200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Committee of the Whole

Trenton I. Weaver, Chair

Merisa K. Bowers

Jamille Jones

Nancy R. McGregor

Kaylee Padova

Stephen A. Renner

Michael Schnetzer

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Monday, June 23, 2025

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

Gahanna City Council met for Committee of the Whole on Monday, June 23,

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

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

June 20, 2025. Councilmember Kaylee Padova was absent from the meeting.

All other members were present for the meeting.

Vice President Weaver noted that the Committee would swap the order of

items B. and C. on the agenda, with Items from the Department of Economic

Development discussed first, followed by Presentations.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

Returning for Further Discussion; Introduction/First Reading Held 6.16.2025

ORD-0030-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA AGREEMENT WITH VELOCIS

GAHANNA JV, LP TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN

INDUSTRIAL

BUILDING

PARCELS

027-000110-00 AND

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

REINVESTMENT AREA #3; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Mr. Nate Green of the Montrose Group, serving as the City’s economic

development consultant, addressed Council to discuss the KBC Velocis

project. He explained that this project involved the development of a

speculative industrial building the City had discussed previously. Mr. Green

noted that Economic Development Director Jeff Gottke had reviewed the

project with Council a few weeks earlier but was on vacation, so Mr. Green

had come in his place. He intended to highlight information the Council had

already heard and then introduce members of the development team to speak

about the project and the requested tax abatement. He stated the building

would be approximately 140,000 to 141,000 square feet, with hard

construction costs estimated at $13.5 million. The project was expected to

create 37 new jobs, though as a speculative development, there was no end

user currently identified. The developer had agreed to a minimum of 37 jobs,

and if they fell below that number, they would need to make a payment to the

City to offset the lost revenue.

Mr. Green described the site as long vacant. He emphasized the City’s need

for this type of project and reminded Council of the return-on-investment

calculations they had seen. He said that, even with the requested 80%,

12-year tax abatement, the overall return on investment for the community

was 69%. He noted the City itself would abate approximately $300,000 in

inside millage but would receive about $600,000 in income tax over the

period, effectively doubling the City’s return. Mr. Green also spoke about the

market need for speculative industrial space. He explained that Gahanna had

had successful speculative industrial projects in the past but had lost 22

leads from One Columbus and JobsOhio over the past two years due to the

lack of suitable space. He observed that the market had shifted over his 25

years in economic development from companies wanting land to wanting

move-in-ready buildings for speed to market. He stressed that the need for

speculative industrial space was even greater now than in recent years. He

further noted the importance of maintaining a diversity of jobs in the City,

which this building could help support. He also explained that the emergency

clause originally included in the legislation was no longer necessary because

KBC had worked out the timing issues with the land seller. He stated that this

change aligned with Council’s request at the prior meeting. He then invited

questions from Council and introduced Jonathan Postweiler of KBC Advisors.

He mentioned that Mr. Postweiler was based in Chicago.

Mr. Jonathan Postweiler, Development Manager with KBC Advisors in

Chicago, explained that thanks to the City’s technology, he had watched the

meeting two weeks earlier and understood the questions that had been

raised. He shared that he had been with KBC Advisors for four years, focused

entirely on industrial development. He explained the project was a joint

venture between KBC and Velocis, a private equity firm based in Dallas,

Texas. Their local leasing broker in Columbus, Beau Taggart, spoke at the

June 9, 2025, Committee of the Whole meeting. While the development team

was based in Chicago, they were combining local resources and national

capital for the Gahanna project. Mr. Postweiler described the partnership’s

track record, noting they had developed over 4.5 million square feet in Texas

(in three cities), as well as in Arizona and Chicago. He said they were now

expanding in the Midwest, starting with Gahanna, and planned to continue in

Ohio and other Midwestern states, as well as on the East and West Coasts.

He addressed questions raised at the earlier meeting about the site’s

organizational structure and constraints. He explained that a storm sanitary

easement bisected the site east to west in the northern third, reducing usable

land from 10 acres to about 8.3 acres. Additional challenges included fill

material left from the construction of Tech Center Drive, which increased

costs, and an ephemeral stream requiring rerouting and repiping. He also

noted that a walking trail easement on the south and east sides of the

property pinched the site east-west, while the sanitary easement pinched it

north-south, creating significant constraints. Mr. Postweiler stated that these

constraints added costs that the development team could absorb with the

proposed tax abatement. He reiterated that, as a speculative development

without an identified tenant, they needed to build a flexible facility to attract a

range of users, including manufacturers, warehouse operators, and flex office

tenants. He explained that their local broker had provided 20 to 30 recent

lease comparables indicating the market rents they needed to achieve, which

would only be feasible with the requested 12-year, 80% property tax

abatement. He concluded by inviting any questions Council members might

have.

President Bowers thanked the presenters for their work and the additional

context. She expressed her appreciation to Mr. Green and Mr. Postweiler.

She said she wanted to ensure the Council “level set” the conversation,

noting that remarks made at the last regular Council meeting needed

clarification. She stated there was mutual respect for the development team

and for professionals with experience in these areas. President Bowers

emphasized that this respect did not negate Council’s duty to vet and

thoroughly review projects. She explained that each Councilmember brought

lived experience, research experience, and educational experience to their

role. She stressed the importance of appreciating the contributions of

partners, companies, and property owners, while making clear that Council’s

questions were intended to evaluate projects on behalf of the community from

a holistic perspective. She then said she had a couple of questions, the first

being about the timeline for the property. She noted there had been

comments about the site being on the market for an extended period but

highlighted two major changes in recent years: rezoning and a lot split in

2022. She asked for clarification about when the lot split had occurred.

Jordan Fromm, representing the property owner/seller, Value Recovery

Group (VRG), responded. He explained that there had never been a lot split.

Instead, there had always been two separate parcels. The lot line had been

moved to adjust for Burns and Scalo, who acquired less land than they

originally intended to purchase. He added that although the parcels had

always been separate, they had been marketed together when VRG acquired

the sites and built Tech Center Drive. He also noted that the City had worked

with them during that time in an effort to attract Bob Evans.

President Bowers thanked Mr. Fromm for clarifying that point. She explained

she had wanted to be sure she understood, because Mr. Griffith had said

during his previous remarks (June 16, 2025) that the property had been split

into an 18-acre piece, which he had claimed enabled the development in

recent years. She then asked another question, noting that since the

development team was based out of town, she wanted to know how they had

identified this site and decided it was a project they wanted to pursue.

Mr. Postweiler explained that, from a macroeconomic standpoint, Chicago

was one of the largest logistics markets in the country, the second largest,

and that his team spent significant time and effort there. Because Columbus

was geographically close to their office, they wanted to identify other markets

that were well-suited for development under their expertise. He said that

Columbus was one of those markets, based on economic indicators,

vacancy rates, absorption, and tenant demand, which they began to study in

2021 and 2022. He noted there had been an oversupply of bulk product in

Columbus, particularly in the Rickenbacker market, which had scared some

capital away from Columbus development. However, the specific subsector

size of 100,000 to 150,000 square feet had seen tenant demand. Mr.

Postweiler said their analysis showed that the ten most recent developments

in the northeast submarket leased up in an average of just under two

quarters, about 5.1 months, indicating strong demand for that product type in

that location. That demand, coupled with leasing comparables provided by

their local broker, Beau Taggart, confirmed tenant demand for the area in their

desired size range. He explained that Beau and his team had then identified

the site, which Bob Lockett had been marketing on behalf of VRG, and

brought it to KBC’s attention, which led them to pursue the project.

President Bowers asked Mr. Postweiler about the typical duration of leases

for these types of industrial tenants. Mr. Postweiler replied that the typical

lease duration ranged from seven to ten years. President Bowers asked if

those leases generally included options to renew. Mr. Postweiler confirmed

that most leases included two five-year options to extend. President Bowers

then asked if companies tended to exercise those options. Mr. Postweiler

said that, most often, they did. President Bowers asked what happened when

the abatement expired, specifically whether tenants’ rent would increase

dramatically. Mr. Postweiler acknowledged it was a good question and

identified it as a broader challenge in the Columbus market. He explained that,

for example, a Class B building built in 2002 with 28-foot clear height and

1,000 amps of power might cost a tenant $3.50 per square foot in property

taxes. Tenants focused on their gross rent, the all-in rent payment. When the

abatement ended, landlords needed to lower the base rent portion to keep the

gross rent competitive. He illustrated this by explaining that if the market

gross rent was $10 per square foot, the landlord could only charge $7 for

base rent if $3 was going toward taxes. In their specific underwriting case, the

gross rent was $11 per foot, with $9 per foot in base rent and just over a

dollar in operating expenses for insurance and other costs. Without the

abatement, they would need to lower base rents from about $9.75 to $7.75

per foot, making the project infeasible for them or any developer given their

required returns. Mr. Postweiler went on to explain that when abatements

expired, companies in older buildings would compare their current rent to the

rent in newer, higher-quality buildings. For about the same gross rent, they

would often choose to move into the better product. Older buildings would

then be backfilled at lower rents by other companies. President Bowers

asked if KBC and Velocis would own the property when the abatement

expired. Mr. Postweiler said that most likely, KBC and Velocis would not be

the owners at that time. President Bowers then asked who would rent at the

lower rate and absorb the increased taxes when the abatement ended. Mr.

Postweiler clarified that KBC and Velocis would serve as the developer and

initial owner, leasing the space to one to three unidentified tenants who would

pay rent. He explained that those tenants would have staggered lease terms

of seven, ten, or twelve years, meaning different parts of the building would

become vacant at various times. Their local broker, Beau Taggart, would be

responsible for re-leasing the space to new tenants. He added that regardless

of whether KBC and Velocis or another institutional owner held the property at

that point, the process would be the same as elsewhere in the market, with

brokers marketing the space and securing new tenants as vacancies

occurred.

President Bowers expressed her appreciation for the historical context and

for Mr. Postweiler explaining the relationship between KBC and Velocis. She

confirmed that he had described their relationship as spanning about four and

a half years and asked whether they still owned all of the properties they had

developed together. Mr. Postweiler said he did not know the exact answer but

estimated they still owned all but two or three of the roughly 14 or 15 buildings

they had developed together. President Bowers asked Mr. Postweiler

approximately how long they would expect to hold the property before selling

it. Mr. Postweiler explained that the timing was highly market-specific and

depended on economic conditions. He said that with recent interest rate

increases, it was less advantageous for the partnership to sell. If interest

rates fell and cap rates lowered, increasing building values, the partnership

would be more likely to exit more properties. In the meantime, they planned to

hold, own, and operate the properties while leasing them to tenants.

Mr. Green added that another possibility existed: if they secured a single

tenant for the building, that tenant might choose to buy the property outright.

He noted that this could happen either soon after occupancy or three to five

years later. He described the market as fluid, with many companies needing

this kind of space. Mr. Green explained that such a scenario could involve

three tenants with leases rolling over to new tenants over time, or a single

user buying and occupying the space for the long term. Mr. Green said their

hope was for that kind of outcome, a company buying the building and staying

in Gahanna for years. From an economic development perspective, he said

the goal was to help local companies grow into the space and remain in the

community or to attract new companies that would move in, grow, and stay in

Gahanna. He noted it would also be beneficial if multiple companies in the

building grew enough to need larger spaces elsewhere in Gahanna, allowing

the City to backfill the original space with new businesses. President Bowers

agreed and said she appreciated that vision. She mentioned that Council had

heard success stories from other companies in the industrial district, such as

ADB Safegate, but cautioned that there was still a risk. She noted the gamble

was that tenants could vacate when the abatement expired, move to newer

projects offering better rents, and leave behind a warehouse out of step with

market demand. Mr. Green acknowledged that this outcome was possible

and said he could not deny it. However, he pointed to the Rickenbacker area,

which had experienced multiple cycles of abatements rolling off and

ownership changes while maintaining a very low vacancy rate. He

emphasized that many of those buildings were even larger bulk warehouses.

Mr. Green said Gahanna also had important advantages, including strong

economic activity in the Columbus region, proximity to major highways such

as I-270 and 670, and its location near the airport. He highlighted the City's

excellent access to workforce within five miles, which made it appealing to

companies looking to locate in the area. President Bowers responded that

she understood those points and agreed with the benefits, but said her

concern remained valid. Mr. Green acknowledged that concern and pointed

out that from a financial perspective, the tax abatement was essential

because Gahanna competed with other communities offering similar

incentives. He noted that the City of Columbus provided comparable

abatements and that communities south of Gahanna often offered even more

generous terms, such as 100% abatements for 15 years. He emphasized

that while Gahanna was not proposing 100%, the tax abatement was

necessary given Ohio’s high property taxes and the need to attract new

capital. Mr. Postweiler added to Mr. Green’s comments, describing the facility

as a “Swiss Army knife” of industrial buildings. He explained that the building

was designed to be highly flexible, with the ability to add more dock positions,

trailer parking, and electrical capacity suitable for manufacturing. It also

featured appropriate clear height for racking and floor thickness for

manufacturing uses, along with multiple office entry options to accommodate

spaces from 5,000 to 30,000 square feet, including two-story configurations.

Mr. Postweiler contrasted this with a highly specialized build-to-suit or

corporate headquarters facility, which would be difficult to re-lease if vacated.

He said their speculative facility was designed to accommodate nearly any

industrial user, mitigating the risk of ending up with an empty building. Mr.

Green concluded by describing it as a high-tech, Class A industrial facility

developed by an experienced industrial developer, which was exactly what the

City wanted to attract.

President Bowers stated she wanted to follow-up on a point Mr. Green had

begun to discuss, noting that high property taxes in Ohio required the City to

use tax abatements as a routine development tool. She said one of her

concerns involved a practice called “drop and swap.” She mentioned she had

hoped Mr. Underhill could address this, as he would likely be familiar with the

term. Mr. Aaron Underhill, counsel for the applicant, confirmed that he was

familiar with the term. Mr. Green asked President Bowers to clarify what she

meant by “drop and swap.” President Bowers invited Mr. Underhill to explain,

suggesting he could do a better job. Mr. Underhill explained that a “drop and

swap” was a situation where the property, immediately before being sold,

would be transferred into an LLC, a single-purpose entity. That LLC itself

would then be purchased, allowing the transaction to avoid appearing in the

County’s records. He said this practice could prevent the increase in land

value from being recognized for tax purposes. President Bowers confirmed

that was her concern, explaining that the unabated land value would not be

recorded if the membership interest in the LLC changed hands. Mr. Green

responded that such a practice would not occur in this case. He clarified that

the base value, which was not subject to abatement, would remain on the tax

rolls. Mr. Postweiler added that the entity developing and owning the property

would also be the entity purchasing the land. Mr. Green confirmed that the

ownership entity already existed. Mr. Postweiler specified that the ownership

entity was “Velocis Gahanna JV.” Mr. Underhill stated definitively, for the

record, that such a “drop and swap” transaction would not occur for this

parcel. He explained that any future sale would have to be reported on the

required DTE form, he believed it was Form 24, which would document the

sale value for the county. He said the County Auditor would accept that sale

price as the market value, ensuring the base value would reset. He

emphasized that everyone currently receiving tax payments would continue to

receive them, and the new valuation would generate additional tax revenue.

Mr. Green agreed with that explanation. President Bowers thanked them for

clarifying and confirming that the “drop and swap” practice would not occur on

this parcel.

President Bowers then turned to Mr. Underhill with another question,

referencing concerns raised two weeks earlier about which entity would be

liable for the income tax guarantee. She asked him to clarify that point. Mr.

Underhill explained that the liability would fall to the ownership entity. He said

they had negotiated the assignment language in the agreement carefully to

ensure that if his client’s entity sold the property, the benefit of the abatement

would transfer to the buyer, but so would the obligations. He stated that any

future buyer would remain contractually obligated to the City to fulfill the terms

of the agreement, giving the City a breach of contract claim if the buyer failed

to comply. Mr. Green confirmed that it would always be the entity owning the

building that held that liability. President Bowers thanked them for the

clarification and said that concluded her questions.

Councilmember Schnetzer noted that the document he had requested at the

previous Committee meeting had been sent to all Councilmembers and was

now included in the attachments. He referred specifically to the file titled

“Incentive ROI Calculator KBC” dated June 17, 2025. He explained that it

included the detail he had asked for, showing the revenue to the City

separately from the revenue to the broader community. He identified that

figure on the spreadsheet as $619,777. Councilmember Schnetzer asked

what the risk was that this number would not materialize. Mr. Green replied

that as part of the agreement, the developer had guaranteed at least the

minimum amount of income tax. He said there was very little risk, because

whoever owned the building would have to make up the difference if they did

not have 37 employees generating that payroll. Councilmember Schnetzer

acknowledged that uncertainty existed about the economy. He asked if,

should the jobs fail to materialize, the owners would be on the hook or if there

would be a rollback of the abatement. Mr. Green confirmed they would be on

the hook for the payment if the jobs did not materialize. Councilmember

Schnetzer then asked about the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) payments. Mr.

Green said that whatever property taxes were owed would also be the

responsibility of the owner. Mr. Underhill noted that the TIF could be

confusing. He emphasized that his client and the property owner were not

asking for any TIF dollars. He explained that whether the City chose to place a

TIF on top of the abatement was its own decision but made clear the

applicant was not requesting any revenues be returned to them.

Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Mr. Underhill and explained he was

simply referencing the spreadsheet and the label in the cell. Mr. Green

clarified that those “service payments” Councilmember Schnetzer referenced

were payments the property owner would have to make as part of their

property tax bill. He said that whoever owned the building would be

responsible for paying them. Councilmember Schnetzer confirmed that the

$619,777 figure was therefore a minimum amount and asked if they were

reasonably assured it would materialize. Mr. Green said they were assured of

receiving at least that amount and expressed hope that the City would

ultimately receive even more.

Councilmember Renner thanked everyone for the discussion so far. He

acknowledged hearing Mr. Green and others describe the project as a

high-tech or “Swiss Army knife” facility, but noted his concern that no tenants

had yet been identified despite an 80% abatement request. He asked for

clarification on what a high-tech facility would include and what types of

businesses the developers planned to attract. He also made clear that while

he understood there was some confidential deal-making, he still wanted

enough detail to understand what would go into the facility. Mr. Postweiler

thanked Councilmember Renner for the question and explained they had not

yet identified a tenant because they had not fully launched the marketing

campaign. The property had been softly marketed by their broker to a few

groups but had not been broadly promoted because they had not yet closed

on the land and the development hinged on approvals still pending. He noted

that industry standards meant tenants typically looked for new space only six

to nine months in advance, while this project had been under contract since

September 2024 without yet breaking ground. He explained the process to

build the facility was lengthy, but tenants’ search timelines were much

shorter, driving the speculative nature of the development. Regarding what

made it a high-tech facility, Mr. Postweiler described it as a modern industrial

space with 32-foot clear height allowing eight pallet positions. It would feature

modern LED lighting, ESFR fire suppression systems suitable for materials

not permitted in older facilities, and 3,000 amps of power to the building with

3,500 amps to the site. The site would have six EV charging stations and

could add more power for advanced manufacturing uses. He identified their

main competition as the New Albany submarket, with much of its

development tied to the chip manufacturing plant there. He explained their

investment thesis relied on the area’s highway access, labor pool, proximity

to downtown Columbus, and the airport. They viewed the building as a fit for

companies supplementing the technology boom in New Albany. He defined a

high-tech user as one engaged in advanced manufacturing, combining

assembly, equipment, racking, truck docks, trailer parking, and over 110 auto

parking spaces. He added that while they were committing to 37 jobs, their

goal was to secure a single advanced manufacturing tenant bringing 100 or

more jobs to the community. Mr. Green added that the area had missed out

on some JobsOhio leads due to a lack of available space. He listed sectors

such as pharmaceutical manufacturing, food processing, advanced

automotive and aerospace manufacturing, and freezer/cooler manufacturing

as industries that could potentially occupy the facility. Mr. Underhill said he

had been involved in development in New Albany and noted the size of this

project raised questions about its speculative nature. He explained that the

facility would not attract large corporations like Amazon or Google but would

serve successful small and medium-sized businesses. These businesses

typically lacked the experience or long planning horizon to develop their own

real estate and wanted move-in-ready space so they could focus on their

core operations. He emphasized that this was the opportunity before the

Council: to serve companies with immediate needs that could not build

facilities themselves, providing a niche to benefit Gahanna and surrounding

areas.

Councilmember Renner responded that he had a long history of supporting

development and understood the developers’ perspective. He observed they

were developing a small acreage in a creative way, but noted the city had

been pushing to build up that area. He then asked about their approach to

stormwater management, specifically whether they would manage

stormwater by letting it infiltrate directly rather than routing it through pipes.

Mr. Postweiler thanked him for the question and clarified he was not a civil

engineer but could explain the basics. He said that when he mentioned storm

drainage costs, he referred to the need to handle off-site stormwater

discharge that had historically run through their property for over 40 years,

creating a ditch due to a likely failed drain tile from the 1950s. To build their

facility as planned, they would need to repipe that overflow drainage west

along Tech Center’s north side, then north along their west property line, and

finally down to the creek within the conservation easement. He explained that

this repiping would strictly manage off-site water, while all rainwater falling on

their own site would be contained in on-site detention ponds and released

safely per engineering code. Councilmember Renner said that somewhat

answered his question, but he wanted to know, using that framework, how the

facility would address broader concerns about energy and transportation. Mr.

Postweiler said that the facility benefited from nearby public transportation

and a walking path. He explained that in terms of energy efficiency, the facility

would feature LED lighting, high-efficiency HVAC units, and compliance with

modern national standards. They were also exploring the possibility of LEED

certification, though that depended on financial feasibility. Councilmember

Renner pressed further, asking about solar power, battery storage, and

similar measures that were becoming increasingly important. Mr. Postweiler

replied that one advantage of their flexible building design was that these

features could be added later. He offered an example from Chicago, where

they had considered retrofitting an older building with rainwater recapture and

solar panels. He explained that while some tenants opposed rooftop solar due

to roof penetrations and potential leaks, especially manufacturers with

sensitive processes, these remained viable options if financially feasible.

Councilmember Renner suggested that as a building owner they could also

consider a public-private partnership to purchase only renewable power. Mr.

Postweiler said that was potentially an option but admitted he did not know

enough to speak about it further at that time.

President Bowers asked Mr. Postweiler whether, of the 14 projects he had

mentioned with Velocis, any had sought LEED certification. Mr. Postweiler

replied that at least a few of them had received LEED certification. President

Bowers then asked what level of LEED certification those projects had

achieved. Mr. Postweiler said he did not know the exact levels. He clarified

that the partnership included KBC and Velocis nationally, with different

development teams handling projects in Texas, Arizona, and the Midwest. He

explained he knew general details such as project overviews, square footage,

and investment amounts, but not the specific LEED certification levels.

President Bowers asked if he knew how the cost of LEED certification was

factored into the project’s financial planning. Mr. Postweiler explained that for

this project, preliminary figures showed LEED certification to be relatively

expensive. He said that cost fell to the developer, who would need to charge

higher rent to make it viable. He described the decision as depending on

whether tenants valued LEED certification enough to pay an extra 5, 10, or 20

cents per square foot, and whether the developer was willing to take that risk.

President Bowers noted that this was a good point and asked whether, in the

cases where they had pursued LEED certification, they had done so with a

specific tenant in mind who valued it. Mr. Postweiler said those projects had

been speculative in nature, just like this one. President Bowers then asked

what would make them decide to make that investment in LEED for this

project. Mr. Postweiler explained that if the market rents increased

significantly, citing an example of $12 per square foot plus an 80% tax

abatement, they could afford to charge an extra dollar per square foot. That

higher rent would allow them to justify the additional investment in the building

for things like LEED certification or other architectural features. President

Bowers asked if that would increase the value of the building. Mr. Postweiler

replied that in some cases it would. President Bowers then asked whether,

when the abatement expired, the resulting higher building value would lead to

a greater tax burden for the ultimate property owner. Mr. Postweiler said it

was difficult to predict something twelve years out but speculated that if the

assessor valued the building higher when the abatement ended, it would

result in higher costs to the tenants.

Vice President Weaver said he appreciated the additional context and

presentation. He specifically thanked the presenters for addressing concerns

about the LLC drop-and-swap issue. He explained that, in his role with the

county auditor’s office, this was a frequent concern in development projects,

particularly for the affected school districts, and he found it reassuring to

know it was off the table. He also expressed gratitude for the additional details

about the project, saying it provided a broader picture that helped everyone

better understand it. Regarding the income tax guarantee, he appreciated the

clarification that any subsequent owner would remain responsible for it. He

added that his understanding was that City Attorney Tamilarasan supported

the language in the agreement. Vice President Weaver noted that, although

the legislation had originally included a request for emergency passage, he

appreciated the clarification that this was no longer needed. He confirmed

with Clerk VanMeter that the legislation would need to be amended at the July

7, 2025, meeting to remove the emergency language. After receiving that

confirmation, he stated that the item was currently slated for the regular

agenda on July 7, 2025.

Recommendation: Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 7.7.2025;

Amendment requested to remove Emergency Declaration.

PRESENTATIONS:

1. Department of Public Service Update

2025-0135

Department of Public Service Presentation Slides 6.23.2025

Director of Public Service Shawn Anverse thanked the Council for making

time for him and members of his leadership team to share updates on their

work over the past half-year. He began by presenting the department’s

organizational chart, which included six divisions. He introduced several

members of his leadership team so Council could associate faces with

names. He introduced Kyle Allen as the Street Superintendent and Matt Jones

as the Utility Superintendent. He then introduced Adam Grove, the newest

member of the leadership team having recently been promoted to Facility

Superintendent, who would oversee the new building. Next, he introduced

Jennifer Hamilton, who oversaw programs, compliance, and project

management. Finally, he introduced Derek Casper, who manages the

Customer Service Division. He also noted that Darren Arnett, the Fleet

Superintendent, was unable to attend because he was at a working

conference.

Director Anverse began by describing the Customer Service Division, led by

Derek Casper. He reported that the division created and sent over 10,000

water bills each month and had handled a little over 10,000 calls to date for

2025. They also managed all shelter and facility rentals, assisted with parks

and recreation signups, shelter houses, and programming. He then described

the Facilities Division, which at the time consisted solely of Adam Grove.

Anverse explained that Adam handled all facilities either by contract or

personally. These included City Hall, the Police Department, the Service

Garage, Fleet Garage, Senior Center, and Creekside Garage. He said Adam

managed everything from replacing light bulbs to fixing vandalism and

highlighted several projects, such as work on fleet garage doors, backflow

certifications, and frequent coordination with the Fire Department for

inspections. Anverse praised Adam for his early-morning commitment and

excellent performance. Next, Director Anverse discussed the Service

Division, which maintained over 325 lane miles of streets. He shared winter

operation statistics, noting that staff had plowed over 7,000 lane miles, used

over 900 tons of salt, and applied over 6,000 gallons of brine during what he

described as a medium or mild winter. He emphasized their proactive

approach to forecasting and staffing to ensure safe travel for residents. He

then shifted to the Utilities Division, reporting that it maintained over 187 miles

of water mains. He highlighted the resumption of the meter replacement

upgrade program in 2025, noting that they had already replaced over 360

meters, many of which had failed batteries or other issues. He also

mentioned they had addressed over 14 water main breaks so far, praising

staff for responding at all hours, even during freezing temperatures.

Director Anverse outlined several projects, many of which fell under Jennifer

Hamilton’s management. He described their leak detection work with Asterra

Satellite, a company from California that identified underground water leaks

via satellite imaging. He recounted that the company claimed to have found

water on Mars, which, while unverified, had piqued their interest. The project

had been successful so far, with the team confirming and repairing leaks on

both private and city property. He noted that minimizing water loss was critical

for the city given its master meter system. He explained that after initial

repairs, they planned a second satellite pass in the fall to identify any

remaining or new leaks. He also mentioned EPA reporting, highlighting the

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) written by Jennifer Hamilton. He praised

Jennifer’s exceptional work, sharing that the Ohio EPA had used her report as

a statewide example at a conference, which he called a great honor for her.

Director Anverse discussed additional projects, including streetlight painting

and traffic signal replacements. He noted they had already completed traffic

signal replacement at US 62 and Stygler Road intersections, and planned to

rebuild the traffic signal at the intersection of North Hamilton and Gatsby’s

restaurant in 2025. He added they were working to address timing issues at

traffic signals, with plans to purchase new detection cameras to improve

signal timing.

Vice President Weaver asked Director Anverse a question before he

continued. Weaver explained that in his ward, several HOAs had

interconnected water features, such as ponds, and had asked about

mitigating flooding. He noted he had heard the principle that “what happens

upstream impacts downstream” and wanted to know whether that concern

fell under the department’s EPA reporting or who coordinated that work,

mentioning that Engineering or even the Army Corps of Engineers might be

involved. Director Anverse responded that in his two and a half years with the

city, he had not had any dialogue about flooding from ponds specifically. He

suggested that Engineering or Parks might be better points of contact but

offered to look into it and get back to Weaver. Vice President Weaver thanked

him and said he was happy to reach out to them as well.

Director Anverse continued his presentation by discussing operational

changes the department had made in recent years. He explained that they

had re-evaluated which services to perform in-house versus contracting out.

He noted that the department had recently acquired a new street sweeper,

which staff had been using on highly visible roads, especially in preparation

for events like the Creekside Blues and Jazz Festival and the Fourth of July.

He explained that starting July 1, 2025, they would implement what he called a

“live program” for street sweeping, dividing the city into five zones with roughly

equal mileage. Residents would be able to track the schedule online by

hovering over their area to see when sweeping was planned. He said the

program had already received many compliments from residents, and staff

were becoming familiar with the new machine’s capabilities.

Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Anverse for the information and asked if

the street sweeper had been purchased with Issue 12 funds. Anverse replied

that he believed so. Senior Deputy Director Corey Wybensinger added that

the funding for the street sweeper was a mix, with a heavy portion coming

from stormwater funds to help keep debris out of the stormwater system,

along with some capital funding.

Director Anverse then talked about pavement marking. He noted that recent

thermoplastic pavement marking work had been contracted through the

Engineering Department, but the Service Department was now performing

in-house “touchup” work. This included residential streets, school zones, park

entrances, pools, and high-pedestrian areas. The in-house work involved

spray painting, applying glass beads, and primarily focused on crosswalks

and stop bars. He emphasized that in previous years, this work would have

been entirely contracted out. He also described their new in-house sign shop.

Previously, the city had to order signs from a contractor, which delayed

replacements. Now, with a shop at the service garage, trained staff could

make signs themselves, including stop signs and any needed for Parks and

Recreation. He reported they had made 40 signs so far in 2025. Director

Anverse added that they had begun doing some small-scale concrete work

in-house, rather than waiting to collect four or five jobs before calling a

contractor. He clarified that these were minor repairs, such as replacing a

single slab or curb sections damaged during maintenance, rather than long

stretches of sidewalk. He then discussed the Fleet Division, which serviced

over 450 pieces of equipment ranging from weed eaters to dump trucks and

loaders. He credited Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger and Fleet

Superintendent Darren Arnett for their focus on “right-sizing” the fleet by

prioritizing need over want. He noted this approach had improved their ability

to get the right equipment. He highlighted the purchase of a crash attenuator

for crew safety on high-traffic roads, describing how it provided critical

protection during work like pothole patching. He explained it featured a solar

panel and an arrow board that could be raised when in use. Anverse then

listed some of the vehicles purchased for 2025, including the street sweeper,

two salt dump trucks (replacing 19-year-old units), and golf carts. He

explained they planned to buy ten golf carts each year over five years to

complete a full replacement. He also discussed sustainability efforts. He

noted their shred and e-recycling event at City Hall had been the most

attended yet, with over 830 cars participating. He described the upcoming

household hazardous waste disposal event, held in partnership with SWACO

and a contractor, EEI, calling it a strong countywide collaboration. He also

mentioned the city’s ongoing work to replace streetlights with LEDs whenever

one burned out, 138 in 2024 and 85 so far in 2025. Jennifer Hamilton’s team

had also been researching solar streetlights. He acknowledged they likely

worked better in sunnier climates but said the city was exploring the

possibility. Anverse concluded by showing photos of department events. One

depicted their annual snow and ice equipment inspection held in mid-October

or November to catch mechanical issues before winter storms. Another photo

showed their first-ever truck rodeo from the previous year, where CDL drivers

competed in an obstacle course and received a trophy.

Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Director Anverse and the department,

especially the “weather warriors” who handled snow plowing. He praised the

service, noting he could always tell where the city limits were on his commute

by the difference in road conditions.

Vice President Weaver brought up two items. First, he referred to a concern

logged in the Gahanna 311 system about the location of a stop bar at

Crossing Creek South. He said overgrown shrubbery obstructed views of

cross traffic and wanted to highlight the issue again. Senior Director of

Operations Kevin Schultz responded that this was a Parks and Recreation

matter because of the tree trimming. He explained that Parks, Engineering,

and Service had reviewed it and determined the clear zone met the required

distance, so they did not believe additional work was warranted. Vice

President Weaver thanked him for the update and then mentioned the

roundabout at Clark State and Hamilton. He explained that as drivers traveled

south on Hamilton into the roundabout, the stop bar’s location caused drivers

not to yield properly. He said he had received requests to move the stop bar

farther north and acknowledged it was an engineering and public safety

matter. Mayor Jadwin confirmed it was an engineering issue. She noted she

and Weaver had discussed it before and that Engineering was looking into

what, if anything, could be done. Vice President Weaver thanked everyone

and, seeing nothing further for the presentation and discussion, he expressed

his appreciation for the update and for the department’s work.

2. Department of Planning Update

2025-0136

Department of Planning Presentation Slides 6.23.2025

Director of Planning Michael Blackford presented a mid-year update on the

work of the Department of Planning. He began by showing the department’s

organizational chart, explaining that it consisted of three divisions: the Building

Division, the Code Enforcement Division, and the Zoning Division. He noted

that the department had 11 total staff members, 10 full-time and one

part-time, with over 115 years of combined Gahanna-related experience.

Blackford said he had 11 and a half years himself, putting him fifth in seniority

in the department. He then discussed the Building Division. He began with

accomplishments, highlighting the permitting software implementation. He

explained it had been about one year since the division switched software, six

months in 2024 and six months in 2025. He said this was a major change for

any department but especially impactful for the Building Division because

nearly all their work (permits, inspections, and reports) depended on that

software. Blackford clarified that the apparent drop in the number of permits

and inspections shown in the data, from 1,300 to 257, was due to differences

in how the old and new systems calculated and displayed data, not an actual

drop in activity. He said permit volume remained steady year over year. He

explained that one of the biggest improvements from the new software was

its ability to let applicants check the status of their permit online. He said the

most common question the department used to receive was, “What’s the

status of my permit?” but that had almost disappeared. However, new

questions had emerged, especially about scheduling inspections and

resubmitting plans online. He said the department was working to educate

and support customers on those elements. Blackford also discussed how the

new system improved the scheduling of inspections. He explained that

residents could call by 3 p.m. on Monday and expect an inspection on

Tuesday, describing this quick turnaround as possible because of the

improved software. He credited City Council’s previous approval to hire an

in-house inspector, shown in a presentation photo, along with third-party

contractors, for allowing the city to be one of the most responsive

communities in the region.

Turning to the Code Enforcement Division, Blackford said the number of

cases in 2024 and 2025 was on the same trajectory as previous years.

Although he could not provide the exact number of inspections in the new

software, he said they historically averaged three to four inspections per

case, meaning they had performed about 2,000 inspections so far this year.

He said many cases involved “frequent flyers” with recurring issues, rather

than new problems. The most common complaints at this time of year

included tall grass and weeds, trash, and debris. He also noted they received

calls about issues technically handled by the police, such as blocked

sidewalks, parked cars, and noise complaints. He explained that while

residents often asked the department to handle these, they had to refer them

to the police. Blackford highlighted a major recent accomplishment: the

introduction of warrants for scofflaws. He described it as a significant effort

that took time and collaboration with the legal office and the Clerk of Courts.

He explained that code enforcement officers could not directly force

compliance but could cite violators and move through the legal process.

Previously, many offenders ignored Mayor’s Court, leading to a cycle of

noncompliance. With the new warrant process, they had successfully gained

compliance in cases where violators had ignored the city for years. He shared

an example of someone who had been unresponsive for over five years but

complied after discovering they could not renew their driver’s license due to

the warrant.

President Bowers asked whether the department could enforce code on

commercially owned properties. Blackford confirmed they could. He explained

that most complaints involved residential properties, but they did enforce code

on commercial properties as well. He said their main touchpoints with

commercial property owners included requiring pothole patching after winter

and addressing issues such as temporary signage and poorly maintained

dumpsters. President Bowers asked if there were any obstacles unique to

code enforcement on commercial properties. Blackford replied that he could

not recall anything making commercial enforcement inherently easier or

harder. He said it often came down to the responsiveness of individual

property owners, noting that some were easier to work with than others.

Councilmember Jones asked about how the city identified violations,

mentioning that some people on social media claimed the city drove around

looking for them. She asked whether most violations came from resident

reports or from staff proactively looking. Blackford explained that the city’s

approach was both proactive and reactive, estimating roughly two-thirds of

cases were proactive, though he wasn’t certain which category was larger.

Councilmember Jones then asked whether there was a consistent rule about

how many times staff tried to contact a violator before moving to the warrant

process, or whether it was case by case. Blackford said it was generally

case by case. He noted the warrant process had only been used a few times

so far. He emphasized that the goal of code enforcement was not fines or

revenue but achieving compliance. He said staff always tried to use the

approach that would best lead to compliance, recognizing that different

people responded better to different tactics.

Director Blackford continued the presentation, focusing on Planning and

Zoning. Blackford reported that in 2024 the city had approved 210,000 square

feet of development. As of two weeks prior, Planning Commission had

approved three new developments bringing the 2025 total to 209,000 square

feet, virtually the same as the previous year. He noted, however, that while

there had been 196 residential units approved in 2024, there had been none

so far in 2025. He shared that the most frequent question his department

received by far was, “When is my hearing date?” He described one project

that went through the process for six to eight months, during which they

tracked over three dozen times that question was asked, despite the

department having clear flowcharts explaining the process. He noted that

even though the department did not set hearing dates (it only described the

process), external customers remained focused on that timeline question. He

contrasted this with other common questions like “What are my setbacks?”

which were also frequent but less persistent.

Director Blackford described the department’s accomplishments, particularly

the implementation of new permitting software and the adoption of a new

zoning code. He said these were significant, long-term projects aimed at

streamlining processes and making them more efficient. He explained that

with the new software and code, the department was better able to respond

to customer questions and refine its procedures, including minor changes like

updating terminology and major changes such as rewriting the zoning code

itself. He emphasized that while the department continually worked to improve

and streamline processes, the ultimate pace of an application depended

largely on the external customer. He explained that typically, only about one

day in five of an application’s lifecycle was in the city’s hands. On average,

80-85% of the timeline was due to the applicant’s work. He gave an example

of how a 20,000-square-foot warehouse project might move through Planning

Commission in two months, while another project might take two years,

usually due to differences in the professionalism and preparedness of

applicants.

Looking ahead, Blackford outlined 2025 priorities that could affect the city’s

budget. He said they were evaluating whether the Land Use Plan needed

revision, which would be part of a future budget request. He also noted that as

the city grew more sophisticated in addressing floodplain and floodway

issues, mostly governed by federal rules, complex projects might require

additional third-party consulting, which could also affect future budget

planning. He closed by reiterating the department’s ongoing commitment to

refining the zoning code to keep it responsive, streamlined, and reflective of

community priorities.

President Bowers thanked Director Blackford for the update and for

previewing potential 2026 priorities. She noted there had been much

discussion around zoning code changes last year, especially related to

regional housing trends, and asked if the city had seen many accessory

dwelling unit (ADU) requests. Blackford replied that although there had been

interest and discussion during the code adoption process, they had

anticipated one or two applications but had actually received none. He said he

did not recall staff getting any calls about ADUs so far. President Bowers then

asked about a large garage structure she had seen west of Cherry Bottom in

the Founders Ridge area, wondering if it might be an ADU. Blackford

responded that he was not aware of it specifically, explaining he typically

would not see it unless it required a variance. He added that the zoning code

allowed for garages up to around 1,000 square feet, the same size as an

ADU, so it could be a large garage that was fully compliant. President Bowers

clarified she had been curious because it appeared to be a significant,

possibly two-story structure with living space above. Blackford said he would

take a closer look to confirm. President Bowers assured him she meant no

criticism of any resident and was simply curious. Blackford agreed, saying it

was a matter of research and understanding.

Vice President Weaver, noting no further discussion, thanked Director

Blackford and his team for the presentation and their work.

3. Community Grants Update

2025-0133

2025 Community Grant Program - Evaluation Matrix

Senior Deputy Director Corey Wybensinger presented an update on the city’s

grant program. He noted that Council had received, ahead of time, a

spreadsheet summarizing the applications, requested amounts, applicant

descriptions, and the Grant Review Committee’s recommendations.

Wybensinger explained that the program was now in its third year and had

been redesigned compared to 2023 and 2024. He reviewed the timeline for

the current round. On March 27, 2025, staff issued a notice of funding

opportunity to over two dozen nonprofits that had previously engaged with the

city’s process, letting them know the application would be released April 1,

2025. On April 1st, the online portal opened using OpenGov software, and

staff accepted all applications through that system. They also advertised the

program via the city website, social media, and the newsletter. On April 7,

2025, they sent reminders to all nonprofits for which they had email

addresses to ensure awareness of the funding opportunity. The submission

deadline was April 25, 2025, and the city received 16 applications.

Deputy Director Wybensinger noted that the Grant Review Committee had

expanded from three members to five this year, with two members appointed

by Council, two by the Mayor, and one city staff member, Economic

Development Director Jeff Gottke. He praised the committee members for

their diligence and thoughtful approach, ensuring their recommendations

aligned with program priorities. He reminded Council of those priorities, which

focused on basic human necessities like food and clothing, stability, mental

health services, general health, safety, welfare, and the overall best interest of

the community. Wybensinger described the committee’s process. On May 2,

2025, staff released the applications to committee members so they could

review them at home for five days. On May 7, 2025, the committee met in

person. Wybensinger, though not a voting member, facilitated the meeting.

The committee requested clarifying information and held follow-up interviews

with two of the 16 applicants on May 16 and May 27, 2025. He reported that

the committee recommended funding 13 of the 16 applications, totaling

$81,250 from the $100,000 budget. The city had received a little over

$119,000 in funding requests overall. Six applications received full funding,

seven received partial funding, and three were recommended for no award.

He explained that the committee determined funding amounts by evaluating

eligibility, the alignment with program priorities, and the value of the proposed

programs. Between June 10 and June 16, 2025, city staff held pre-award

conferences with all 13 funded applicants. During these meetings, they

reviewed expectations for the funding, signed grant agreements, discussed

eligible and non-eligible costs, and explained the reporting benchmarks.

Wybensinger said the city required progress updates on September 8, 2025,

and October 20, 2025, and had expectations for final reports tailored to each

project. He emphasized the city’s shift to a reimbursement-based model,

ensuring that smaller nonprofits understood the process so they wouldn’t be

burdened by floating expenses for too long. He explained that the program’s

expiration date was December 31, 2025, unless an extension was requested

in advance, with the city aiming to close out all projects within the budget year

for a clean slate in the next cycle.

Councilmember Renner thanked Wybensinger, noting that Council had

expressed concerns about the process in the fall. He praised Wybensinger’s

stewardship of city funds and his adherence to the program’s goals.

Councilmember Jones also expressed appreciation and asked for more

context about why some organizations received no funding, given there was

money left over. She also asked what would happen to the unallocated funds.

Wybensinger explained that unspent funds would return to the General Fund.

He said the committee did not feel obligated to spend the full $100,000 but

aimed to fund valuable programs. For the three denied applications, reasons

varied: some fell outside the scope of the applying entity, some failed to meet

eligibility requirements (including benefiting 51% or more of Gahanna

residents or the Gahanna-Jefferson Public School area), and one did not fit

within the program’s three stated priorities. Councilmember Jones asked if

those organizations received feedback on why they didn’t get funding or what

they could do to improve. Wybensinger confirmed that all three received a

notice of non-award that included an invitation to contact him for feedback or

help with improving future applications.

President Bowers thanked Wybensinger for addressing past concerns while

maintaining the program’s integrity and intent.

Vice President Weaver echoed the appreciation, recognizing both

Wybensinger’s and the committee’s efforts and seriousness in their work. He

clarified that the spreadsheet Council received included summaries provided

by applicants but that Council had not received the full applications.

Wybensinger confirmed that was correct.

Councilmember Jones asked if Council could see the full applications.

Weaver noted they were public record. Wybensinger agreed and offered to

provide them on request, acknowledging the applications included a lot of

paperwork. He explained he tried to provide a summary but would support any

further review Council desired.

Vice President Weaver commended the transparency and communication

the staff and committee had shown, especially in following up with applicants

and issuing clear non-award letters with suggestions for improvement.

Wybensinger reiterated the goal of making the program successful for all

applicants. He emphasized his willingness to help organizations improve their

applications and noted many small nonprofits were still learning the process.

Weaver asked one final question about the reimbursement model, confirming

that if an organization approved for $10,000 spent only $9,500, it would be

reimbursed for the lower amount. Wybensinger confirmed that and gave an

example of Gahanna Residents In Need (GRIN), which had been awarded up

to $10,000 but spent about $7,966, meaning around $2,000 would return to

the General Fund. He said he expected other projects might also come in

under budget, causing the total disbursed amount to continue decreasing

slightly. Weaver invited any other questions. Hearing none, he thanked

Wybensinger for the presentation.

ADJOURNMENT:

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

adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m.