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, February 9, 2026

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

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

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

Jamille Jones, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. The

agenda was published on Friday, February 6, 2026. All members were

present at the meeting.

Vice President Jones noted that ORD-0002-2026 was removed from

the agenda and would be discussed at a later date.

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 Clerk VanMeter to report on

ORD-0007-2026.

Addressing the Gahanna City Council, Clerk VanMeter summarized the

current status of the annexation application. On May 5, 2025, the City

Council approved ORD-0021-2025, authorizing Mayor Laurie Jadwin to

enter a pre-annexation agreement with Jimmie and Darlene Toney, as

well as Trivium Development, LLC, for parcels 170-000068 and

170-000069 located at 4736 and 4722 Johnstown Road in Jefferson

Township. The agreement identified potential development for the

parcels. On October 23, 2025, petitioners and property owners filed an

Expedited Type II annexation petition with Franklin County and provided

notice to Clerk VanMeter, as required by law. On November 3, 2025, the

Council adopted RES-0052-2025 pursuant to Ohio Revised Code

(ORC) Section 709.023(C), identifying the municipal services to be

provided to the identified territory, including approximate dates. On

December 2, 2025, the Franklin County Board of Commissioners

reviewed the petition and approved Resolution No. 0911-25 pursuant to

legal requirements. Clerk VanMeter received a certified copy of the

resolution from the board of commissioners on December 12, 2025,

initiating the required 60-day holding period for the Council to consider

approval of the annexation, via ORC 709.04. Clerk VanMeter explained

the next step in the process included that night’s presentation to the

Council, for consideration of approval. Clerk VanMeter summarized that

the question before the Council was whether to accept the annexation.

He noted that representatives for the petitioners and the developer were

present to answer questions.

Chair Jones thanked Clerk VanMeter for his presentation, inviting the

applicant to add any information, if desired, or just move on to questions.

Petitioners responded they were available for questions. Chair Jones

invited discussion from Councilmembers.

President Weaver asked whether approval of the annexation would

precede rezoning and final development approvals. President Weaver

observed heads nodding in response. The developer’s representative,

Tim Spencer, confirmed that annexation would occur first, followed by a

rezoning application and final development plan, both of which would

proceed through the city’s normal review and approval processes.

President Weaver observed that the current decision was whether to

annex the indicated land, evaluating that what was developed on the land

could be decided at a later date. Mr. Spencer agreed with President

Weaver’s evaluation, elaborating that the annexation did not approve a

specific development and that any proposed project would be subject to

municipal regulations. Mr. Spencer explained that the intent of the

developer was to explore a mixed-use development and that outreach

occurred with nearby property owners, receiving informal feedback. He

stated that the site presents challenges related to drainage, including a

pond located on the rear of the property, traffic considerations, and

surrounding infrastructure, all of which would be addressed through future

technical review. He reported that no formal zoning or development

applications were submitted and that those would occur only if the

annexation were accepted. In that case, a mixed-use rezoning

application would be pursued. Mr. Spencer acknowledged the

challenges of the annexation process. President Weaver thanked Mr.

Spencer and his colleagues for the proactive work they put into the

application and community outreach. President Weaver noted that he

and Councilmember Merisa Bowers participated in the community

outreach event. President Weaver noted the sequential procedural nature

of the project, which requires a series of approvals, rather than a single

decision. President Weaver asked broadly what would occur if the

annexation were not approved. Mr. Spencer stated that the petitioners

would pursue development options under Jefferson Township jurisdiction

and zoning. He explained that annexation was being sought to allow

access to City of Gahanna sewer services and to pursue development

under the City of Gahanna’s zoning and development regulations. He

noted the potential to pick up a commercial and residential component in

the project. He explained the preference for City of Gahanna services,

however, noted two alternative water sources across the street. Mr.

Spencer explained the goal of creating the best solution for all parties

involved. President Weaver expressed appreciation for the explanation

and commented on the advantageous status of the City of Gahanna to

have increased influence over the site development, if the land were

annexed to Gahanna. President Weaver also noted the question of

services was addressed in November of 2025.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked about the timing of potential Tax

Increment Financing (TIF) or other incentive discussions. Director of

Economic Development Jeff Gottke reviewed that the process would

involve three steps, shared at an earlier time, describing the steps as:

acceptance of the annexation, zoning designation or rezoning, and

approval of a development plan and development agreement. Incentive

discussions would be appropriate during the development agreement

stage and not finalized beforehand, summarized as step three.

Councilmember Schnetzer inquired if that would provide sufficient time

for execution, if desired. Director Gottke confirmed, clarifying that

discussions would likely occur earlier, with decisions finalized at step

three. Mayor Jadwin addressed Director Gottke, inquiring about the

sequencing of approvals, the role of development incentives, and the

need for certainty on zoning and development standards prior to

construction. Director Gottke referred to the developer for the response,

noting that the typical process requires all three steps to be complete

before construction, with approvals providing assurances to developers

that a project would be financially feasible before investments were

made. Tim Spencer stated that incentive tools, as well as administrative

and technical requirements, would be evaluated in coordination with city

staff, as part of the development review process, after annexation. He

offered examples of discussions on building height, water management,

traffic patterns, and opportunities for city growth. He explained that

technical review would continue on a constant basis. He noted his alarm

at a comment received for that night’s meeting, regarding the 80 foot

right-of-way, which he described as addressed. Mr. Spencer reflected on

the developer’s team, including a Gahanna resident and experienced

business partners. He noted there was homework for their team to do,

describing conflicting informal preferences shared with them during early

engagement. Mr. Spencer asked if Mayor Jadwin’s question was

answered. She confirmed.

President Weaver addressed the city administration, asking for

clarification on the discretion versus constraints of the Council when

considering an annexation compared to other development procedures.

City Attorney Priya Tamilarasan responded, stating Council’s discretion

would be broader, as there are no specific statutory factors in the city

code limiting Council on annexation decisions, but additional research

could be provided prior to the First Reading, if requested. President

Weaver gratefully accepted Attorney Tamilarasan’s guidance. He also

observed two city directors nodding their heads in agreement.

Councilmember McGregor raised questions regarding potential city

control or protection of the riparian corridor and floodplain area on the

property, noting this was her desire. Mr. Spencer stated that options such

as easements, open space, or other protective measures were

discussed informally and would require further evaluation and

coordination with residents and city staff as part of future development

planning. He shared that the initial discussion received a negative

response. He committed to further exploration. He expressed optimism.

Noting no further questions at that time, Chair Jones inquired of the

Council their preference in proceeding with the legislation. President

Weaver indicated a preference for inclusion on the Regular Agenda,

rather than the Consent Agenda. Chair Jones determined the ordinance

would proceed on the Regular Agenda, with First Reading scheduled for

February 16, 2026, and consideration of Adoption scheduled for March

2, 2026.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 2/16/2026;

Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 3/2/2026.

2026-0027

Ohio Division of Liquor Control Notice to Legislative Authority Permit

TRFO 10011069-1 FROM PUB IN GAHANNA LLC TO GAHANNA'S

PUB, THE PUB IN GAHANNA, 207 W JOHNSTOWN ROAD,

GAHANNA, OH 43230

Clerk VanMeter presented a notice from the Ohio Division of Liquor

Control regarding a transfer of ownership from Pub in Gahanna LLC to

Gahanna’s Pub, The Pub in Gahanna, located at 207 West Johnstown

Road. Clerk VanMeter reported that he consulted with the Gahanna

Division of Police, receiving no objections to the application. He stated

that, if Council had no objections, he would notify the Division of Liquor

Control that the city did not request a hearing.

Chair Jones asked whether there were any objections or questions from

Council. Hearing no objections from the Council, Clerk VanMeter

indicated he would return the notice stating that a hearing was not

requested. Chair Jones acknowledged and invited Clerk VanMeter to

proceed with the next agenda item.

MT-0006-2026

MOTION TO APPROVE SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT OF CARIS

LANTZ AS COUNCIL OFFICE INTERN THROUGH THE MID-OHIO

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (MORPC) SUMMER

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM AT A RATE OF $15.99 PER HOUR

Clerk VanMeter presented the motion to approve the seasonal

employment of Caris Lantz as a Council Office Intern. He explained that,

pursuant to the city charter, Council appoints all Council Office staff, and

therefore the request was brought before Council for consideration. Clerk

VanMeter reported that interviews were conducted for the position,

noting that Council President Trenton Weaver and Human Resources

Representative Hope Moore participated in the interview process. He

expressed strong support for the candidate and recommended approval

of the motion. President Weaver echoed Clerk VanMeter’s remarks,

stating that he was impressed with Ms. Lantz’s qualifications,

preparation, and knowledge of the city and ongoing projects. He

expressed confidence that she would be an asset to the Council Office.

Chair Jones inquired about the anticipated start date. Clerk VanMeter

responded that Ms. Lantz would likely begin in June. Chair Jones

confirmed that the motion would be on the Consent Agenda for February

16, 2026. Hearing no objections, she thanked Clerk VanMeter and

proceeded to the next agenda item.

Recommendation: Adoption on Consent Agenda on 2/16/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:

2026-0039

Gahanna Civic Center (825 Tech Center Drive) Construction Update

2026-02-09

Senior Director of Operations Kevin Schultz provided an update on the

Gahanna Civic Center project at 825 Tech Center Drive, noting that the

presentation reflected a move-in update rather than a construction

update. He stated that the project is transitioning from construction

toward occupancy, with operations anticipated to begin in approximately

60 to 75 days, pending completion of the remaining prerequisites. Senior

Director Schultz reported that outstanding items include completion and

integration of life safety systems, public safety technology systems, city

technology infrastructure, and secure access controls necessary for

operation as a public safety facility. He stated that a Certificate of

Occupancy from the Building Department remains a requirement prior to

occupancy. He noted that construction must be substantially complete,

particularly within secured police areas, before public safety personnel

can move into the facility. Senior Director Schultz outlined a phased

move plan occurring over approximately four to five weeks. The initial

phase includes relocation of bulk items and permanent records.

Subsequent phases include the movement of staff workspaces, furniture,

and operational materials. During the primary transition week, City Hall

operations are proposed to be closed to the public on Monday and

Tuesday, to allow staff to unpack, complete safety training, and orient

themselves to the new workspace. Public-facing operations would

resume midweek, with the first public visitors anticipated later that same

week. Senior Director Schultz reported that police services will operate

with limited overlap between the existing facility, at 460 Rocky Fork

Boulevard and 825 Tech Center Drive, to ensure uninterrupted critical

services during transition. Senior programming would begin after the

primary staff and police move phases are complete. Senior Director

Schultz reviewed proposed adjustments to the public meeting schedule

to accommodate the move. He stated that April 6, 2026, would be the

final City Council meeting at the current facility, with April 8, 2026, serving

as the final Planning Commission meeting at the current building. He

proposed that no Council meetings will occur on April 13 or 20, 2026,

during the transition. The final public meeting in the current facility is

anticipated to be a Parks Board meeting on April 15, 2026. A tentative

public Open House date of April 25, 2026, was set. The first public

meetings at 825 Tech Center Drive are proposed for April 27, 2026, with

the Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled directly after the Regular

Council meeting. Senior Director Schultz noted that staff began

preparatory steps for the move, including inventory review, disposal of

designated materials, and packing coordination. He reported that the

project schedule contains contingency time and that he remains

comfortable with the projected timeline. Senior Director Schultz also

noted that Council would likely have an opportunity later in February to do

a site visit.

Councilmember Bowers requested an update regarding streaming and

audiovisual technology in the new Council Chambers. Senior Director

Schultz stated that installation of streaming servers and related

equipment will occur once the information and technology (IT)

infrastructure spaces are complete. He reported that the new system will

function similarly to the current platform, but with upgraded capacity and

improved efficiency. He expressed confidence that technology

installation and staff training will be completed prior to the first scheduled

public meeting in the new facility. He further confirmed that a conference

room adjacent to Council Chambers will include videoconferencing

capabilities, integrated microphones, speakers, and display screens, but

will not have streaming capabilities.

Councilmember Bowers asked about a future financial update. Senior

Director Schultz indicated that a comprehensive financial recap will likely

be presented in May 2026, after project closeout activities are

completed. He reported that the project remains within budget and within

established contingencies and allowances.

Chair Jones asked whether Councilmembers, boards, and commissions

would receive a safety orientation, similar to staff. Senior Director Schultz

confirmed that safety briefings will be provided and that orientation

materials, potentially including instructional videos, will address

emergency procedures and security features specific to Council

Chambers and other meeting spaces. Discussion also addressed staff

work continuity during the transition period. Senior Director Schultz

stated that staff may work remotely or from alternate locations as desks

and workspaces are relocated, but service continuity will be maintained.

Chair Jones thanked Senior Director Schultz for the update and noted

appreciation for the progress reflected in the transition from construction

to move-in planning.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

ORD-0002-2026

AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING, APPROVING, AND RATIFYING THE

SUBMITTED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY OF GAHANNA TAX

INCENTIVE REVIEW COUNCIL FOR TAX YEAR 2024

Recommendation: Held in Committee for further discussion scheduled on

2/23/2026; Postpone Second Reading/Adoption to Date Certain (3/2/2026) on

Regular Agenda on 2/16/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE:

ORD-0005-2026

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

- Central Park TIF Fund, General Fund and Cul-de-sac Maintenance

Fund for various purposes

Director of Finance Joann Bury presented ORD-0005-2026, authorizing

supplemental appropriations. Director Bury stated that the first

supplemental appropriation relates to the Crescent development and

provides funding to pay special assessment bond principal and interest

due in September 2026. She reported that the first reimbursement

request was verified for eligible expenses exceeding $2 million and that

payment to the developer would be processed accordingly. She

explained that an additional appropriation within the General Fund

addresses a fleet software adjustment that was omitted during final

appropriations. Director Bury stated that the ordinance includes use of

previously unexpended funds within the Cul-de-sac Maintenance Fund.

She explained that these funds, carried forward under prior code, would

be applied toward cul-de-sac work identified within the current year street

program.

Chair Jones asked whether there were any questions or discussion.

Hearing none, she confirmed that the First Reading previously occurred

and that adoption was scheduled for February 16, 2026. Council

indicated agreement to place the ordinance on the Consent Agenda for

adoption.

Recommendation: Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 2/16/2026.

ORD-0006-2026

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF GAHANNA CODIFIED

ORDINANCE SECTION 133.02 - PURCHASING PROCEDURES

Director of Finance Joann Bury presented ORD-0006-2026, an

ordinance amending Gahanna’s purchasing procedures. Director Bury

stated that the city was notified in 2022 by the Auditor of State’s office

that the city’s procurement policy was not in accordance with federal

uniform guidance requirements for receiving federal funds. She

explained that the new policy integrates federal procurement thresholds

and ORC requirements, including application of lower state thresholds

where applicable. Director Bury referenced a staff training flowchart

provided as a handout outlining procurement workflow and thresholds.

Director Bury reviewed proposed purchasing categories and thresholds.

She stated the petty cash threshold increased from $50 to $100, to meet

with current times. She reported that the city’s Micro-Purchase threshold

would remain at $10,000, instead of the federal threshold of $15,000 and

the Small Purchase threshold would remain at $250,000, noting that

federal thresholds increased to $350,000; however, staff did not

recommend increasing the city’s thresholds at this time. She stated that

Micro-Purchases emphasize competition through vendor variety, and that

Small Purchases require competition, including obtaining quotes from at

least two vendors and attaching the quotes to requisitions for review and

compliance verification before purchase orders are issued. Director Bury

reviewed sealed bid requirements under the ORC, stating that the

statutory sealed bid threshold was updated in 2024 from $50,000 to

$75,000, with an annual 3% increase thereafter. She observed there are

limited exceptions. She explained that the Public Service Department

typically administers the sealed bid process and that Council

authorization is required for Mayor Jadwin to execute contracts resulting

from that process. Director Bury explained the competitive proposal

process for professional services that are not required to be bid under

the ORC, yet exceed the Small Purchase amount. She stated that

requests for proposals are advertised and evaluated using a scoring

matrix focused on qualifications, with price considered but not

necessarily the primary factor. She stated that recommended contracts

from this process are brought to the Council for authorization for Mayor

Jadwin to sign.

Director Bury also reviewed circumstances where non-competitive

procurement is permissible, explaining that the policy emphasizes

competition but allows exceptions under defined criteria. Director Bury

described a pre-qualification process incorporated into the ordinance,

stating it is used to identify the most qualified professional service

providers in specified categories (such as floodplain management, traffic

signal coordination, and utility operations). She explained that responses

are scored and ranked, and that the pre-qualified list does not award a

contract, but is used to streamline future solicitations by identifying the

most qualified providers when projects arise. She stated that subsequent

contract negotiation and procurement steps occur based on project

scope and dollar thresholds.

President Weaver clarified with Director Bury that pre-qualification does

not eliminate competition and that a competitive step still occurs for

project-specific work. Director Bury confirmed. President Weaver

inquired if this process provided increased opportunity to public

contracts to those who might not otherwise be availed. Director Bury

confirmed. President Weaver asked how narrowly categories are

defined and how pre-qualification lists are maintained over time. Director

Bury explained the pre-qualification process in greater detail. Senior

Director Schultz elaborated on the process, including the scoring matrix.

President Weaver thanked staff for the explanations, noting he may have

further questions.

Councilmember Bowers followed up with an inquiry about the frequency

of reviewing the prequalification process. Director Bury responded it was

an annual process. Senior Director Schultz noted it was a slightly

different process than something like asset management, with a

three-year cycle. Councilmember Bowers confirmed with Director Schultz

the ability of the city to reopen or revise the list if circumstances warrant.

Councilmember Bowers inquired as to the Council’s role in the

prequalification process, including knowledge or awareness. Senior

Director Shultz noted there is no allocation, so Council has no formal role

in establishing the pre-qualification list; however, the Council authorizes

Mayor Jadwin to execute contracts, if approved by the City Attorney,

when required by the applicable procurement threshold. Councilmember

Bowers suggested it may be best practice to report out that information

to the Council on the three-year basis for awareness, for Council

oversight and community transparency, bringing content forward in a

public meeting for the good of the community. Senior Director Schultz

proposed consideration of including such a step in the regular budget

process, clarifying that the pre-qualification list is used for specialized

professional services and applies regardless of whether a specific

project is below or above the Council authorization threshold, with the

threshold determining the approval path. Staff are pre-qualifying services,

not engineers.

Chair Jones requested clarification on whether the pre-qualified vendors

pertained to just the specialized work or the dollar amount. Senior

Director Schultz responded it pertained only to specialized work. Chair

Jones concluded that even if the contract is below $250,000, perhaps it

is $80,000 but in the “qualified bucket”, the city would still go to the

vendors regardless of the project amount. Senior Director Schultz

confirmed, providing examples. Senior Director Schultz stated that if the

Engineering Department encountered a one-off project and did not

identify a firm on the pre-qualified list that met its needs, the City could

issue a larger solicitation to a broader audience. He explained that the

solicitation would invite firms to propose their qualifications and submit

proposals for the specific project. He cited the street scan project, which

involved pavement rating, as an example. He explained that pavement

rating represented a highly specialized and niche professional service.

He clarified that the City did not pre-qualify firms to that level of

specificity. Instead, the pre-qualification process covered broader

categories of work, such as designing water and sewer lines, designing

road networks, ADA ramps, and similar services. He further noted that

technology-based work, such as scanning roads for pavement conditions

and the previous sidewalk assessment conducted through the Segway

process, would fall under a specialized, niche Request for Proposals

(RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. He stated that the

City would run that process independently from the general qualifications

list.

Councilmember Stephen Renner inquired where the three-year term

came from. Director Bury responded it was from the ORC.

Councilmember Renner compared the process with county management

practices, explaining they do not follow three years, but follow the budget

cycle instead. Councilmember Renner asked what the benefit of following

the three-year cycle was, outside of ORC. Senior Director Schultz

elaborated on staff’s evaluation of the ORC guidelines of three years as

the appropriate standard. Councilmember Renner asked if there was a

sufficient diversity of vendors. Mayor Jadwin highlighted that staff’s

process encouraged more diversity in vendors and extended

opportunities. Councilmember Renner clarified he was not necessarily

averse to the process but wanted to consider the reporting

considerations for the process. Senior Director Schultz noted current

staffing challenges in the Engineering Department, but agreed staff could

identify applicable assurance for Council, looking at data starting in

2024, noting some of the data could be misleading without additional

context.

Councilmember Bowers asked if the prequalification term came from the

Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). Director Bury stated it came

from ORC 153, under the states, directed toward local governments.

Councilmember Bowers asked if it was three years, not two years.

Senior Director Schultz stated it was under the competitive portion.

Director Bury clarified it was under the Small Purchases section.

President Weaver questioned if it was ORC 153.65-153.71.

Councilmembers agreed to come back to that question.

Councilmember Bowers reflected that in 2022 setting a new threshold of

$250,000 for Council approval, but in certain circumstances, Council still

authorizes permission to bid. She asked for clarification of the sealed bid

process, describing Council as participating: 1) in the budget process; 2)

in the permission to bid; 3) authorizing the mayor to sign contracts. Staff

confirmed. Councilmember Bowers prefaced with observation that

Council approved a new procurement policy in 2022, elaborating her

questions were not related to concerns of the current staff, but rather the

role of oversight for a legislative body in general. She desired to level set,

evaluating practices of oversight and transparency, comparing alignment

with peer community practices, aiming for the benefit of continuity and

best practice for Gahanna. Councilmember Bowers shared a concern

with the threshold of $250,000, questioning if it was incongruous with

peer communities, as well as state and county. Councilmember Bowers

suggested that a $250,000 threshold was an outlier and invited dialogue

on the subject. Comparisons were referenced to processes used in other

communities, such as Bexley, which includes review by a Board of

Control, and Upper Arlington’s use of periodic reporting to Council.

Chair Jones inquired about where the amount $250,000 came from.

Director Bury responded it was based on the federal acquisitions

threshold. Director Bury offered that the federal guidelines had recently

increased the Micro and Small Purchase thresholds, noting staff did not

increase and incorporate those changes.

Councilmember Renner agreed that following the federal threshold, a

$250,000 threshold was approved in 2022 by City Council, observing the

circumstances of coming out of COVID-19, with unprecedented

circumstances. He noted the federal government at that time had the

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and later the Inflation Reduction

Act. At that time, from that perspective, Councilmember Renner

evaluated City Council was on board to get money into communities,

following the example of the federal government, to get things moving. He

described those acts as gutted, since that time. He evaluated it as a

good practice to review thresholds, at this time, to estimate if those

practices were correct and what is most appropriate at this time.

Councilmember Renner elaborated that procurement thresholds are not

only about staff efficiency or oversight, rather they determine how public

dollars are spent, with residents seeing it as stewardship, service

reliability, performance, trust, and legitimacy. Councilmember Renner

questioned if this was the opportune time to tie procurement thresholds

to economic development policies. Are Gahanna dollars circulating

locally and regionally? Are vendors able to reach the market? Does the

procurement system support workforce development or sustainability

initiatives? He reflected on these policy questions, then asked if the

bigger question is what procurement structure maximizes total benefit

and not just internal efficiency. How do we maximize community benefit

today?

Mayor Jadwin stated that she sought to align questions about the

threshold level with maximizing community benefit. She questioned how

lowering the threshold would impact the ability to maximize community

benefit and whether the City could instead employ additional reporting

mechanisms to show and demonstrate the use of funds. She noted that

Council had changed the threshold in 2022 and that it had remained in

place for three and a half years. She stated that the City had experienced

no operational issues and had received positive audits. She added that

Council had previously discussed the effectiveness of the budget

process. She further stated that the budget book listed all professional

services and contracts in detail and made that information publicly

available. Mayor Jadwin stated that she was trying to reconcile the

concept of maximizing community benefit with lowering the threshold.

She suggested that Council might consider options similar to those used

in Upper Arlington, such as issuing quarterly reports that tell the story of

how the City uses funds. She concluded by clarifying that she did not

intend to pose a specific question.

Councilmember Renner acknowledged such a discussion in the public

would require several iterations, to provide all involved time to process

the information. He stated that if the procurement threshold was to remain

at $250,000 he needed sufficient explanation from the administration as

to the community benefit, in order for him to convey that to residents. He

shared he was intrigued by Bexley’s process. He emphasized again the

importance of understanding the community benefit and the tie-in to

economic development.

Mayor Jadwin posited that such a consideration could be in alignment

with Our Gahanna, the city’s strategic plan, honoring the community's will.

She wondered if a reporting mechanism could be melded into reporting

out on goals and objectives in the plan. She explained she was spit

balling ideas. She observed possible challenges in comparison with

Bexley. She noted opportunities to learn from other municipalities. She

added that just because Gahanna might be an outlier, that could mean

other communities could look to Gahanna for a better process. She

appreciated the conversation and noted there was more to consider.

Senior Director Schultz stated that he wanted to add to the discussion.

He said he believed much of the Council’s conversation referenced

capital projects, as those projects often drew the most attention from

constituents. He noted that the City also managed many other contracts

and questioned whether Council wanted to review items such as the

Microsoft contract, which recurred regularly as part of daily operations.

He stated that staff needed clarity on whether Council’s concern centered

on a specific dollar threshold or on the type of project. He said that this

distinction formed an important part of the conversation. He described

the capital plan as a strong starting point but explained that it did not

cover everything. He referenced maintenance contracts and a copier

lease as examples of smaller operational items that did not reach

reporting thresholds. He added that many operational expenditures might

or might not meet a threshold that Council considered significant. Senior

Director Schultz stated that, for the benefit of both Council and staff, the

City needed a clearer definition of the desired reporting mechanism and

specific guidance on what Council wanted to review.

Councilmember Renner shared his agreement with most of what Senior

Director Schutlz stated, yet asserted the importance of stewardship, trust

and legitimacy demonstrated to the public, whether involving capital

projects or materials. Senior Director Schultz stated that he wanted to

clarify a finer point that he believed some might misunderstand when

presenting certain expenditure amounts. He used the Microsoft contract

as an example and suggested that publishing the total cost could prompt

questions about why the City spent so much with a large corporation and

whether that corporation should charge less. He explained that such

scrutiny could arise even when the City paid the same amount as a

similarly sized community in another state. He stated that he sought to

determine whether the City could strike a balance in how it presented

and contextualized certain expenditures. He added that he agreed with

the points raised. Councilmember Renner stated that the discussion

touched on a philosophy of governance. He said that the City should

never fear any question. He clarified that he believed staff shared that

view and did not suggest otherwise, but he explained that he began from

that principle. He acknowledged the nuances involved in the discussion

and expressed a willingness to understand what staff wanted to present.

He stated that he focused on the benefits of understanding how the City

spent its funds, including the diversity of vendors. He emphasized the

importance of ensuring that small businesses received fair consideration

and opportunities, rather than directing contracts solely to large

conglomerates.

Councilmember Bowers thanked those involved and stated that she

valued the conversation. She said the dialogue had already produced

meaningful innovation and discussion, and she expressed appreciation

for Councilmember Renner’s and Mayor Jadwin’s comments. She noted

that capital projects typically required bidding under the relevant section

of the Ohio Revised Code. She stated that Council could have a

meaningful impact by bringing greater transparency to how consultants

and designers performed conceptual work and how that process flowed.

She explained that Council addressed those matters through its

budgetary and financial processes. Councilmember Bowers clarified that

her intent did not involve slowing down the work. She referenced recent

guidance from the City Attorney indicating that permission to bid and

authorization to enter into contracts should proceed by resolution rather

than ordinance. She explained that using a resolution, rather than a

two-reading ordinance, would eliminate the second reading and the

30-day waiting period and streamline the process. She concluded by

stating that she agreed with Councilmember Renner and supported

allowing the conversation to evolve. She encouraged additional

consideration of what approach would work best and whether the current

threshold served the community in the manner described. She asked

whether Council needed to move the item forward immediately or

whether it could return to committee, and she expressed a desire to

continue the dialogue regarding how the threshold served the community.

Senior Director Schultz added context regarding the impetus for the

proposed code change. He explained that the issue centered on the

retainage requirements outlined in the Ohio Code, specifically the

percentage the City could withhold from vendors on construction

contracts. He stated that the state had recently reduced the allowable

retainage from 8 percent to 4 percent, effective around September. He

said that the City Attorney, the Engineering Department, and he had

reviewed the change and concluded that a 4 percent retainage did not

adequately protect the City’s interests on construction projects. He stated

that withholding $40,000 on a $1 million project provided insufficient

protection. He emphasized that the section of the City’s code allowing a

10 percent retainage, structured on a staggered basis, represented a

critical safeguard. Senior Director Schultz acknowledged that Council

could wait for first and second readings on certain matters, but he

cautioned that construction contracts scheduled to come forward could

not wait for an extended period. He noted that the City had recently

executed two large construction contracts that included only a 4 percent

retainage due to the current code deficiency. He asked Council to

consider that particular section of the code separately. He suggested that

Council could move forward with the unobjectionable components of the

originally proposed legislation through first and second readings and

adopt them, then return to address the $250,000 threshold at a

subsequent committee meeting if necessary.

Council discussed whether the ordinance should proceed as scheduled

or return to Committee for further discussion. Chair Jones confirmed that

the ordinance could be brought back to Committee due to available time

in the legislative schedule.

Senior Director Miranda Vollmer requested that Councilmembers submit

questions or research requests by the end of the week, to allow staff time

to prepare responses for the next Committee discussion.

Chair Jones stated that although Council had discussed the matter, she

wanted to ensure clarity. She asked what Council wanted Administration

to bring back in order to support a productive discussion. She said that if

Council could not answer that question immediately, members could

submit their requests individually or she could collect them and submit

them collectively. She emphasized the need for clarity regarding what

Council wanted to review in order to have a meaningful discussion. She

then asked whether Council could identify those needs at that time or

whether members needed additional time to consider the matter further.

Councilmember Renner requested larger print in future reports, to

improve readability. Director Bury indicated that information in the exhibit

from 2022 was outdated, sharing she would provide applicable updates

to the procurement decision tree. Councilmember Renner stated that, in

his role as a County Director, he frequently encountered the statutory

thresholds of $75,000 and now $79,000. He said he found those

thresholds frustrating because the state legislature based the formula on

outdated market data that no longer reflected current conditions. He

stated that he had communicated to legislators on both sides of the aisle

that he would prefer to see the threshold set at $100,000, which he

believed would align more accurately with current market data. Director

Bury reminded Council that the referenced threshold applied only to

contracts and did not include professional services. Councilmember

Renner acknowledged the clarification and thanked her.

Senior Director Schultz asked if there were concerns about the existing

redlines or the concern was the existing thresholds. Councilmember

Bowers said she had no concerns about the retainage. Mayor Jadwin

asked if members were focused on the threshold. Councilmember

Bowers suggested that considering other reporting alternatives

combined with the higher threshold could be the focus. She concluded

Council was receptive to innovation in this area.

Council discussed compiling questions to avoid duplication, with the

direction that questions could be collected by Chair Jones and forwarded

collectively to the administration. Chair Jones indicated that the

ordinance would be placed on the next agenda for postponement of the

Second Reading, with further Committee discussion planned.

Recommendation: Held in Committee for further discussion scheduled on

2/23/2026; Postpone Second Reading/Adoption to Date Certain (3/2/2026) on

Regular Agenda on 2/16/2026.

ADJOURNMENT:

With no further business before the Committee, the Chair adjourned

the meeting at 8:41 p.m.