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, October 27, 2025

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

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

27, 2025, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council Trenton I. Weaver,

Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The agenda was published on

October 24, 2025. All members were present for the meeting. There were no

additions or corrections to the agenda.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:

RES-0046-2025

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE "OUR GAHANNA" STRATEGIC

PLAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Vice President Weaver invited Senior Director of Administrative Services

Miranda Vollmer and Bailey Morlan to discuss the item.

Senior Director Vollmer stated that she and Bailey Morlan of Planning NEXT

were present to answer any questions about the Our Gahanna Strategic Plan.

Vice President Weaver noted there had been discussion over the last several

weeks on the item and it was agendized to circle back for any lingering

questions.

President Bowers asked Director Vollmer to share the process of the

Economic Development Strategy. Director Vollmer explained that the

Economic Development Strategy was developed by economic development

experts, the Steering Committee, and the public engagement in tandem with

the strategic plan process. Planning NEXT engaged with Ninigret Partners

and Julie Colley. Kevin Hively of Ninigret Partners has been working in the

Columbus region and did an assessment of the current economic landscape

in Gahanna. The assessment is found in Our Gahanna under the “Economic

Development Strategy” section. Ms. Colley attended CIC meetings to discuss

the plan and work with Director Gottke and Director Vollmer herself on the

strategy. The Steering Committee and public engagement were vital parts of

the development of the Economic Development Strategy. Planning NEXT

conducted business roundtables during the first round of engagement in

addition to the table talks. In the second round of engagement, there was a

specific economic development question and associated board of economic

development facts for the public to comment on. The economic development

goals and strategies had their own table at the joint steering committee with

directors in June. Finally, the strategies had two dedicated boards in the third

round of engagement and were on the online survey for all participants to

review, including Council. The Economic Development Strategy had

engagement at the annual economic development day event that featured

Josiah Brown. Following the event, Mr. Brown hosted roundtables made up of

community partners from the Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), schools,

and the Chamber of Commerce. In addition, local developers and partners

participated. Director Vollmer explained that the Economic Development

Strategy was intentionally integrated throughout the entire strategic planning

process.

Councilmember Padova acknowledged the work put into the project over the

last year. She appreciated everyone’s commitment and efforts in obtaining

community input. She appreciated that the data was fresh and stated it could

help Council in their considerations. Padova referred to materials provided by

the administration and specifically called attention to Appendix A on page 11.

She referenced the statistic that most homes are single family detached and

9% are multifamily, and some apartment complexes have been built but more

are needed to diversify the housing stock. She asked if Planning NEXT could

elaborate on why the housing stock diversity is needed for Gahanna. Ms.

Morlan stated the data goes hand-in-hand with the city’s vacancy rate, which

was low as of 2023, which is the most recent data that was pulled. The

recommended vacancy rate is 4%, and Gahanna’s was lower. This means

there is not much available housing stock in Gahanna. Not much housing

stock was available for younger professionals who want more flexible

housing, such as apartments and multifamily. It was therefore recommended

to increase and diversify the housing stock. This helps to reach different types

of people with different ages and lifestyles. Councilmember Padova thanked

Ms. Morlan and remarked on another statistic regarding renter-occupied

housing units on page 14 of the appendix. She wondered if 29% of all housing

types or specifically single-family housing is renter-occupied. Ms. Morlan

stated that percentage was for all housing types. Padova wondered if

short-term rentals are included in the statistic that 2% of housing stock is

unoccupied. Ms. Morlan said it depends on how the short-term rental is

classified, and whether it is classified as an additional or primary residence in

the census. Padova also highlighted Kelsey Bartholomew’s work on the

project.

Vice President Weaver extended his gratitude to the committee members,

volunteers, and all who participated on the project.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 11/3/2025.

ITEMS FROM COUNCIL OFFICE:

RES-0052-2025

RESOLUTION

CONCERNING

SERVICES

PROPERTY

PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION: 7.6+/- ACRES IN JEFFERSON

TOWNSHIP (Jimmie Toney & Darlene Toney, PID #s 170-000068-00

and 170-000069-00, 4722 East Johnstown Road and 4736 East

Johnstown Road, Columbus, OH 43230) TO THE CITY OF GAHANNA,

AND CITY BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AS REQUIRED IN OHIO

REVISED CODE SECTION 709.023.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the process began when there was

a pre-annexation agreement that was filed. The process is now at the second

step, and a petition has been formally filed with the county. Within 20 days,

the city is to adopt a services resolution outlining what services will be

available to the proposed annexed property. During this period the city also

has the right to object to the petition on particular grounds, including whether it

was statutorily in compliance with code. Per City Attorney Tamilarasan’s

review, it meets all criteria, and the petition is sufficient. There is no need for

Council to object.

Vice President Weaver asked City Attorney Tamilarasan to explain the steps

following the resolution for services. Tamilarasan explained that the Board of

Commissioners would consider the annexation petition and between 60 and

120 days the city would have to act to officially approve the annexation.

Councilmember Renner inquired about zoning, and whether the property

would be zoned according to the city’s zoning, or whether the township’s

zoning would remain. Monica Fuster, Kephart Fisher LLC, spoke as the agent

of the annexation. She shared her understanding that Section 3 of the

annexation, which Mr. Renner referred to, pertained to Code 709.023(c),

requiring a buffer zone for an area that will still be bordering the township.

Establishing zoning would be a separate process and would be approved by

Council.

Mayor Jadwin noted the administration was available to answer any questions

the petitioner may have, and that the decision is ultimately up to Council.

Vice President Weaver emphasized that this step in the process is simply

determining what services the city can provide for the properties and stated

that he looked forward to additional discussion on the annexation itself in the

future.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 11/3/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

ORD-0042-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

DEVELOPMENT

BENSON

AGREEMENT

WITH

AND THE

CONNECT

GAHANNA

REALTY

LLC,

CAPITAL,

LLC,

COMMUNITY

IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF

VACANT AND BLIGHTED PROPERTIES IN THE CREEKSIDE

DISTRICT

Vice President Weaver explained the item was returning to Committee of the

Whole after lengthy discussions in other meetings and is currently scheduled

for a vote on November 17, 2025. Vice President Weaver thanked Mr. Bob

Lamb and Mr. Frank Benson from Connect Real Estate and Benson Capital,

respectively, for their attendance as well. Jeff Gottke, Director of Economic

Development, opened his presentation by sharing that Council had submitted

five issues to him for discussion, which will be answered in his presentation.

He also noted there was a memo circulated to Council that would be

discussed as well. The five issues Council proposed were:

The development agreement review process and continuing liabilities

to the city.

Better understanding of the usage of the city-owned parking lot on

High Street and working toward a solution to offset the loss of parking.

The extent of public engagement and the results of the public

engagement and communication and the public’s response.

Fiscal impact analysis that demonstrates the net impact of the

proposed project on city finances; and,

Traffic impact study process.

Director Gottke reminded Council and viewers that the project is mixed-use

with two phases on Mill Street and High Street. Regarding the first item,

Development Agreement Review, Director Gottke stated Council should have

the most recent, final, version of the development agreement and the memo

circulated by City Attorney Tamilarasan outlining the most recent changes.

There were four changes. All parcels were verified that the numbers were

accurate. Additionally, the purchase agreement originally had two separate

purchase agreements, which were merged into one with staggered closings

to cut down on confusion and redundancy. Third, the reconveyance period

was clarified as parcel by parcel and it is extinguished with the receipt of

building permits. Finally, there was clarity on the staging areas that the

construction team could use throughout the process, including where they

would be located and how much of the space could be occupied.

Director Gottke shared that Councilman Schnetzer previously sent questions

primarily surrounding liability. Director Gottke explained that there were

currently no unexpected public infrastructure costs. He also stated there was

no existing liability for environmental or infrastructure issues upon breaking

ground, and the developer will bear those costs. He was hopeful that all

potential issues would be identified during the inspection period and there

would not be any unknowns that might cause future costs to be borne by the

developer. He added that the developer could terminate the agreement if they

find unknown issues that would be too much to bear. The city does not have

an obligation to remedy or fund the issues for the developer. In response to a

question about remediation and relocation cost caps, Director Gottke

explained there are no caps, but the developer will investigate during the

inspection period. There are also no lingering CIC liabilities. The properties

are sold as-is and the developer assumes all the risk and cost thereafter.

Regarding explicit city costs, the only known cost that the city must bear is

the cost of the parcels being conveyed under the development agreement.

There is no money changing hands, but there is value to the parcels being

conveyed. The city has no obligation to provide any further existing financial

resources. However, Director Gottke expressed that the city is making certain

commitments regarding a reduction in inspection fees and a commitment of

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and New Community Authority (NCA) revenue

sharing. These are currently unknown amounts. Finally, there are no revenue

guarantees from the TIF, NCA, or other sources. The city is not responsible

for covering any shortfall if revenues underperform.

Councilman Schnetzer thanked Director Gottke, adding that what he

essentially wants to capture is the city’s “all-in” cost on the project. He noted

that it seemed to be largely one time and fixed in nature, and Director Gottke’s

responses were satisfactory.

Director Gottke then addressed the second item, parking demand. In a

previous Committee of the Whole meeting, he presented preliminary findings

from a district-wide parking study, which included all surface lots from

Granville to Carpenter and Shull to Mill. It did not include anything south of

Granville Street or the garage. The average daily usage is 28%. High Street

surface lot usage was further broken down by morning, noon, and evening

use. He then provided heat maps showing overall parking demand across the

district. The areas with the greatest demand were on Town Street, the west

side of Mill Street, and on High Street south of Ogden Alley. The city parking

lot maintained average demand. The study looked at average usage, but

special events may require increased parking demand or render space

unusable. He stated they should not be considered in these types of parking

studies. He added that it is too early to propose final parking solutions, but

progress has been made toward understanding broader patterns across the

district and how the lot functions within it. The next steps will be to continue to

review the data and craft solutions based on evidence.

Next, Director Gottke addressed the third issue, public engagement. He

provided a list of all public engagement activities that have been undertaken

so far. He noted that the Creekside Reimagined website is now active. He

described feedback as largely positive, noting that the public had asked good

questions, voiced support, and shared concerns in a constructive way. Over

the course of four events, approximately 200 people provided feedback either

through live polling, small group discussion, comment cards in person, or

through stations. The results showed a rating of 4.1 out of 5, with 5 being the

most positive number for the mixed-use development, as well as 4.6 out of

five for the plaza revitalization. During live polling, the five most popular

sentiments were “exciting,” “stunning” or “impressive,” “visually appealing,”

“fresh” or “modern,” and “unsure” or “apprehensive.” When live poll

participants were asked, “What aspects of the proposed mixed-use

development stand out to you? Would this have a positive impact overall?” the

public reported that it draws people in, bringing attention and investment to

Gahanna. Participants felt optimistic overall but inquired about the impact on

public services such as roads and schools, as well as affordability. Overall,

the public feedback has recognized that Creekside currently lacks attractions,

a defined identity, and foot traffic. The public likes the mix of uses and urban

feel of the project. The most frequent concerns were the number of units and

impacts to city services, water capacity, traffic, and parking. The public

appreciated the outreach process and expressed gratitude for the opportunity

to be included. Feedback continues to be monitored.

Director Gottke shifted to the fourth issue raised by Council, fiscal impact

analysis. He prepared a detailed analysis comparing projected revenues to

city costs, addressing questions such as what is coming in from the project

and what is going out because of the project. He referenced a spreadsheet

provided to Council. Director Gottke explained that he used two models, both

of which determine revenue and costs by type. In this case, the uses

analyzed were multifamily and commercial, which capture restaurants and

hotels. The first method captures the marginal cost of growth by unit type.

This looks at how much each new apartment and townhouse will generate

and consume in terms of city services in a year. It includes data from the

Gahanna Jefferson Public Schools annual report, city budget, and

discussions with local safety personnel. Method 1 uses local data. The

second method also considers use type, but it considers restaurants,

residential, and hotels. Method 2 uses national per unit costs. Director Gottke

explained that the two fiscal impact methods show a similar result. The result

is estimated to be a fiscally positive effect, particularly noticeable after the

property tax abatement period ends. The first model shows a break-even

during the first 15 years, and a positive impact afterward. He noted the

analyses did not include any induced effect, such as new residents and

construction workers spending disposable income at restaurants in the area.

The project will likely have downstream impacts that were not necessarily

captured during these analyses.

Finally, Director Gottke addressed the issue of traffic impacts. He explained

the traffic impact study process. It is based on the size and type of project.

There are requirements for what data is required. Developers compile and

submit data to the city, which is then reviewed and approved before

construction permits are issued. It may take several rounds back and forth

between the developer and the city to ensure all traffic concerns are identified

before the project moves forward.

Vice President Weaver thanked Director Gottke for his follow-up and provided

an opportunity for Councilmembers to ask questions.

Councilmember McGregor acknowledged there were 667 parking spaces, but

wondered how many are in private lots, as some private business owners will

not permit public parking, even after hours, due to liability. Director Gottke

stated it is close to 50% public and 50% private, with a few more private

spaces than public. McGregor then asked if residential spaces between Mill

and Shull were counted, and Director Gottke replied they were not, unless

they were marked public parking areas. If the street is striped, it was counted,

but if not, the spots were not counted. Councilmember McGregor then noted

that businesses also rely on the public parking lot for their patrons, and she

expressed her concern that businesses would fail if parking was eliminated.

Councilmember Padova asked whether Director Gottke knew how often the

garage was full, noting that from her perspective, it is rarely full. Director

Gottke explained that a once daily hand count accounted for numbers in the

garage, but it was only once per day. Given the available space in the parking

garage, Padova felt Creekside parking would be sufficient.

President Bowers thanked Director Gottke, Attorney Tamilarasan, Mr. Lamb,

and Mr. Benson for their work and stated her appreciation for the deep dive

into the fiscal impacts and the review of the development agreement. She

asked whether the terms in item 12.4.9 of the development agreement, which

discusses the use of city property during development, could be summarized.

She hoped to understand which lot or parcel would be allowed to be gravel

surfaced and then utilized for parking. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated it

includes the phase two lot, the CIC-controlled lot, and parking garage as

permitted by regular public use. The CIC-controlled parcel limits the

percentage of use. Mr. Lamb clarified his understanding that the

CIC-controlled lot would be fully used, while the city-controlled parcel would

only use a percentage of spots during the day. Attorney Tamilarasan

explained that it was currently written the way she described, and Mr. Lamb

was amenable to switching those permissions. President Bowers then said

the agreement currently reads as though all the phase 2 property could be

utilized for parking, which would indicate that there would be demolition of all

phase 2 property sooner than expected. Mr. Lamb explained that phase 2 has

both CIC and city-controlled properties. The CIC-controlled properties would

be utilized for parking and city-owned would be used with the limitations

stated. President Bowers stated that the property at the north end of North

High Street has some historical significance, and she sought clarity on timing

and use of that parcel. Mr. Lamb said it was difficult to speak to that property

in a determinative way. Mr. Lamb added that a unique aspect of the

agreement is that there are multiple parties involved, which work out how

costs will be handled. There is a 180-day period to conduct due diligence

measures, and then feasibility would be determined. He explained that he

cannot provide firm answers to some questions because the land needs to

be in contract for them to determine some of the items. Bowers felt it would

be helpful for the community to know the soonest the construction process

would begin but acknowledged that he may not be able to provide that

information at this meeting. He stated that although much of the control is in

the hands of the city and state, he suspected construction would be at least

one and a half years from the day the development agreement is approved.

Councilmember McGregor asked if there was a report on the discussions

with Mifflin Township regarding a TIF. Director Gottke explained that there was

a meeting, and more follow-up discussion is anticipated. Mayor Jadwin added

that until a development agreement is passed, there is no TIF. The

development agreement process needed to be followed and then terms of a

TIF could be negotiated if it is established. Director Gottke said that the

township was supportive of the project.

Vice President Weaver expressed his thanks for modifications to Sections

5.2 and 12.46 regarding the reconveyance period and developer

commitments for arts and community engagement. He stated there would be

a public hearing on November 3, 2025, and that the item would be added to

the agenda for Committee of the Whole on November 10, 2025. Attorney

Tamilarasan added that the minor changes referenced during the meeting

could be made in the coming days.

Recommendation: Public Hearing Scheduled 11/3/2025; Further Discussion in

Committee of the Whole 11/10/2025; Anticipated Second Reading and Adoption

(with Amendment) on 11/17/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY:

RES-0051-2025

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE 2025

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GAHANNA

AND

THE

COMMUNITY

IMPROVEMENT

CORPORATION

GAHANNA

Attorney Tamilarasan discussed a redline version of the supplemental

agreement for the Community Improvement Corporation (CIC), with the

repayment provision if they draw on the appropriated funds. They would repay

any reimbursement received by the state or the Central Ohio CIC. Director

Gottke suggested a clause in section 2 adding the words “for demolition” after

the dollar amount, clarifying usage. He also recommended adding a clause to

the beginning of the third section stating that if funds are used for demolition,

the CIC agrees.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 11/3/2025.

ADJOURNMENT:

With no further business before the Committee of the Whole, the Chair

adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.