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, July 21, 2025

City Hall, Council Chambers

Immediately following regular City Council at 7:00 PM on July 21, 2025

CALL TO ORDER:

Gahanna City Council met for Committee of the Whole on Monday, July 21,

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

Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m. The agenda was published on

July 18, 2025. President Bowers was absent from the meeting. All other

members were present. There were no additions or corrections to the agenda.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING:

ORD-0031-2025

AN ORDINANCE TO LEVY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN

REAL ESTATE WITHIN THE 2022 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE

PROGRAM, TO APPROVE COSTS AND QUANTITIES, AND TO

DECLARE AN EMERGENCY

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc noted the department had four items

before the Council that evening. He explained that the first two items related to

the sidewalk maintenance and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

transition program, specifically the 2022 and 2024 programs, following the

conclusion of construction activities, and that they were before the Council for

the assessment and public hearing. He reviewed the background, noting that

the 2021 program was completed in 2023, produced lessons learned, and

prompted an update to the code. He said the 2022 program, which was in the

works in 2023, went through construction, and that they aimed to align the

program years with the actual years of construction, so the 2024 program

occurred in 2024. Komlanc reported that they tallied quantities, calculated the

final field-measured quantities, and provided notice to the residents within the

program area. He said the public hearing for both programs was slated for

August 4, 2025.

Councilmember Jones asked for clarification on the cost summary,

specifically the owner-attributed defect cost versus the total, and noted that

the resident was only responsible for 50% of the defect costs. Komlanc

introduced Paige Wright, Senior Transportation and Mobility Engineer, who

administered the program. Wright explained that the total cost included

defects attributed to the resident as well as those attributed to the city, giving

examples such as panels associated with curb ramps or panels with issues

around water valves that the city identified and replaced at full city cost; the

resident would pay only the owner-attributed portion, excluding any costs the

city identified as its own. Jones confirmed that the resident paid only 50% of

that owner-attributed cost, and Wright agreed.

Vice President Weaver said he understood that these items wrapped up the

2022 and 2024 programs and that the 2023 program was completed.

Komlanc clarified that because of the pause for the code updates, they

moved into 2024 by the time they engaged the 2023 program. Weaver

confirmed that no additional items would come forward for the 2023 program,

and Komlanc concurred.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading with Public Hearing on Regular

Agenda on 8/4/2025; Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on

8/18/2025.

ORD-0032-2025

AN ORDINANCE TO LEVY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN

REAL

ESTATE

WITHIN

THE

2024 SIDEWALK

MAINTENANCE

PROGRAM, TO APPROVE COSTS AND QUANTITIES, AND TO

DECLARE AN EMERGENCY

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading with Public Hearing on Regular

Agenda on 8/4/2025; Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on

8/18/2025.

MT-0008-2025

A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GAHANNA BIDDING FOR THE

2025 STREET REBUILD AND SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

WITH WATERLINE REPLACEMENT (ST-1116)

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc presented the next two items, which

first involved a request for permission to bid the street rebuild and waterline

project for Laura, Heil, and Rocky Fork Drive North. He said the plans were

finalized and they sought permission to proceed with contracting.

Councilmember Padova asked whether the Rocky Fork project would include

sidewalks on both sides, and Komlanc confirmed it would. She then asked

about Laura and Heil, where existing sidewalks appeared only on one side,

and whether the project would remove and replace the existing sidewalks or

add new ones on the opposite side. Komlanc explained that the project would

remove and replace some existing sidewalk facilities to achieve ADA

compliance; in areas without sidewalks, staff held a public meeting, and

residents had expressed a desire not to install new sidewalks. No valid

petition for assessment came forward, so they would not add sidewalks in

those areas, but they would make improvements where sidewalks already

existed. Padova confirmed that the team already met with the residents and

communicated those decisions for both Laura and Heil and Rocky Fork, and

Komlanc agreed. Padova asked whether the project appeared in the 2025

budget but would occur in 2026; Komlanc replied that it was part of the 2025

budget, that the waterline work would occur over the winter, and that the

rebuild would take place in the spring of the following year.

Councilmember McGregor raised a question about Rocky Fork Drive North,

on the north side, regarding some driveways and how the sidewalks would

work there. Komlanc said they performed engineering design to resolve the

profile grades and that the design worked. McGregor commended the

experts.

Recommendation: Adoption on Consent Agenda on 8/4/2025.

MT-0009-2025

A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GAHANNA BIDDING FOR THE

TAYLOR ROAD WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc requested permission to bid the Taylor

Road waterline replacement from Morrison Road to Helmbright. He said the

project would upsize the existing 12-inch line to a 16-inch line to

accommodate anticipated regional growth and the growth the city was

experiencing, and to provide resiliency to the potable water distribution

system network.

Recommendation: Adoption on Consent Agenda on 8/4/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

ORD-0034-2025

AN ORDINANCE TO REAUTHORIZE AND AMEND THE CREEKSIDE

OUTDOOR REFRESHMENT AREA (CORA) IN ACCORDANCE WITH

OHIO REVISED CODE 4301.82

Director of Economic Development Jeff Gottke presented four slides

regarding the reauthorization of the Creekside Outdoor Refreshment Area

(CORA), noting that the statute required the Council to review and reauthorize

CORA after five years of initial implementation, which would occur in

mid-August. He reviewed the fundamentals of a Designated Outdoor

Refreshment Area (DORA), referred to locally as CORA, as outlined in

Revised Code 4301.82, including the requirements that the area remain no

more than 320 contiguous acres, display permanent boundary signs, allow

businesses and liquor license holders to opt in or out, post the rules clearly,

and use designated non-glass containers (plastic cups in warmer months

and insulated cups for hot liquids in colder months). He explained that the

program required an approved health and safety plan, which designated at

least one officer for the area with the option to add more, and an approved

sanitation plan from Parks and Recreation and the Service Department that

provided receptacles at each CORA establishment and throughout the area,

maintained by the city. He added that the CORA committee met annually,

which was above and beyond the legal requirement, to review the prior year’s

performance, and that participation had to align with the master land use plan

and include at least four participants holding qualifying liquor licenses; servers

also had to receive special training.

Director Gottke reported successes from 2023 and 2024, stating that the

annual review group, which included city staff from development, safety,

sanitation services, and parks, along with business owners and Visit

Gahanna stakeholders, met to evaluate the program. They sold almost

14,000 CORA cups over that period, and, using a conservative $6 per

beverage estimate, that equated to approximately $84,000 in direct revenue to

participating establishments, with additional induced economic benefit as

patrons lingered, enjoyed green spaces, shopped, and dined. He said Chief

Spence reported zero CORA-related incidents that year involving businesses,

underage consumers, or the general public. He also noted that sanitation staff

observed no increase in service demand or additional trash collection due to

CORA in the district, indicating the program operated as intended. He then

described two changes that participating businesses requested, which the

committee discussed and agreed to pending Council approval. He explained

that the Council would act in a single piece of legislation to both reauthorize

CORA for five more years and implement the two changes. The first change

would establish uniform hours of 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily, effectively

expanding the existing Monday through Wednesday window from 3:00 p.m. to

11:00 p.m. by starting earlier. The second change would expand the eastern

boundary of the CORA by one block to include the west side of Short Street,

adjusting the area eastward and squaring off its southern edge where Short

Street ends and jogs toward High Street so that additional businesses could

participate. He outlined the next steps in the process: the Council would hold

a public hearing on August 4, 2025, followed by a second reading and vote on

August 18, 2025. He then invited questions.

Councilmember Renner asked whether all the businesses in the CORA area

supported the program or if some opted out, and whether any displayed “no

CORA” stickers. Director Gottke said he did not know how many businesses

had such stickers. Mayor Jadwin said she was not aware of any business

that requested or displayed a “no CORA” sticker since the program began in

2020. Renner added that he had not seen any but did not clearly remember.

Renner then asked whether the proposed expanded area for CORA included

spaces that might develop in the future, specifically referring to CIC-owned

property. Gottke replied that the property on Granville Street or Mill Street

already lay within the existing CORA and that the proposed expansion would

include additional properties on High Street.

Councilmember McGregor confirmed that no businesses currently operated

in the expanded area; Gottke explained that businesses in that vicinity

requested the expansion so the Council could include them. Mayor Jadwin

cited the Fable Collection at the corner of High and Carpenter as an example,

noting the business regularly scheduled a Creekside boutique hop that

brought vendors to North Street, and that the current boundary prevented

patrons from carrying beverages beyond that point or moving northward into

her business. She added that Sergeant Coffee, which moved into the former

Fox and Fox location on the other side of the street, also factored into the

adjustment, and that the expansion would extend the boundary from the

sidewalk in front of the business to the sidewalk behind the buildings on the

east side of High Street. McGregor asked whether the expansion moved

CORA closer to or within any prohibited area around schools. Gottke

responded that the revised code did not require any prohibited area around

schools. Mayor Jadwin said that, when they first created the DORA, they

chose to include such a limitation as a precaution, but she did not believe any

prohibition or restriction in the code currently imposed that limitation and

noted that the issue had not arisen over the past five years. McGregor

clarified that while no prohibition existed on selling alcohol within the CORA

boundary, certain liquor license objections could prohibit sales within 500 feet

of a school; Gottke explained that CORA’s boundary did not affect that

restriction, and if such an objection existed, they would carve that area out of

CORA, but no such objection applied at that time.

Vice President Weaver asked about signage marking the end of the CORA

boundary and whether the signs would move with the proposed expansion

toward Carpenter. Mayor Jadwin said they would have to adjust the signage.

She then added that, in support of sustainability initiatives, the CORA used

compostable cups and that the city received a $35,000 grant from SWACO

(Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio) to install recycling containers

specifically for CORA cups throughout the district, which did not increase

sanitation workload but reduced actual trash by diverting recyclables.

Councilmember Padova inquired about the jog in the boundary around The

Sanctuary and asked whether Lola and Giuseppe’s was asked to participate.

Mayor Jadwin said they declined. Padova suggested considering a future

expansion to include the Collective Home Supply for similar reasons as the

Fable Collection. Gottke noted they did not have to wait five years to expand

and could bring that back at another time, explaining that the timing simply

aligned for the current proposal. Mayor Jadwin reiterated that the purpose of

having a DORA involved creating a walkable area where patrons could move

from establishment to establishment within a defined boundary and said they

discussed further eastward expansion but did not believe the conditions yet

warranted it. As new businesses appeared along Granville Street and

enhanced walkability, they would adjust the boundary as appropriate. Padova

asked about the process for new restaurants entering the defined area, and

Gottke said the city would reach out to those businesses.

Vice President Weaver thanked Gottke for bringing the item forward,

expressed support for the standardized hours to reduce confusion, and

appreciated Padova’s question and Mayor Jadwin’s explanation. He observed

that the zoning map showed the Creekside mixed-use zoning extending down

Granville Street, making future expansion potentially appropriate, but said he

felt comfortable with the current proposal. With no further discussion, he

requested that, because the item included a public hearing, it remain on the

regular agenda.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading with Public Hearing on Regular

Agenda on 8/4/2025; Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on

8/18/2025.

Returning for Further Discussion (Postponed 7.7.2025):

ORD-0030-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA AGREEMENT WITH VELOCIS

GAHANNA JV, LP TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN

INDUSTRIAL

BUILDING

PARCELS

027-000110-00 AND

025-13634-00 ON TECH CENTER DRIVE, PART OF COMMUNITY

REINVESTMENT AREA #3; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Director of Economic Development Jeff Gottke began by saying he thought it

would be helpful to summarize the questions and issues the Council raised to

provide clarity for its decision. He noted that he provided a printed memo,

prior to the meeting, and that he planned to use a few slides, mostly graphics

from the memo, to crystallize those issues. He said company representatives

were present to speak in more depth afterward and that Mayor Jadwin

planned to offer comments. He identified four major questions the Council

asked during the process: whether the project proved financially worth it for

the city; how it compared to other abatement projects in the city; how the city

knew who it was doing business with; and whether the community needed

this type of building in Gahanna.

On the first question, financial worth, Gottke explained that the Council

historically applied a “but for” standard, i.e., the project would not occur but for

the abatement, and that the abatement in this case made rent affordable for

potential tenants. He displayed gross rent with and without the abatement and

compared those figures to the regional average to demonstrate that the

affordability measure aligned with the market. He then addressed return on

investment, presenting pre-abatement payments from the property

(approximately $11,000 to schools, about $406 to the city, and $0 to a TIF)

versus during the abatement (school collections rising to $102,000 and city

collections, including income tax and the TIF’s 20% remaining payment,

increasing to $52,000) and post-abatement (school collections jumping to

$226,000 and city receipts increasing to $213,000 via TIF and income tax). He

added a previously omitted piece of data: construction activity would generate

roughly $153,000 in income tax collections over the next year, which he

characterized as additional upside for the city. He said he calculated the

percentage increases from the current annual amounts to year 13 and that

those increases represented a strong return on investment. On job creation,

Gottke referenced an appendix comparing six other speculative projects in the

city and reviewed their 2024 performance relative to their pledges. He

reported that those projects delivered 17 more jobs than pledged, $2.4 million

more in payroll, and $17,000 more in salary than they had promised, providing

data that speculative developments could perform and contribute economic

value.

Addressing the second question, how this project compared to other

abatement projects, Gottke first reviewed the nine abatements in CRA Area 3.

He said the proposed project ranked second in total investment, fourth in job

creation, and fifth in payroll (noting it was the only one with guaranteed

payroll); its abatement term tied for fourth and its abatement percentage tied

for fifth. He then compared it to the other five speculative developments in the

city, stating that it ranked third in total investment, fifth in job creation, second

in total payroll (with the caveat that none of the others guaranteed payroll),

second in salary, and second in building and parcel size. He noted that the

abatement term and percentage fell in the middle of the range, which

spanned from seven years at 75% to 15 years at 100%, and concluded that

the project offered above-average returns with an average term and rate.

On the third question, how the city knew who it was doing business with,

Gottke deferred detailed discussion to the company representatives,

acknowledging they knew their own background best, but he outlined the

city’s vetting process. He said the incentive application included questions

about delinquent taxes, and staff, when appropriate, consulted other

departments regarding property maintenance violations or code deficiencies

to verify compliance. He emphasized the value of Jobs Ohio’s involvement,

explaining that the organization deployed hundreds of millions of its own

dollars in grants and loans for economic development, only supported net

new projects in the state, and limited incentives to eleven economic-based

industry sectors that brought external dollars into the community. He said

Jobs Ohio conducted its own rigorous vetting because it invested its own

funds. He noted that the packet included the Jobs Ohio intake/project

introductory application and the Ohio Site Improvement Program application

for speculative site development, highlighting sections addressing company

history and reputation. He added that since 2011, Jobs Ohio completed 2,800

projects with 500 different companies and invested hundreds of millions of

dollars of its own capital.

On the fourth question, whether the city needed this type of building, Gottke

described the proposed facility as a flexible industrial warehouse with an

office component designed to accommodate light manufacturing or

warehousing with associated office space. He referenced a spreadsheet that

Nate Green had shown at the prior meeting and said they received site

requests from Jobs Ohio roughly weekly or every other week. He explained

that since 2024 the city lacked appropriate sites for those requests, so they

could not submit several prospective projects; he presented those unmet

requests, detailing square footage, jobs, investment, intended use, and

industry. He distinguished existing industries (highlighted in blue) from ones

not yet present (in white), noting that existing industries tended to attract

similar firms through clustering, while also aiming for a diversified economy.

He said those peer comparisons also helped verify the company’s claim of

creating 37 jobs. Gottke then discussed the benefits of available space,

analogizing the situation to a homeowner choosing to rent versus buy. He

said businesses leased space for speed to market, that emerging companies

needed immediate space, that midsize growing companies required

transitional facilities, and that some firms operated as lease-only entities by

design. He cited seven local businesses that succeeded after starting or

expanding in similar space, noting they might have looked outside Gahanna

had the city lacked available options. He presented June 2025 data from One

Columbus, the regional economic development partner, showing available

space by size and location. He said the 100,000 to 199,000 square foot

category had the fewest buildings in the region, indicating demand, and that

sales data supported that demand. He reported that 77% of all buildings

leased in the second quarter of the year fell between 50,000 and 300,000

square feet, likely concentrating in the 100,000 to 200,000 range, with those

buildings varying in condition and amenities. He said the proposed building

would provide Class A space in a prime location for transportation, travel, and

quality of life in the Columbus region, making it very attractive.

Lastly, Director Gottke cited two recent inquiries that underscored demand:

one Gahanna-based business seeking to expand required 15,000 to 20,000

square feet, and a business that had left the area wanted to return and sought

50,000 to 60,000 square feet that the proposed building could fulfill or partially

fulfill. He concluded by saying he hoped the summary helped bring the

discussions from prior meetings together, then turned the presentation over

to the company representatives to address the four questions in greater depth

and offered to take any questions.

Questions from Council to Director Gottke

Councilmember Padova thanked Director Gottke for the information and

asked about the timeframe for the five speculative projects used for

comparison on page four of the provided packet. She inquired whether those

projects occurred in the last five or ten years. Gottke said the exhibit included

the lengths of the abatements, noting one of them was set to expire in 2025

and others extended out to 2037 if the current project were approved, and

acknowledged the comparisons spanned a variety of timeframes. Padova

summarized that the five projects being compared likely occurred over

roughly the last ten years, and Gottke agreed.

Councilmember Jones referred to page five of the packet, which outlined the

economic development department’s typical vetting steps, and asked about

the process for this particular applicant, whom she believed to be new to the

area and the state. She asked specifically about consulting with local

communities where the applicant had other abatements. Gottke confirmed

the applicant was new to Ohio. He explained that economic development

staff, just as companies inquire about doing business in Gahanna, reach out

to other communities when aware of a project to ask about their experience

with a developer, and they verify that information through auditor websites and

Tax Incentive Review Council (TIRC) reporting data, acknowledging that

some county auditors provide better systems than others. Jones noted the

department had not been able to do that outreach within Ohio for this

applicant.

Vice President Weaver followed up by asking whether the department

reached out to communities outside Ohio since there was no prior activity in

Ohio. Gottke responded that each state had different systems and that they

typically did not call around the country for that sort of inquiry, and he pointed

to the involvement and support of Jobs Ohio as a significant reputability

indicator. Weaver then asked whether the city received a completed Jobs

Ohio application and whether Jobs Ohio provided a report back. Gottke said

Jobs Ohio did not share their application information and that all of their

reporting remained aggregated.

Councilmember Jones asked if the application was related to a grant through

Jobs Ohio. Gottke replied that the program combined multiple elements and

that he was not certain of the exact nature of the award. Jones suggested

they could address that question with the company representatives later.

Discussion with Company Representatives

Jonathan Postweiler thanked Jeff Gottke and the Council for the opportunity to

address questions or concerns regarding the proposed ordinance on behalf

of Velocis and KBC Advisors. He expressed his disappointment with how the

July 7, 2025, City Council meeting transpired, saying that although he

appreciated the diligence shown by Councilmembers, he felt troubled by the

lack of transparency in the events leading up to that meeting and by the

prolonged delays in the approval process. He addressed Mr. Clawson’s

earlier comments, noting that the site sat idle for decades, generated no

additional tax revenue, and failed to achieve its highest and best use. He said

the City of Gahanna established a Community Reinvestment Area that

included the site to encourage investment and job creation, a policy

subsequent councils upheld, acknowledging the role abatements played in

economic growth. He criticized the current process for lacking clear

standards, ebbing with political tides, and remaining opaque and arbitrary,

which he said created the appearance of an uneven and subjective approach

to evaluating projects and risked diminishing the time, capital, and

professional commitment his team made and intended to continue making.

He compared the proposed abatement to the February 2022 approval of a

15-year, 100% tax abatement for Scannell Properties’ 292,000-square-foot

speculative industrial development at 1800 Deffenbaugh Court, noting that

that project received emergency clause passage and waived second reading

with no job creation guarantees, while their proposed project, despite being

less than half the size, offered a shorter 12-year term, a lower 80%

abatement, and significantly greater economic value including more than a

half million in additional payroll and developer guarantees around payroll tax.

He reaffirmed his team’s commitment to working collaboratively with the city

to deliver a high-quality project that provided long-term benefits.

Mr. Postweiler then responded to Councilmember Jones’s question about the

Jobs Ohio approval process. He summarized that they obtained full internal

approvals from Jobs Ohio, and that a draft grant agreement had arrived for

review. He explained that they submitted organizational charts,

documentation confirming good standing of relevant entities, certificates to do

business in Ohio, and banking information as part of the grant application.

Jobs Ohio accepted those materials without objection, completed its vetting,

approved the project for a grant amount, and the team would execute the

grant agreement upon receipt. Postweiler read a statement to clarify three key

points about the proposed project. First, he said the city would incur no loss if

the abatement received approval because the project would not proceed

without it; he explained that approval would allow the city to receive its share

of taxes based on increased underlying land value plus 20% of property taxes

on the new improvements, whereas denial would leave the site undeveloped

and continue generating the current $406 per year. He warned that denying

the abatement would signal to future investors that Gahanna did not prioritize

economic development or provide timely, consistent application review.

Second, he said the city would receive guaranteed payroll tax revenue

because the owner agreed to a binding guarantee of a minimum level of

payroll tax generation and would compensate the city annually for any

shortfall, with failure to pay constituting a breach and risking loss of the

abatement, thereby mitigating the city’s risk while preserving upside if job

creation exceeded expectations. He contrasted that with the alternative of

zero jobs and zero payroll tax if the ordinance failed. Third, he argued that

evaluating the project solely through the 12-year abatement window proved

short-sighted because the facility would operate for decades beyond that

term, generating sustained economic and public value, and once the

abatement ended, full tax revenues would flow to the city, school district, and

other public entities.

Councilmember Jones asked Postweiler to elaborate on the relationship

between KBC and Velocis, including their joint history, locations of past

projects, and end users. Postweiler said he led the Midwest development

team for KBC and the Velocis team, that the partnership between KBC and

Velocis encompassed over $1 billion in industrial warehouse projects across

15 developments totaling more than 8.5 million square feet, and that their

investor base included large pension funds, endowments, insurance

companies, family offices, and private investors. He said Velocis,

headquartered in Dallas, operated as a private equity real estate fund

manager founded in 2010, raised over $1.6 billion in equity, acquired more

than $3.3 billion in real estate assets across over 220 investments, and

launched eight actively managed funds spanning 70 property types. He added

that the KBC-Velocis partnership’s 15 projects spanned the Southwest in

Arizona and Texas, the Chicago area, and were now expanding into Ohio. He

said 14 of those 15 developments proceeded without issue, noting one

project faced ongoing litigation, and affirmed the partnership’s commitment to

transparency and ethical business, characterizing the litigation as an

anomaly. Councilmember Jones asked why the team chose Ohio. Postweiler

responded that two factors drove the decision. He introduced listing brokers

Beau Taggart and Joe Kimener, noting they had deep industrial brokerage

experience and understood the local market demand. Strategically, he said

Ohio provided access and connectivity to most of the eastern United States

within one day’s drive, favorable fiscal policies, tenant demand, interstate

connectivity, access to labor, and strong market dynamics in Columbus. He

added that submarket dynamics on the east side of town and Gahanna’s

community reputation, including being the best-ranked ZIP code two years in

a row, strong labor market, and interstate access, further influenced their

decision. He concluded that a site owned by VRG became available to

acquire, prompting them to put it under contract and begin the process. Jones

then raised the issue of the litigation in Texas, asking about the prior

relationship with that community, the origin of the dispute, and how the

situation escalated to litigation rather than resolution through dialogue.

Postweiler prefaced his response by stating the matter remained active

litigation and that he would speak within appropriate bounds. He said the

litigation involved the Texas development team in conjunction with Velocis,

and that he, being based in the Midwest, did not handle daily operations but

remained aware of the situation. He explained that the site in question fell

under a master development plan and extraterritorial development agreement.

Velocis acquired a small portion, followed the same procedures previous

developers used to permit the site, received approvals from a privately

appointed design review committee and the county board, and notified the

City of Bee Cave of construction commencement. He said the city provided

no pushback at that time and only filed a lawsuit after residents began to

complain. He reported that Velocis contested the city’s allegations of zoning

violations and filed a counterclaim arguing that the lawsuit violated Chapter

245 of the Texas Local Government Code, due process and property rights

under Texas and U.S. Constitutions, and the Texas Open Meetings Act,

asserting that the decision to sue occurred without proper public notice. He

said, to his understanding, Velocis received the suit without prior notice, no

public meetings occurred to discuss the litigation, and that circumstance

prevented meaningful engagement with the community about next steps. He

added two caveats: first, the lawsuit aimed to stop construction despite the

buildings nearing completion, noting a temporary injunction had lifted at the

first hearing and that the trial set for February concerned stopping

construction on buildings already complete, making the issue largely moot;

second, he said their submitted statement reflected that the city and Velocis

each strongly disputed the other’s positions, with Velocis alleging neglect,

crime, improper procedures, and other deficiencies on the city’s part.

Councilmember Padova corrected the record, stating that the Scannell

Properties 2022 abatement ordinance had passed with a waiver but that the

emergency clause had failed; she and Councilwoman Bowers had voted no

on the emergency. Jonathan Postweiler acknowledged the correction.

Councilmember Schnetzer said the notification of the ongoing litigation in

Texas had slowed the process and asked City Attorney Tamilarasan to

summarize her assessment of the public filings. Tamilarasan reported that

she had conducted as deep a review as possible of the public records

involving the City of Bee Cave, Velocis, and KBC Investment Group. She said

she would not judge the merits of the underlying case, but her concern arose

from the parties’ actions during litigation and the complexity of the business

structure. She explained that multiple motions to compel discovery had

involved Velocis and KBC and that she lacked access to the detailed

information submitted to Jobs Ohio, such as subsidiary structures,

organizational charts, and bank records, needed to evaluate enforceability.

She warned that even a sound contract could fail if the contracting entity

lacked solidity, particularly given the multiple layers of subsidiary entities,

which created uncertainty about whether the city could ultimately collect or

enforce obligations. Schnetzer asked for her opinion on the risks in the

proposed agreement, and Tamilarasan reiterated that her concern centered

on ensuring the city contracted with the proper, enforceable entities; given the

limited information she had, she remained uneasy. Schnetzer then asked

whether the city attorney’s office and the economic development office could

work with the applicants to resolve those concerns. Mr. Postweiler responded

with two points. First, he reminded the Council and public that being named in

a lawsuit did not constitute an admission of guilt or evidence of wrongdoing,

citing prior unfounded allegations against the city as illustrative of the danger

of lending undue credibility to unproven claims. Second, he explained the

organizational structure of the ownership and management entities, stating

that Velocis Gahanna JV, LP would serve as the single-purpose ownership

entity with Velocis Gahanna JV GP LLC as the managing entity, a structure

that provided signing authority and accommodated multiple investment

partners without requiring every investor to execute each document. He

described the use of single-purpose entities as standard in commercial real

estate, noting that their lender required such a structure and that banks

performed OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) checks during loan

origination. He asserted the structure did not obscure ownership, pointed to

similarly structured respected firms in the community, and reiterated that

Velocis Gahanna JV, LP would not engage in any “drop and swap” practice.

Director Gottke noted that the city attorney had previously requested an

organizational chart and that they could provide one to help satisfy her

concerns. Postweiler confirmed that if an organizational chart would make the

Council comfortable approving the ordinance, they would provide it. Gottke

added that the Council retained ultimate control over the abatement and could

cancel it upon non-performance, restoring tax collections. Aaron Underhill,

legal counsel for the applicant, said the Tax Incentive Review Council’s

annual review served as a first fail-safe, and that cancellation of the incentive

returned 100% of the taxes to their normal flow. He also noted that the

project’s $19 million building asset gave the city a tangible entity to pursue in

the event of a damage claim, and that the single-purpose entity would have to

own that asset to receive the incentive during the term. Councilmember

Schnetzer indicated a desire to move past the city attorney’s concerns and

suggested follow-up work among the parties. Vice President Weaver clarified

that the Tax Incentive Review Council made recommendations but did not

hold decision-making authority. Postweiler emphasized that the proposed

CRA included payroll tax guarantees, that failure to meet those guarantees

would constitute a breach allowing the city to terminate the agreement, and

that the owner would have to make annual payments to receive the benefit.

Weaver asked who would bear responsibility if the income tax amount failed

to materialize; Postweiler replied that Velocis Gahanna JV, LP would incur

that obligation, and if it did not fulfill the guarantee the city would contact him

or Paul Smith, who held signing authority for the managing entity.

Councilmember Renner shifted topics and asked whether the speculative

building now had identified prospective tenants, noting that earlier testimony

had indicated no one was lined up. Gottke clarified that he had provided

expressions of interest from companies. Postweiler added that they had

received a full-building lease proposal the previous week from an undisclosed

group targeting occupancy a few weeks before the projected construction

completion; he warned that further delays in approving the abatement would

push construction out, jeopardize that prospective tenant, and impair their

ability to provide a reliable delivery date. Renner then asked whether they

updated information regarding renewable energy, water use, building

performance, or perimeter improvements. Postweiler responded that the

delays since the last Committee of the Whole meeting imposed significant

cost increases, especially with upcoming winter conditions affecting site work

and foundations, eroding any remaining margin. He said they were not

pursuing additional base-building improvements at that time, though they

would consider retrofitting such features after delivery if tenants required

them. Renner noted the project sought an 80% abatement; Postweiler

reiterated that the abatement reflected demonstrated financial need based on

market gross rents and the elevated costs they faced, not an arbitrary figure.

Renner asked about prior comments regarding ownership after the

abatement term, and Postweiler clarified that the joint venture operated as an

opportunistic seller. He said current market conditions did not favor a sale, but

if interest rates fell and the building leased, they might exit. He could not

commit to ownership duration, as that decision would depend on market

dynamics.

Councilmember Padova asked Postweiler to repeat earlier figures about

Velocis. He stated that Velocis, headquartered in Dallas and founded in 2010,

raised over $1.6 billion in equity and acquired more than $3.3 billion in real

estate assets across over 220 investments, and that the Velocis-KBC

partnership developed over $1 billion in industrial warehouse projects across

15 developments totaling more than 8.5 million square feet. Padova then

questioned the need-based rationale given the possibility of selling the

warehouse before the abatement ended, asking whether the need stemmed

from a requirement to recoup investment quickly to enable a sale. Postweiler

replied that the need derived from market rental rates and competitive

pressures, comparing what tenants would pay in their building versus

alternatives in Columbus or New Albany. He introduced Beau Taggart to

address market-related questions. Mr. Taggart said the tax abatement was

essential to remain competitive in the marketplace, explaining that competing

assets in New Albany and other areas offered 15-year, 100% abatements,

which lowered their operating expenses and allowed them to offer more

favorable lease rates. He said tenants evaluated multiple options, and without

a competitive lease rate, the Gahanna building would sit vacant, forcing the

owners to cover taxes, carrying costs, and utility expenses. He asserted that

virtually no speculative building in the region operated without some form of

tax abatement and that the project sought to meet current market demand.

Mr. Postweiler supplemented that without the abatement they would need to

deliver the building for just over $14 million in total project cost, but current

costs exceeded $19 million. He said they lacked any other mechanism to

absorb the $5 million gap, making the abatement necessary for the project to

proceed. Taggart added that from an investor’s perspective, an abatement

could complicate a future sale because buyers might worry about changes to

gross or net rents when the abatement expired; ideally they would lease

without an abatement, but competition made that unfeasible, so they pursued

the abatement to satisfy present market demand.

Joe Kimener said the proposed project represented the only competitive

option in Gahanna for the company’s size requirements and that the city

competed with other communities; he added that Gahanna could not win the

project without the abatement. Vice President Weaver thanked Mr. Kimener

and said his underlying concern centered on whether this project represented

the best choice for Gahanna, not just in terms of use but in timing and given

the site’s constraints, and asked why it was the right project for the city. Mr.

Postweiler replied that the various Council meetings had demonstrated the

community’s need for this product type, and he said that if the Council moved

the Ordinance to the Regular Agenda in two weeks and approved it, they

could take almost immediate action after the cooldown period by acquiring

land and starting construction. He noted that the project held Planning

Commission approval, a civil grading permit, and that they awaited only the

abatement approval to proceed. He described existing site constraints and

said those factors, along with the need for grant support from Jobs Ohio,

underpinned the request. He contrasted the current $406 of annual benefit

and zero jobs with the alternative of approving the abatement, which fell within

average recent terms and percentages and included payroll guarantees and

potential upside from job creation.

Jordan Fromm of Value Recovery Group II LLC commented that the

discussion about corporate structure mirrored his own experience with

industrial development and that use of single-purpose entities with GP/LP

tiers formed a common, sensible investment structure. He described his

long-term ownership of the site since 2005, including the cleanup of the

Bedford II landfill and the challenges in marketing the property, noting

repeated interest from uncommitted prospects and that delays in approvals

lengthened the sales cycle. He said they believed KBC represented a credible

development partner.

Bob Lockett of Alterra Real Estate recounted his involvement with the project

dating back to approximately 2007 and recalled past challenges Gahanna

faced competing with New Albany on abatements. He said the City of

Gahanna had slowly achieved success in economic development and that, in

evaluating partners, they performed their own research; he characterized the

current development team as “AAA” and strongly recommended the Council

consider the project carefully, warning that failure to approve it would have

damaging consequences after years of effort.

Director Gottke responded that no project proved perfect, acknowledged

widespread concerns about performance and market changes, and said the

city’s best approach involved securing the best deal while minimizing risk by

evaluating partner indicators such as funding sources, Jobs Ohio support,

and prior project success, and by relying on the city’s own land use, zoning,

engineering, and abatement controls.

Vice President Weaver said the exchange provided helpful level-setting and

then called for any further questions or comments. Seeing none, he asked if it

was the will of the Council to proceed with a vote on August 4, 2025.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked whether the supporting documentation

referenced during the discussion could be distributed by email to the Council,

and City Attorney Tamilarasan agreed. Weaver requested, if available, any

Jobs Ohio materials, and Mr. Postweiler said they remained under

nondisclosure for the grant amount but could provide the draft grant

agreement that Jobs Ohio issued to approved applicants. Weaver said that

would be reasonable and asked that it be shared along with the other

documents. He concluded that, with nothing further, they would proceed as

planned on August 4, 2025.

Recommendation: Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 8/4/2025;

Pending Amendment requested to remove Emergency Declaration.

ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:

Councilmember Weaver:

Resolution Honoring Kate Acklin, Franklin County Fair Queen