Last Night at City Hall

Several things of interest happened at the Common Council meeting last night, the best of which has already been reported: the resolution authorizing the creation of a dog park was unanimously approved. But there were things of interest on the agenda as well.

There was a new resolution, which originated in the mayor's office, authorizing a title search on the 4.4 waterfront acres believed to have been illegally alienated by the City in 1981. The question of ownership was raised once again at the Planning Board meeting last week.

When The Valley Alliance announced its discovery in June 2013 that the City may still own the parcel, the City did a title search to test the veracity of the claim. In October 2013, then Common Council president Don Moore announced at a Council meeting that the title search had established that the City did own the land. Unfortunately, the documents from that title search cannot be found, so the City is doing another title search to establish ownership of the parcel.

Another new item on the agenda was a resolution "authorizing the mayor to execute a utility purchase agreement with ELP Greenport Solar"--East Light Partners' community solar project to be located just outside Hudson on Route 9.

When the resolution came before the Council, Alderman John Rosenthal (Fourth Ward) moved to table it. That was seconded by Alderman Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward). In a voice vote, the outcome of which Council president Tom DePietro declared to be 6 to 4 in favor, the resolution was tabled. Rosenthal explained he wanted to do "more research into a similar product." When Alderman Rich Volo (Fourth Ward) noted, "We have been looking at this for more than a year," Rosenthal said he wanted to take "one more month to make sure we are doing the best for the city." When Wendy De Wolf of East Light Partners asked permission to speak, DePietro denied it. 

The Council then moved on to the resolution to enter into a contract with Chandlerthinks to develop a strategic marketing plan for the city. DePietro began the discussion by reading the names of twelve people who had submitted written comments, all but one of whom had expressed support for the study. He then reiterated that by law the money designated for use by the Tourism Board cannot be diverted for other purposes. He also noted that the lodging tax has been renewed and enabling legislation has passed, and the Council can now amend the law as it pertains to the Tourism Board and what it is empowered to do.       

Much of the discussion that preceded the vote had to with the choice of consultant: Chandlerthinks. Garriga said she had a "huge concern" about a company "that is in Nashville." She went on to say, "The city has been using very little money, and look at where we are now." She expressed concern about "more tourism to push the community out."

Alderman Rob Bujan (First Ward) asked that Volo, who chairs the Tourism Board, to explain the process that led to the selection of Chandlerthinks. Volo explained that they had contacted other tourism boards in the Hudson Valley seeking recommendations and had sent the RFP to those firms. Steve Chandler of Chandlerthinks, however, had contacted them, after reading this post by Roger Hannigan Gilson on The Other Hudson Valley: "Hudson Seeking 'Branding Consultant.'" The board received about a dozen proposals in response to the RFP, which they narrowed down to four. They heard presentations by each of the four firms, after which they made their choice: Chandlerthinks.

Responding to Garriga's fears about "more tourism," Volo said, "The idea is to fill in the gaps and to have a long-range plan." By filling in the gaps, Volo was referring to attracting visitors to Hudson in the middle of the week not just on the weekends.

Garriga moved to send the resolution back to the Tourism Board. The motion was seconded but never voted on, and the discussion continued. Alderman Kamal Johnson (First Ward) questioned if "this company is right for this city," alleging, "The contract says they are going to tell people how to feel about Hudson." Garriga suggested that Chandlerthinks should make a presentation to the Common Council, implying that the Council had better judgment in the matter than the Tourism Board. DePietro ended the discussion by calling for a vote.

In the roll call vote, which happens in alphabetical order, eight votes had been cast--three in favor (Bujan, Eileen Halloran [Fifth Ward], Dominic Merante [Fifth Ward]) and five against (Garriga, Johnson, Calvin Lewis [Third Ward], Shershah Mizan [Third Ward], Rosenthal--when it came time for Dewan Sarowar (Second Ward) to vote. Sarowar initially said he abstained, but when DePietro questioned his abstention, he finally voted yes. Volo voted yes, and the vote was tied, requiring DePietro to vote to break the tie. After saying that "the law as it was crafted was a huge mistake . . . and not good government," DePietro said, "I'm not thrilled about it, but I feel obliged to vote yes."

It seemed for one brief, shining moment that the resolution had passed, but there's more. Johnson defended Sarowar's right to abstain. Members of the audience accused DePietro of pressuring Sarowar to vote.

When the meeting was opened for public comment, Chris McManus declared he was "completely disappointed the Council would do this [pass the resolution]." He held up a flyer with the "Our Hudson Waterfront" logo on it, saying, "This shows what a volunteer group can do with no money." Describing Chandlerthinks work elsewhere, McManus said, "They came into a town and told them how interesting they are. Are they going to come in and tell us how creative we are?"

Sidney Long quoted the first statement in the Chandlerthinks proposal: "Congratulations! City of Hudson is on its way to creating a destination of distinction." Long asserted, "We're already a destination of distinction," and questioned the wisdom of paying $75,000 "to a company that doesn't bother to Google us and find out how great we are."

Matt McGhee alleged that the vote on the Chandlerthinks resolution had been illegal and violated the Constitution, because Garriga had moved to send the resolution back to the Tourism Board, the motion had been seconded, but there had not been a vote. After seeking an opinion from city attorney Andy Howard, DePietro said, "OK. Let's go back." Garriga moved to rescind the previous vote, and Mizan seconded. The vote was six in favor (Garriga, Johnson, Lewis, Mizan, Rosenthal, Sarowar) and four opposed (Bujan, Halloran, Merante, Volo). Then there was a motion and second to table the resolution. The vote on that motion was the same: six in favor (Garriga, Johnson, Lewis, Mizan, Rosenthal, Sarowar) and four opposed (Bujan, Halloran, Merante, Volo).   

Dan Udell's video of the meeting is now on YouTube and can be viewed by clicking here. Steve Chandler may want to watch the video to see if he really wants to take on the challenge of Hudson. The next meeting of the Tourism Board is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, August 27, at 5:30 p.m. at 1 North Front Street.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAROLE OSTERINK