Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Estate Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council removes pool language from Dunware warehouse lease addendum amid cost and floodplain concerns
Summary
City council voted to remove language about pursuing a public pool from the Dunware (Dunn) warehouse lease addendum after members cited unknown long‑term costs, insurance and floodplain risks; the lease addendum otherwise proceeds with an amended term change.
The City of Hudson Common Council voted at its meeting to remove a provision that would have committed the city and a tenant to “pursue the development of a public pool” in an addendum to the Dunware (Dunn) warehouse redevelopment lease. Council members said the pool language left the city exposed to undetermined maintenance and operating costs and could be impractical given the site’s floodplain conditions.
Council members said the lease addendum contains three substantive changes: (1) an extension of the lease term (discussed as moving from about 30 years to 39 years), (2) a delay in the initial rental/occupancy payment schedule because the tenant will not be operating immediately, and (3) the pool development language that led to the amendment vote. Council member Margaret said she supported the project overall but opposed including pool language until detailed finance and maintenance responsibilities were worked out, saying, “I would prefer to see that language … until there's actually a worked out agreement about the finances, who's gonna do maintenance, what the actual cost and exposure of the city is.”
Other council members voiced similar concerns. A speaker who said they had discussed recent pool projects warned annual third‑party maintenance costs could run “from $80,000 to $150,000” per year and that fundraising typically covers construction rather than ongoing maintenance. Another member noted the site is in a floodplain and called adding pool language into a 30–39 year lease premature.
Supporters of the lease said the language was intended to keep the city engaged as a partner in holistic site development and to preserve opportunities if an independently funded pool were feasible. A council member noted the city assisted the tenant with grant applications and said removing the language would not prevent future negotiations on a pool should a fully funded plan return to the council.
The council approved an amendment to remove section 11(b) (the pool language) from the addendum. With the amendment in place, the council proceeded to approve the lease addendum.
Council members asked staff to ensure that any future pool proposal would return to the council with detailed cost estimates, funding sources, maintenance plans, and any required regulatory approvals.
Votes at the meeting show the amendment to remove section 11(b) passed on a roll call and the lease addendum was approved as amended.
