200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Committee of the Whole

Jamille Jones, Chair

Merisa K. Bowers

Nancy R. McGregor

Kaylee Padova

Stephen A. Renner

Michael Schnetzer

Trenton I. Weaver

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Monday, March 9, 2026

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

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

March 9, 2026, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council

Jamille Jones, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The

agenda was published on March 6, 2026. Councilmember Michael

Schnetzer was absent from the meeting. All other members were

present.

Vice President Jones announced one addition to the agenda, an

update on the Community Grants Program, notated as the new Item C

on the agenda.

ITEMS FROM COUNCIL OFFICE:

ORD-0007-2026

APPROXIMATELY

FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, TO THE CITY OF GAHANNA; LOCATED

AT 4736 AND 4722 JOHNSTOWN ROAD (PARCEL ID NOS.

170-000068 AND 170-000069).

ORDINANCE

THE

ANNEXATION

7.6 ACRES

FROM

JEFFERSON

TOWNSHIP,

Vice President Jones invited David Fisher, counsel on behalf of the

annexation applicant, to speak.

David Fisher introduced himself and Tim Spencer. He thanked the

committee for allowing additional time to meet with the Committee of the

Whole and explained that he had been out of town during the previous

meeting. He stated that he wanted to attend personally to discuss the

matter before the annexation reached final consideration. Fisher said he

had been a resident of Gahanna for approximately 33 years and lived on

Cherry Bottom Road. He noted that he practiced law and also engaged

in real estate development. Fisher stated that he believed he might be

the only developer who regularly appeared before Council who lived in

the community, paid taxes in the city, and had a long-term commitment to

Gahanna. He referenced his involvement in the redevelopment of the

former FOP site on State Route 62 and Cherry Bottom Road, explaining

that the project had been a lengthy and difficult process that included

lawsuits and challenges to his professional license. He stated that he

persisted because he believed the project would ultimately benefit the

community. He said the resulting community park had become a valuable

amenity that connected parts of the city and attracted many residents

who now used the walking paths daily.

Mr. Fisher explained that Jim and Darlene Toney, the owners of the

property in question, had been friends of his for many years. When they

began considering retirement, they discussed options for their property

and he offered to assist them. Fisher stated that he and his partners

entered into a contract for the property approximately two years earlier

and had worked through the process deliberately rather than rushing it.

He explained that the property currently lay in Jefferson Township and

that the team had completed a pre-annexation agreement with the city

several months earlier. The county commissioners had approved the

annexation request and Council would now consider it, with a second

reading and possible final vote scheduled for the following Monday.

Fisher stated that the development team had the option to submit zoning

simultaneously with the annexation but chose not to rush that step.

Instead, they planned to gather input from the city, planning staff, and

residents before determining final plans. He explained that the project

would not be developed for immediate sale but would remain a long-term

investment. He stated that he wanted to construct a development he

could drive past daily with pride as a resident of Gahanna. Fisher

described the concept as a mixed-use project with limited retail uses

such as a restaurant, fitness facility, or medical office, along with

residential apartments designed to be sustainable, attractive, and

durable over time. He acknowledged the presence of a large pond on the

property that could not be altered because it functioned as a wetland. He

stated that the development team would work with the city and

neighboring residents to determine how the pond could potentially serve

as a community amenity. Fisher also mentioned the possibility of

installing a gateway sign welcoming visitors to Gahanna, like the one

along the corridor near UDF. He expressed his belief that annexation

would allow the city to guide development in the area rather than leaving

it under township jurisdiction. Fisher asked Council to consider

approving the annexation and stated that he would continue working with

planning staff, neighbors, and city officials during the zoning and

development process. He then offered to answer questions.

President Weaver thanked Fisher and Spencer for attending and

expressed appreciation for Fisher’s earlier meeting with residents from

the Creekway Court neighborhood. He noted that neighbors had raised

concerns about the pond and the possibility of adding amenities around

it. Weaver stated that some residents worried about trails or

improvements due to the condition of surrounding land and encouraged

Fisher to remain in communication with those property owners if the

project moved forward. Weaver also emphasized that annexation

represented only one step in the process and explained that rezoning

and additional public comment opportunities would follow if Council

approved the annexation. Fisher responded that he recalled three

primary concerns raised by neighbors: the overall change to the area, the

pond, and traffic. He explained that the pond had become a wetland and

could not be filled or removed, although the development team could

work around it and potentially incorporate it as a community feature. He

reiterated his commitment to developing a high-quality project that

improved the property’s current condition. Regarding traffic, Fisher

stated that traffic concerns arose in nearly every development project. He

noted that traffic along State Route 62 from New Albany through the

roundabout would continue to increase regardless of the project. He

stated that proper planning, including well-designed entrances and exits,

could allow the development to accommodate additional traffic

responsibly without harming quality of life in the area.

Vice President Jones asked if any additional questions or discussion

remained. Hearing none, she thanked Fisher and Spencer for attending

and noted that Council would see them again the following week.

Recommendation: Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 3/16/2026.

UPDATES FROM ADMINISTRATION:

2026-0057

Community Grant Program Update to Council

Committee of the Whole

March 9, 2026

Vice President Jones introduced the next agenda item, the Community

Grant Program update, and recognized Senior Deputy Director Corey

Wybensinger to present the information.

Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger stated that the program had

reached its fourth consecutive year. He provided a brief overview of the

program’s progress since 2023 and discussed the upcoming 2026

funding cycle, which the City intended to launch the following Monday. He

explained that the City had completed four rounds of funding over three

years. In 2023 and 2024, the program used American Rescue Plan Act

funds. In 2025, the City transitioned the program to local funding. He

noted that the City conducted two funding rounds in 2025 because the

Grant Review Committee did not allocate the full $100,000 in the first

round. The committee awarded $81,250, leaving approximately $18,000

available. Later in the year, the City launched a second round after food

insecurity concerns emerged. Wybensinger stated that the program had

funded 43 projects across 25 individual nonprofit organizations since its

inception. Wybensinger stated that the 2026 program would include only

minor adjustments because the City implemented most major changes

during the transition from federal to local funding. He explained that staff

continued refining program guidelines to clarify application procedures

and improve the quality of submissions. He announced that the City

would host a voluntary information session or webinar to allow nonprofits

to ask questions about the application process. He explained that the

session aimed to support smaller nonprofits that lacked experience

applying for grant funding. He also noted that the addition of a grants

analyst had helped staff guide nonprofits toward stronger and more

sustainable programming.

Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger stated that staff would modify the

eligibility review process. In prior years, the Grant Review Committee

evaluated both eligibility and project details during in-person meetings.

He explained that this process required four resident members and a city

employee to spend significant time reviewing eligibility requirements.

Under the updated process, the Department of Administrative Services

team would complete the initial eligibility review and identify applications

as eligible or ineligible. The Grant Review Committee would then focus

on evaluating projects. He explained that staff would continue using the

OpenGov software platform for application submissions and reporting,

noting that the City had already received recognition for using the

platform in the permitting process. The updated system would include

automated reporting tools, reminders, and easier document uploads.

Wybensinger stated that program priorities would remain unchanged.

Priority 1A addressed human necessities such as food and clothing

insecurity. Priority 1B focused on mental health and counseling services.

Priority 2 addressed safety, health, and welfare needs such as

transportation, housing, and utility assistance. Priority 3 supported

general improvements within the Gahanna community. He explained that

grants would remain reimbursable and capped at $10,000. Staff

believed this limit encouraged achievable projects while allowing

equitable distribution among nonprofits. Wybensinger reviewed the

eligibility requirements. Applicants must qualify as IRS-registered

nonprofit organizations located within the Gahanna community, defined

as the City of Gahanna and the Gahanna-Jefferson Public School

District. Programs must serve a population composed of at least 51

percent Gahanna residents. Applicants who previously received funding

must close out prior awards and submit all required documentation

before receiving additional funds. Wybensinger explained that the Grant

Review Committee would evaluate eligible applications. The committee

consisted of two Council appointees, two mayoral appointees, and one

city staff member, typically from the economic development team. The

committee reviewed applications based on program priorities and

guidelines and recommended full awards, partial awards, or no awards.

Wybensinger stated that partial awards occurred frequently because the

committee sometimes chose to fund only certain components of a

proposal. Staff confirmed with applicants that they could complete the

funded portions before issuing awards.

Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger outlined the proposed timeline for

the 2026 grant cycle. The City planned to release the notice of funding

opportunity on March 16, 2026. Staff would distribute the announcement

through direct email to nonprofits, social media posts, and the City

newsletter. The City scheduled the virtual information session for March

24. Staff would send an application reminder on April 6. The application

portal would close on April 13. Staff would accept paper or email

submissions if necessary and would enter those applications into the

system internally. The City planned to issue award notices around April

23. Wybensinger explained that staff required progress updates and

reporting throughout the grant period. He stated that smaller nonprofits

sometimes became busy with operational responsibilities, so required

check-ins helped maintain project progress. Each grant required a final

report summarizing outcomes, participation numbers, and community

impact whenever possible. Because the grants operated on a

reimbursement basis, recipients submitted documentation of expenses,

which staff reviewed for compliance before issuing reimbursement

payments. Wybensinger concluded his presentation by highlighting a

2025 project at Creative Options involving an adaptive beehive

developed in partnership with Peace Lutheran Church. He explained that

the specially designed hive accommodated individuals with mobility and

accessibility needs. The installation occurred in the fall, and the

organization tentatively planned a ribbon-cutting event on June 6, 2026.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether the April 13 application

deadline referred to midnight or the close of business. Wybensinger

responded that the deadline typically occurred at the close of business

because staff manually closed the application portal.

President Weaver asked whether staff would remove ineligible

applications before the committee review or simply identify them.

Wybensinger explained that the committee would have access to all

submissions. Staff would categorize applications as eligible or ineligible

in a shared folder and provide explanations. Committee members could

review those determinations and discuss them during deliberations.

Weaver also confirmed that a separate city staff representative served

on the committee and that this individual did not belong to the

Department of Administrative Services team that conducted the

preliminary review.

Councilmember Padova asked whether the committee conducted

interviews with applicants. Wybensinger explained that interviews

occurred only if the committee required clarification. The committee

could request meetings with applicants in person or virtually. Padova

asked whether the interview stage occurred as a standard second round.

Wybensinger clarified that the committee requested interviews only when

necessary. Councilmember Padova asked whether staff could provide

Council with a list of all organizations that received funding in the second

round of the previous year. Wybensinger stated that he would review the

previous communications and resend the list if necessary.

Councilmember Bowers asked whether staff allowed applicants to

correct clerical errors or missing responses after the portal closed.

Wybensinger explained that staff attempted to assist applicants when

possible to ensure strong applications. Staff had previously contacted

applicants who misunderstood documentation requirements and

requested corrections. While staff preferred to maintain the submission

deadline, they would allow minor clerical corrections when appropriate.

Councilmember Bowers also asked whether staff had identified

connections between the Community Grant Program and the City’s

strategic plan. Wybensinger responded that many funded projects

aligned with strategic plan initiatives, including sustainability efforts,

community gardening programs, neighborhood development, and other

initiatives that strengthened community resources.

Vice President Jones praised the informational session and educational

support offered to nonprofits. She stated that smaller organizations often

lacked time and expertise to pursue grant funding, and the City’s

approach provided both financial and educational support. She asked

whether staff had considered creating a standardized template for final

reports. Wybensinger explained that staff had begun developing a

template that could accommodate different project types while

minimizing additional administrative burdens. He added that staff already

met with grant recipients when they signed their grant agreements to

explain reporting expectations and available support. Vice President

Jones also asked whether the program had always operated on a

reimbursement basis. Wybensinger explained that the City initially used

advance payments during the federal funding period but transitioned to

reimbursement-based payments when the City adopted local funding.

Councilmember Renner thanked Wybensinger for the presentation and

praised the program’s development. He stated that staff had matured the

program thoughtfully by implementing detailed procedures and

safeguards to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Wybensinger acknowledged the team effort involved in managing the

program.

Vice President Jones asked whether any additional questions or

discussion remained. Hearing none, she thanked staff for the update and

recognized the work completed on the Community Grant Program.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY:

RES-0008-2026

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) CONTRACT WITH THE

GAHANNA-JEFFERSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE 2026-2027

SCHOOL YEAR

Chief Spence presented the proposed 2026-2027 School Resource

Officer (SRO) agreement with Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schools. He

explained that the Police Department worked with the City Attorney,

school administration, and the school district’s legal counsel to update

the agreement language. He stated that the most significant change

involved the cost-sharing model. Under the previous model, the district

funded 75 percent of one SRO position and 50 percent of another. The

proposed agreement changed the model to an equal 50 percent cost

share for three SRO positions. Chief Spence explained that the prior

model would have increased the district’s contribution by approximately

$6,500 for the upcoming school year, but the revised agreement

increased the total district contribution from approximately $40,000 to

$48,735.32 across all three positions. He added that staff reviewed

cost-sharing models used by school districts outside Franklin County and

found that a 50 percent cost share represented the most common

midpoint among comparable jurisdictions. He noted that the Board of

Education had already approved the agreement and that the changes

would take effect for the upcoming school year. He also stated that the

City had updated the memorandum of understanding with the district that

governed the operational aspects of the SRO program.

Councilmember Bowers acknowledged the comparison with other

jurisdictions and asked what prompted the cost-share change at this

time. Chief Spence explained that the City approved the addition of

another SRO position in the 2026 budget. He noted that the Police

Department had previously adjusted staffing as the school district

expanded, including assigning a city-funded officer to serve the middle

schools. He stated that the additional SRO position would serve

Gahanna Lincoln High School beginning in the 2026-2027 school year.

Councilmember Bowers confirmed that the change reflected expanded

staffing resources and an effort to balance the cost-sharing arrangement.

Chief Spence confirmed that explanation. Councilmember Bowers noted

that the Board of Education had already approved the agreement and

asked Vice President Jones, who served as liaison, whether the board

had raised any concerns.

Vice President Jones stated that the board approved the agreement

without significant questions or discussion at its most recent regular

meeting. She added that the approximate $48,000 increase resulted

from the addition of the third SRO position. Chief Spence confirmed that

the change expanded the cost-share model from two officers to three

officers and established a 50 percent cost share for each. Vice

President Jones asked whether the additional officer would serve the

high school beginning next school year. Chief Spence confirmed that the

change applied to the 2026-2027 school year. Chief Spence explained

that the department would post the new position within Deputy Chief

Moffitt’s division and complete the training required under the Ohio

Revised Code before the school year began. He stated that the

department occasionally adjusted assignments to address operational

needs. He explained that the department currently assigned one officer to

cover the three middle schools and also maintained SRO coverage in the

elementary schools.

Vice President Jones asked how the officer assigned to the three middle

schools managed scheduling and whether the officer visited each school

daily. Chief Spence explained that the officer balanced time among the

schools based on needs within each building. He stated that specific

incidents or calls for service sometimes required the officer to spend

more time at one school during a particular week, but the department

attempted to maintain balance among the three middle schools.

Councilmember Bowers expressed appreciation for the service provided

by the School Resource Officers and the entire Gahanna Police

Department. She referenced recent threats reported across multiple

Ohio school districts and stated that community members had

commended the professionalism and organization displayed by the

department. She also thanked Gahanna Lincoln High School staff and

students for responding responsibly during the situation. Councilmember

Bowers acknowledged the financial pressures facing public schools but

emphasized that the strength of the community remained closely

connected to the strength of the school district. She expressed hope that

the district would continue to provide services across the community.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 3/16/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE:

ORD-0009-2026

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

- Office of Criminal Justice Services (OCJS) Grant Fund for Body-Worn

Camera Services

Director Bury presented a request for supplemental appropriations

related to a grant the City received from the Ohio Office of Criminal

Justice Services (OCJS) for the body-worn camera maintenance service

contract. She requested supplemental appropriations in the amount of

$90,000.

Vice President Jones asked whether Council had any questions or

discussion. Hearing none, she stated that Council would place the item

on first reading March 16, 2026, with adoption scheduled for April 6,

2026. She asked whether members preferred to place the legislation on

consent, and Council agreed to proceed with the Consent Agenda.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 3/16/2026;

Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 4/6/2026.

RES-0007-2026

A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A THEN AND NOW PURCHASE

ORDER UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE 5705.41(D)(1) FOR THE

PURPOSE OF STOP LOSS COVERAGE THROUGH SUN LIFE

Director Bury presented a then-and-now purchase. She explained that

under the Ohio Revised Code, the encumbrance date must occur before

the invoice date. She stated that she could authorize then-and-now

certifications for amounts up to $3,000. Any amount exceeding $3,000

required Council approval. She explained that the resolution requested

Council approval for a then-and-now purchase related to the City’s stop

loss insurance.

Vice President Jones asked whether Council had any questions or

discussion. Hearing none, she confirmed that Council would place the

item on the Consent Agenda March 16, 2026, and thanked Director Bury

for the presentation.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 3/16/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

RES-0010-2026

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE SELECTION OF SUCCESSOR

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE GAHANNA

NEW COMMUNITY AUTHORITY.

Director of Economic Development Jeff Gottke addressed Council

regarding three administrative cleanup items related to the New

Community Authority (NCA) established in the Crescent District the

previous year. He provided background information explaining that the

Ohio Revised Code established a prescribed structure for the initial

board of a new community authority. He stated that this initial board

functioned as a placeholder structure until either statutory population

thresholds allowed for elections or Council adopted an alternative

governance system. Director Gottke explained that the resolution before

Council reauthorized the board structure that Council had adopted the

previous year, which extended the placeholder model until residents

began living within the district. Because that one-year period had now

passed, Council needed to reauthorize the structure. He stated that the

proposed legislation remained nearly identical to the resolution adopted

the previous year, with three changes. First, the resolution defined board

member terms, which neither Council nor the NCA board had previously

established. The language specified that terms would begin on January 1

and end on December 31 of the final year of the term. Second, the

resolution converted the temporary placeholder structure into a

permanent structure. The current structure consisted of one city

representative, three citizen representatives appointed by Council, and

three developer representatives appointed by the developer. Director

Gottke explained that staff recommended making this structure

permanent rather than implementing elections. He noted that the

population threshold required for elections had not yet been reached,

which would require waiting at least another year. He also stated that

conducting elections among a small group of private residents could

prove complicated and that it was possible no residents would choose to

run for the board, which would leave seats vacant. Director Gottke

explained that the proposal retained Council’s authority to appoint the

three citizen representatives and added language expressing a

preference for appointing residents of the district. If no resident

applicants were available, Council could appoint another city resident

through its normal appointment process. He summarized that the

changes defined board terms, made the placeholder structure

permanent, and emphasized the preference for appointing district

residents.

Councilmember Renner thanked Director Gottke for reviewing the details

and stated that he appreciated the careful work involved in reviewing and

verifying the resolution. He expressed his full support for the proposal.

City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that she had worked closely with

Director Gottke to draft the resolution. She clarified several points

regarding the language. She explained that the resolution allowed up to

three appointees to reside within the district and stated that the language

directed Council to appoint district residents unless Council determined

that no appropriate applicants resided there. She also clarified the term

language. Because the first appointments occurred mid-year, the draft

language specified that those terms would expire on December 31 of the

year following the appointment. She explained that Council intended to

align future appointments with the organizational meeting on January 2,

which would create full two-year terms running from January through

December.

Councilmember Bowers asked whether other communities with new

community authorities had adopted similar appointment systems.

Director Gottke responded that the election system described in the

Revised Code represented the anomaly and that most NCAs used

alternative appointment systems. City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed

that staff had consulted with NCA legal counsel and that most

communities used appointment mechanisms. She added that she

planned to follow up with NCA counsel regarding how frequently

communities required district residency. Councilmember Bowers asked

whether a future Council could return to the election model if residents

later requested that change. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that

Council could amend the resolution at any time. She explained that the

previous resolution included a sunset provision, which required the

current reauthorization. The proposed resolution did not include a sunset

provision and would remain in effect unless a future Council amended it.

President Weaver expressed appreciation to Director Gottke and City

Attorney Tamilarasan for their work. He reiterated his strong preference

that Council appoint residents from the district when possible but

acknowledged that circumstances might make that difficult. He asked

whether Council would need a redlined amendment before the next

meeting. City Attorney Tamilarasan responded that she believed the

parties were aligned and that she only wanted to clarify the language.

Councilmember Bowers asked whether Council could incorporate

language or procedures encouraging outreach to Crescent District

residents when filling appointments. She suggested communicating with

the property manager or distributing notices to residents. Clerk VanMeter

suggested adding the position to the City’s onboarding system for board

and commission applications and issuing a public notice seeking

applicants from the Crescent District. He stated that he could forward

such notices to Director Gottke for distribution through the property

manager. Councilmember Bowers asked whether Council should

incorporate that outreach process in the resolution. Clerk VanMeter

stated that emphasizing communication with residents would align with

the City’s existing practices for other boards and commissions, though

Council could choose to include such language if desired. Director

Gottke asked whether the Clerk’s office maintained internal processes

for appointments and whether those procedures could incorporate the

outreach step. Councilmember Bowers confirmed that she referred to the

onboarding system mentioned by the Clerk. City Attorney Tamilarasan

stated that the resolution already required that appointees be residents

of the district unless Council determined that no qualified resident

applicants existed. She explained that board and commission postings

already described the qualifications and scope of appointments, which

would encourage resident participation. Councilmember Bowers noted

that the discussion had occurred on the record and expressed hope that

future Councils would remember the intent behind the residency

preference.

Vice President Jones asked whether Council had any additional

questions or discussion. Hearing none, she stated that Council would

place the legislation on the Consent Agenda for the March 16, 2026,

meeting and thanked the participants.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 3/16/2026.

ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:

1. Procurement Code Discussion

2026-0054

Procurement Code Research Materials

Vice President Jones introduced the next agenda item, a procurement

code discussion requested by Councilmember Bowers, and recognized

Councilmember Bowers to begin the discussion.

Councilmember Bowers thanked her colleagues and the administration

for revisiting the topic and explained that she requested the discussion to

consider adjusting the contract authorization threshold for expenditures

that fall outside the competitive bidding requirements established by the

Ohio Revised Code. She began by reviewing the current conditions. She

stated that contracts that do not require competitive bidding and fall

below $250,000 may currently be executed administratively without

separate Council approval unless a supplemental appropriation is

required. Councilmember Bowers stated that research of neighboring

municipalities indicated that Gahanna’s threshold was significantly higher

than those of peer communities in central Ohio. She explained that

legislative review in many comparable municipalities typically occurred at

levels closer to $50,000 to $75,000. She reminded Council that the

current policy was established relatively recently in early 2022 when the

code first codified a formal contract authorization threshold. She

acknowledged Director Bury’s work in developing the policy following

audit recommendations. Councilmember Bowers explained that federal

procurement guidance influenced the policy and that the City adopted the

higher threshold during the period when the administration needed to

move COVID-19 relief funding efficiently. She stated that those

circumstances understandably led to a higher threshold than those

commonly used in municipal governance. She added that, now that the

City had returned to more typical operating conditions, Council should

reconsider whether the threshold continued to reflect best practices for a

city of Gahanna’s size.

Councilmember Bowers stated that Council had also received a list of

professional services purchase orders issued between 2022 and the end

of 2025. She explained that the administration issued approximately

$14.5 million in professional service purchase orders during that period.

After reviewing the data, she observed a functional distinction in how

contracts tended to fall. She explained that contracts above

approximately $90,000 typically related to larger capital initiatives,

strategic projects, or significant policy initiatives. She acknowledged that

some strategic or policy-related contracts also fell below that amount, but

she stated that many of the smaller contracts appeared to involve routine

administrative services, ongoing operational needs, or smaller

professional engagements. Based on both the regional comparison and

her review of the purchase order data, Councilmember Bowers

proposed that Council consider a $100,000 threshold for contracts

requiring Council authorization. She explained that this level would

preserve administrative flexibility for routine operational matters while

ensuring that larger strategic expenditures received Council review and

discussion in a public forum.

Councilmember Bowers noted that Council had also discussed the

possibility of establishing a regular reporting structure during a prior

Committee of the Whole meeting. She stated that she looked forward to

hearing from the administration on that topic as well. She explained that

she viewed the issue as an opportunity to pursue a comprehensive

solution that included either reporting, approval, or both. Councilmember

Bowers emphasized that her proposal did not intend to slow projects or

question the work of the administration. She stated that the proposal

aimed to strengthen transparency and allow Council to fulfill its

responsibility as stewards of public funds. She explained that Council’s

role extended beyond appropriating funds in the budget to providing

oversight of how those funds were used. She concluded that adjusting the

threshold would ensure that significant expenditures received

appropriate public discussion and would allow Council and the

administration to engage in dialogue before contracts were finalized.

She stated that good governance required both branches of government

to carry out their respective roles, with the administration executing the

work of the City and Council providing transparent oversight of public

spending. Councilmember Bowers added that the proposal sought to

align Gahanna’s practices more closely with regional norms while

reinforcing the transparency and accountability residents expected when

significant public funds were committed. She thanked Council for the

opportunity to present the overview and stated that she looked forward to

hearing from the administration.

Mayor Jadwin thanked Councilmember Bowers for her overview and

acknowledged Vice President Jones for framing the discussion as an

open dialogue. She stated that the administration prepared some slides

to support its comments. Mayor Jadwin noted that Council adopted the

current procurement policy four years earlier in March 2022, when

Council established the $250,000 contract authorization threshold. She

stated that Council held extensive discussions at that time about the

reasons for adopting that threshold. She explained that the City had

experienced no issues with the policy over the past four years and had

received strong audit results while continuing to provide reporting to

Council. Mayor Jadwin also noted that Council had adopted the

procurement policy change unanimously at that time. Mayor Jadwin

stated that her administration had made numerous changes over the past

six years to strengthen governance practices and continued to evaluate

policies regularly. She explained that, after hearing Council’s recent

comments regarding the procurement policy, she met with her team to

review how the policy had functioned and to consider Council’s

feedback. She clarified that the professional services purchase order list

previously shared with Council reflected funds appropriated rather than

funds actually spent. She explained that the City opened purchase orders

based on appropriated budget amounts and often returned unused funds

at the end of the year. She emphasized that the approximately $14

million referenced represented appropriated purchase orders rather than

actual expenditures. Mayor Jadwin then invited Senior Deputy Director

Wybensinger to present the administration’s recommendations.

Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger stated that the administration

believed the procurement thresholds adopted in March 2022 had worked

effectively and had supported operational efficiency within the City. He

explained that the current thresholds allowed staff to respond more

quickly to operational needs, reduced transaction costs, and encouraged

vendor participation in smaller and mid-sized projects. He noted that

these improvements helped change the perception among vendors and

encouraged them to pursue work with the City. He added that the City

had maintained compliance and oversight while reducing administrative

burden. Wybensinger stated that staff had engaged in extensive

discussions over the previous month to better understand Council’s

perspective. He explained that he had met with Director Bury multiple

times and had also discussed the issue with Senior Director Schultz,

Senior Director Vollmer, and Mayor Jadwin. He stated that staff

continued to align decision-making with the Our Gahanna Strategic Plan,

including Goal 2 A.16, which called for streamlined procurement and

financial practices. He explained that staff wanted procurement rules that

employees could understand and apply quickly and that vendors could

easily navigate when doing business with the City.

Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger presented the administration’s

recommended adjustments to the procurement thresholds. He

recommended maintaining the current $10,000 micro-purchase threshold

with no changes. He recommended modifying the small purchase

threshold to $149,999, which would move the City closer to the threshold

used by Upper Arlington. He stated that staff anticipated other

municipalities would continue increasing thresholds as costs of goods

and services continued to rise. He explained that the small purchase

category would still require multiple competitive quotes, which matched

the current process. Wybensinger also recommended creating a third

category called the competitive solicitation threshold. Under this

proposal, any purchase exceeding $150,000, regardless of whether the

purchase involved professional services, equipment, or construction,

would require Council authorization for the Mayor to enter into the

agreement. He stated that combining the competitive proposal and

sealed bid language into a single threshold would simplify the

procurement process and clarify when Council authorization was

required. He explained that the change would maintain compliance while

allowing the City to respond quickly when operational needs arose.

Councilmember Renner thanked Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger

for presenting the recommendation and asked whether the proposed

$150,000 threshold aligned with practices used by other central Ohio

municipalities. Wybensinger responded that the recommendation

aligned with the Upper Arlington example previously provided and noted

that many municipalities had moved toward thresholds near $100,000

and were gradually increasing them. Councilmember Renner stated that

he appreciated the administration’s attention to internal processes and

vendor accessibility. He explained that efficient procurement helped

ensure vendors could participate easily and complete projects for the

City. He also stated that residents frequently reviewed Council agendas

to track project status and understand when infrastructure improvements

might occur in their neighborhoods. He explained that lowering the

threshold would place more project discussions on the public agenda,

which would increase the information available to residents. He

acknowledged that this approach would require additional administrative

work but stated that it would allow residents to follow project timelines

more closely. He added that upcoming capital improvement planning

discussions would also connect to these project updates.

Councilmember Renner stated that he supported the recommendation to

reduce the threshold from $250,000 to $150,000. Senior Deputy Director

Wybensinger responded that he appreciated the feedback but

expressed some concern about using procurement thresholds primarily

as a communication mechanism. He explained that additional

procurement procedures could add weeks to project timelines because

formal competitive solicitation processes required additional

administrative steps. He stated that staff aimed to remain responsive to

community needs and worried that additional procurement steps could

slow projects unnecessarily. He acknowledged that government

processes already required multiple steps and emphasized that staff

wanted to maintain efficiency whenever possible. Councilmember

Renner responded that he understood the concern but believed

government should move deliberately to ensure public understanding and

participation. He reiterated his support for the administration’s

recommendation.

Mayor Jadwin addressed the discussion and thanked Councilmember

Renner for his comments. She stated that the administration shared the

goal of transparency and accountability when communicating with

residents. She explained that adding more contract approvals to Council

agendas might not necessarily improve communication about project

timelines. She noted that contracts often appeared on the agenda

months before construction or project work began because additional

steps followed vendor selection. She stated that residents sometimes

misunderstood these steps and assumed work would begin immediately

after Council discussion. Mayor Jadwin referenced the annexation

discussion earlier in the meeting and explained that annexation

represented only one step within a longer development process. Mayor

Jadwin stated that the City could find a balanced approach that

addressed Council’s interest in transparency while preserving

administrative flexibility. She explained that rising costs required the City

to maintain flexibility when locking in vendor pricing. She suggested that

the proposed $150,000 threshold could balance those needs while

additional reporting mechanisms, particularly through the implementation

of the Our Gahanna Strategic Plan, could enhance communication with

Council and the public. Mayor Jadwin concluded that the proposed

approach represented a reasonable compromise that addressed

Council’s concerns while preserving operational efficiency.

Councilmember Bowers thanked the administration for presenting a

recommendation and sought clarification regarding the proposed

changes. She noted that eliminating the Ohio Revised Code competitive

bidding requirement and establishing a small purchase threshold up to

$149,999 would nearly double the current competitive bid threshold

established under state law for certain contracts. She stated that the

change would reduce the number of contracts requiring requests for bids

that would come before council and asked for clarification on that point.

Director Bury responded that most construction contracts currently

exceeded $150,000 due to present-day costs. She stated that when

Council reviewed legislation related to competitive bidding, most

contracts presented already exceeded the $150,000 level.

Councilmember Bowers stated that she believed Council had recently

received a request for bid item under $100,000 and asked whether that

was accurate. Senior Director Schultz responded that she was likely

referring to the purchase of a tangible good, which did not fall under the

same bid requirement. He explained that the item was not a bid-based

procurement. He recalled an example from the previous year involving

streetlight pole painting. That project initially exceeded the bid threshold

and required a formal bidding process; however, the City did not receive

acceptable bids. Staff then reduced the project scope below the bid

threshold so the City could obtain three quotes and complete the work.

He explained that this example demonstrated how the proposed change

could allow the City to complete work more efficiently. He also referenced

traffic signal work planned at Morrison Road and Hamilton Road totaling

approximately $188,000, which had already been bid. He stated that

most construction-related work exceeded the $150,000 level unless it

involved relatively small projects. Councilmember Bowers stated that

Council had not previously received notice that the administration would

propose increasing the competitive bid threshold. She explained that she

had not yet had an opportunity to review past requests for bids in detail to

determine where they fell within the threshold range. She then addressed

the difference between a $150,000 threshold and the $100,000 threshold

she previously proposed. She explained that the purchase order data

provided showed 31 purchase orders exceeding $100,000 over a

four-year period, which averaged approximately seven or eight items per

year. She noted that recent updates to Council rules allowed resolutions

to pass with a single reading, which would limit delays in approving

contracts. Based on that volume, she stated that the additional Council

approvals required under a $100,000 threshold would likely have minimal

impact on timelines. Councilmember Bowers reiterated her appreciation

for the administration’s effort to respond to Council’s comments and

stated that she supported raising the competitive bid threshold above the

Ohio Revised Code level, though she believed $100,000 might be more

appropriate than $150,000.

Vice President Jones thanked the administration for continuing the

discussion and presenting a proposal. She stated that the conversation

involved multiple numerical thresholds and complex procedural changes,

which made it difficult to visualize the overall effect. She requested an

updated version of the procurement decision tree showing the current

policy and the proposed changes, preferably using visual distinctions

such as color coding to clarify how the process would change. She stated

that a visual representation would help Council better understand which

items would appear before council and which would remain

administrative. Vice President Jones also stated that she believed the

discussion had begun blending two different topics: procurement policy

and communication with residents. She explained that she viewed those

issues as separate discussions. While she supported informing

residents about City activities, she noted that procurement policy focused

on internal processes rather than resident-facing communication. She

suggested that Council separate those conversations to avoid confusion.

Senior Director Schultz responded that staff had previously discussed

reporting mechanisms through the implementation of the strategic plan

and that additional reporting would likely occur through that process. He

stated that Council and the administration likely shared similar goals

regarding transparency and communication. He explained that

differences in opinion primarily centered on the specific threshold

amounts rather than the overall intent of the policy. He added that

procurement approvals alone would not fully address communication

challenges because many projects required long timelines between

contract approval and visible construction activity.

President Weaver thanked the administration for presenting a

recommendation and acknowledged the extensive discussions that had

taken place in recent weeks. He stated that he appreciated the

administration’s effort to incorporate council’s feedback into the

proposal. He asked for clarification regarding the proposed third

procurement category labeled “competitive solicitation.” Specifically, he

asked whether the proposal would simplify the bidding process by

allowing flexibility between sealed bids and requests for proposals.

Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger explained that the proposal aimed

to streamline the ordinance language. Under the proposed system, staff

could determine whether a sealed bid or a proposal process best suited

the procurement. He stated that both processes would still follow

applicable procurement rules, but staff would choose the method that

best served the City’s interests. He cited the streetlight pole painting

project as an example where a proposal process might produce better

vendor participation than a formal bid process. President Weaver stated

that the example helped illustrate the issue and acknowledged that

procurement processes could create barriers for some vendors. He

noted that smaller businesses sometimes lacked the capacity to

complete complex bidding documentation. He expressed support for

maintaining flexibility that could help smaller vendors compete for City

projects, including minority-owned, women-owned, and small local

businesses. Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger confirmed that smaller

businesses often struggled with full competitive procurement

requirements because they lacked administrative staff to complete the

documentation. He stated that proposals or quotes often allowed those

businesses to compete more effectively. He noted that many small

contractors viewed contracts between $100,000 and $150,000 as

significant opportunities, even though those amounts represented

relatively modest projects for the City. President Weaver then asked

whether the City tracked whether vendors qualified as small,

minority-owned, or women-owned businesses. Senior Deputy Director

Wybensinger stated that the City encouraged the use of those

businesses but did not currently track that data through a formal reporting

process. He explained that implementing such tracking would require

modifications to the procurement process. Councilmember Renner noted

that similar programs at the county level used voluntary disclosure forms

and required vendors to register with the state Department of

Commerce. Director Bury added that the City already maintained a

vendor registration packet and could include optional fields allowing

vendors to identify themselves as minority-owned or women-owned

businesses. She stated that the City’s accounting system could record

that information if Council wished to track it. President Weaver stated

that collecting that information could help council evaluate whether

procurement policies encouraged participation by smaller businesses.

He also referenced the purchase order analysis previously provided by

Director Bury and asked how difficult it would be to produce similar

reports in the future. Director Bury indicated that generating the report

was manageable. President Weaver stated that he found the purchase

order analysis extremely helpful and suggested that regular reporting

could provide Council with a clearer understanding of procurement

activity. He concluded that he supported increasing the threshold from

$79,568 but believed that a $100,000 threshold might be more

appropriate than $150,000.

Councilmember Renner stated that he had no further questions but

wished to clarify two points for the record. First, he disagreed with the

suggestion that procurement and public communication represented

separate discussions. He stated that procurement represented one of

the most powerful functions of government and inherently served as a

form of public reporting. Second, he emphasized that procurement

thresholds should reflect current market conditions. He stated that labor

costs had increased significantly in recent years and that many smaller

projects now exceeded $150,000 due to those increases. He explained

that labor, rather than materials, often represented the largest cost

component in modern contracts. He also noted that small,

minority-owned, and emerging businesses frequently faced

disadvantages when competing under complex procurement procedures.

For those reasons, he expressed greater comfort with the $150,000

threshold.

Vice President Jones summarized the discussion and reiterated her

request for an updated procurement decision tree illustrating the potential

policy changes. She stated that Council would continue discussing the

matter during future committee meetings as members worked toward a

resolution. She asked the administration whether they had any additional

questions for Council. Hearing none, she asked whether the updated

decision tree could be prepared before the next committee meeting.

Staff indicated that they would provide it in advance of the next meeting.

Vice President Jones thanked the administration for developing the

recommendation and for continuing to work collaboratively with Council

on the issue.

2. Second Quarter (April, May, June) Honorary Resolutions Discussion

2026-0002

Resolutions Calendar for 2026

Vice President Jones introduced the next agenda item regarding

honorary resolutions. She explained that earlier in the year Council

discussed reviewing the recognitions completed during the previous year

in order to plan ahead for the current year. She noted that the materials

attached in Legistar showed the recognitions completed during the

second quarter of the previous year. Vice President Jones opened the

discussion for Council preferences regarding which recognitions should

continue during the second quarter of the current year. She stated that

she was interested in continuing the Juneteenth recognition and invited

input from Council and the Mayor, noting that several recognitions had

been joint proclamations the previous year.

Councilmember Renner stated that he wished to lead the Earth Day

resolution. He explained that he had contacted the Mayor earlier

regarding the topic. Councilmember Renner noted that the 2026 Earth

Day theme was “Our Power, Our Planet.” He explained that the theme

emphasized collective action, community involvement, and the ability of

individuals to advance environmental progress. He proposed shifting the

Earth Day resolution to focus on future action rather than solely

recognizing the holiday retrospectively. Councilmember Renner

suggested using the resolution as an opportunity to encourage

community participation by asking residents, churches, educators, and

organizations to complete simple environmental actions such as planting

trees or installing rain gardens. He also noted that the City already

hosted litter cleanup events and recycling programs. He suggested

creating a forward-looking resolution that could encourage community

involvement and allow council to report on the progress the following

year.

Councilmember Bowers stated that she wished to introduce a resolution

recognizing Mental Health Awareness Month in May. She noted that the

City had previously recognized maternal mental health and related

observances but believed it would be appropriate to recognize the

broader mental health awareness month given the attention and

resources dedicated to mental health within the community. She asked

whether the Mayor would be interested in participating in a joint

proclamation. Mayor Jadwin stated that she had already recognized

Mental Health Awareness Month previously and invited Councilmember

Bowers and Council to join her in expanding the recognition as a broader

proclamation.

Vice President Jones asked whether Herb Week would remain on the list

of recognitions. Councilmember Padova confirmed that it would remain

and stated that she had been working with Clerk VanMeter regarding the

recognition. She noted that Herb Day occurred on the first Saturday in

May and stated that the recognition should occur during the first council

meeting in May. Councilmember Padova added that Clerk VanMeter had

contacted Tom Gregory to determine whether he could provide another

presentation regarding the Herb Ladies. She stated that the presentation

could continue providing historical insights about Gahanna and that the

recognition would be fitting given the City’s new Council meeting location

and the opportunity to honor the community’s history.

President Weaver stated that the list of second-quarter recognitions

appeared appropriate and that all represented worthwhile causes. He

stated that he supported moving forward with the recognitions.

Councilmember Bowers stated that the ALS recognition from the

previous year had been more of a special recognition and did not

necessarily need to occur annually, though she acknowledged that the

cause remained worthy of recognition.

President Weaver noted that additional recognitions could occur

throughout the year to celebrate specific accomplishments within the

community. He stated that he had recently learned of a young individual in

the community who had performed noteworthy work and that he planned

to bring forward a recognition after contacting the individual. He

encouraged Councilmembers who wished to lead recognitions to

coordinate with Clerk VanMeter and to connect with the administration if

they wished to pursue joint proclamations with the Mayor.

Vice President Jones thanked the members for the discussion. She

stated that the purpose of the conversation was to plan ahead rather than

create an exhaustive list and that Council could still introduce

recognitions later in the year as needed. She explained that the

discussion aimed to avoid last-minute scheduling and expressed

appreciation for everyone reviewing the list and providing input.

ITEMS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY:

RES-0009-2026

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENTER INTO

THE SIX REMNANT DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT.

City Attorney Tamilarasan presented a resolution requesting

authorization to enter the City into the Six Remnant Defendants

Settlement. She explained that the settlement involved six remaining

companies identified as participants in the national opioid settlement

agreements. She stated that, consistent with previous resolutions

adopted by council, the City sought authorization to enter into the

settlement and receive the funds as they were distributed.

Vice President Jones asked whether Council had any questions or

discussion. Hearing none, she stated that Council would place the

resolution on the Consent Agenda for the March 16, 2026, meeting.