At a glance
Tuesday's regular Council meeting did a lot. The treasurer presented Hudson's 2025 books, another $160,000 hole, but a far smaller one than 2024's $1.3 million plunge. After a long debate the Council passed the controversial county parking deal at 11 Warren Street, but cut the term from five years to two and required Columbia County to pay, in writing, for moving the lost handicap parking space. Developer Ben Fain came back with a renamed project, Waterfront Village is now South Bay Hudson, and a Whiteman Osterman & Hanna attorney challenged the waterfront-dock law on behalf of an unnamed client widely understood to be Colarusso & Son.
Opening, minutes, bills
The meeting opened, the April minutes were accepted, and the month's bills were paid by roll call.
Key points
- Roll was called and the meeting opened.
- Minutes from the April 28 regular meeting were accepted.
- The month's bills were paid by roll-call vote.
This page is built from YouTube's automatic captions. The transcript has no speaker labels and garbles many names, so this summary describes speakers by role. Numbers from the financial report are rounded as the treasurer presented them. Check anything important against the city's official minutes.
Treasurer's annual financial report: a smaller hole, but still a hole
The city treasurer presented the 2025 unaudited Annual Financial Report (AFR), the report filed with New York State. The picture: another modest drop in fund balance, but a dramatic improvement on 2024.
Key points
- The general fund's unassigned fund balance dropped about $160,000 in 2025, far better than 2024's $1.3 million drop, but still a drop.
- Unassigned fund balance is now roughly $1.39 million. Government-finance guidance puts the minimum at about two months of expenditures, for Hudson, around $2.6 million, so the city is still well below that threshold.
- Several revenue lines moved in the city's favor: lodging tax, sales tax, parking-ticket revenue, interest earnings (about $40,000 over budget after the treasurer renegotiated rates with the city's bank), and tax-foreclosure penalties from owners paying off back taxes.
- A one-time boost came from selling two surplus fire vehicles for about $230,000; that money goes into a reserve fund earmarked for the new pumper truck, reducing how much the city will need to borrow.
- Costs rose too: debt service was up about $250,000, driven mostly by the Ferry Street Bridge and the DRI grant-funded projects, which carry interest while the city waits on reimbursements; benefits (especially state retirement system contributions) rose about $160,000.
- The city is issuing new debt in mid-June, a long-term borrowing for the pumper truck and 'callable' short-term debt for the bridge and DRI work, designed to be paid down early when state reimbursements arrive.
The unaudited report has been filed with the state; an external CPA audit follows, and the numbers could shift. The treasurer said closing the fund-balance gap will take either revenue increases, expenditure cuts, or both, a question the Council has not yet taken up.
Routine resolutions, passed
The Council passed a slate of routine resolutions that had been previewed at the May 18 informal.
Key points
- Authorized the mayor to appoint three commissioners of deeds.
- Cancelled outstanding checks uncashed for over six months, including a $10,000 National Grid check.
- Approved a budget amendment for City Hall sprinkler-system and control-panel repairs.
- Approved a budget amendment for police department equipment, defensive-tactics training equipment and fire-investigations training, funded out of a restricted federal Department of Justice equitable-sharing reserve, not the general fund.
- Approved an amended lease for the Pocketbook factory tenant's parking at the fire station lot (about 34 spaces).
- Approved a resolution setting standard work days for the New York State retirement system.
The 11 Warren county parking deal, amended in the room
After a long, sometimes heated debate, the Council voted to approve the Columbia County parking agreement at 11 Warren Street, but only after amending it on the spot to cut the term from five years to two and to require the county to pay, in writing, for relocating the lost handicap parking space.
Key points
- The original proposed agreement would have given the county 18 designated weekday parking spaces along its new 11 Warren Street offices for five years, at 90% of the city's parking rate.
- Members called five years too long. Council President Margaret Morris said the county had also already agreed to put after-hours public use of its lots in writing, and to discuss other county lots case-by-case.
- After a long discussion the Council voted to amend the resolution: term cut from 5 years to 2; county to put in writing that it will pay for relocating the handicap parking space across Warren Street to a more ADA-compliant corner near the church.
- The amended resolution then passed by roll call, with two no votes. A member who voted no said leadership of the deal had not made good on its word, and that residents and business owners had told her the deal is unfair.
- A council member acknowledged that the city's own county representatives, five of them, are who should be carrying these arguments at the county level; one of them voted against the original sale of 11 Warren Street to the county.
This deal was reviewed at the May 14 Legal Committee and the May 18 informal. The handicap-spot relocation question came from public comment at both.
Old business: an apology, and an unresolved cannabis-convention dispute
A council member apologized for an earlier statement, and the Council pressed unsuccessfully for an explanation of the unpermitted cannabis convention at the Basilica on May 13.
Key points
- A council member publicly apologized for an accusation made about a resident, saying he had not personally witnessed what he described and was repeating second-hand information.
- The Council president said she has asked the Basilica's operator for a parking plan and an explanation of how it informs renters about Hudson's mass-gathering requirements, but has not yet received one.
- She said she will not draft any new policy until she meets with the operator and understands their process, including why some renters of the venue have filed mass-gathering permits and this client did not.
South Bay Hudson: Ben Fain rebrands his waterfront project for the Council
Developer Ben Fain returned, now with the architects, attorneys and engineers on his team, and a new name for the project. 'Waterfront Village' is now 'South Bay Hudson,' a 6.2-acre mixed-use neighborhood on the long-vacant Kaz property.
Key points
- The project's name has changed from 'Waterfront Village' to **South Bay Hudson** (also 'South Bay Village'). The Council heard the same plan the Planning Board saw on May 12, a roughly 16,000-square-foot grocery store, retail, internal walkable streets, and about 145-150 homes in a five-story residential building.
- The site is the long-vacant Kaz property (referred to as 'Cass' by the developer, the former Kaz/Cass factory that closed in the 2000s). Phase 1 is the grocery, retail and infrastructure; phase 2 adds more retail; phase 3 is the residential building, projected several years out.
- Attorney Charlie Gotautle (Whiteman Osterman & Hanna) said the rezoning petition was submitted April 27 and the Planning Board has agreed to be State Environmental Quality Review lead agency. The site has been accepted into New York State's Brownfield Cleanup Program.
- On corporate structure: each property is held in an LLC; the parcel for this project is owned by Montgomery Street Projects LLC. The team emphasized they are not seeking to acquire additional land.
- Council comments and concerns: a member raised that adding density to Tanner's Lane and Cross Street is a real change despite the site's existing zoning; questioned phasing commercial first when Hudson's housing crisis is acute; asked about mixed-income housing and affordable units (the team said a market analysis will be done; the residential phase is several years out).
- A council member who lives near the site reported she had met with Ben earlier in the day; he confirmed the city's wastewater pump station can handle the project's projected flow (about 300,000 gallons per minute at maximum, well under the station's 3-million-gallon-per-minute capacity).
- Members raised emergency-vehicle access (the site funnels onto Front Street with limited egress), the building's five-story height and viewshed impacts (a visual viewshed assessment is being prepared), and connectivity to the existing Amtrak parking lot.
- A public commenter, Matt McGee, noted the renderings appear to eliminate Montgomery Street, named for General Montgomery, a hero of the Revolution, at a moment when Hudson is celebrating the 250th anniversary of American independence.
This is the same project that came before the Planning Board on May 12, where it was still called 'Waterfront Village.' The site is the Kaz property near the Amtrak station. The Council will need to act on the rezoning petition that lets the project be built as proposed.
A dock-business attorney challenges the waterfront local law
Near the end of public comment, an attorney representing what appears to be Colarusso & Son, the waterfront business that operates the dock, said his client is the only business in Hudson that would be harmed by the local law amending Chapter 325 (§ 325-17.1) that was introduced at the May 18 informal. The Council president agreed to put it on a future agenda with a proper public hearing.
Key points
- TJ, an attorney from Whiteman Osterman & Hanna representing the waterfront-dock operator, asked to speak on the local law amending § 325-17.1 of the city's zoning code (the dock-operations clarification).
- The Council president said the topic was not on this meeting's agenda and that he should comment when the law is up for public hearing.
- The attorney said the law was introduced at the May 18 informal, with no prior chance for the affected business or other members of the public to speak before it was sent out to the county and planning boards for review.
- The Council president agreed to put the law on a future agenda with a proper public hearing, and asked the attorney to email his comments and letter to all council members in advance.
- The attorney urged the Council to consider obtaining outside legal counsel before acting on the law.
This is the local law that the Council introduced at the May 18 informal and, in Part 2 of that meeting, voted to send to the county and local planning boards. The Council will now also hold a separate public hearing on it before any final vote.
About this page
FUTURE HUDSON is an experiment in civic engagement: every public meeting of the City of Hudson since January 2026, transcribed and made readable, so any resident can follow what the city is deciding without attending every meeting. This page covers one meeting; see the full archive.
How it was made
The meeting video was transcribed automatically; the transcript was then organized into sections and summarized. The raw transcript is above, every claim can be checked against it.
What to be skeptical of
The transcript is automated and contains speech-recognition errors; names and numbers may be wrong. This page has not been reviewed by a human. Nothing here is an official record, the city's official minutes are authoritative.