1/4/2022 Council Meeting Recap
Public Comment
We had three public comments. One was from a community volunteer who helps coordinate the Santa mailbox on the Green every year, another from a representative of American Fireworks regarding legislation that pertains to their business, and we had a comment from former Mayor Bill Currin. He spoke about the future, among other things, but notably he took time to recognize our incredible City staff who keep Hudson running. They do so much for all of us that goes unseen, and they rarely get the thanks they deserve. He also took time to recognize City Manager Jane Howington and spoke at length about how incredible she is at her job. I was very moved by Mayor Currin’s comments.
Discussion Items
Scheduling of an annual road tour and a Council retreat was discussed. We had a road tour last year, and I found it to be extremely informative. I look forward to doing it again this year and seeing how much progress we have made on our roads and sidewalks throughout Hudson. Last year, we did not have a Council retreat. I am not sure if that is because last year I was elected in an off year, or if it was because of COVID. Either way, I have not had the pleasure of attending one yet. From what staff and other Council members have said, the last one had a professional moderator who helped facilitate conversations surrounding priorities. The question staff posed to us was, do we want a moderator for this retreat? It was clear that the majority on Council did not want a moderator even though it seems to be standard practice, citing the cost of it and using fiscal responsibility as the reason. Councilwoman Kate Schlademan and I both wanted to utilize a professional moderator. I am disappointed that we will not have one for the retreat, and am left concerned that my voice will not be heard without one. If anyone is wondering why that is, scroll down to read about the incident regarding a request for executive session.
Appointments
Ms. Sarah Norman was appointed to a full term on Planning Commission, expiring 1/1/26. Ms. Schlademan made a comment that she would be voting “no” on the appointment of Ms. Norman because Ms. Norman intentionally violated a Hudson codified ordinance regulating campaign finances. I agreed with Ms. Schlademan, stating that this intentional violation of a law brings into question her ability to ethically enforce and apply the law in her role as a member of the Planning Commission. This passed with 5-2 with myself and Councilwoman Schlademan voting “no.”
Mr. Louis Wagner was re-appointed to a full term on Board of Zoning & Building Appeals, expiring 1/1/26 – this passed with 6 affirmative votes and 1 abstention.
Dr. Spiro Mavroidis was appointed to a partial term on the Environmental Awareness Committee, expiring 12/31/24 – this passed with 6 affirmative votes and 1 abstention.
Legislation
12. B. 21-126 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1207.17, “SIGNS,” OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO IMPLEMENT REVISIONS TO SIGN ILLUMINATION STANDARDS.
Brief Description: Proposed amendment to revise regulations related to internal illumination of signs within District 6 Western Hudson Gateway and District 8 Industrial/Business Park.
My take: Some of my colleagues on Council stated concerns with this legislation because they believe that not allowing internally illuminated signs is part of what gives Hudson it’s charm. I do not disagree. I don’t believe we should allow it everywhere in Hudson, but in certain areas outside of the city center and historic district, I see no reason why it should not be allowed. I can respect my colleague’s opinions, but I have always thought aspects of our sign code are too restrictive and we have heard the same from our business community (both small businesses and larger businesses alike). This failed 5-2 with myself and Councilwoman Schlademan casting the two “yes” votes.
12. D. 21-149 A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 21-116 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH FAIRMOUNT PROPERTIES, LLC FOR THE SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA ADJACENT TO THE FIRST & MAIN DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF HUDSON, OHIO; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Brief Description: This Resolution, proposed by Councilman Foster, is intended to repeal Resolution No. 21-116 while simultaneously authorizing the sale of property in the downtown area to Fairmount Properties for development of Downtown Phase 2 pursuant to terms that are different than those terms authorized by Resolution No. 21-116.
My take: The intent of this resolution, proposed by Council President Foster, was to remove the provision that Council originally passed which read, “…the City shall reimburse Fairmount for the reasonable costs associated with producing the plans and documents necessary for Planning Commission or other review.”
Councilman Foster has stated, “…when you go to a store, you’re gonna buy something, and you say, “I don’t like it,” they don’t hand you a bill for looking at the product.” [Reference the 12/7/2021 meeting for this quote.] This analogy has always confused me, because it implies we are the ones buying something, when in fact, we are the ones selling something. We are selling property to Fairmount. And Fairmount is affording the City many opportunities throughout the development process that would otherwise not be afforded to the seller of a property. Why is that? Because Fairmount has stated they want to be a good community partner and do right by the city. So, when Fairmount had reservations about the understandably unpredictable future of this project, putting a provision in for reimbursement of reasonable costs is a sign of good faith from the City and Council. I won’t go into too much detail here because I wrote a blog on this topic previously, which I invite all of you to read: https://www.kowalski4hudson.com/blog/phase-2-finally
I think a point worth reiterating that is very important to better understand my stance on this proposal for Phase 2 is that the support for this project in the community is an indicator to me that this is the proposal we need to move forward with so that we can finally see some financial gain rather than continual financial losses. If we develop the property, we will begin to receive income and property taxes. If we do not and we let it sit, we still have to pay interest on it.
At the 11/9/2021 meeting, newly elected (but not yet sworn in) Council members Chris Banweg and Karen Heater made public comment encouraging Council to vote “no” on the Phase 2 proposal. It is important to note that their public comments were made before Council had the opportunity to discuss the legislation prior to taking a vote, and before Councilman Hal DeSaussure’s amendment adding in the reimbursement provision was publicly entered into the record. Yet, in their public comments, they both referenced the amendment, which previously had only been emailed out to Council, the Mayor, the City Manager, the Clerk of Council, and the City Solicitor. In his public comment, Mr. Banweg stated that the “scope and details of the plan are not final” and he expressed concerns with the plan overall, describing it as a “concept plan.” Ms. Heater stated that she was “concerned particularly about the hastiness…” and furthermore, stated, “…it doesn’t sound to me like we’re quite ready to move forward, and I think we need to take a pause. And, I’m not convinced that Fairmount is the right developer necessarily for our property, so I think it would be irresponsible to vote yes.”
Here’s the thing – Councilman Foster’s legislation was, in the end, essentially the same legislation we passed initially but without the reimbursement provision. If Mr. Banweg and Ms. Heater thought that this plan was still a “concept” and that an affirmative vote on the legislation was “irresponsible,” then how do they justify the change in their stance on the overall project? The plan has gone unchanged since the 11/9 meeting when they made these statements. Both Mr. Banweg and Ms. Heater voted “yes” on this resolution, which effectively sells the land to Fairmount to implement the plan they objected to just a little over 2 months ago on 11/9. Why not propose new legislation to repeal the deal altogether?
Regardless, for all the reasons I mentioned above and in the blog I previously wrote, I was comfortable with the added provision and the original legislation I voted on in November of last year, and did not see any reason to revise it or repeal any part of it. The resolution passed 5-2, with myself and Councilwoman Schlademan casting the two “no” votes.
Executive Session
When reviewing the agenda prior to the meeting, I noticed a fairly common request for executive session was listed. The agenda reads:
“13. Executive Session
To consider a personnel matter concerning the employment of a public employee.”
For some context, whenever an executive session is requested (regardless of the topic), typically the City Solicitor will send out an email (which is protected under attorney/client privilege) that provides context into the topic or purpose of the proposed executive session so that the council members can make an informed vote for entering into the executive session.
This is standard practice, and I have never entered an executive session without having at least some knowledge of the topic beforehand. I am a firm believer that Council Members should NEVER vote “yes” on anything they have do not have adequate knowledge or information on that would be relevant to their decision making - even on a motion to enter into executive session, of which the purpose is to share information with the Council members that is confidential/not available to the public.
Prior to the meeting, when I saw this listed on the agenda, I waited patiently for some such email to give me more context. Nothing.
So, I wrote to Council President Chris Foster to inquire. We exchanged a few emails, but ultimately, I was never given any further information regarding the topic of the executive session.
During the portion of the meeting where Council is permitted to make comment on the agenda item to be voted on, I stated my issues with the covert nature by which this executive session was handled. Councilwoman Schlademan also expressed similar sentiments.
My opinion is that every councilmember should be provided with this general context regarding executive sessions ahead of time. I see no reason in withholding this information, especially when specifically requested in order to make an informed vote.
As a result, I felt it my duty to vote “no” on the motion to go into executive session, however, the motion passed 6-1 and we subsequently entered into executive session.
Items to be added to a future agenda
I have put forward a draft of legislation for Council’s consideration which would replace our current ordinance related to campaign finance. This is on the agenda for this Tuesday’s workshop under Discussion Items. You can read the draft legislation here, and it will also be attached to the agenda once it is published.
Hudson's current ordinance regulating campaign finance is very restrictive. It is my belief that it precludes younger candidates and candidates who cannot self-finance from running, because raising the necessary funds to run a competitive campaign is difficult to do in $100 increments. I think government works best when it truly represents the people, and this legislation would help us get one step closer to accomplishing that.
Additionally, enforcement of the ordinance has been virtually nonexistent. This has led to candidates for Council knowingly violating the ordinance. If the goal of campaign finance laws is to prevent corruption and undue influence on our democratic process, then the current ordinance is falling short, because that is exactly what we see happening. The legislation I am proposing has a clear penalty and means for enforcement.
Follow my Facebook and Twitter for frequent updates!
Have questions? Want to share your thoughts with me on any of the agenda items or issues listed above? As always, I would love to have a conversation! Email me directly at nkowalski@hudson.oh.us.
