200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Committee of the Whole

Trenton I. Weaver, Chair

Merisa K. Bowers

Jamille Jones

Nancy R. McGregor

Kaylee Padova

Stephen A. Renner

Michael Schnetzer

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Monday, April 14, 2025

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

Gahanna City Council met for Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 14,

2025, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council Trenton I. Weaver,

Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The agenda was published on

April 11, 2025. Councilmember Nancy McGregor was absent. All other

members were present for the meeting. There were no additions or

corrections to the agenda.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:

1. Gahanna Civic Center - 825 Tech Center Drive Update

2025-0086

Gahanna Civic Center (825 Tech Center Drive) Construction Update

4.14.2025

Exterior, Interior, Upcoming Updates

Senior Director of Operations Kevin Schultz provided the monthly update on

the 825 Tech Center Drive renovation and expansion project. He was joined

by Police Chief Spence to highlight progress specific to the Police

Department’s facilities. Schultz noted that February had been relatively slow

for construction, largely due to winter weather. However, in March of 2025, the

pace picked up significantly, and progress resumed across multiple areas of

the site. He reported that all utility work on the site, including water, sanitary,

and storm systems, was complete and the team had begun site grading. All

main rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units were

installed during a Saturday lift, and the building was prepared for conditioning.

The HVAC system was scheduled to be operational by mid-to-late May of

2025, and the building was expected to be fully dried in by the end of April of

2025.

Interior progress included ongoing drywall finishing on the second and third

floors. Schultz noted that the north-south wing of the third floor was drywalled,

patched, and painted. Ceiling grid installation began in that wing, and the

contractor planned to continue working from that area into the Police

Department wing and down through the second and first floors. He provided

updates on key infrastructure elements, including the installation of electrical

switchgear, information technology (IT) cabinets, and shaft wall

reconstruction. The interior shaft wall was removed and rebuilt to meet

current code requirements, addressing a previous issue. Progress also

continued in the Police Department’s holding facility. Schultz shared that he,

Chief Spence, and several officers planned to conduct a walkthrough later in

the week to finalize design and layout details, such as wall heights and the

flow of space dedicated for mugshots and fingerprints. On the first floor,

mechanical and electrical rough-ins were ongoing. Schultz confirmed that

good progress continued and emphasized that the project remained on

schedule.

Senior Director Schultz stated that the furniture, fixtures, and equipment

(FF&E) procurement process was underway, with responses due to the

architect, MSA, by the end of the week. The Administration anticipated

presenting the results at the second committee meeting in May of 2025. The

City also issued a separate request for proposal (RFP) for moving and

logistics, with proposals received the previous Friday, April, 11, 2025. To date,

the project reached 61% completion and experienced 24 weather-related

delay days. Schultz shared recent photos showing various areas of the

building. These included the newly poured first-floor concrete in the future

Mayor’s Court and City Council Chambers, painted walls in third-floor study

rooms, rooftop HVAC units, an IT closet under construction, and newly

installed electrical switchgear in the main electrical room. He noted that while

some images might seem routine, they represented essential systems

necessary for the building’s long-term functionality.

March Financial Updates

Senior Director Schultz continued the 825 Tech Center Drive project update

with a review of the overall construction contract and financing structure. He

presented a summary table showing the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

components of the construction contract. The total project construction cost,

comprising GMP 1 and GMP 2, was $59,627,855. As of the February pay

application, 46% of the construction costs were invoiced, totaling

approximately $27.5 million. The March invoice was not approved yet.

Schultz reviewed the status of allowances and contingencies, reporting that

$867,000 spent to date, representing approximately 26% of the total $4.7

million allocated for those items. He then addressed a request from

Councilmember Schnetzer to revisit original project assumptions. Schultz

explained that the construction cost breakdown remained consistent with

previous reports. Each GMP contract included construction expenses and

costs related to allowances, contingencies, construction management fees,

insurance, bonding, and commercial activity taxes (CAT). These components

collectively comprised the $59.6 million total.

Schultz moved on to a full project summary, outlining all costs beyond

construction. The City purchased the 825 Tech Center Drive building for

$8.75 million, including a $250,000 down payment noted on a subsequent

slide. Design and pre-construction services were included, along with the

$59.6 million construction figure. The FF&E (Furniture, Fixtures, and

Equipment) budget stood at $1.6 million and was increased by $500,000

using funds from a health and wellness refund. The additional funds

supported staff wellness improvements such as height-adjustable desks

across the facility. Additional project-related costs included third-party

inspections (e.g., for steel and concrete), builder’s risk insurance, permitting

and inspections, an easement agreement with American Electric Power

(AEP), and the acquisition of two acres of land at the rear of the 825 property.

Schultz concluded with a review of project financing. He explained that $3.3

million in prior-year cash reserves, identified by the Finance Department in

2021-2022, funded early planning efforts, including consultant MCP’s budget

validation and the building’s down payment. Legal and consulting costs

related to the property acquisition were also covered from this amount. He

noted that the building purchase was ultimately rolled into the first bond

issuance of $18.2 million, which also incorporated a 2012 bond refund.

Although the refunded amount was not specified, Schultz clarified that the

reduced total was not an error but an intentional accounting measure to avoid

duplicating the building purchase in the financial summary. The second bond

issuance occurred in June and totaled $33.5 million, covering the remaining

project costs. The City also committed $10 million in cash to the project-$3

million from the Capital Fund and $7 million from the General Fund, to support

FF&E and contingency budgets. Schultz explained that any unused

contingency funds would return to the cash allocation rather than the bond

proceeds.

Questions from Council

Councilmember Schnetzer asked for clarification regarding the two

bottom-line items on the financial summary slide, specifically, the $3 million

and $7 million cash-funded contributions. He requested an explanation of why

these amounts were funded with cash rather than through bonds. He noted

his understanding that FF&E was excluded from bond funding due to its

shorter life cycle, which did not align with the 28-year term of the bonds. He

also asked for further clarification on the $7 million portion.

Senior Director Schultz responded that, in consultation with Finance Director

Joann Bury, the Administration determined that bringing $10 million in cash to

the project was appropriate. Of that, $4.7 million was allocated for

contingencies, $1.6 million for FF&E, and the remainder was rounded to an

even $10 million to balance bond issuance and repayment considerations. He

explained that FF&E expenses could not be financed through bonds because

such items do not meet the minimum 28-year life span required for

bond-funded capital expenditures. As a result, FF&E had to be funded with

cash.

Councilmember Schnetzer noted that contingency funds might ultimately go

unspent. He emphasized that funding these amounts with cash instead of

bonds avoided the risk of borrowing money that may not be needed and then

paying interest on it for 28 years. Schultz confirmed that this was correct and

added that the same principle also applied to the allowance line.

Senior Center Covered Entryway

Senior Director Schultz provided an update regarding ongoing discussions

about the potential addition of a covered walkway at the entryway to the

Senior Center portion of the 825 Tech Center Drive facility. He referenced the

upper portion of a site drawing as the focal area for the discussion. Schultz

reviewed the parking layout, noting that the facility included approximately 350

to 360 total parking spaces. According to Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) requirements, a facility of that size must have at least eight

handicap-accessible spaces. The site currently includes 17 designated

handicap parking spaces distributed throughout the lot. In addition, the City

established a series of “limited mobility” parking spaces, shown in lighter blue

on the drawing. These spaces are not legally enforceable but are intended as

a courtesy to provide easier access for individuals with mobility limitations.

Schultz explained that these spaces offer priority proximity to the building,

although anyone may park there without penalty. A few of these limited

mobility spaces were relocated from the front to the rear of the building,

where access is actually closer. In total, 21 such spaces were provided, split

roughly evenly between the front and back of the building.

Schultz then focused on the proposed covered walkway at the Senior Center

entrance. Staff engaged with the architect and construction manager, Elford,

to obtain a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate. The estimated

cost to design and construct the 23-foot-long covered walkway was between

$300,000 and $350,000. Schultz illustrated the 23-foot distance by

referencing the approximate space from Vice President Weaver’s seat to the

front row of Council Chambers chairs. He explained that the team also

evaluated the usage of the existing portico at the current Senior Center. Staff

estimated that it was used for two to four drop-offs per week, though it often

functioned more as a parking space than a dedicated drop-off area. Schultz

stated that conversations with members of the Senior Center suggested that

while the issue was important to a few individuals, it was not a widely shared

concern among the membership as a whole.

Schultz provided comparisons to similar facilities. Recently completed or

soon-to-open senior centers in Westerville, Upper Arlington, and Hilliard do

not feature covered walkways or porticos. In Upper Arlington, members must

walk a considerable distance from a parking garage to the building. In

Westerville, the uncovered distance to the entrance is approximately 30 to 35

feet. He noted that cost, aesthetics, and functionality were key considerations

in the evaluation. The architect expressed concern that a covered walkway

added post-design could appear as an afterthought and detract from the

building’s overall design. As an alternative, staff began exploring the idea of

planting trees to form a natural canopy over the walkway rather than installing

a structural one. Schultz concluded his remarks by inviting Police Chief

Spence to speak on the public safety implications related to the proposed

covered walkway.

Police Chief Jeff Spence provided remarks regarding public safety concerns

related to the proposed covered walkway at the Senior Center entry of the 825

Tech Center Drive facility. He noted that although the building appeared large

from the street, it became more scaled and compressed in appearance upon

closer approach due to the curtain wall design and layout. He emphasized

that the structure was multi-story, requiring accommodation for larger fire

apparatus and emergency vehicles. Chief Spence explained that the curved

roadway in front of the main entrance, where the covered walkway was

proposed, was a very short and confined space. He expressed concern about

the ability of a 60-foot ladder truck to navigate the space, calling it difficult if

not impossible. He added that standing vehicles in that area would further

complicate access for fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) vehicles,

including squads, first responder engines, and others responding to detainee

or walk-in medical emergencies. He pointed out that a key fire hydrant with

direct connectivity to the building was located near the lower edge of the

proposed area, as shown in the site rendering. This further limited feasible

vehicle staging in front of the building.

Chief Spence contrasted the proposed layout with the current Senior Center,

where the existing overhang is located off the main travel way, allowing

drop-offs to occur without obstructing circulation. In contrast, the front area of

the new facility is part of a main travel way and serves as a primary

circulation route around the building. He concluded by noting that, under

existing conditions, the current Senior Center’s covered area was often used

for parking rather than drop-off. This pattern further highlighted concerns that

a new covered structure could become similarly misused and pose

challenges for emergency access.

Questions and Comments from Council

Vice President Weaver thanked Senior Director Schultz and Chief Spence for

their detailed follow-up on the proposed covered walkway at the Senior

Center. He noted that he and several colleagues had previously reached out

with questions and appreciated the consideration of potential alternatives to

find the best possible solution.

Councilmember Schnetzer raised concerns about the estimated cost of the

walkway, noting that the back-of-the-envelope math suggested approximately

$15,000 per linear foot. He asked what the primary cost drivers were. Schultz

responded that the primary factor was that the structure was not part of the

original construction plan. He explained that the cost of steel, which continued

to rise, significantly impacted the estimate. Additionally, the design would

require the installation of four footings, two bollards, and electric wiring in the

roof structure. Schultz emphasized that electrical components in particular

added substantial costs. He acknowledged his own surprise when the cost

estimate came back at $300,000 to $350,000.

Councilmember Padova sought clarification on the public safety concerns.

She asked whether the issue was the physical presence of the canopy

structure or the likelihood that cars would stop and block access. Chief

Spence responded that it was a combination of factors. He noted that the

drawing illustrated two parked vehicles measuring about 22 feet each. The

total distance between the southernmost car and the apex of the roadway

curve was less than 40 feet, making it extremely difficult-if not impossible-for

large emergency vehicles to navigate the area. He clarified that the structure

under consideration would not extend out far enough to function as a

traditional overhang or portico, as site constraints would prevent that. The

canopy would stop at the sidewalk, and the area would remain a main

circulation route around the building. Spence emphasized that any vehicle

stopping there, even briefly, would likely cause obstruction. Schultz added

that in practice, a second vehicle would not likely stop where one was shown

in the illustration. Instead, it would pull up behind the first car in the designated

drop-off lane, which was constructed specifically for that purpose. He

highlighted the curve of the roadway and the proximity to pedestrian areas as

key design factors that guided the layout.

Councilmember Padova asked about the nature and frequency of drop-offs at

the current Senior Center. She inquired whether the facility regularly received

vans or buses transporting groups of people, such as residents from assisted

living facilities. Schultz responded that the two to four weekly drop-offs

monitored by staff reflected individual drop-offs-not group trips. For larger trips

or excursions, staff coordinated passenger loading away from high-traffic

areas, though not necessarily under a covered structure. Padova clarified her

question, asking whether the new facility would receive group drop-offs from

assisted living communities, particularly those transporting individuals with

mobility devices. Director of Parks and Recreation Stephania Ferrell

confirmed that the city staff maintained partnerships with assisted living

providers. She explained that these partners sometimes sponsored events

and brought residents to attend. Ferrell stated that she did not view the lack of

a covered walkway as a barrier. She emphasized that appropriate access to

the facility was available, and that staff could provide accommodations during

inclement weather as needed.

Vice President Weaver referred to a prior walkthrough of the 825 Tech Center

Drive facility with Senior Director Schultz, during which they discussed the

feasibility of constructing a covered walkway at the rear of the building, near

the dedicated Senior Center entrance. He asked Schultz to summarize those

considerations on the record. Schultz explained that creating a similar

covered structure at the rear of the building would require approximately

double the distance compared to the proposed front walkway. He indicated on

the site plan the location of the rear Senior Center member entrance and

explained that the distance from the door to a potential drop-off point was

significantly greater than the 23 feet required at the front. He added that the

primary challenge with constructing a covered structure at the rear was

related to traffic flow. The area immediately outside the rear entrance was

part of a key north-south travel lane. Stopping or standing vehicles in that

location would block most or all of the travel lane, creating significant

disruptions to site circulation and posing safety concerns.

Councilmember Padova followed up by asking whether any form of shelter

would be provided at the rear entrance, especially since members would be

required to use a badge or fob to access the door. Schultz confirmed that a

small three- to four-foot overhang would be affixed to the building above the

entrance. This structure, supported by the building itself, would provide

minimal coverage for individuals as they accessed the entrance, protecting

them from the elements while using their access credentials.

Police Department

Senior Director Schultz introduced the next portion of the presentation,

focused on the Police Department’s training and operational facilities at the

new 825 Tech Center Drive building. He noted that the layout emphasized

efficiency, future expansion capacity, and the creation of a safe and secure

facility. Schultz emphasized the intentional design separating staff and public

spaces to enhance safety for employees, officers, and visitors alike. He then

turned the presentation over to Police Chief Jeff Spence.

Chief Spence began with an overview of the Police Department’s lower-level

training center, located on the west side of the building. He described the first

set of images, including an observation area with large windows looking into

the range, the range itself with its backstop, and a storage area for equipment

such as lane dividers. Adjacent to these areas were the simulator room and

armory, as well as restrooms and secured storage space. The training center

included multiple doors and features to maintain positive HVAC pressure,

essential for safe environmental conditions. He also noted that this lower

level, including its stair tower, served as the designated storm shelter for the

entire facility-an important feature not available in current city buildings.

Spence continued with the second section of the training center, highlighting

the multi-functional training room, which will also serve as the City’s

Emergency Operations Center (EOC) during major weather events or other

emergencies. Additional images showed the fitness center and defensive

tactics room. The defensive tactics room would allow for simulation-based

training under stress, including scenarios like applying a tourniquet, where

officers' fine motor skills may be tested. He noted that this type of high-stress,

realistic training could help identify and resolve equipment or procedural

issues in a controlled environment before they occur during actual calls for

service.

Spence then described the "monument stair," a central stairwell connecting

all three floors of the Police Department. This stairwell would serve as a

unifying space linking the field services and training areas on the lower and

first floors to investigative services and administrative offices on the second

and third floors. He noted that other police departments, such as those in

Westerville, Hilliard, and Dublin, have done an excellent job preserving agency

history, and the new monument stair would allow Gahanna to do the same.

The stairwell would feature plaques honoring retirees and officers who

served, including one who died in the line of duty and two who died while

serving the City of Gahanna.

To provide context for the improvements, Spence shared current images of

the existing police facility across the street, focusing on the female locker

room. The existing locker room included one stall, one shower, and one sink.

Lockers were so closely spaced that two people could not open adjacent

lockers at the same time. The lack of benches and storage space made the

area cramped and inefficient. The space also doubled as gear storage,

contributing to further congestion. In contrast, the new facility would separate

gear storage into its own dedicated space near deployment areas, improving

organization and operational efficiency. The locker rooms under construction

would feature dedicated restroom facilities and a new HVAC system that

circulated air not only into the room but directly into the lockers. This system

would help dry wet equipment more effectively, reducing mold and odors, an

important consideration given the challenging environmental conditions

officers often face. Spence emphasized that these improvements would

support both hygiene and overall staff well-being.

Questions & Comments from Council

Councilmember Schnetzer asked Chief Spence to comment on the

importance of the structural hardening of the new police facility at 825 Tech

Center Drive. He emphasized the need for the facility to remain operational in

the event of a disaster, such as a tornado, and requested a summary of

relevant design features for the public record.

Chief Spence affirmed that the building will be constructed as a fully hardened

public safety facility. He acknowledged that certain design improvements

were made to the existing structure during both design and construction

phases to enhance its durability and operational resilience. He confirmed that

the facility will include a storm shelter and other components necessary to

maintain functionality during emergencies. Spence recounted a prior incident

from 2006 when a derecho storm caused two main doorways in the current

police facility to blow out due to inadequate door strength. At the time, the

facility was equipped with basic storefront doors that were neither hardened

nor commercial grade, leaving the building unsecured. He further explained

that the current facility contains additional vulnerabilities, including hollow core

doors and unsecured window areas. In contrast, the new facility is being

constructed with safety and security as top priorities. Design elements

include standoff distance to control approach access, secure parking, and

reinforced materials throughout. Spence noted that the Police Department

would have two lobby areas: a hard lobby for initial public access and a soft

lobby for secondary purposes such as taking police reports or conducting

interviews. The new facility also includes a designated safe room for

individuals in crisis who require immediate separation and protection. This

room can be secured with minimal staff involvement and is designed to

ensure occupant safety. He concluded by stating that the hardened design

and emergency features would benefit the Police Department and other City

staff working in the building.

2. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Update

2025-0087

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Presentation and Update 4.14.2025

Senior Director of Operations Kevin Schultz provided an update on the

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Committee of the Whole. He noted

that the CIP Advisory Committee met in March of 2025, to begin reviewing the

timeline and framework for the 2026 CIP update. Schultz reviewed the

published CIP adoption timeline, noting that the draft CIP report would be

introduced to Council on August 11, 2025, with final adoption targeted for

September 2, 2025, following a second reading and public hearing. He

reiterated that adoption of the CIP was not a formal approval of the capital

budget itself. However, the 2026 CIP was expected to reflect approximately

85-90% of the actual capital budget, with changes later presented as

amendments during budget deliberations. In response to previous Council

feedback, the Administration aimed to shift most capital-related presentations

into August and September to reduce presentation time during October and

November budget discussions.

Schultz then discussed the continued evolution and maturation of the CIP

document. He explained that while the document's intent remained

consistent, the city administration updated project phases and terminology to

reflect clearer planning expectations and eliminate confusion. In the past,

project phases were labeled numerically by year groupings, Phase 1 (Years

1-5), Phase 2 (Years 6-10), and so forth; this often led to misunderstandings

about when projects were expected to begin. Instead, city administration

proposed new terminology for project phases, aimed at better reflecting a

project's status rather than a specific year:

1. Actionable - Projects currently in design and scheduled for

construction. These projects were financed and were progressing,

such as 825 Tech Center Drive.

2. Assessment - Projects undergoing feasibility analysis, including

evaluation of cost, design, and funding needs. An example was the

Clark State Road multi-use trail feasibility study with the Franklin

County Engineer’s Office.

3. Identified - Projects that were recognized but not yet evaluated for

feasibility. These remained on the long-range planning list and could

be promoted in the future.

4. Visionary - Long-term conceptual projects, such as a hypothetical

100-acre solar farm. These projects were aspirational and unlikely to

proceed in the near term.

Schultz emphasized that projects could move fluidly between categories as

more information became available or as resources were allocated. He

stressed that the key goal was not to tie project status to a rigid timeframe,

but to maintain a clear categorization system that reflected feasibility,

planning stage, and readiness for execution. He concluded by explaining that

while some wording in the published document might still reflect the older

“Phase 1-4” terminology, staff will update the language in consultation with the

Advisory Committee and Council. The core intent of the plan, to identify,

prioritize, and phase projects appropriately, would remain unchanged.

Questions & Comments from Council

Councilmember Jones asked whether the newly proposed terminology-such

as "Actionable," "Assessment," and "Identified", would replace the “Start Year”

currently shown in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) document. She asked

if city administration would no longer include specific start years for projects.

Senior Director Schultz confirmed that the shift in terminology would replace

the use of a literal start year for most projects. For actionable projects, a start

year such as 2025 would still be included, but for projects in the “Identified”

phase, the column would instead show the label “Identified.” Schultz added

that the heading for the “Start Year” column may also be updated to reflect

this change.

President Bowers followed up, asking whether allocating funding for feasibility

assessments would automatically move a project from the “Identified”

category into the “Actionable” category. Schultz clarified that it would not. He

gave the example of the Clark State Road multi-use trail, noting that even with

allocated funding for feasibility work, the project would only advance to the

actionable category if Council explicitly authorized it. He emphasized that

feasibility alone did not guarantee advancement to construction. President

Bowers noted that the CIP Advisory Committee discussed the topic of

feasibility extensively and found it to be a productive conversation. She

highlighted that feasibility assessments should examine more than just cost

and include considerations such as land availability and location constraints.

Schultz agreed, citing the City’s service complex as an example. While the

project remained a high priority, it remained in the assessment category due

to the ongoing challenge of locating 10 to 12 acres of available land for the

facility.

Overview of Projects

Senior Director Schultz continued the Committee of the Whole update by

reviewing the nine largest capital projects currently identified within the City of

Gahanna’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He noted that while the following

slides used an older nomenclature, referring to “short,” “mid,” and “long-term”

project phases, he would update the terminology to reflect the revised

“Actionable,” “Assessment,” “Identified,” and “Visionary” phases prior to

distributing the final slide deck. Schultz explained that the nine projects

represented a collective investment range of approximately $85 million to

$105 million in today’s dollars. He clarified that while many of these projects

were well-defined in terms of scale and scope, their prioritization and

implementation varied. He also noted that some projects contained

subcomponents with differing priority levels. For example, the Creekside

Garage and Plaza project included a portion deemed imperative and

therefore classified as a Priority 1 project, while other components were lower

in priority. He further explained that the “Westside Utility Improvements”

project, frequently referred to as the “Westside Sewer Project”, was renamed

to better reflect its inclusion of water and storm sewer improvements in

addition to sanitary sewer. The estimate of $12-16 million applied to Phase 1

only and did not account for future phases that would increase the total

investment further.

Schultz then introduced the individual project slides, each of which included a

project description, CIP phase (to be updated), priority level, detailed cost

estimates for design, pre-construction, and construction, and potential

funding sources. He informed the Council that the slide deck would be

available for review and encouraged members to interrupt with questions as

needed. The first detailed project discussed was the Big Walnut Trail, a

multi-phase, long-term initiative more than ten years in the making. Schultz

noted ongoing work to traverse I-270 via an Ohio Department of

Transportation (ODOT) bridge project and stated that the City of Gahanna

applied for LinkUS funding to help close the gap in the $4.35-$5.9 million

project cost range. Estimated costs were broken out by easement

acquisition, design and pre-construction, and construction phases.

The next project highlighted was the Link to Literacy Trail. This trail would

connect Hamilton Road to Creekside by way of Shull Park. Schultz explained

that this project was currently classified as “Actionable” and “Essential,” due

in part to the City’s leveraging of NatureWorks grant funding. He presented

the full cost estimate of $2.1-$2.65 million, with breakdowns for land

acquisition, design, and construction.

President Bowers inquired about the grant funding associated with the Link to

Literacy Trail project. Director Ferrell confirmed the City of Gahanna secured

$500,000 in Clean Ohio Trail funding for the project. When asked whether the

funding carried a timeline for use, Ferrell explained that while the funding was

secured, the agreement was not initiated yet. Once a signed agreement was

in place, the project timeline for construction would be determined.

Senior Director Schultz then transitioned to an overview of the Creekside

Garage and Plaza project. He noted that although the project was currently

categorized under “Facilities,” it could also be considered a Parks project.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mandated that the City of

Gahanna mitigate flooding at the Creekside Garage; the City was working with

Fishbeck to develop mitigation strategies. Schultz emphasized that FEMA’s

requirement pertained only to flood mitigation, not to water seepage or

waterproofing of the plaza itself, though those enhancements were also

explored as a potential opportunity. The project was classified as “Actionable”

due to its current status in the design phase and carried a Priority Level 1

designation because of the FEMA flood mitigation requirement. Schultz noted,

however, that only a portion of the project was truly imperative, while other

components, such as plaza enhancements, could be considered

discretionary. The scope of the project included garage and trail

improvements, plaza reconstruction, streetscape enhancements, and ADA

accessibility upgrades. The portion referred to as “garage and trail

improvements” (shown in gray on the visual provided) would address

FEMA-required mitigation and include ADA switchback ramps and stair

access from the lower trail to the upper plaza. Schultz emphasized that this

portion alone was estimated at $6.25-6.8 million.

Senior Director Schultz further explained that the red and green portions on

the slide represented the lower and upper plaza reconstructions, respectively.

Councilmember Padova asked for clarification on what the green portion

included. Schultz stated that it encompassed complete reconstruction of the

plaza area, replacing street furniture, lighting, pavers, and railings, and

installing new design elements such as decorative coverings and a fireplace

feature. The upper plaza enhancements would also waterproof the garage

ceiling beneath it. Padova confirmed with Schultz that the full $18.9-$22.3

million project estimate reflected a complete reconstruction of the Creekside

Plaza, not general maintenance, and matched the concept renderings that

were shared with the public at the Mill Street Market. She requested that those

renderings be shared with the Council again for reference, noting that some

members may not have seen them.

Senior Director Schultz also discussed anticipated funding sources, which

included capital funds, TIF funds, and private investment. He explained that

private investment was being sought in part to support utility relocation for the

adjacent commercial buildings. In addition, the City recently applied for federal

earmark funding to support the FEMA-required flood mitigation component.

Mayor Jadwin added that this was the first year Ohio’s U.S. senators opened

the opportunity for federal appropriations requests. The City of Gahanna

submitted one application the previous Friday, April 11, 2025, and planned to

submit two more in the upcoming week, including one through

Congresswoman Beatty’s office.

President Bowers asked whether the earmarked federal funds would apply to

the FEMA-required mitigation. Schultz confirmed that they would and that the

$6.25-6.8 million estimate for the garage and trail improvements was the

portion for which earmark funding was requested. In response to a final

question from Bowers, Schultz noted that there was no specific maximum

award cap for this type of member-directed spending.

West Johnstown Road Transportation Improvements

Schultz presented the planned improvements for West Johnstown Road,

including the segment from James Road to Goshen Lane. Although the map

used during the presentation erroneously extended toward the interchange,

the actual project limits ended at Goshen. The project, developed by Director

Komlanc, included land acquisition, design and pre-construction, and

construction phases. Schultz noted that this project would be coordinated

with both the Westside Utility Improvements project and a Columbia Gas

project scheduled for 2026 in the same corridor.

Westside Utility Improvements

Schultz outlined the scope and funding of the Westside Utility Improvements,

emphasizing that the project addressed sanitary, stormwater, and water

infrastructure simultaneously. The slide provided a detailed breakdown of

funding allocations for each utility. Schultz noted that, since this work involved

utility infrastructure, the project would be eligible for funding from specialized

sewer, water, and stormwater capital funds, in addition to Tax Increment

Financing (TIF) dollars. He added that completing all three utilities

concurrently would provide long-term service improvements and avoid

repetitive construction disruption.

Service and Parks Garage Relocation

Schultz discussed the proposed relocation of the service and parks garage.

The current facility, situated on approximately 10 acres just north of

Friendship Park, was inadequate. The City determined that relocating the

facility would require 10 to 12 acres, but identifying suitable land within

Gahanna remained a challenge. For this reason, the project remained in the

“assessment” phase. Schultz explained that land acquisition costs in Central

Ohio were driven up due to regional development pressures, including the

regional Intel project, and estimated the cost of the acquisition at $1.5 to $2.5

million for the needed acreage. Construction and pre-construction estimates

were drawn from a past facility study by Pizzuti and updated using recent

cost data from Elford, the City's partner on the 825 Tech Center Drive project.

Aquatics Master Plan Implementation

Schultz provided an overview of the Aquatics Master Plan, referencing a

conceptual rendering of a potential new aquatic facility at Gahanna Swimming

Pool (GSP). He clarified that the total project cost estimate of $21 to $26

million only applied to reconstruction at GSP and did not include upgrades to

the Hunter’s Ridge pool. Features in the conceptual design reflected

community priorities, such as a relocated competition pool, zero-depth entry,

slides, and a lazy river. The project remained in the "identified" or "midterm"

phase of the Capital Improvement Plan. Schultz stated that the next step

would be conducting a feasibility assessment to determine the viability of

constructing the proposed facility.

Councilmember Jones asked for clarification regarding the categorization of

the Aquatics Master Plan project. She inquired whether, under the newly

introduced CIP terminology, the project should be considered “visionary.”

Senior Director Schultz responded that the project currently resided in the

“identified” category, which is the third level of project readiness in the new

framework.

Stygler, Agler, US 62

Senior Director Schultz then presented the final capital improvement project,

the Stygler Road, Agler Road, and U.S. 62 intersection improvements. He

acknowledged that while the community previously engaged in various

planning efforts for the area, there remained no clear consensus or finalized

direction. Schultz summarized that although several designs were presented

in the past, the project ultimately lacked momentum and needed

reinvigoration. He noted that Burgess & Niple were contracted through the

City’s Comprehensive Transportation and Mobility Plan and were evaluating

options for the intersection as part of their broader analysis. However, Schultz

emphasized that the project lacked a defined scope or strategy at present

and therefore remained in the “identified” category.

Concluding Remarks

Senior Director Schultz concluded by explaining the next steps for the

administration. The City of Gahanna’s leadership team, including the Mayor,

Director of Finance Joann Bury, and department directors, would begin

internal discussions regarding potential funding strategies for the nine major

projects. These discussions would precede and inform future meetings with

the CIP Advisory Committee. Schultz suggested one possible strategy:

implementing a multi-year capital budget approach. This approach would

involve projecting and allocating revenue beyond a single fiscal year, enabling

the City of Gahanna to begin financing longer-term projects by anticipating

revenues from subsequent years. He clarified that this was only one example

and that no decisions were made. He noted that these strategic

conversations would continue during the June 2025 CIP Advisory Committee

meeting, with the intent of advancing practical funding pathways for the larger

capital priorities. He closed by noting that, while not one of the nine core

projects discussed in detail, Academy Park was another large capital initiative

and was already fully funded for 2025.

Councilmember Padova thanked staff for the comprehensive information and

noted that while some projects were familiar to her due to her participation on

the Aquatics Steering Committee and her previous viewing of the Creekside

concept at Mill Street Market, others might not be as familiar to her colleagues

or members of the public. She asked whether the Council would receive

additional presentations or updates on these projects prior to July of 2025.

Senior Director Schultz responded that July would likely be the next

opportunity to revisit these items unless a project needed advanced more

quickly. He explained that, because the highlighted projects are large and will

require long-term funding strategies, additional time is needed for planning.

He also noted that while renderings can be helpful, they can also lead to

confusion about the phase or status of a project. For that reason, staff have

been careful to label renderings as “conceptual” and to refrain from showing

them publicly until the appropriate stage of planning and funding.

Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Senior Director Schultz for the overview

and suggested the administration consider treating the Westside Utility

Improvements project differently from a funding perspective. He noted that

water and sewer-related infrastructure can legally be funded through

revenue-backed bonds, which are secured by water and sewer charges and

may allow for an alternative financing path if cash funding is not feasible.

Councilmember Jones thanked staff for the presentation and asked for

clarification on how the city administration will transition from the nine

highlighted projects to the next set of projects, especially as the new CIP

format moves away from assigning specific “start years.” She asked how

projects like the community center would now be tracked. Schultz explained

that each of the nine current projects addresses a specific and often urgent

need, such as aging infrastructure, FEMA-mandated improvements, or

long-term gaps in park facilities. He noted that the community center project

is a good example of a long-range initiative that remains important but

currently falls into the “visionary” category due to the cost, complexity, and

land requirements involved. He added that being categorized as “visionary”

does not preclude a project from moving forward as funding strategies or

community priorities evolve. Councilmember Jones followed up, confirming

that the community center project, while previously listed with a dollar

amount, was not currently categorized under the new framework. Schultz

confirmed that it will be placed in the “visionary” category in the updated plan.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING:

Returning for further discussion (Wynne Ridge Bridge):

RES-0015-2025

A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY OF GAHANNA'S INTENT TO

PARTICIPATE FINANCIALLY IN THE WYNNE RIDGE COURT BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT PROJECT (ODOT PROJECT NO. 116417) AND

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A PARTICIPATORY

AGREEMENT WITH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

City Attorney Tamilarasan provided an update regarding the Wynne Ridge

Bridge project, which is being completed in conjunction with the Ohio

Department of Transportation (ODOT). She explained that ODOT originally

submitted a sample resolution for the City's consideration, which appeared on

the original agenda for first reading. However, Attorney Tamilarasan

requested that the item return to Committee due to procedural concerns

regarding the form of the legislation and potential conflicts with an ordinance

previously passed in October of 2025. Attorney Tamilarasan noted that the

resolution format was inconsistent with the type of authority being granted and

that additional clarity was needed regarding what the City was authorizing

ODOT to proceed with. She shared that she met earlier that day with

ODOT’s Assistant Chief Counsel to clarify the required documentation. As a

result of that meeting, a revised ordinance was created and uploaded that

afternoon. The new ordinance replaces the resolution and amends the prior

ordinance to reflect updated project estimates and contractual requirements.

Two distinct documents were attached to the ordinance: a new Local Public

Agency (LPA) contract and an amendment to the original LPA agreement.

Both documents serve separate functions in enabling the City of Gahanna to

move forward with the project. Because the ordinance authorizes a

construction project, it would take effect upon signature. However, Attorney

Tamilarasan advised that a waiver of second reading would be necessary in

order to meet ODOT’s April 25, 2025 deadline.

President Bowers thanked the City Attorney for her additional review and

efforts.

Vice President Weaver confirmed that both the resolution and ordinance

would appear on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. Attorney Tamilarasan

clarified that her recommendation was for the resolution to be tabled

indefinitely, followed by a vote on the ordinance waiver, and then a vote on the

ordinance itself. Vice President Weaver confirmed the process with Clerk

VanMeter and thanked both Senior Director Schultz and Attorney Tamilarasan

for their work on the matter.

Recommendation: Postpone Indefinitely on Regular Agenda on 4/21/2025.

ORD-0017-2025

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE 0058-2024 AND TO

AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO PROVIDE CONSENT AND ENTER

PARTICIPATORY

AMENDMENTS

AGREEMENTS

WITH THE

AND

OHIO

ANY

DEPARTMENT

NECESSARY

TRANSPORTATION FOR BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ON WYNNE

RIDGE COURT; AND WAIVING SECOND READING

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda with Waiver

and Adoption on 4/21/2025.

Request for Council Action (Fishbeck Engineering Services Proposal):

ORD-0018-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN

AGREEMENT WITH FISHBECK FOR UTILITY ENGINEERING

SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Senior Director of Operations Kevin Schultz reported that on February 26,

2024, the city issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for engineering

services. He explained that the RFQ served as a general solicitation covering

various disciplines within the Engineering Department. Schultz stated that the

city entered into a staff-type contract with Fishbeck for utility engineering

services in 2024. This contract remains in effect until May 2, 2025. The

purpose of the contract was to provide services previously handled by the

city’s former Senior Utility Engineer. He noted that the position remained

vacant since the departure of the previous engineer, despite continuous job

postings and active efforts to recruit a replacement. He emphasized the

critical importance of utility engineering to city operations. Schultz

recommended entering into a new agreement with Fishbeck to continue

providing utility engineering services. He clarified that the RFQ process from

2024 remained valid and competitive, covering a two- to three-year period and

still serving as a basis for contractor selection. He requested an ordinance

authorizing the Mayor to enter into the agreement with Fishbeck. Given the

upcoming expiration of the existing contract, Schultz also requested that the

Council pass the legislation as an emergency measure.

President Bowers asked for clarification on whether the Fishbeck utility

engineering contract was related to the water engineering position the City

previously experienced difficulty filling. Senior Director Schultz explained that

the former Water Resources Engineer position was reclassified as the Senior

Utility Engineer position several years ago, and confirmed it was the same

role. He stated the position was vacant since approximately May of 2024, the

previous year. The previous employee served as a project manager, but

transferred to the Parks and Recreation Department in a lateral move during

that time. President Bowers inquired whether a staffing realignment might

help address the vacancy. Senior Director Schultz stated that hiring

engineers was currently very difficult, and that hiring a utility engineer was

even more challenging. Mayor Jadwin added that it was akin to "a needle in a

haystack." Senior Director Schultz noted the city posted for multiple positions,

including Senior Utility Engineer, Utility Engineer, and Utility Project

Administrator, but applicants were scarce.

President Bowers asked whether any of the responsibilities being proposed

for Fishbeck could be handled internally by a different position. Senior Director

Schultz explained that the tasks involved were highly specialized and required

true utility engineering services, which no current staff member was qualified

to perform. Bowers asked if other communities were experiencing similar

challenges. Schultz confirmed that the position was posted in several

neighboring municipalities, all facing similar difficulties. President Bowers

acknowledged the challenge and expressed concern about the cost of the

Fishbeck contract, noting that it appeared to be significantly more than the

salary of a staff engineer. Schultz agreed, stating the position required a

professional engineer (PE) credential. Bowers asked whether the position

was in the correct classification and pay grade. Schultz responded that the

position was upgraded to Senior Utility Engineer to ensure appropriate

classification, though the current pay may not be competitive enough to

attract qualified applicants. Mayor Jadwin added that paying more for the role

than for the current City Engineer or Senior Transportation and Mobility

Engineer would have broader compensation implications, and that the current

contract approach was an effective way to meet the city's needs in the

interim. Bowers asked whether the contract with Fishbeck could be canceled

if the city hired someone for the position. Schultz confirmed that upon hiring,

the Fishbeck contract would be phased out responsibly, and there was no

commitment to the full expenditure.

Vice President Weaver noted the contract was structured as “not to exceed”

and that billing would occur only for actual work performed. Schultz confirmed

that Fishbeck provided on-site services several days per week, and that the

city received monthly invoices. Vice President Weaver emphasized the

importance of ensuring the city had the staff it needed and welcomed a

broader conversation about remaining competitive with other communities in

order to attract and retain engineering talent.

Councilmember Renner urged further research into the overall shortage of

engineers, calling it a significant problem. Vice President Weaver

acknowledged the challenge and agreed that all municipalities were

competing for the same limited pool of qualified candidates.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 4/21/2025;

Second Reading/Adoption with Emergency on Consent Agenda on 5/5/2025.

ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:

Councilmember Padova:

1. Joint Resolution for Herb Week

RES-0018-2025

A JOINT PROCLAMATION AND RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MAY

3-10, 2025 AS HERB WEEK IN THE CITY OF GAHANNA

Councilmember Padova introduced a joint proclamation and resolution

created in collaboration with Mayor Jadwin to recognize Herb Week. She

noted that the Council received the document earlier that day. The

proclamation honored the city’s historical designation as the Herb Capital and

recognized Jane “Bunnie” Geroux’s contributions in achieving that distinction.

Padova announced that the proclamation would be presented to Director

Kappes during the Herb Day celebration on May 3, 2025, at Creekside. The

presentation was scheduled to take place on the backstage area just before

the start of the celebration at 10:00 a.m., and she encouraged

Councilmembers to arrive by 9:30 a.m. to participate. Mayor Jadwin asked if

the version circulated to the Council was the same one she sent to

Councilmember Padova earlier that day. Padova confirmed that it was.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 4/21/2025.

2. Joint Certificates of Recognition: GLHS Paperclip Project and GRIN

Councilmember Padova informed the Council about the Paperclip Project

currently taking place at Gahanna Lincoln High School. She noted that many

Councilmembers had likely heard about the project or received emails from

participating students. The project began in 2014 with the goal of collecting six

million paperclips to create a monument honoring the victims of the

Holocaust. Padova announced that students involved in the project would

attend the next Council meeting. Students would speak about their work.

Padova acknowledged scheduling was still being finalized due to end-of-year

activities, including athletics. She shared that the Council Office prepared a

certificate of recognition to present to the students in honor of their efforts.

Vice President Weaver thanked Padova for the update and confirmed that no

legislative action was required.

Councilmember Padova continued by announcing that Gahanna Residents in

Need (GRIN) would hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for its new food lockers

on Monday, April 21, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. She noted that the lockers were made

possible in part by the City of Gahanna’s Community Grant funding. The

Council Office would also prepare a certificate of recognition for GRIN, and

she invited any Councilmembers who planned to attend the event to notify

Clerk VanMeter or herself so their signatures could be included. For those

unable to attend the event but who still wished to sign the certificate, Padova

encouraged them to stop by Council Office prior to the event.

ITEMS FROM COUNCIL OFFICE:

2025-0085

Ohio Division of Liquor Control Notice to Legislative Authority Permit

TRFO 4233752 FROM JAMES SNYDER DBA ANTOLINOS PIZZA TO

JAMES SNYDER RESTAURANT GROUP LLC DBA ANTOLINOS

PIZZA 1050 BEECHER CROSSING N STE G, GAHANNA, OH

Clerk VanMeter informed the Council that the item under consideration was a