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, September 22, 2025

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

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

September 22, 2025, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council

Trenton I. Weaver, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The

agenda was published on September 19, 2025. All members were present for

the meeting. There were no additions or corrections to the agenda.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE:

RES-0041-2025

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE AMOUNTS AND RATES AS

DETERMINED BY THE BUDGET COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING

THE NECESSARY TAX LEVIES AND CERTIFYING THEM TO THE

COUNTY AUDITOR

Director of Finance Joann Bury requested a resolution accepting, authorizing,

and certifying the tax year 2025 (collection year 2026) property tax rates and

amounts. She explained that the request resulted from the tax budget the city

filed in July 2025 which distributed the 2.4 Millls across the General Fund,

Bond Retirement, and Police Pension.

Vice President Weaver asked for discussion. Seeing none, the resolution was

recommended for placement on the consent agenda.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/6/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:

Facilities Maintenance Worker Staffing Discussion

2025-0187

Facilities Staffing Discussion Presentation 9.22.2025

Miranda Vollmer, Senior Director of Administrative Services, explained that

she returned to discuss facilities staffing related to 825 Tech Center Drive.

She noted that the Facilities Division sat in the Department of Public Service

and that the 2025 budget included a Facilities Superintendent position. She

stated that Adam Grove received a promotion from foreman to

superintendent, which left the foreman position vacant. Vollmer reported that

the budget also included a Service Maintenance Worker II budgeted for

quarter three, and she said the city planned to fill that new position and backfill

Mr. Grove’s role. She added that the city would fill two Service Maintenance

Worker IIs positions at this time and would not backfill the foreman. Vollmer

summarized the team that evaluated staffing models, including Project

Manager Jen Hamillton, Senior Deputy Director Corey Wybensinger, Senior

Director Kevin Schultz, Director Shawn Anverse, Superintendent Adam

Grove, Mayor Jadwin, and herself. She then reported that they recommended

hiring five Service Maintenance Worker I’s to perform custodial and general

maintenance work at the new facility. She compared costs, stating that the

current custodial contract for City Hall, the Senior Center, and the Police

Department ran about $68,000 per year for approximately 48,000 square feet,

while the estimated custodial contract for 825 Tech Center Drive would run

about $400,000 for roughly 130,000 square feet. Vollmer estimated staffing

costs for five employees at approximately $500,000, including salary and

benefits, explaining that her projections assumed three hires at the starting

step and two hires at the end step. She noted that the city calculates costs

assuming family insurance and that actual employer costs would vary if

employees elected different coverage levels.

Senior Director Vollmer explained the administration’s rationale for

recommending city employees rather than a vendor. She said city employees

would demonstrate higher ownership and dedication to maintaining the new

facility, that employees would provide emergency response coverage per the

union contract, and that employees could assist with facility rentals, room

setups, and teardowns. She noted that employees who require access to

police areas must meet Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS)

certification requirements. She described the requirement as including a quiz

and a LEADS audit, elaborating applicants could not have a felony. Vollmer

added that direct city oversight would avoid problems she observed with

vendors, such as employees who do not show up or provide inconsistent

service, and custodial staff could perform basic maintenance tasks, such as

changing light bulbs, reporting other issues to Mr. Grove. Vollmer emphasized

that the Service Maintenance Worker I positions constituted civil service roles

and that the city needed to run the civil service process. She requested

authorization to begin that process in October 2025 and to stagger hiring so

staff would not arrive too early or too late. She warned that if the city waited

until budget approval and then started the civil service process when the

building opened in quarter one, it would not have employees ready due to the

length of the civil service process. Vollmer stated that the city did not need a

supplemental appropriation because salary savings currently existed in the

relevant accounts and because the administration did not expect to hire

anyone until December or January.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked for confirmation that the comparable

figures totaled approximately $400,000 for the estimated contract versus

$500,000 for the staffing estimate. Vollmer confirmed those figures.

Schnetzer observed that the $500,000 estimate represented a worst-case

scenario that included family insurance and that actual costs would likely

come in lower. He asked whether the administration considered a hybrid

model in which a contractor staffed non-sensitive areas while city employees

staffed police-related areas. Vollmer replied that the team discussed a

combination of a maintenance contract and city employees, however, they

believed that approach could increase costs and create scheduling

complications. The administration preferred that facility renters interact with

city employees rather than a vendor and the Department of Public Service

preferred a single managing group, city employees, rather than managing

both union staff and a vendor.

Councilmember Jones asked whether, if the measure passed, a gap would

exist between the vendor contract expiring and hiring the new positions.

Senior Director Vollmer said the Service Maintenance Worker I position

already appeared in the contract and explained that staff would meet with the

union to request that the custodial hires join the union, adding that the union

would likely agree. Jones clarified that she meant a gap related to renewing

the vendor contract. Vollmer replied that the Department of Public Service

included six-month renewal clauses in the vendor contract to extend services

as needed while the City occupied the facility. Jones concluded that no risk of

breaching the contract or owing the vendor would occur and thanked Vollmer.

Councilmember McGregor asked who currently cleaned the police station and

whether the city experienced problems with the contract workers. Senior

Director Vollmer explained that the city’s current contract offered different

service levels, low, medium, and high, and that the facilities on campus

received the lowest level of service. She stated the city had no experience

with the vendor providing a higher level of service. The new facility would

require a high level of service due to its varied flooring textures, wall finishes,

and overall building requirements to maintain its standard. When

Councilmember McGregor asked about security or other problems with the

contract workers, Senior Director Vollmer replied that she had none to her

knowledge, noting that the vendor typically provided one to two individuals to

clean all three campus facilities, since one employee could not clean 130,000

square feet in one day. Councilmember McGregor observed the roughly

$100,000 difference between the estimated contract cost and the employee

cost. Senior Director Vollmer replied that the $500,000 figure represented a

maximum, and, referring to Mr. Schnetzer’s point, explained that the actual

cost would likely be lower depending on employees’ insurance elections and

hiringsteps.

Vice President Weaver asked if anyone had additional questions or

discussion on the item. He noted that the presentation served as a preview

rather than a formal request and said he preferred bringing the custodial and

maintenance work in-house. He stated that, in his view, the estimated staffing

cost versus the estimated contract cost and the greater ownership and

control provided by city staff produced a net benefit, and he looked forward to

the topic appearing in the budget.

Senior Director Vollmer confirmed they would proceed with the civil service

process and prepare to hire at the end of December or the beginning of

January. Vice President Weaver said that timing reflected his preference.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING:

MT-0011-2025

A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GAHANNA BIDDING FOR THE

HAMILTON ROAD AND GRANVILLE STREET AND EAST

JOHNSTOWN ROAD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

(SA-1117)

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc said he had three items for Council’s

consideration. He requested permission to bid two capital projects combined

for economies of scale: a sanitary sewer repair and replacement project and

a new mainline extension. He described the first area as the sewer crossing

along Hamilton Road and Granville Street, noting the existing sewer crossed

beneath the BP fueling station and that the department would reroute that

section. He described the second portion as a mainline extension along East

Johnstown Road near Pamela Drive, to provide sewer service to two city

properties that currently relied on septic systems.

Vice President Weaver asked whether the two parcels along East Johnstown

Road related to the pre-annexation agreement. Komlanc replied that they did

not. He explained the new extension would proceed immediately south or east

from Pamela Drive to serve the two unserved city properties. Weaver then

asked whether the work would affect the parcels described in the earlier

pre-annexation agreement. Komlanc responded that those two parcels would

tie into the same sewer heading up to Morse Road.

Recommendation: Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/6/2025.

MT-0012-2025

A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GAHANNA BIDDING FOR THE

ANNUAL SANITARY AND STORM SEWER CLEANING AND CCTV

PROGRAM

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc requested permission to bid on

sanitary and storm cleaning and televising of the storm water and sanitary

sewers in the College Park and Heritage subdivisions. He said the work would

support the city’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”) National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) commitments and the

sanitary sewer Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) capacity

management, operation, and maintenance efforts to keep the systems in

good standing.

Recommendation: Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/6/2025.

ORD-0041-2025

ORDINANCE

ACCEPTING

CRESCENT

CIRCLE

(ST-1111)

PUBLIC ROADWAY, STORM WATER, AND DOMESTIC WATER

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc requested acceptance of the storm,

domestic water, and roadway improvements for Crescent Circle. He said the

improvements lay in the area of Crescent Place, Ortho One, the new

apartments, and the Sheetz development. He reported that inspectors

approved the work, that the contractor entered the punch-list phase, and that

the contractor was actively addressing the punch-list items.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 10/6/2025;

Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda 10/20/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

ORD-0042-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

DEVELOPMENT

BENSON

AGREEMENT

WITH

AND THE

CONNECT

GAHANNA

REALTY

LLC,

CAPITAL,

LLC,

COMMUNITY

IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF

VACANT AND BLIGHTED PROPERTIES IN THE CREEKSIDE

DISTRICT

Presentation Overview

Director of Economic Development Jeff Gottke stated that he felt great

professional pleasure to present the item and thanked the Mayor and Council

for their confidence. He said Council was being asked to vote on a

development agreement that would serve as the foundation for a catalyst

project in the Creekside District. He explained that the project, if approved,

would continue to define Creekside as a vibrant town center where people

could live, work, shop, visit, dine, and interact, and would help the district

define the city’s identity, attract visitors, build relationships, and give residents

pride. He quoted former President Biden, saying, “this is a big deal.” Gottke

said the agreement marked both an end and a beginning: it concluded the

development negotiation and site assembly phases and began the

transformation of Creekside and a multi-year construction project. He noted

that any images shown that evening were conceptual renderings only and that

the appearance would likely change throughout the remainder of the approval

process. He said this development agreement formed one part of a

multi-agreement process that would include purchase, Tax Increment

Financing (TIF) agreements, a New Community Authority (NCA) application,

and other agreements that Council would see. He said the Economic

Development Department and the Administration would remain involved to

verify performance during and after construction and to help the public,

stakeholders, businesses, and residents minimize short-term construction

disruption. Gottke said the site under discussion comprised all but one of the

CIC-owned properties in the Creekside District and one city-owned parking

lot.

The Development Process

Director Gottke introduced Mayor Jadwin, who recounted the Creekside

history and the steps that led to the proposed development agreement. Mayor

Jadwin said construction in Creekside began in 2004-2005 and the area

opened in May 2007; she noted the district reached eighteen years of age and

that the city developed one part of one side of Mill Street while adding nothing

else to the area in the intervening years. She said many parcels remained

vacant for years and that many buildings had become uninhabitable.

Mayor Jadwin recalled that a local developer proposed a mixed-use project for

the same parcels in 2016, that the proposal later transitioned to an

apartment-only project, and that city staff negotiated that project for six years

across two administrations, including Mayor Kneeland’s and her own. She

said those negotiations ultimately prompted the city and the Community

Improvement Corporation to ask how to achieve the community’s desired

redevelopment and to control the properties necessary to execute that

strategy.

Mayor Jadwin said the city and Gahanna Community Improvement

Corporation (CIC) initiated a Creekside redevelopment strategy in May or

June 2021, conducted significant public engagement over a year, and

involved private developers to ensure the plan aligned with market interests.

She said the plan identified parcels suitable for redevelopment and

acquisition, and that CIC subsequently purchased those parcels. She

reported that the CIC issued an RFP (Request for Proposals) seeking a

Master Developer to pursue a cohesive approach, that the city negotiated with

one respondent for nearly two years, however, those negotiations did not

produce the desired outcome, and that the city then explored other developer

options without finding one willing to execute a cohesive Master Plan.

Mayor Jadwin said the city connected with Connect Real Estate and Benson

Capital in early 2024, conducted extensive research including facility tours,

and believed the Connect-Benson team could deliver what the community

envisioned for Creekside. She described the development team as having

local ties to Gahanna and central Ohio, a proven track record, and a strong

reputation. Mayor Jadwin said the team appeared to offer an innovative

product and construction approach, referenced a forthcoming discussion

about the team’s visit with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development secretary, and stated that the agreement before Council

represented about a year and a half of work with that team. She

acknowledged Director Gottke and Nate Green of the Montrose Group for their

ongoing involvement, and she then yielded the floor back to Gottke and the

development team.

Roles of Involved Partner Entities

Director Gottke thanked Mayor Jadwin and said that, if approved, the project

would proceed as a public-private partnership involving the Gahanna CIC,

various local and state government entities, and other partners working

around a publicly informed vision. He introduced CIC colleagues George Mrus

and Jody Carder, who attended the meeting, and observed that the project

would require multiple organizations, approvals, and defined roles to work in

concert to complete the development.

Principles of Downtown Development & Creekside Visitor Trends

Director Gottke said Mayor Jadwin did an excellent job summarizing the

project and that he intended to demonstrate how the proposed development

fit with public sentiment and development best practices. He said best

practices showed that downtowns should serve as civic, cultural, and activity

centers for the community and that the Creekside District functioned as

Gahanna’s downtown and public square. He said planners expected the town

center to host the highest concentration of uses and residents and to radiate

outward, observing that this proposal would concentrate more people in the

downtown area. He stated the development adage that “retail follows

rooftops,” noted that businesses considered market shed and customer base

when choosing locations, and said businesses tended to come last. He said

the Creekside District’s residential saturation did not support businesses over

the past 18 years. He said downtown development should cultivate a

consistent and distinct look and feel, with mixed-use development optimized

by land use by placing retail on ground floors and offices and residences

above. He said he borrowed from the Roger Brooks study, which

recommended a “10 + 10 + 10” mix, ten boutique shops, ten restaurants, and

ten destination or experience businesses, to cultivate a vibrant visitor

economy, adding an extra ten uses to serve concentrated residents with

weekly needs such as a market, pharmacy, or bank.

Director Gottke referenced a chart displayed on the meeting screen,

explaining it originated from a 2019 study and therefore proved somewhat

dated. He said the chart illustrated the types of stores that typical towns like

Gahanna possess and that the Creekside downtown did not. He noted that

the gray boxes indicated higher-than-average spending within the Gahanna

customer shed, and he said those categories represented a target list of

business types that could succeed in the Creekside area (apparel and

accessories, beauty supplies, books/comics, delicatessen/sandwich shop,

pet and pet supplies store, shoes, and specialty sporting goods).

Director Gottke referenced recent data from June 2025 provided by Placer,

which tracked cell phone and credit card activity. He explained that the exhibit

compared 2019 (the red column on the right on the chart) to 2024 (the blue

column on the left of the chart) and that the layout appeared counterintuitive.

He said the 2024 data showed declines in the number of visits, visit

frequency, average dwell time, and year-over-year visits, he concluded that

Creekside was falling behind as a visitor destination in both visitation numbers

and duration of stay. He said a refresh and reimagining were in order, both for

the public plaza and for the vibrancy and foot traffic that additional residential

units would bring to downtown.

Public Sentiment and Our Gahanna Feedback

Director Gottke said the public sentiment data originated in the Creekside

Redevelopment Strategy from 2022. He reported that seventy percent of

respondents wanted more and a greater variety of housing. He identified the

top four vote getters as: more and greater variety of housing; a wine and

spirits shop; experience-driven businesses; and a food market/lifestyle

business. He stated that he received first-round feedback from the Our

Gahanna strategy, clarifying that he would not ask the Council to read all of

the comments at the meeting, and that Council would receive a copy to

review later.

Development Partners

Director Gottke introduced the development partners and then invited each

representative to speak.

Frank Benson IV, principal and founder of Benson Capital based in

Columbus, thanked the Council, city staff, the CIC, and the community for the

opportunity to present. He said he participated in a year-and-a-half to two

years of constructive collaboration and sustained engagement to evaluate a

joint venture to revitalize Creekside. He said the community held personal

meaning for him, that he attended school in Gahanna from pre-K through

graduation, and that family members still lived in Gahanna. He recalled early

memories at Creekside, including playing in the creeks, buying his first bike at

a Creekside shop, and attending events at Creekside Event Center. Benson

stated that his team committed to strengthening Gahanna’s economic and

civic fabric long term and listed Benson Capital’s existing Gahanna ownership

interests, including Stoneridge Plaza at Hamilton and Morse roads (anchored

by Kroger and Cinemark Theaters), the Vista Rocky Fork Apartments and

Vista Plaza (anchored by Fresh Time), and the Crescent at Central Park

project, which includes Crescent Woods apartments across from John Glenn

International Airport and which he said neared completion. Benson said his

approach would prioritize listening first, transparency, and partnering with the

city and CIC to elevate public spaces, support local businesses, and create a

vibrant district that reflected residents’ values. He said he and Connect Real

Estate planned to invest significant private capital to bring new dining and

entertainment, best-in-class housing with modern amenities, and enhanced

trail connectivity, tying Creekside into the broader community. He thanked the

Council again and turned the presentation over to Bob Lamb.

Bob Lamb identified himself as Executive Vice President of Development for

Connect Real Estate, a local company that Brad DeHays founded and

owned. Lamb thanked the Council and staff for two years of work on the

project. He said Connect worked on mixed-use projects across central Ohio,

including in Marysville, downtown Columbus, and Springfield. He described

Connect’s investor base as local and tied to the state and region. Lamb cited

Connect projects familiar to the community, including East Market, the Trolley

District near Bexley, and the Municipal Light Plant redevelopment across from

the Crew arena, and he said those projects won awards for design. He also

noted that Connect’s Housing Blocks manufacturing facility in Columbus

received an employer award in 2024. Lamb said the partnership with Benson

Capital produced a development team that cared about the local community

and that the Benson-Connect team offered a unique combination of skills to

advance the Creekside project.

Director Gottke invited the team to discuss their innovative housing block

product.

Mr. Lamb explained that Connect Housing Blocks, a company founded by

Brad DeHays, produced industrialized units for apartment complexes,

single-family homes, and townhomes. He said DeHays anticipated

construction industry challenges, including labor, materials, and costs, and

assembled a team to launch the manufacturing approach. Mr. Lamb

described the manufacturing process: rolled steel moved through machines

to be shaped, punched, and formed into frames; those frames became the

apartment units, including kitchens, bathrooms, living rooms, and bedrooms;

state inspectors reviewed the units at the manufacturing facility; and, once

approved, the units shipped to the project site and set in place.

Mr. Lamb said the primary benefit of the product returned to the speed of

construction. He explained that manufacturing units off-site allowed

simultaneous site work and unit production, reduced the number of on-site

workers and parking impacts for surrounding businesses, and shortened the

construction timeline. He said it could be “a third or more in a quicker

response time.” He added that the approach allowed higher construction

standards, materially reduced waste (from about 1/3 < 70 percent), enabled

steel recycling, reduced truck traffic and on-site waste, and produced a more

environmentally friendly product. He said the product could achieve “lead

silver certification.”

Project Details - Phase I Development

Director Gottke described the proposed Creekside development site and key

project details. He said the site included all but one of the CIC-owned

properties in the Creekside District and the existing city parking lot at Town

and High Streets. He said the proposal consisted of one project delivered in

two consecutive phases. He said Phase One would include two buildings,

one on either side of Mill Street just north of the existing Creekside building

and directly across the street from Walnut to Carpenter, totaling 263

apartments, a hotel with 55-70 rooms, two restaurants, a co-working space,

and a parking garage. He said the development would be self-parked and

would not require additional city parking facilities. He said the hotel and

apartments would feature amenities such as a pool,a gym and a branded

connector bridge over the street to link the two buildings and provide access

between parking, amenities, and residential and hotel spaces.

Director Gottke clarified that the images shown represented conceptual

renderings only and might not reflect final exterior finishes or design. He

described perspectives that showed a restaurant space looking north from

Walnut Street, the hotel entrance, a view looking south down Mill Street from

Carpenter depicting a six- and seven-story building with street trees and

pedestrian walkways, an above-plaza view showing the hotel foreground and

residences behind with a rooftop patio, and a zoomed-out view that revealed

the parking garage on the eastern building and parking allocation with

approximately one parking space per floor and designated unit, public, and

hotel parking. He invited Mr. Benson and Mr. Lamb to add comments; they

had nothing to add.

Project Details - Phase II Development

Director Gottke stated that Phase Two contemplated 24 townhome units with

first-floor parking for each unit, all self-parked and featuring private patios. He

noted the drawing currently showed four rectangles and that the team

continued to work on the site plan. He added that the site plan did not need to

be complete for the development agreement to move forward and said they

would explain why. He asked if there was anything further regarding the

townhomes. There was nothing additional from the developer’s team.

Development Agreement Terms

Director Gottke introduced Mr. Nate Green of the Montrose Group, who

provided an orientation to the development agreement.

Mr. Green explained that the development agreement constituted a four-party

agreement among the City, the Gahanna CIC, Connect Realty, and Benson

Capital. He said the agreement provided the economic framework for the

parties to invest the necessary capital and, in return, granted the developers

exclusive rights to develop the site. He noted that the document did not

address planning or design elements and that those matters would proceed

through the planning, zoning, and engineering processes. Mr. Green said the

project divided into two phases: Phase One would be the mixed-use project

on Mill Street and Phase Two would be the townhome project on High Street.

He stated the agreement set out the purchase and sale of the properties to

the developer through separate purchase and sale agreements for Phase

One and Phase Two, which would be executed after the development

agreement. Mr. Green said the sale price in the agreement equaled $100 and

that the land would effectively constitute the City’s and CIC’s investment in the

project. He identified several exhibits to the agreement, including the

purchase and sale agreements for both phases, a form of completion

guaranty that established the developer’s time frames to complete both

phases, a form of construction manager at risk for off-site improvements, and

a reconveyance provision should the developer fail to complete the obligations

within the required time frames.

Mr. Green outlined the economic development incentives contained in the

agreement. He said the project lay within a pre-1994 Community

Reinvestment Area and provided a 15-year 100% tax abatement. He said the

agreement included a non-school Tax Increment Financing (TIF)whereby the

taxes generated from the project in the first 15 years would come from land

and then, in the last 15 years, from land and building, and that the portion not

allocated to the school would fund on-site and off-site improvements through

the TIF. He said the agreement also contemplated the potential formation of a

New Community Authority (NCA) with a hotel charge, a potential retail sales

charge, and a potential millage charge, and that it contemplated pursuing

other state programs, including the Transformational Mixed-Use Development

(TMUD) tax credit.

Comparable Regional Projects

Mr. Nate Green of the Montrose Group said he, Director Gottke, and Mayor

Jadwin discussed the value of noting other regional projects that used a

public-private partnership model. He cited Whitehall’s Norton Crossing project

at Broad and Hamilton, saying the site previously contained apartment units,

the city purchased the site and contributed it to Continental Real Estate, and

the project represented a $55 million mixed-use development for which the

city contributed $5 million worth of land. He said Dublin’s Bridge Park involved

roughly $12 million in assembled land contributed by the city, along with other

contributions such as a TIF and an NCA. He said the Marysville/Union County

CIC and the city of Marysville invested $7 million for the purchase and

demolition of buildings, that Connect was working on that project, and that the

project included a TIF, an NCA, and a CRA. He said Lancaster had an

industrial project housing Magna Seating that involved CIC-owned property

the city originally owned and then conveyed to Magna Seating. He said these

projects provided comparisons as the council considered how to structure

the development agreement.

Overall Financial Impact

Director Gottke presented the projected impacts of the Creekside

development proposal. He stated the total construction cost would amount to

approximately $105 million and that the project would improve the property by

that amount. He reported the annual contributions and economic effects as

follows: the direct, indirect, and induced gross domestic product for residents,

hotel, and restaurant activity would total about $7.1 million within zip code

43230; the total economic impact would reach approximately $10.4 million

annually; annual local, state, and federal tax revenue would total about $1.4

million; labor income would equal about $3.267 million annually, which would

generate city income tax; the site would support about 74 jobs on site,

primarily in hotel and retail/restaurant uses.

Director Gottke reviewed the “gives and gets.” He said the city would provide

the existing CRA tax exemption by right. Under the agreement the parties

agreed to share 50 percent of TIF payments until eligible costs were paid, to

share 50 percent of NCA fees until eligible costs were paid, and to provide a

50 percent reduction in city review and approval fees. He noted nonfinancial

obligations on the city’s side, including conveyance of the High Street parking

lot and the need to vacate one block of North Street and one block of Lodge

Alley between High and Mill Streets to construct the east building and parking

garage.

Director Gottke summarized what the city would receive. He said the city

would receive income tax, 50 percent of TIF payments and 50 percent of NCA

fees until the fees were paid, with the remainder flowing to the city thereafter.

He reported that the developer, Connect, agreed to support organizations and

activities with a presence at Creekside for ten years through manpower,

volunteer time, or financial support; to create internship programs with the

Gahanna School District for ten years; to extend the existing multi-use path to

Carpenter Road; to install a public art feature in Lintner Park; and to deed

unwanted portions of the creek bank back to the city. He said the proposed

parking structure would offset the loss of the High Street parking lot and that

the team was conducting a parking demand study. He said the developer

agreed to reserve 10 percent of the residential units as affordable housing

targeted to households at 80 percent of area median income.

Director Gottke then presented a 30-year financial impact analysis for the city.

He said the city would receive modest property tax millage revenue, just

under $0.5 million over the term of the CRA. He estimated the TIF would

generate about $10 million over its life and said a 50/50 split would yield

roughly $5 million to the city. He reported that quantified, the city “gives”

totaled about $5.5 million (including the shared TIF and other items) and that

the city’s returns would total just over $23.5 million over 30 years. He broke

down the city’s projected receipts as approximately $16.1 million in income

tax from residents, about $2.4 million in income tax from workers, about $5

million in shared TIF receipts, and an additional, to-be-determined portion

equal to 50 percent of NCA fees. He noted the analysis did not include the

value of the approximately $100 million in site improvements.

Timeline & Accountability

Director Gottke said the completion guarantee contained accountability

timelines and measures. He stated the agreement required the developer to

complete phase one within thirty-six months of receiving all necessary

approvals. He said the parties would file paperwork to form the NCA within six

months and that a sixty-day due diligence and inspection period would

commence upon signing the agreement. He explained that, once the

construction plans for phase one were submitted, the submission for the

phase two construction plan would occur eighteen months later, and that the

parties intended to run the two phases as concurrently as practicable.

Director Gottke said the agreement included reconveyance language that

would return parcels to the city or the CIC if the developer did not obtain a

Certificate of Occupancy within the thirty-six-month period. He said the city

would insist on step-in rights for any financing or loan instrument so the city

could assume the loan in the event of a default and continue the project to

avoid a partially completed development.

Director Gottke said the measures aimed to protect the city and ensure the

project would reach completion. He thanked the Council and offered to take

questions.

Questions from Council

Vice President Weaver thanked Director Gottke, Mayor Jadwin, Nate Green,

Frank Benson, and Bob Lamb for attending and noted he anticipated many

questions. He said he and Director Gottke agreed the item should return to

Committee of the Whole, at a minimum, to give Council time to review the

agreement. He stated next week was a fifth Monday and there would be no

meeting, that a request existed to move the item for first reading on October

6, 2025, and that the item would, at a minimum, return to committee on

October 13, 2025. He then invited discussion.

Councilmember Renner thanked Director Gottke for his summary and noted

Council held multiple Executive Sessions. He warned members might sound

repetitive as they asked questions and then asked when the development

agreement exhibits would be completed, observing that the agreement did not

contain many exhibits. Mr. Green replied that Council should have at least the

form agreements. He added that the items missing from the agreement

included the on-site and off-site improvements and that some exhibits would

be inserted after the fact. Director Gottke asked whether it proved uncommon

to insert certain items after the development agreement. He said, from his

experience, the development agreement provided the project framework while

some details, such as a site plan produced from a property survey and

included with the purchase and sale agreement, might follow and would not

materially alter the agreement. Mr. Green agreed with Gottke. He explained

that the team could insert Exhibit A-1 (the development site) and Exhibit A-2

(the development area) quickly, even the next day. He said the development

plan (Exhibit B) would be inserted later during the inspection period because it

would change as Connect and Benson completed their review and obtained

Planning Commission approvals. He concluded that the on-site and off-site

improvement exhibits would come later because the team did not yet know

what those improvements would look like.

Mr. Lamb explained that, in this type of agreement, the developer would work

with city staff during the review and development process and, as the

required on-site and off-site improvements became clear, perform the work

as part of the permit approval process. He said a traffic study would

determine required turn lanes or signals and that, following approval from the

City Engineer, the developers would undertake the associated work.

Councilmember Renner observed that many moving parts remained and

requested a schedule or timeline showing when the public could expect to

see the various components referenced in the agreement. He acknowledged

the sequential nature of the approvals but asked that the parties produce a

relative timeframe and periodic update schedule for Council and the public.

Director Gottke responded that certain items, such as the traffic impact study,

constituted standard Engineering Department requirements and would

appear on the department’s calendar; he noted the city would not have that

study completed before Council action. Mr. Green added that the overall

development schedule would follow the inspection and due diligence period,

explaining that the team could not set the schedule now because they had not

completed inspections and due diligence. He said the inspection findings

would dictate the timing for subsequent steps and construction.

Councilmember Renner thanked the speakers and asked Director Gottke to

explain who would manage the project and how Council would receive

updates, referencing the Administration’s management of the 825 Tech

Center Drive project and asking for an overview of project management and

reporting if the development agreement proceeded.

Director Gottke explained that this project differed from 825 Tech Center

Drive because the city did not own the land or building and would not manage

day-to-day construction activities. He said the developer would manage the

project, while city and state departments would handle permitting and

inspections. Gottke stated that the development agreement required the

developer to designate a city point of contact, likely within the Economic

Development Department, and required the developer to provide biannual

updates. He said the city would supplement those updates with frequent

public communications through the Communications and Marketing and

Economic Development departments, including a dedicated project website,

progress reports, and notices about road closures or sidewalk changes.

Gottke asked if that response answered the question. Councilmember

Renner replied that Gottke’s answer addressed his question and asked

whether Gottke’s department would manage the public communications.

Gottke said the department assignment remained to be determined but that

he expected his department to manage those tasks. Mayor Jadwin concurred.

Councilmember Renner said the public would feel anxious about the project

and asked for managed expectations and a public schedule. He then invited

the Connect team to address sustainability and to reiterate the items shown

on their presentation slide. Mr. Lamb stated that Connect would use Connect

Housing Blocks industrialized units for the project. He said those units

reduced on-site waste by approximately 70 percent through material

efficiencies and by producing rolled steel components in a controlled facility

instead of using on-site wood-frame construction that lost material to

exposure. He added that the industrialized approach produced less site traffic

and less construction waste. Mr. Lamb said Connect worked with a third party

to determine lead certification of its units, that the firm committed to that

verification for this project, and that they would have a third party verify the

manufacturing work rather than claiming certification at this time.

Councilmember Renner asked whether Connect could quantify benefits such

as reduced traffic congestion and waste from prior projects. Mr. Lamb replied

that the 70 percent reduction reflected results from previous projects using

the same materials and that the primary quantifiable benefit came from a

shortened construction period, which reduced impacts on surrounding

properties and businesses and lowered traffic congestion. Councilmember

Renner then asked about power requirements and building performance. Mr.

Lamb replied that Connect had not reached a point at which it could

guarantee an energy supplier, but he said the team intended to work with the

community on how to handle that issue.

Councilmember Jones asked Mr. Lamb to confirm the number of apartment

units, the meaning of the 10% Area Median Income (AMI) commitment for the

community, and the anticipated rent ranges for those affordable units. Mr.

Lamb responded that phase one proposed 263 apartment units and that the

10% affordability commitment equated to approximately 26 units, which he

said would be rounded to 27. He stated that the affordability range would

follow the AMI standard in effect and approved by the county at the time the

units opened, and therefore he could not provide exact rent ranges at that

time. He explained that the AMI standard derived from federal and state

definitions and the county’s adoption. Councilmember Jones asked about unit

types. Mr. Lamb replied that the development would include a mixture of one

and two-bedroom units and likely a limited number of three-bedroom units,

though the number of three-bedroom units remained undetermined.

Councilmember McGregor recalled that, when Creekside originally opened,

the city hired an engineering firm to provide construction oversight and she

urged that the city ensure adequate oversight on this project. She thanked the

team for protecting the flood plain by pulling the project back, even though that

action reduced the unit count. She expressed strong concern about losing the

High Street parking lot because many residents used that lot in the evenings.

She asked whether the parking in the proposed garage would be free or paid.

Mr. Lamb replied that he viewed the parking spots serving retail as free

parking for at least a period of time, but he said the details and duration

required further work. He stated that the garage would remain privately owned

and that the garage’s primary purpose would serve the development’s retail

uses and residents. He said the garage would provide parking for retail

visitors and that the structure would provide more parking than the project

alone required, but he could not guarantee that it would accommodate every

visitor at any time. Councilmember McGregor noted that many Sanctuary

event attendees currently used the High Street lot and said she worried those

visitors would have nowhere else to park.

President Bowers asked whether the fiscal impact analysis could include an

estimate of city service costs to maintain and support the additional residents

the project would add and requested that staff return with that estimate. She

thanked the development team for their time and engagement with Council.

President Bowers asked whether the development team would continue to

pursue the parcel immediately north of the city parking lot (between the Bauer

House and the concrete block building, also referred to as the “Kumon

Building”). Mr. Lamb replied that they would continue to attempt to engage that

owner, that they had not succeeded to date, and that the parcel was not

critical for phase two of the project.

President Bowers asked whether the proposed co-working space would

occupy the second floor. Mr. Lamb replied that he expected the co-working

space to operate in partnership with the hotel, most likely on the first floor, and

that planning of detailed uses had not occurred. He added that the co-working

facility would function as a mixed concept available to hotel guests and to

other users. President Bowers asked whether the developers saw that

co-working model work elsewhere. Mr. Lamb said they currently operated a

co-working space called The Branch in the Trolley District, which formed part

of a building with multiple end users, and that the Creekside implementation

would function somewhat differently. When President Bowers asked whether

the co-working model would operate on a subscription basis, Mr. Lamb

confirmed.

President Bowers asked whether the project would include any retail beyond

the two restaurants and whether it would include office space beyond the

co-working area. Mr. Lamb replied no to both questions. President Bowers

asked about bicycle accessibility and trail connections. Mr. Lamb said the

project would extend the trail in compliance with city standards and that the

design would include bike racks and other amenities to support bicycle

access.

President Bowers asked whether Article 9, which discussed eligible

improvements, intended to identify only on-site and off-site improvements

eligible for NCA reimbursement or whether the schedule would also flesh out

the broader scope of the development project. Mr. Green replied that the

schedule would identify improvements for the TIF and the NCA and would

also encompass all eligible on-site improvements, making it larger than only

those items eligible for TIF and NCA. President Bowers expressed concern

that, despite the many meetings and renderings, the draft development

agreement lacked sufficient structure to reflect Council’s expectations and

asked whether the parties could identify at least a range of the improvements

being discussed. Mr. Green said they could talk through that and invited Bob

Lamb to speak.

Mr. Lamb stated that the developers would adhere to the city’s review and

approval process, engage the city engineer for approvals, and work with the

Planning Department on exterior, site plan, and design review approvals. He

said the development agreement represented a first step in a multi-action

process and that the city’s approval processes would prevent the developers

from undertaking work the city did not want. President Bowers acknowledged

that the Engineering Department would conduct a different analysis than the

use-based discussions Council and the CIC undertook, and she thanked Mr.

Lamb for his public service experience and his engagement in the process.

Mr. Lamb asked whether Council’s concern related to the uses and offered to

add an exhibit to the development agreement to address those concerns. Mr.

Green agreed that the parties could work to narrow or clarify the uses and

follow up as needed. President Bowers noted that recital paragraph C could

be tightened, and Mr. Green said the development team would be happy to

work on that revision.

Vice President Weaver thanked the development team and the CIC for their

long-term work on the project and raised a question about the project’s

reliance on external funding. He asked whether a “but for” threshold existed,

that is, whether the project would fail to proceed if the team did not secure

state funding or a Transformational Mixed-Use Development (TMUD) tax

credit. Mr. Lamb replied that Connect specialized in pursuing local, state, and

federal programs and often brought tax credits and other financing to projects,

however, he could not guarantee TMUD success and only promised the team

would pursue it.

President Bowers asked whether the team could still move forward if they did

not obtain a TMUD. Mr. Lamb responded that the project would become more

difficult without a TMUD, that TMUD would represent a critical component for

the team, and that he could not give a final answer about whether the project

would proceed without other financing structures.

Vice President Weaver asked for an estimate of the potential TMUD amount.

Mr. Green stated that the TMUD could provide up to 10 percent of project

costs; for a $100 million project that potential equated to $10 million. He

added that Connect might apply for less and that a realistic request would

likely fall between $5 million and $10 million. Mr. Green explained that TMUD

credits tie to insurance premium tax and require entities that can use those

credits; he noted the program’s competitiveness and that recent guideline

changes would require city support. He said the team would return to Council

to request that support.

Vice President Weaver observed that some project elements fell inside the

city’s control and some did not, and he thanked Mr. Green and Director Gottke

for their expertise in pursuing external funding. He noted the development

report’s statement that the agreement remained under legal review and asked

the City Attorney for any concerns. City Attorney Tamilarasan reported that

she continued to prepare a red line of the agreement and that her comments

consisted mostly of minor items. She identified the primary outstanding issue

as completing and incorporating the exhibits referenced in the document. She

said she would circulate her red line to the Administration, probably that week,

and be prepared to address any unresolved items before the next Committee

meeting. Vice President Weaver concluded by thanking the developers for the

tour of the Trolley Barn project, praising the housing-block product, reiterating

concern about traffic impacts and noting that Director Komlanc’s team would

review traffic matters, stating that he appreciated seeing the item on the

agenda.

Councilmember Padova thanked the development team for attending and

expressed appreciation for the opportunity to tour the Connect housing-block

manufacturing facility with Mr. Lamb. She spoke highly of the tour, noted the

visible presence of the blocks on the facility’s second floor, and commended

the team’s investment in people. Councilmember Padova asked for the

estimated number of hotel rooms. Mr. Lamb replied that the hotel would

include between fifty-five and seventy rooms.

Councilmember Padova asked whether the city would convey all of the land

at once or convey land for phase one and phase two in separate transactions.

Mr. Green said the project would use two separate purchase-and-sale

agreements (PSAs). He explained that phase one land would convey in the

PSA immediately after the parties signed the development agreement and

said phase two could take more time but that the team could convey both

phases at or near the same time. Councilmember Padova noted that the

development agreement did not fix the timing. Mr. Green added that the

current draft stated the transfers would happen at the same time, but

confirmed the parties could phase the PSAs because the townhomes

constituted phase two. Mr. Lamb said the team planned the townhomes as

phase two and preferred to secure land earlier rather than later, so engineers

and architects could proceed. He said the team would accept two separate

PSAs and expected the transfers to occur fairly close in time, even if not

simultaneous.

President Bowers stated a strong preference that the Council handle the two

land transfers as two separate Council actions, with the second action

deferred. She clarified that she sought two separate Council ordinances

rather than a single ordinance covering both transfers. Mr. Lamb asked

whether President Bowers sought to remove phase two from the

development agreement. President Bowers said she sought to postpone the

second Council action. Mr. Lamb said the team would accept a delay of the

land transfer to the Connect/Benson entity but asked that the Council approve

the overall project within the development agreement. Mr. Green agreed.

Director Gottke said financing considerations typically required packaging

related project components together. Mr. Lamb responded that the parcels

could finance separately but he emphasized that demonstrating land control

mattered to prospective investors. Director Gottke suggested possible

accommodations to address concerns, such as a parking-lot leaseback if the

city needed continued parking access, clarifying he was only speculating as

to what Bowers’ concerns might be. President Bowers identified two

concerns: responding to Councilmember McGregor’s parking-lot issue and

maintaining a degree of city control to mitigate risk, asking whether the parties

could include a stopgap or safety valve for further review. Mr. Green and Mr.

Lamb discussed timing and reconveyance provisions. Mr. Green said the

draft required phase-two permits to occur within a specified interval after

phase-one approvals, and he explained that the agreement would include

reconveyance provisions to return parcels to the city if the developers failed to

complete the project in the prescribed time. He said those timing measures

and reconveyance language aimed to mitigate city risk if the project did not

proceed. Mayor Jadwin confirmed that the development agreement included

reconveyance language to mitigate city risk and to enable the city to reacquire

property if the developers did not proceed with phase two in a timely manner,

or at all.

Councilmember McGregor asked the developers to explain Section 6.11,

noting her concern that the provision stated the developers would have the

exclusive right to “sell, lease, or own, market, and otherwise develop any or all

portions of the property.” Mr. Lamb explained that the section highlighted the

fact that the city would transfer the property to the developer and that, as the

developer of the project site for both phase one and phase two, the developer

would hold the legal right to develop the property under the terms of the

development agreement. President Bowers added that the clause operated

“in accord subject to and in accordance with this agreement,” and she said

that language functioned as the controlling condition. Councilmember

McGregor acknowledged the clarification.

Councilmember Padova observed that the [former Harry Bauer House] in

question had historical significance in Gahanna and reported that a resident

recently sent a photograph showing a pleasing interior. She expressed

concern that the city could demolish the house and then fail to complete

phase two, leaving the community without the historic structure and without

replacement development. She asked the developers to ensure they would

not demolish the house before confirming that phase two would proceed. Mr.

Lamb apologized for not knowing municipal code specifics, said the

developers would need municipal approval to demolish a structure, and

reported that he received a confirming head nod from the room. He stated

that the developers could not proceed to demolish without the city’s approval

and that they would follow the required process. Director Gottke said he

visited the house, declined to comment on its condition during the meeting,

and said the administration and he were evaluating options. He said the city

could consider historically appropriate actions to commemorate the property

if demolition became necessary.

Vice President Weaver thanked the group, noted no further discussion at that

time, and directed staff to schedule the item for First Reading on October 6,

2025, with an expectation that it would return to Committee of the Whole on

October 13, 2025.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 10/6/2025;

Further Discussion in Committee of the Whole scheduled 10/13/2025;

Anticipated Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 10/20/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:

Without objection, the Chair announced a brief five-minute recess for

Committee of the Whole. The Committee stood in recess at 9:07 p.m. and

reconvened at 9:12 p.m.

ORD-0043-2025

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2026-2030 CITY OF GAHANNA

CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT

PLAN,

SUPERSEDING

ALL

PRIOR

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AND PROVIDING FOR FUTURE

SUNSET

Kevin Schultz, Senior Director of Operations, presented the annual update to

the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He explained that the presentation

followed the same cadence as the previous two years and that he reviewed a

variety of introductory slides to give viewers a holistic understanding of the

CIP. Schultz reported that he had updated the general plan language

throughout the document and revised phrasing to state actions affirmatively

rather than hypothetically. He said he would review chapter 3 with the Council

to explain changes to the plan phasing. He added that he updated all financial

information and summaries to reflect the new five-year plan period of

2026-2030 and removed completed projects that appeared on last year’s

lists. Schultz noted that he updated chapter 10, including all detailed

worksheets and summary worksheets, and added a project listing with

funding sources to chapter 10 (section 10.2). He explained that the agenda

packet included a summary list intended for the public and Council that

identified the 2026 funding requests for the capital budget and that those

requests would be relevant later in the presentation. Schultz reviewed the CIP

definition and purpose, explaining that the CIP served as a working plan and

management tool used by local governments to identify, prioritize, budget,

and construct capital improvements over a given time period. He stated that

the plan period was updated to 2026-2030. He emphasized that the CIP

provided a systematic way to evaluate competing demands, sequence

projects, and make the most efficient use of limited taxpayer dollars rather

than proceeding in a “willy-nilly” manner. Finally, Schultz said the capital

planning process drew guidance from a variety of existing plans and that he

updated a slide to reference Our Gahanna. He also changed the term

“thoroughfare plan” to “Comprehensive Transportation and Mobility Plan” on

the slide for continuity.

Funding Capital Projects

Senior Director Schultz reviewed funding sources for the CIP. He said the

largest pot of money was the Issue 12 capital fund and that Issue 12 passed

in May 2019. He said that fund provided the financial resources to address

deferred maintenance discussed in CIP Advisory Committee meetings and

departmental conversations. He added that Issue 12 did not constitute the

only funding mechanism and listed special and proprietary funds, utility funds,

grant opportunities, TIF dollars, special assessments, and tax levies as

additional sources. He noted this slide detailed each of those mechanisms.

Capital Planning Process

Senior Director Schultz explained that the capital planning process was

streamlined and that staff followed the process for about three years. He said

departments assessed their projects and submitted worksheets and

justifications to the Mayor’s Office, to him, to Senior Director Vollmer, and to

other staff who participated in the review. He said staff then presented the

projects to the CIP Advisory Committee and that Council ultimately acted

either through a plan update or, when necessary, supplemental

appropriations. He added that the approved projects then entered the CIP.

Schultz emphasized that the procurement and legislative processes never

got circumvented despite having a capital improvement plan. He noted that

directors continued to request supplemental appropriations and that Director

Komlanc brought permissions to bid that evening as part of the normal

process. He said the slide also identified the annual capital budget process

and that staff would review what that process would look like in the coming

weeks.

Project Priorities & Plan Phases

Senior Director Schultz reported that the project priorities had not necessarily

changed and that he kept the same priority categories. He said the city

assigned Priority One to imperative projects that the city “must do,” Priority

Two to essential projects that the city “should do,” and Priority Three to

important projects that the city “could do.” He explained that the plan also

identified capital maintenance items that met the capital threshold for value

and life cycle, giving life-cycle replacement of servers and network devices,

managed by IT, as an example. Schultz said staff adjusted the plan phases

and substantially revised the narrative in Chapter 3, reorganizing projects into

assessment, actionable, and visionary phases. He explained that

assessment projects involved feasibility work, that projects would move into

an actionable phase once they entered design or active construction, and that

visionary projects remained conceptual and lacked a fully defined scale,

scope, or worksheet. He added that the bullets in the plan defined what the

Council would see for each project in the CIP.

Completed Projects

Senior Director Schultz reported on recently completed capital projects and

their current statuses. He said several projects progressed through the

warranty phase and that some exited warranty and were fully closed. He

noted the city no longer held retainage for those closed projects and that

escrow monies returned in some instances. Schultz listed completed or

nearly completed projects, including the Hamilton Road Bridge (he added an

asterisk and said he hoped the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)

would finish the remaining work in the next few weeks so the bridge could fully

open), speed awareness signs, the Claycraft Road water line, the Havens

Road water line, the water tower rehabilitation project, and the Academy Park

Mountain Bike Trail. He apologized for any repetition with last year’s

presentation and explained that some projects appeared on both lists

because they finished after last year’s update.

Under Construction

Senior Director Schultz presented projects currently under construction. He

said the city upgraded two traffic control cabinets throughout the city and

painted over 300 street lights. He reported that the Morse Road

(US-62/Reynoldsburg-New Albany) roundabout remained under construction

as a joint project with the City of New Albany, Franklin County, the Franklin

County Engineer’s Office, and the City of Gahanna to repave that section of

Morse Road. Schultz said the Lincoln High School capacity improvements

and the sanitary/storm sewer Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) project

moved to the bidding stage and that the Taylor Road water line would go out

to bid for construction, with work expected to start later this year or early next

year. He reported that the administration executed the construction

agreement for Price Road House a few weeks earlier and that construction

began one to two weeks before the meeting. He noted that 825 Tech Center

Drive remained on the project list. Schultz said Chief Spence sent an email

earlier that day reporting that two emergency sirens were replaced and that

Franklin County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) would complete a

third siren this year. He concluded by noting that the remaining items on the

slide were information-technology projects.

Canceled Projects

Senior Director Schultz reviewed the slide listing cancelled projects. He said

staff identified one cancelled project: the parks and recreation core systems

programming project. He explained that the department would perform a

technology review and upgrade the existing Vermont Systems software

package rather than replace the system entirely.

President Bowers asked whether residents should continue to interface with

RecTrac. Schultz replied that staff would review the technology stack and the

user interface, and that, based on enhancements RecTrac made, they would

develop a list of improvements and implement those improvements over time.

He added that the work would roll into the Department of Parks and

Recreation operating budget for funding.

Capital Investments 2026-2030

Senior Director Schultz reviewed the capital investments planned for

2026-2030. He explained the plan organized projects into six categories,

noted the number of projects in each category appeared in parentheses, and

said the five-year projection identified actionable projects and their funding

years. He noted some projects would receive funding over multiple years and

that the pie chart was updated; he explained the city facilities percentage

were higher in the previous document because it included approximately $60

million for 825 Tech Center Drive. He said the plan projected about $113

million in capital expenditures across all sectors from 2026 through 2030.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether police capital projects were

distributed among those categories. Schultz replied yes, stating police cruiser

replacements appeared under equipment and police technology projects

appeared under the technology program.

Senior Director Schultz reviewed the next set of slides, explaining that the

presentation contained one slide for each of the plan’s six sections. He said

the left side of each slide showed the number of identified projects for

2026-2030 and the projected investment over that five-year period, noting the

transportation and mobility section reflected a projected investment of

approximately $39 million (rounded). He explained that the slide showed the

2026 request and that the right side displayed the detailed 2026 request by

project. He stated the transportation and mobility 2026 request totaled $8.1

million and that the street program, traffic control and street light

improvements, West Johnstown Road improvements, and comprehensive

transportation and mobility plan programming drove the $39 million projection.

He added a reference box for quick navigation to the full document: the

section summary on page 20, the five-year projection on page 38, and the

funding summary on page 148. Schultz next discussed utility systems,

sanitary sewer, storm water, and potable water, saying the plan identified

eight projects for 2026-2030 with a projected investment of $28 million and a

2026 request of $2.1 million. He explained the Westside Sewer Project drove

a large portion of the $28 million because it combined water, storm water,

sanitary sewer, and a road improvement that the transportation and mobility

section would cover. He said the 2026 request remained relatively small

because larger expenditures would occur after design and when construction

contracts began in out years, and he again pointed attendees to the related

page ranges in the packet.

Senior Director Schultz described the Parks and Recreation section as

broken into four parts, including play features and surfaces, parks renovation

projects, trail projects, and pool infrastructure, and said the plan identified 33

projects for 2026-2030 with a projected investment of about $27 million. He

stated the 2026 request totaled just under $8 million and that Academy Park

accounted for a $6 million ask within the $7.8 million figure shown for 2026.

He reminded Council that staff consolidated several individual Academy Park

efforts into a single project, including parking lot, trail head, fencing, and play

structure, because the work occurred concurrently and design under a single

contract made budgeting and adjustments easier. Schultz identified two large

trail projects, the Link to Literacy and the Big Walnut trail, as major drivers of

the $27 million total and noted that LinkUS would provide a substantial portion

of funding for the Big Walnut project; he cautioned members not to quote the

specific LinkUS number from memory and said he presented both the LinkUS

portion and the city portion together to arrive at the $27 million total.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked whether the Academy Park project

expanded. He said he remembered a sum of about $3-3.5 million when

adding the individual projects, noted the parking lot re-pavement/expansion at

roughly $800,000, the trail head, fencing of about $70,000 to $80,000, and

inclusion of a shelter, asking whether the scope changed or whether costs

increased. Director Schultz replied that the scope remained largely the same.

He explained that the parking lot expansion increased the total, and that staff

began accounting for delivery costs, expenses to deliver and construct the

project, that previously did not appear in the project totals. He said

underestimates for the shelter facility (including restrooms and storage) and

the trail head also raised the total. Schultz stated those factors and the

delivery costs produced the approximately $6 million figure shown, and he

clarified that the $6 million represented the 2026 request and did not reflect

other monies already appropriated for design. Schnetzer asked whether the

conceptual drawings provided in October 2024 remained valid. Schultz

answered yes.

Councilmember Padova thanked staff and asked about the aquatics

assessment and facilities plan. She noted the master plan appeared as

“completed” in the status but did not appear elsewhere in the CIP, and she

asked where the next action would go. Director Schultz said staff completed

the master plan. He proposed adding a visionary project to the CIP to reflect

the master plan components, explained that a visionary entry would lack

scope and detail, and said the master plan identified community wants but

had not tied those wants to specific resources. Schultz noted other

documents, such as the Clark State Road multi-use trail study, remained

unincorporated until they moved through the planning process, and he said

the city must organize, rank, prioritize, and resource projects identified in

broader plans. He offered to add a visionary project for the aquatics master

plan or, if Council preferred, to identify it more specifically. Padova said the

plan layout (actionable, assessment, identified, visionary) felt odd because

the aquatics assessment already seemed complete; she worried staff would

move the item from assessment back to visionary and that the work might get

lost. She said the community invested money in the assessment and that

pools likely needed substantial upgrades; she wanted the aquatics work to

remain on Council’s radar for planning rather than disappear into the CIP

document. Schultz replied that Council could classify the aquatics master

plan as “identified” if they preferred. He explained that an assessment

normally included specific feasibility tasks such as geotechnical work,

whereas a master plan provided only conceptual information and cost

estimates that depended on consultant assumptions. Schultz recalled the

master plan’s high-level cost estimate (which he believed had been about $30

million), and Padova said she remembered a figure closer to $20 million.

Padova reiterated her concern that the city should not let the aquatics work

get lost and that the department should keep it visible for future planning.

Councilmember McGregor asked about the pool lighting, noting it was

expected to last ten years; she asked whether the lighting continued to hold

up. Director Schultz replied that, to his knowledge, the lighting continued to

hold. Mayor Jadwin said she believed the installation was in its eighth year.

Schultz clarified that the lighting was in its eighth year, though the original

expectation was six years, and he reiterated the installation year as 2018.

Mayor Jadwin stated she thought the lifespan was ten years. McGregor

acknowledged the correction, said she thought the expected life was longer,

and noted her ongoing concern.

President Bowers asked about the Creekside Flood Mitigation and Plaza

Redevelopment. Director Schultz asked to address facilities first and then

respond to her question; President Bowers agreed. Schultz then reported that

the city facilities category for 2026-2030 included three identified projects

totaling $26 million. He noted an asterisk because the administration would

not include the $24 million Creekside Flood Mitigation and Plaza

Improvements in the 2026 capital budget request to be presented in October

2025. Schultz explained that he included the project on the plan because it

qualified as an actionable project that remained in design and relatively far

along; he said staff would confirm budgets and planned much deeper

conversations about the project and its funding mechanism, similar to the

approach used for 825 Tech Center Drive. He added that the plan still

included investigatory funds for a parks and service maintenance complex

and $300,000 for strategic land acquisition related to CIC endeavors.

President Bowers pointed out an apparent discrepancy between figures for

the project. She said the summary on page 29 identified $25 million, while the

appendix showed about $10 million, and she asked whether those amounts

reflected five-year and ten-year projections. Schultz replied that staff likely

plugged in some projected debt service numbers and that those figures

should be adjusted; he said he would review the discrepancy. President

Bowers asked for confirmation that the administration had not made a final

decision regarding the Creekside project. Schultz answered, “100 percent.”

President Bowers said the city still needed to evaluate whether the project

represented a necessity, a recommended action, or a desirable project.

Schultz concluded that staff would continue the conversation and stated that

the administration anticipated funding for a plaza project; he added, as

presented, “it’s not quite a $24 million project, but a $24 million project as it

relates to the plaza.”

Councilmember Padova noted a clerical error on the Creekside Flood

Mitigation page. The project overview contained the description for the

services complex rather than the Creekside project.

President Bowers asked for clarification about the 2026 requests by project

category. She observed that the city facilities category showed a $400,000

request on the insert, while the back of the book showed Creekside as zero,

and she asked whether the $400,000 request covered other projects. Director

Schultz confirmed that the 2026 budget request sheet the councilmembers

held was accurate. He explained that staff would return with a separate

budget request for Creekside later and that the administration would not

include Creekside funding in the October 2026 budget presentation because

they did not yet have finalized numbers. Schultz compared the forthcoming

process to the approach used for 825 Tech Center Drive, noting that the

Creekside figure remained preliminary and that staff anticipated requesting

appropriation in early 2026. President Bowers asked whether staff would

update the asterisked Creekside entry before Council approved the 2026

budget. Schultz answered that staff would not update it before the budget and

that the Creekside appropriation would come later as a supplemental request.

He added that the other sheets contained an erroneous projection of debt

service for 2026-2028 and apologized for that error.

Vice President Weaver asked whether Director Schultz had additional slides.

He noted the Council allotted the opportunity for the item to return to

Committee and asked how Councilmembers should submit questions for

vetting. He said, given the late hour, he encouraged Director Schultz to finish

his presentation that evening and asked whether Councilmembers should

email questions to Director Schultz, Clerk VanMeter, or himself.

Director Schultz replied that Councilmembers could send questions directly

to him. He summarized the final two slides as equipment (including public

safety, fleet vehicles, and mechanical equipment) and fiber/IT infrastructure.

He reported a 2026 request of $250,000 for fiber optic work and stated that

the presentation would proceed to First Reading on October 6, 2025, return to

Committee on October 13, 2025, for further conversation, proceed to Second

Reading and adoption on October 20, 2025, and that the budget workshop

would begin October 23, 2025, with the capital budget presentation on

October 27, 2025.

Vice President Weaver reiterated that Council would bring the item back to

Committee on October 13, 2025, and asked Councilmembers to submit

questions to Director Schultz. He noted Director Schultz requested questions

by October 9, 2025, and indicated Director Vollmer confirmed that timeline.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 10/6/2025;

Further Discussion in Committee of the Whole scheduled 10/13/2025;

Anticipated Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 10/20/2025.

ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:

Councilmember Bowers:

RES-0042-2025

JOINT RESOLUTION AND PROCLAMATION HONORING THE

VIETNAM TRAVELING MEMORIAL WALL IN GAHANNA, OHIO

President Bowers reported that she worked with Council Office staff on two

joint resolution proclamations regarding the traveling Vietnam Veterans

Memorial Wall and said those documents might undergo further edits. She

added that staff reached out to the American Legion Post to discuss the

memorial.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/6/2025.

RES-0043-2025

JOINT RESOLUTION AND PROCLAMATION TO HONOR AND

RECOGNIZE KILLIAN SULLIVAN, 2025 YOUNG BIRDER OF THE

YEAR, IN CELEBRATION OF WORLD ANIMAL DAY AND WORLD

HABITAT MONTH

President Bowers stated that the Sullivan family planned to join the Council on

October 6, 2025, for Resolution 0043-2025, thanked Mayor Jadwin for

supporting the joint resolution proclamation to recognize Mr. Sullivan, and said

the proclamation would celebrate Gahanna’s biodiversity.

Vice President Weaver asked for discussion, then thanked President Bowers,

the administration, and the Council Office for their work and placed the

resolutions on the consent agenda for October 6, 2025.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/6/2025.

ITEMS FROM COUNCIL OFFICE:

2025-0186

Ohio Division of Liquor Control for transfer permit TRFO 06523067-1

FROM LOCAL CANTINA GAHANNA LLC TO OHIO UNITED GROUP

LLC, 101 MILL STREET, GAHANNA, OH

Clerk VanMeter reported a liquor control permit application regarding transfer

of ownership from Local Cantina Gahanna LLC to Ohio United Group LLC for

101 Milll Street. He stated that the Division of Police noted no objections and

that, if Council raised no objections, he would return the notice indicating that

they did not request a hearing. Vice President Weaver noted no objections.

He also thanked all those in attendance, including staff, for their time in what

was a long Committee meeting.

ADJOURNMENT:

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

adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.