird and I'm, I'M FEELING, DR. GUETZ, YOU LEAN MORE TOWARDS DR. BIRD'S AMENDMENT ON THIS. COUNSELORS DIARAMO AND WHITE, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW GENERALLY WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS.

So you're leaning towards more towards Dr. Bird's version?

All right, thank you Perry. All right, next up is 5B26-118, resolution authorizing a settlement of the Prestige Builder Group LLC versus City of Hudson lawsuit and related claims surrounding the Canterbury Meadows development. This is planned for a third reading on October 6th.

If you plan to have discussion, I need to leave the room. Sorry? If you plan to have discussion, I need to leave the room.

I think we're going to have discussion. Thank you for bringing that up.

So we'll get clarification as to the public hearing issue. When does that need to happen? If it goes to what, when, and then that piece about is there any cons to this? What are the risks to doing the delay?

You're welcome. I'm not saying I would never vote for a postponement. At this moment, I'm not inclined to such a thing. We do have already an additional week built in with the recess. So there is still two more weeks, making it a full three weeks from the public hearing before an actionable vote. I'm not saying that's the perfect amount of time, but it's a good amount of time for people to have their questions answered. I will reserve my right to make a choice on this until the actual third reading.

What is the procedural, the proper procedural way to move forward in theory if we were to postpone it? Because as you said, we must have a public hearing by the 6th, which would be our next Racial Discrimination Council meeting, at which time we would make a motion to postpone. So I'm a bit flummoxed, I will admit. I'm not the best at this, but...

Grab Skyler, yes. And then one other suggestion is, Tom, the staff info fact sheet that was created that's been put out on the web, can we... Add it to the agenda of council. Yeah.

How's that? Good job. I appreciate having you here when we don't have Marshall.

Good news of the word flummoxed. Yeah. Okay, next is C26-124. Begins the bond stuff, right? Bonds and notes. Okay. Ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of 740,000 of taxable economic development, non-tax revenue bonds, anticipatory notes, and anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs and acquiring approximately 4.0 acres of real property located near the southwest corner of Owen Brown Street and Morse Road. Scheduled for a second reading on October 6th. Next is 5D, 26-125, ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of $925,000 of taxable economic develop

Okay, well, I would like a motion to adjourn.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. We are adjourned at 2045.