200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Committee of the Whole

Trenton I. Weaver, Chair

Merisa K. Bowers

Jamille Jones

Nancy R. McGregor

Kaylee Padova

Stephen A. Renner

Michael Schnetzer

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Monday, October 13, 2025

6:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

***Please note the 6:00 PM Start Time***

CALL TO ORDER:

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

13, 2025, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council Trenton I. Weaver,

Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The agenda was published on

October 10, 2025. All members were present for the meeting. There were no

additions or corrections to the agenda.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:

RES-0046-2025

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE "OUR GAHANNA" STRATEGIC

PLAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Miranda Vollmer, Senior Director of Administrative Services, opened the

presentation by greeting the attendees and stating that it was her honor to

present the Gahanna Strategic Plan and Economic Development Plan. She

began by introducing those present who contributed to the project. She

acknowledged Bailey Morlan and Sarah Bongiorno from Planning NEXT, the

consultants who had assisted with the plan. She also introduced John

Heilmann and Ethan Barnhardt, two active members of the steering

committee who participated in the evening’s presentation. Vollmer explained

that, at the conclusion of the presentation, the department would recommend

that Council pass a resolution to adopt Gahanna’s Strategic Plan and

Economic Development Strategy. She described the initiative as a

comprehensive and inclusive planning process intended to guide the city’s

future growth, development, and priorities. Before beginning the presentation,

Vollmer expressed her gratitude to Mayor Jadwin for asking her to lead the

initiative and to the Council for their participation throughout the planning

process. She also recognized members of the project team, including Kelsey

Bartholomew, Management Analyst II in the Department of Administrative

Services, and Rachel Zarick, Economic Development Administrator. Vollmer

stated that they had helped keep both her and the steering committee

organized and that their efforts were vital to the success of the project. She

invited everyone to give them a round of applause. Vollmer also extended her

thanks to the city directors, city staff, community members, and members of

the business community who had engaged and participated in the process.

She then outlined the agenda for the evening. The presenters would discuss

the planning process, the steering committee’s role, the public engagement

efforts, and provide an overview of the plan. She stated that a public hearing

was requested for the October 20, 20205, followed by a Council vote on

November 3, 2025. Vollmer noted that she had emailed Council a link to the

plan on Saturday, October 11, 2025. She added that, after the plan’s adoption

in its final format, professional copies would be printed due to the document’s

large size. She asked that questions be held until the end of the presentation

and said she would return to the microphone to answer any questions. She

concluded by turning the presentation over to Planning NEXT.

Sarah Bongiorno, Director of Planning NEXT, thanked the Council for the

opportunity to speak and stated that she and her team would begin with a

brief review before presenting an overview of the strategic plan. She explained

that a strategic plan served as a long-term framework outlining a roadmap for

the future. It often required collaboration beyond the city and acted as a guide

for decision-makers. Bongiorno emphasized that this particular plan had been

based on extensive community input. She stated that the team placed

significant intentionality and effort into ensuring that everyone in Gahanna had

the opportunity to participate and have their voices heard. She explained that

the scope of work at the beginning of the process consisted of three main

components: preparation for a robust process, three rounds of community

engagement, and plan development. She referred to a process timeline slide

that illustrated the three rounds of engagement and how each phase informed

plan development. Each round of engagement was iterative; the team

gathered community input, tested what they heard in the next round, and

refined the plan accordingly. Bongiorno noted that this approach was

essential to developing a plan that genuinely reflected the community’s vision.

She stated that the upcoming sections of the presentation would show how

the plan framework and recommendations came together for final adoption

and implementation. She concluded by introducing Ethan Barnhardt and John

Heilmann, two members of the steering committee, who would speak in more

detail about the committee’s role and contributions to the process.

Ethan Barnhardt, a member of the Our Gahanna Steering Committee,

addressed Council and stated that it had been a pleasure and an honor to

serve on the committee over the past year. He explained that the committee’s

primary goal was to champion the strategic planning process by using

personal networks to engage residents and encourage participation in Our

Gahanna. Barnhardt stated that the committee members also served as the

public faces of the initiative at community engagement events. They helped

facilitate discussions, encouraged community members to share input, and

ensured that all voices across Gahanna were represented. He explained that

the committee worked to distribute information by dropping off pamphlets and

flyers at public locations, posting on social media, and reaching out to

residents through emails, text messages, and phone calls to raise awareness

and participation. He added that the committee focused on engaging

underrepresented areas of the community to ensure that feedback accurately

reflected Gahanna’s diversity and character.

John Heilmann, also a Steering Committee member, stated that he had lived

in Gahanna for more than forty-two years. After retiring, he viewed

participation on the committee as an opportunity to become more involved in

the local community. He explained that the committee held several meetings

with Planning NEXT before engaging with the public in order to determine

responsibilities and establish a process for community involvement. Heilmann

described how committee members then reached out through personal and

professional networks, including friends, neighbors, church groups, and other

community contacts. He shared that he had previously worked for Casto and

used those connections to reach out to property managers at Vista

Apartments and local shopping centers. Through those contacts, he asked

property managers to send emails to tenants encouraging them to participate

in the process. He noted that committee members devoted significant time to

outreach and small roundtable meetings, which later evolved into larger

community engagement events.

Mr. Barnhardt then reviewed a series of photos of the committee’s early

training sessions, where members learned how to conduct and facilitate

conversations during “table talks.” He explained that these small group

sessions invited residents to discuss what they liked, disliked, and envisioned

for Gahanna’s future. He thanked Planning NEXT for their preparation and

guidance throughout the entire process, noting that the firm had been

excellent to work with. He shared additional photos of steering committee

events that demonstrated how the group prepared to engage directly with the

community.

Mr. Heilmann added that after the initial public engagement phase, the

steering committee met with directors of various city departments to review

the first draft of the plan and provide comments before releasing it to the

community.

Ms. Bongiorno commended the steering committee members and

emphasized that their commitment had been instrumental to the project’s

success. She stated that, based on her experience working across the

country, dedicated steering committee members made planning processes

stronger and more representative of the community. Bongiorno reviewed the

engagement process, which spanned approximately one year and consisted

of three rounds. The first round included eighty-six “table talk” sessions, six

in-person events, and several community pop-ups that engaged groups such

as high school students, YMCA members, and Senior Center participants.

She added that the team also held business focus group meetings for the

economic development strategy and conducted three online surveys, one for

each round of engagement. Bongiorno explained that the process also

included staff engagement with department directors, early surveys, and a

joint meeting where the steering committee and department directors

reviewed the initial draft recommendations. The team also engaged with City

Council through presentations, one-on-one interviews at the beginning and

end of the process, and outreach to city boards and commissions to ensure

they had opportunities to participate. She concluded by turning the

presentation back over to Barnhardt and Heilmann, who would share

additional stories about their community outreach efforts in greater detail.

Mr. Barnhardt presented photos showing various community engagement

activities and table talks. He noted that one photo included a session he

hosted with parents from Goddard Preschool. He explained that he had used

his daughter’s daycare network to reach out to young parents, recognizing the

difficulty they often faced in participating in community planning efforts. He

stated that it was important to him to ensure that parents of young children

had an opportunity to share their perspectives on the community and its

future. He added that this effort served as one example of how the committee

had worked to engage different segments of Gahanna’s population so that all

voices could be heard. Mr. Heilmann shared that his table talks at Stoneridge

Plaza, Vista Plaza, and Vista Apartments did not draw the participation he had

hoped for. However, he noted that during later rounds of engagement, several

attendees recognized his name from the emails he had sent and mentioned

that they lived or worked in those areas. Although they had not attended his

table talks, he stated that they had still engaged in the process through other

events, which demonstrated the reach of the committee’s outreach efforts.

Barnhardt continued by sharing a story about the “Taco Tuesday” event held

during the Vision Festival. He described the weather as cold, wet, and dreary

and said he had initially expected low turnout. However, he credited the city’s

strong advertising and communication efforts for attracting a large crowd. He

said it had been exciting to see members of the community sharing feedback,

enjoying food, and even children playing on inflatables in the rain. He identified

the event as one of the highlights of the entire engagement process. He

commended city staff for their consistent efforts to promote participation and

offered special recognition to Rachel Zarick and Kelsey Bartholomew for their

hands-on support throughout the process. Heilmann agreed and added that

staff members kept the committee on task and motivated, often following up

to ensure responsibilities were met. Barnhardt then described the final round

of engagement, known as the “Sweet Treat” event. He said that turnout had

been strong and that community members shared their thoughts and

reflections on the plan, expressing pride in Gahanna and appreciation for the

opportunity to participate. Heilmann estimated that while official records

showed more than 200 responses from the Sweet Treat event, the actual

number was likely higher because many families filled out single cards

representing multiple participants. Barnhardt added that at events such as the

Sweet Treat and Taco Tuesday, many parents attended with their children.

He noted that children also participated by sharing their own ideas about what

they wanted to see in Gahanna. He commented that, with some explanation,

the children were eager to contribute their input. Heilmann concluded by

mentioning the “Touch a Truck” event. He said that although attendees there

did not complete surveys because many had young children with them,

committee members informed them about the online survey and reminded

them of its closing date. He expressed confidence that this outreach helped

generate additional responses following that event.

Bailey Morlan, Senior Planner with Planning NEXT, stated that the planning

process included a very robust engagement effort. She said that both she and

Sarah Bongiorno had greatly enjoyed hearing from residents and found it

encouraging that Gahanna had such an involved community. She mentioned

that they had received many thoughtful ideas, including creative suggestions

from children, which she found particularly enjoyable. Morlan reported that the

process included more than 1,800 participants and generated over 9,000

pieces of input. She explained that the Planning NEXT team carefully

reviewed every comment and organized the feedback into spreadsheets for

analysis. She assured Council that all input had been read multiple times.

She noted that participants also provided demographic information, which

confirmed that input came from residents across all areas of the city and

from a variety of backgrounds. Morlan highlighted the extensive outreach

conducted by the City, emphasizing its importance in ensuring that residents

knew about the process and had the opportunity to participate. She stated

that at the beginning of the planning process, the team created

ourgahanna.com, a website that served as the central hub for project

updates, engagement information, and all three survey rounds. The site also

allowed residents to sign up for project email updates. She explained that the

team printed 10,000 project business cards to distribute at community events

and through steering committee members to help spread awareness. Morlan

then presented data on outreach specifically conducted by the City, noting

that these figures did not include additional efforts by individual committee

members or residents. She stated that the City issued more than 29 email

blasts to subscribers and produced more than 77 social media posts, several

of which were shared multiple times. She reported that postcards were

mailed to every residence for each round of engagement, providing a

personal invitation to participate. Promotion also appeared in local businesses

and on community gateway signs. Morlan acknowledged Rachel Zarick’s

personal outreach to businesses, which included delivering flyers and

posters. She added that engagement tables and QR code boards were

placed at partner locations such as the YMCA, the library, Creekside, and

Hunter’s Ridge Pool to drive participation in online surveys. She stated that

gahanna.gov’s events calendar and news flashes featured all engagement

opportunities and that the project received coverage in Uniquely Gahanna, the

Explore Guide, and newsletters distributed by the City, the Senior Center,

schools, and through utility billing. Morlan noted that the City also conducted

outreach to all boards and commissions during each of the three engagement

rounds. She concluded by emphasizing that the City’s strong calendar of

community events provided excellent opportunities for visibility. She credited

Zarick, Bongiorno, and Vollmer for ensuring that Our Gahanna had a

presence at nearly every event, helping the team meet residents where they

already were and increasing community awareness throughout the process.

Ms. Bongiorno explained that intentionality and effort had guided the entire

process. She stated that city staff worked diligently to ensure community

members had a clear choice to participate. She expressed satisfaction with

the strong turnout and the high level of commitment and engagement from

the community. She noted that this work led to the development of the plan,

which the team would review at a high level. Before doing so, she described

the plan’s structure, explaining that it had been divided into two parts. The first

part focused on the strategic plan, and the second provided a deeper

exploration of economic development to form an economic development

strategy. Ms. Bongiorno said each part included an introduction and a section

describing the process, allowing readers to understand the effort involved.

She outlined that the plan framework contained the vision, values, and four

main goal chapters of the strategic plan, followed by a separate section on

economic development and an implementation component. She emphasized

that the four goal chapters had emerged organically from community input

rather than being predetermined topics. She explained that they reflected

what participants expressed throughout the process. Ms. Bongiorno then

turned the presentation over to Ms. Morlan to provide brief highlights from

each chapter.

Ms. Morlan explained that each chapter of the strategic plan began with a

goal, which was guided by a set of outcomes and strategies. She noted that

each chapter included many strategies, but she would provide a summary

rather than listing them all. She stated that the first goal focused on elevating

the city’s unique places. The outcomes centered on advancing the Creekside

District as a vibrant area, fostering inclusive, accessible, and well-maintained

parks, and building strong and engaged neighborhoods. The strategies

included improving access, walkability, and visibility within the Creekside

District; supporting businesses and creating vibrant spaces for dining and

entertainment; aligning planning efforts among the district, parks, and

neighborhoods; enhancing park infrastructure; and strengthening

neighborhood infrastructure. Ms. Morlan said that the second goal focused

internally on serving the community. The outcomes included enhancing

internal operations and maintaining a high level of stewardship and safety.

The strategies involved embedding the strategic plan into daily routines such

as budgeting, project evaluation, and departmental accountability; improving

internal communication and collaboration; modernizing policies, procedures,

and technology; and strengthening safety, sustainability, and emergency

preparedness. She stated that the third goal addressed connecting the

community, both through transportation and personal connections among

residents. The outcomes included advancing a comprehensive mobility

network and fostering an engaged and inclusive community. The strategies

included implementing existing and developing mobility and trails plans,

exploring inclusive rideshare solutions for groups with limited transportation

access, promoting community engagement, continuing and expanding

existing engagement efforts, and advancing age-friendly initiatives to support

healthy aging and inclusivity. Ms. Morlan continued by describing the fourth

goal, which focused on celebrating the city’s identity. This goal aimed to

elevate Gahanna’s regional identity within Central Ohio, strengthen

placemaking efforts, and enhance citywide communication and promotion.

The related strategies included aligning city branding and marketing with the

strategic goals outlined in the plan, enhancing placemaking at gateways

through wayfinding and public art, transforming underutilized areas, and

improving citywide communication through coordinated marketing and public

reporting.

Ms. Morlan concluded by discussing the economic development strategy,

which included three goals that were integrated because their outcomes

supported all of them. The goals were to strengthen existing industry sectors

to ensure a robust ecosystem; use regional and local market conditions and

trends to identify opportunities for nurturing new and emerging sectors; and

collaborate with local stakeholders to advance a workforce development

model focused on existing and emerging economic drivers. Ms. Morlan stated

that five outcomes supported these goals: advancing development and

redevelopment in strategic areas; cultivating a thriving small and local

business community; aligning economic development tools to attract key

businesses; strengthening collaboration and communication with business

and community partners; and implementing a sector-based approach to

economic development. She summarized the strategies as identifying and

planning redevelopment in strategic areas; aligning with regional partners and

transportation agencies to support job centers; supporting small business

growth; streamlining development processes and updating land use and

infrastructure plans; promoting sustainable development; enhancing

coordination with the Community Improvement Corporation; collaborating with

schools and workforce partners; and strengthening business engagement

through multiple approaches.

Ms. Bongiorno concluded the presentation by thanking the Council for trusting

her team with the process. She expressed appreciation for the opportunity to

get to know the Councilmembers and the community. She then turned the

discussion back to Director Vollmer and invited any questions.

Questions from Council

President Bowers thanked the presenters and expressed appreciation for

their work. She stated that the presentations by Mr. Barnhardt and Mr.

Heilmann had shown that the process not only created events and

engagement sessions but also fostered meaningful community connections.

She shared that the table talk sessions she hosted had strengthened

relationships and encouraged reflection on what the community values and

hopes to achieve. She described the process as very positive for the entire

community and commended Planning NEXT for their direction and support,

noting that their work benefitted the community as a whole. President Bowers

then raised two follow-up questions. She first requested that the Council

receive the related documents, noting prior and ongoing community requests

for an appendix aggregating data points. She asked if such an appendix could

be attached to the report. Ms. Bongiorno responded that the appendix typically

included all community engagement input, along with the raw data and

summary presentations, and confirmed that her team could provide that

information. President Bowers thanked her and posed a second question.

She asked for a summary of the total cost of the strategic plan, including the

consulting fee, out-of-pocket expenditures, mailers, and other related

expenses. She explained that the information would be helpful not only for

Gahanna’s current and future councils but also as a useful reference for other

communities considering similar efforts. She remarked that the process

represented a “Cadillac level” of planning, which she viewed as an excellent

benchmark. She concluded by again expressing her thanks.

Councilmember Schnetzer stated that he had no specific questions but

expressed his gratitude to everyone involved in the project, particularly the

members of the steering committee. He noted that he had sat with Mr.

Heilmann and Mr. Barnhardt several times during meetings and was not

surprised that they had become the faces of the committee. He thanked

everyone for their efforts and contributions.

Councilmember Renner echoed the appreciation shared by his colleagues

and thanked all parties involved in planning. He commended Planning NEXT

for doing a superior job hosting and organizing the process and thanked

everyone for their service to the city. He mentioned that he intended to focus

on some of the strategic items and remarked that he was impressed with the

inclusion of outcome-based plans. He appreciated that the plan included

predicted outcomes and measurable metrics, which he believed were

essential to its effectiveness.

Councilmember Jones also expressed appreciation to everyone who

contributed to the project and for producing a document that was accessible

and easy to follow. She noted that it was helpful for all residents, regardless of

background, to be able to understand it. She added that, in reference to

President Bowers’ earlier comments about the appendix, it would be

interesting to see the percentages of respondents who were residents or

business owners among the 9,000 pieces of feedback or 1,500 people

surveyed. She asked if that data was available.

Vice President Weaver joined his colleagues in expressing gratitude to

Planning NEXT and the steering committee members. He also acknowledged

the many staff, board, and commission members present, thanking them for

their efforts. He noted that the project represented a significant undertaking by

the city’s administration, staff, and volunteers. Weaver stated that he often

received questions from residents about how the plan would be used and

whether it would simply “sit on a shelf.” He referenced a helpful section in the

plan that listed all other city plans and asked how the new strategic plan

would incorporate and connect those existing plans and initiatives to create a

functional, usable framework. Ms. Bongiorno responded that the strategic

plan functioned as a guiding document that sat at the top of the city’s planning

structure. She explained that other plans should align with the strategic plan’s

vision, values, and goals. She emphasized that the plan included specific

outcomes and strategies but allowed flexibility for staff and elected officials to

determine how best to implement them. She described the plan as a “road

map” that guided decision-making and encouraged Councilmembers, boards,

and commissions to reference it regularly when evaluating projects or

programs. She advised that even when new opportunities arose outside the

plan’s framework, decisions should be made intentionally and with an

understanding of how they fit within the broader strategic vision. She added

that the plan should serve as a constant reference point and noted that it

would be printed in a convenient format for use during city work and

discussions. Vice President Weaver thanked Ms. Bongiorno for her

explanation and confirmed that her response made sense. He then noted

that, as Director Vollmer had stated earlier, the public hearing for this item

would take place on October 20, 2025, with a vote scheduled for November 3,

2025. He added that the item would return to Committee of the Whole on

October 27, 2025, for any final questions or wrap-up discussions. Weaver

observed that a later item on the agenda related directly to one of the plan’s

goals (improving mobility for older adults and individuals with disabilities) and

commented that the city was already beginning to put the plan into action. He

closed by thanking everyone for their hard work and contributions.

Recommendation: Public Hearing Scheduled on 10/20/2025; Further Discussion

in Committee of the Whole Scheduled 10/27/2025; Introduction/Adoption on

Regular Agenda on 11/3/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

ORD-0042-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

DEVELOPMENT

BENSON

AGREEMENT

WITH

AND THE

CONNECT

GAHANNA

REALTY

LLC,

CAPITAL,

LLC,

COMMUNITY

IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF

VACANT AND BLIGHTED PROPERTIES IN THE CREEKSIDE

DISTRICT

Jeff Gottke, Director of Economic Development, returned to discuss the

development agreement for the Creekside Expansion Project with Connect

Real Estate and Benson Capital. He explained that his presentation

addressed questions and requests previously raised by Council and the

public. Mr. Gottke reviewed the project details, which included 263

apartments, two restaurants, a parking structure, a hotel, and townhouses in

the second phase. He clarified that the project was a privately funded and

constructed development, not a city partnership with the developer. He

emphasized that the city’s role differed significantly from the original

Creekside project, noting that this agreement represented a traditional

development process. The city’s involvement would consist of reviewing and

approving the development agreement, which would outline the scope,

accountability measures, and overall framework of the project. He stated that

the project aimed to increase foot traffic in Creekside through the addition of

residential units and a hotel. The goal was to enhance Creekside as a

destination for residents and visitors. He noted that the development was not

intended as a “silver bullet” to solve every issue in the area but as a strategic

addition supported by market data and the Our Gahanna Strategic Plan. That

plan, completed after the project began, validated the development team’s

theory that more apartments and visitors would strengthen Creekside.

Downtown Development Principles and Project Milestones

Director Gottke reviewed downtown development principles, explaining that a

vibrant downtown should serve as the civic and cultural center of the

community. He stated that concentrated residential and visitor populations

create economic and social activity, as retail tends to follow housing growth.

He emphasized that Creekside needed more residents and visitors to

complement its existing commercial base. He added that mixed-use

developments optimize land use and are often more cost-effective to serve

than suburban-style projects. He said downtowns thrive when they offer

diverse economic opportunities, including housing, offices, and visitor

attractions, all within a walkable area. He then discussed the role of Council in

evaluating the development agreement, which defined the city’s

responsibilities, project scope, and oversight measures. He encouraged

Council to continue submitting questions early to allow staff and the

developers to prepare complete answers before the vote. Mr. Gottke

displayed a project timeline showing completed milestones and the current

stage of review. He noted that the development agreement must be finalized

before related actions, such as purchase and sale agreements, tax increment

financing (TIF) creation, and New Community Authority (NCA) establishment,

could proceed. He added that discussions about internships or sponsorship

opportunities would occur later, once the development agreement confirmed

the project’s viability.

Public Engagement

Next, Director Gottke reviewed the public engagement process, noting that

outreach had occurred at several community events, including the Mill Street

Market, the farmers market, and Touch a Truck. He reported that

approximately 200 people had participated in person across four public

events. Additional input came through email, social media, and a city

webpage. He said the city planned to launch a dedicated “Creekside

Reimagined” webpage to provide ongoing project information. He also

referenced public engagement boards from a recent open plaza event, where

attendees shared encouraging feedback about both the public and private

components of the project.

Parking Utilization Assessment

Director Gottke then addressed questions about the 50-space city-owned

parking lot on High Street, which was part of the development agreement. He

reported early findings from a parking utilization study conducted over two

weeks, with counts taken three times daily and on weekends. The study

found 667 marked surface parking spaces in the downtown area, excluding

garages and unmarked spots, with an average utilization rate of 28%. The

High Street lot averaged 27% use, ranging from 13.5% to 27% depending on

the time of day. Evening usage reached 43%, while weekend usage varied.

Project Timelines

Director Gottke then reviewed project timelines outlined in the development

agreement. After Council approved the agreement, the developer would begin

a six-month inspection period, extendable by two months. Thirty days after

that period ended, the phase one closing and conveyance would occur. The

developer would then submit detailed plans for city review and coordinate with

the Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory bodies. He noted that the

timeline allowed six months to create the NCA, 18 months to submit phase

two plans, and 36 months to achieve substantial completion after phase one

approvals. The city would retain ownership of the High Street parking lot to

monitor ongoing needs before its eventual redevelopment.

Accountability Measures

Finally, Director Gottke outlined accountability measures designed to prevent

problems experienced during the original Creekside project. The agreement

required semiannual progress reports from the developers, a completion

guarantee, a reconveyance clause for non-performance, and loan step-in

rights for the city in case of default. He reiterated that the city would not

guarantee project financing and that the development involved no

public-private partnership. Mr. Gottke concluded by inviting additional

questions from Council, acknowledging that his presentation might have

generated further discussion.

Questions from Council

Councilmember McGregor asked who had written the development

agreement. Director of Gottke explained that it was a joint effort among all

parties, with different versions and comments being exchanged.

Councilmember McGregor asked which attorney represented the city. Mayor

Jadwin stated that the city worked with Frost Brown Todd, specifically

Emmett Kelly, and that Nate Green from the Montrose Group also contributed

significantly to drafting the agreement. Councilmember McGregor

acknowledged the information and thanked them. Director Gottke added that

Frost Brown Todd drafted the agreement, and the city attorney was reviewing

it in coordination with counsel from Benson Capital and Connect Real Estate.

Councilmember McGregor then asked whether the parking lot parcels would

be transferred at this time under the development agreement. Director Gottke

responded that the transfer would be delayed. Councilmember McGregor

noted that one of the parking lot parcels appeared on the list of parcels to be

transferred, but the other did not. Director Gottke confirmed that the parking

lot consisted of two separate parcels and stated that it was the city’s intent for

both parcels to be included in the project. He said staff would verify that

before Council voted. Councilmember McGregor questioned why the parcels

were listed if they would not be transferred. Director Gottke explained that the

parcels were included because the agreement covered the entire project

scope. The delayed transfer allowed the city time to better understand the

long-term parking needs before conveying the property. He confirmed that the

delayed transfer language was included in the agreement.

Councilmember McGregor asked if phase one could proceed without phase

two. Director Gottke deferred the question to Connect Real Estate and

Benson Capital. Bob Lamb, representing Connect Real Estate, stated that the

development was one project with two phases. He explained that the

agreement encompassed both phases within a single document, but the city

would retain ownership of the phase two area until 18 months after the phase

one plan approval. He said that arrangement gave the city sufficient time to

assess any parking concerns related to the project. Mr. Lamb commended

Mr. Gottke and his team for compiling the parking data, noting that the study’s

findings, showing 43% utilization at peak times, demonstrated that Creekside

had adequate parking capacity to support the proposed development.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether the parking data included private

lots and whether those lots would allow public parking during events. She

noted that the existence of spaces did not necessarily mean they were

available to the public. Director Gottke replied that he was not presenting

parking solutions that evening but was providing early data to help guide future

planning. He stated that the information would help determine how many

parking spaces might be needed and whether the city should pursue

shared-use agreements with private lot owners. He concluded that it was too

early in the process to discuss specific parking arrangements.

Councilmember Renner asked Director Gottke to clarify the parking

arrangement for the Creekside Expansion Project. He said he understood that

the proposed parking garage would replace the existing 50 surface spaces

and that the public would have access to the new garage. Mr. Lamb

responded that the developer planned to “self-park” the project, meaning the

garage would fully accommodate parking for the apartments, hotel, and retail

spaces. He said that additional parking spaces would be available for public

use, primarily on the first level of the garage. Mr. Lamb stated that the

development team did not intend to charge for retail-related parking but would

reserve specific spaces for tenants and restaurants. Councilmember Renner

restated his understanding that while some spaces would be reserved for the

project’s uses, the remaining spaces would be open for the public visiting the

Creekside District. Mr. Lamb confirmed that was correct but noted that the

exact number of available public spaces would depend on final engineering

and design. He emphasized that the project would provide sufficient parking

for all its uses while still allowing for public parking. Councilmember Renner

thanked Mr. Lamb for the clarification but expressed some uncertainty since

final parking numbers were not yet available. He then commended Director

Gottke for his earlier presentation summarizing the development agreement

and stated that his forthcoming questions were intended to ensure that the

processes and expectations were clearly documented in the agreement.

Councilmember Renner said he had been a vocal supporter of the project

and would continue to be unless a critical flaw emerged. He referenced Article

Two of the development agreement, noting that although Director Gottke had

said the project was not a public-private partnership, the agreement itself

used that term. He said he understood the intent but wanted clarification

about how the milestones in the agreement aligned with that structure. Mr.

Lamb asked to address the public-private partnership question.

Councilmember Renner agreed. Mr. Lamb explained that the distinction lay in

the financing structure. He stated that unlike the 2007-2008 Creekside project,

this development did not involve the city backing any private bond issuances.

He said that when discussions with the city began, officials made clear that

such a financial structure would not be considered, and the development

team respected that decision. Mr. Lamb said the current agreement

established a partnership in planning and coordination, not in financial risk. He

referred to Article Twelve of the agreement, which detailed the project’s

incentive structure, including support mechanisms such as the Community

Reinvestment Area (CRA) and other tools necessary to make the project

financially viable. He reiterated that the development team bore full financial

responsibility for the project. Councilmember Renner thanked Mr. Lamb for

the clarification and stated that the explanation was helpful. He then asked

Director Gottke to define “plan approval.” Director Gottke explained that plan

approval referred to the point at which construction permits were issued,

meaning all plans had been submitted, reviewed, and stamped by the

appropriate entities. Mayor Jadwin added that plan approval encompassed the

entire internal review process, including evaluations by the planning

department, engineering, public safety, and parks and recreation, followed by

consideration by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Renner asked

whether that process could realistically occur within six months. Director

Gottke said no, explaining that the six-month period referred only to an

inspection and due diligence phase, not to full plan approval. Councilmember

Renner said he understood and noted that the language in the timeline had

caused some confusion. He then asked when plan approval would actually

occur in relation to the other milestones, particularly the reference to “18

months to substantial completion.” Mayor Jadwin explained that the timeline

reflected maximum timeframes and not a strict sequence of deadlines. She

said the phase one plan approval process alone could take six to twelve

months due to review, submission, and possible variance considerations.

She clarified that the 36-month substantial completion timeline did not begin

until the building permit was issued. Mr. Lamb confirmed that explanation. He

said the development team would first engage engineers, architects, and

environmental professionals to create and submit plans for approval by the

city and state agencies. Once the building permit was issued, the 36-month

clock for substantial completion would begin.

Councilmember Renner noted his understanding that Director Gottke’s office

would manage the development process. He asked Director Gottke if the city

planned to publicize updates on milestone progress. Director Gottke said he

had not yet considered publishing milestone updates but anticipated

significant public engagement related to construction timing, phasing, and

mitigation of public impacts. Councilmember Renner stated that regular

updates would help manage public expectations, noting that public responses

to the project had been mixed. Mayor Jadwin explained that the city was

building a project webpage expected to launch by the end of the week. She

said the city would continue to expand that page as more information became

available. She stated that, similar to the “Facilities for the Future” webpage,

the city intended to provide ongoing updates, post links to public discussions,

and share project information as it progressed. She emphasized the

importance of keeping residents and businesses in the Creekside District

informed about the project’s status and timing. Mayor Jadwin said the

purpose of the webpage was to create a continuous and accessible means of

communication and engagement with the community throughout the project’s

development. Councilmember Renner thanked her and asked whether the

development agreement required quarterly financial statements for the Tax

Increment Financing (TIF) district, the New Community Authority (NCA), or

similar financial reporting mechanisms. He said he wanted to ensure

transparency and public access to financial information. Director Gottke

asked for clarification, confirming that Councilmember Renner was referring

to quarterly financial statements for the NCA and TIF. Councilmember Renner

confirmed that he was. Director Gottke explained that the law required those

financial reports to be issued annually, the TIF reports to the county auditor

through the Tax Incentive Review Council (TIRC) and the NCA reports to its

governing board. Councilmember Renner asked if it would be possible to

provide the reports more frequently, such as quarterly or semiannually.

Director Gottke replied that the Finance Department would need to determine

whether it had the capacity to produce such reports. He added that it would

take some time before either entity generated meaningful financial activity

because of the construction and development timelines. Councilmember

Renner acknowledged the response and said he understood that it was an

issue for the future. He then asked about the project renderings, noting that

the developers had shared images that generated public interest. He asked

whether those renderings would remain accurate, whether they might change

significantly, and whether the proposed skybridge was a confirmed element of

the project. Mr. Lamb stated that the developers had been asked to provide

renderings but had raised concerns about doing so before the Planning

Commission’s review. He said the development team believed the renderings

accurately represented the proposed project and fit well with the area. He

confirmed that the team intended to stay as close to the renderings as the

Planning Commission process would allow. Mr. Lamb said the developers

would work with the Planning Commission to determine the best final design

for the community and confirmed that the proposal included the bridge

feature.

Councilmember Renner stated that a constituent had emailed him questions

about the Creekside Expansion Project. He first asked about the demolition

grant funding, specifically who would pay the remaining costs if the grant did

not fully cover demolition expenses. Mayor Jadwin explained that the timing of

the agreement determined how demolition would proceed. She said the intent

was for the developer to handle demolition so that the developer could control

the existing infrastructure and plan appropriately for future construction. She

stated that the developer had requested to perform the demolition, would

absorb the costs, and would later be reimbursed with the grant funds. She

clarified that if the development agreement did not pass and the city had to

complete the demolition independently to use the grant, the city’s

responsibilities would differ. She noted that this issue related to the next item

on the meeting agenda. Councilmember Renner thanked the mayor for the

clarification and asked the second question, regarding the property’s

valuation. He asked if the project would remain viable if the developer paid the

full market value of approximately $5 million for the land, or if it was only

feasible with the proposed $100 transfer. Mr. Lamb stated that the project

would not be viable if the developer paid $5 million for the land. He added that

the property’s market value was not actually $5 million under current market

conditions. Councilmember Renner asked Mr. Lamb to elaborate. Mr. Lamb

explained that market value depended on what a buyer would be willing to pay

to develop the site. He stated that, based on the site’s development

challenges and market realities, no developer would pay $5 million for the

property. He said that his team also could not afford that cost and still finance

the project successfully.

Councilmember Schnetzer addressed Mr. Gottke regarding the need for

clarity on what would make the Council comfortable moving forward with the

proposed project. He stated that a full review by the City Attorney’s Office was

necessary before advancing the project. He emphasized that the review

should thoroughly evaluate all potential risks to the City, including how

unforeseen issues, such as the discovery of unaccounted-for underground

infrastructure after construction begins, would be handled. Councilmember

Schnetzer expressed concern about ensuring that the City’s financial risk

would be capped, noting that although the arrangement was not a financial

partnership, it still involved shared responsibilities as outlined in the

development agreement. He stated that before a vote could reasonably occur,

the City Attorney’s Office needed to complete a comprehensive review of all

legal and financial risks. Councilmember Schnetzer continued by sharing

several questions he had received from members of the public. He explained

that these questions came from a broad range of residents and that clear

answers would help the public better understand what to expect from the

project. He first raised a question related to the separation of Phase One and

Phase Two of the project, referencing a similar inquiry from Councilmember

McGregor. He asked whether it was possible to separate the two phases. Mr.

Lamb responded that, from a development agreement standpoint, separation

was not possible because the developers needed to understand the full

scope of the project, especially regarding financing. Councilmember

Schnetzer thanked Mr. Lamb for the clarification and then asked about a

specific parcel within Phase Two that was not under the developer’s control.

He inquired about the plan or vision for resolving the issue, including the

potential cost and who would bear it. Mr. Lamb explained that the parcel in

question was privately owned and that he could not speak to the ability to

acquire it. He stated that outreach efforts had been made to the property

owner, but no response had been received. Councilmember Schnetzer

acknowledged the response and reiterated that the matter should be reviewed

in the context of the development agreement. He noted that if acquiring the

parcel represented another contingency or potential cost to the City, that

information needed to be clearly understood. He then turned to the topic of

parking, noting that it had been a recurring concern from the public. He asked

whether the development team had considered adding on-street parking

around the Phase Two parcels to offset the loss of 50 spaces from the

surface lot. He cited angled on-street parking, such as that found on North

High Street, as an example and asked whether such an option might be

feasible within the scope of the project. Mr. Lamb responded that the

development team was open to working with the City to explore parking

options but explained that without final engineering plans, he could not provide

a specific answer. Councilmember Schnetzer thanked him for the response

and moved to his final question concerning demolition. He noted his

understanding that the existing grant would not cover demolition for all parcels

and asked whether the remaining demolition costs would fall to the City or the

developer. Mr. Lamb replied that, during discussions with the City and

throughout the structuring of the development agreement, the developers had

treated the grant funds as the sole financial contribution toward demolition. He

stated that the developers did not expect the City to cover additional

demolition costs. He added that this plan depended on the project receiving

approval within the necessary timeframe to allow demolition to occur under

the grant’s terms. Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Mr. Lamb and

concluded his remarks.

President Bowers thanked everyone for their time and for the additional

information presented, particularly regarding parking. She clarified that the

document before Council was a draft development agreement and confirmed

with Director Gottke that redlined versions were still being exchanged.

Director Gottke confirmed this. President Bowers then asked whether Council

had received a final version of the development agreement, and Mr. Lamb

confirmed that it had not. President Bowers stated that she previously noted a

request for clarification on what additional materials were needed for

Council’s review. She acknowledged that Mr. Gottke was preparing a fiscal

impact analysis and clear returns on investment for Council to evaluate. She

expressed appreciation for that work and noted that those items remained

necessary for her review. She added that she and Mr. Lamb had recently held

a productive conversation about breaking down Phase One into two

subphases, Phase 1A and Phase 1B, and asked him to share more details

with the Council. Mr. Lamb explained that Phase One consisted of two main

components located on Mill Street, one on the west side and one on the east

side. Construction would begin first on the west side building while

simultaneously starting the parking garage on the east side. The garage

would provide on-site parking to support the Phase One apartment building on

the west side once it became available. Upon completion of the garage, the

development team would begin the west side apartment, retail, and hotel

project, which would connect to the existing garage to supply parking for

those uses. Mr. Lamb stated that construction on both sides would begin at

roughly the same time to support each other from a development standpoint,

with the west side creek-side building coming online first and the east side

continuing after the garage was completed. President Bowers recalled that,

during earlier discussions, there had been mention of using the city lot for

construction traffic during Phase One. She asked whether that would still be

necessary based on the updated timeline and phasing. Mr. Lamb confirmed

that the development team intended to use the lot behind the east side Phase

One property, accessible from the alleyway, as a laydown and construction

staging area. He explained that the team had initially discussed acquiring the

lot as part of the development agreement but later agreed that permanent

ownership was not essential. However, temporary use during construction

would still be required. He stated that the team planned to vacate the site as

soon as possible after construction. President Bowers asked for clarification

regarding which lot Director Gottke had been referencing on the map. Director

Gottke confirmed that his cursor was positioned over the lot directly east of

Phase One, not the city-owned lot identified in Phase Two. He explained that

the lot in question was owned by the Community Improvement Corporation

(CIC), not the City. President Bowers asked who currently used the

CIC-owned lot. Mr. Gottke responded that no one was currently using it.

Councilmember McGregor stated that, to her understanding, the lot was

included among the parcels to be transferred in the development agreement.

Director Gottke disagreed, and Mayor Jadwin noted that everyone would need

to verify which parcels were included. Councilmember McGregor stated that

she had reviewed the parcels and believed the lot was indeed included. Mr.

Lamb clarified that the lot had originally been part of the development

agreement draft but that updates were being made to reflect parcel

adjustments. He explained that one parcel had been swapped for another on

the Phase Two site, and the next round of draft agreements would reflect

those changes. Councilmember McGregor thanked him for the clarification.

President Bowers reiterated her understanding that the city-owned lot directly

north of The Sanctuary would be used for some construction-related activity.

Mr. Lamb responded that the development team did not intend to place heavy

equipment on that lot. He said it might serve as overflow parking for

construction workers but would not be closed off during the construction

period. He added that the team would use the lot only as general public

parking, consistent with normal public use. President Bowers agreed and

suggested that, if the City planned to maintain control over the lot during the

18-month construction period, construction use should be limited to no more

than 20 to 25 spaces. She emphasized the importance of setting accurate

expectations for the community so that residents would continue to have

access to the lot during construction. Mayor Jadwin added that the nearby

CIC lot, which contained about 20 spaces, and the spaces along the Kumon

building could help accommodate parking needs during the construction

period without issue.

President Bowers thanked Mayor Jadwin for her comments and referred back

to her notes. She stated that, in general, she felt excited about the project

overall. She expressed enthusiasm about the partnership with Connect and

Benson Capital and said the project would, as Director Gottke had explained

in previous presentations, help fill several gaps and address certain needs

within the district. She acknowledged that while the project would not serve as

a complete solution to all issues, it represented meaningful progress.

President Bowers said she looked forward to completing the review of the

development agreement and emphasized the importance of conducting

thorough due diligence to ensure that what was being presented was fully

vetted. She stated that expectations needed to align with what would occur to

the best of everyone’s ability. She referenced a recent phrase used by

Director Gottke about “building confidence within the public,” noting that this

reflected the Council’s and administration’s shared goal of ensuring

transparency and accountability. She said the City aimed to deliver a great

product and a positive outcome, and she recognized the administration’s

diligent work toward that effort. She also stated that the Council had its own

obligation to do the same and expressed trust that Connect and Benson

Capital were equally committed to that process. Before concluding her

remarks, President Bowers stated that she had not yet had an opportunity to

review the development agreement or the fiscal impact analysis. While she

appreciated the extensive effort that went into the evening’s presentation, she

said she would not feel prepared to move forward with a vote on October 20.

She explained that she would need additional time to thoroughly review and

vet the development agreement and wanted to ensure that the City Attorney

also had adequate time to review the revised drafts and redlines. President

Bowers concluded by expressing her expectation that the vote be postponed.

She suggested that Council could reassess progress and discuss a new

date for consideration at the next meeting, reiterating that she would not be

ready to vote the following week.

Councilmember Padova stated that some of her questions had already been

answered but that she wished to ask for additional clarification. She

confirmed her understanding that the Community Improvement Corporation

(CIC)-owned parking spaces, not public spaces, would not be conveyed and

that the number of spaces in question was approximately twenty. Mayor

Jadwin confirmed that there were about twenty spaces in the CIC lot.

Councilmember Padova asked whether the CIC would continue to hold

ownership of those spaces or if they might eventually return to City

ownership. Mayor Jadwin referred to earlier comments from Director Gottke

about the parking utilization assessment. She explained that the City was

focused on determining current parking needs, availability, and usage before

identifying solutions. She stated that one potential solution could involve

transferring the lot to the City or retaining CIC ownership, but that no decision

had been made. She reiterated that the City first needed to understand the

extent of the parking impact before considering any recommended solutions.

Councilmember Padova agreed that the explanation made sense based on

the information presented. She said that once the project progressed further,

the City could better determine how to use that space. She noted that she

shared her colleagues’ parking concerns but added that the proposed

boutique hotel could help balance parking demand, as guests attending

nearby events, such as weddings at The Sanctuary, might choose to stay

overnight. She said that this could reduce competition for public parking

during events. Councilmember Padova expressed a particular concern about

parking availability for Marlow’s, noting that the restaurant relied heavily on

carryout orders. She stated that customers likely would not want to park in a

garage and walk around the block to pick up food. She asked whether the

parking spots located on the corner near Marlow’s were public or privately

owned. Mayor Jadwin responded that the spaces were public street parking

and confirmed that they would remain as such. Councilmember Padova

asked whether the City could designate a few of those public spaces for

Marlow’s carryout customers. Mayor Jadwin expressed uncertainty as to

whether the City could permanently reserve public parking spaces for

individual businesses. She noted that several businesses along High Street

had requested reserved spaces in the past, but doing so could create issues.

She added that temporary accommodations might be possible for special

events but that any permanent designation would require further legal review.

Councilmember Padova said she understood and only wanted to explore

what options might exist to help Marlow’s maintain business. She praised the

restaurant for building a strong clientele and contributing positively to the

community. She then asked to return to the presentation slide outlining the

project’s sequence of events. She said she had been under the impression

that the land would be conveyed after the developer received all necessary

approvals from the Planning Commission but observed that the agreement

appeared to convey land earlier in the process. Director Gottke clarified that

the conveyance of the Phase One parcels would occur within thirty days after

the end of the inspection period. Councilmember Padova asked what would

happen if the Planning Commission did not approve the design after the land

was conveyed. Mr. Lamb stated that the developer would be obligated to

transfer the land back to the City if the project did not proceed.

Councilmember Padova said that was her understanding and thanked him for

confirming it. She then asked whether the results from public engagement

events, such as the Creekside event where residents used mobile devices to

answer questions, would be shared with Council beyond the information

presented on the display boards that evening. Mayor Jadwin said the City had

not yet received that data but would share it once available. She stated that

Director Vollmer had been coordinating with Planning NEXT on the matter and

invited her to speak to the timeline. Director Vollmer explained that the

engagement event had taken place the previous Thursday and that Planning

NEXT had not yet aggregated the results. She confirmed that the data points

collected through the Mentimeter survey and display boards were identical

and said the City would provide Council with the compiled information once

finalized. Councilmember Padova asked whether the data would be available

before Council voted on the development agreement. Vollmer said she was

unsure when the vote would occur but stated that she could work with

Planning NEXT to provide the results within a week or so. Councilmember

Padova thanked her and moved to her final question regarding traffic. She

said that the public continued to express concern about traffic impacts. She

noted that a previous traffic study had informed the Creekside redevelopment

plan and asked whether the City or the developer would be responsible for

any new infrastructure, such as a roundabout, if future traffic studies

recommended substantial changes. Mayor Jadwin said it was too early to

determine potential traffic impacts or necessary mitigation measures. She

reminded Council that U.S. Route 62 ran through the area and that any traffic

changes would require coordination among multiple jurisdictions. She noted

that former County Engineer Cornell Robertson was present and could attest

to the complexities of such efforts. She stated that any future traffic solutions

would involve long-term discussions among several entities. Councilmember

Padova thanked everyone for their time and responses. She stated that she

supported the project and agreed with her colleagues that it represented the

right combination of elements for the community. She said the current

Creekside District remained incomplete, and while this project would not fully

complete it, it would enhance the area and open new opportunities for future

growth once completed. She concluded by thanking everyone involved.

Councilmember Jones thanked everyone involved in the project, noting that it

represented an important moment for the community. She expressed

appreciation for the continued work and collaboration among all parties.

Councilmember Jones asked for clarification regarding the demolition of the

CIC-owned properties. She inquired whether the transfer or sale of the land

would need to occur before Connect could proceed with demolition. Mr. Lamb

explained that Connect would not need to complete the property transfer

before beginning demolition but would require the development agreement to

be approved first. He stated that Connect was a vertically integrated company

with its own general contracting arm, Connect Construction, which would

enter into an agreement with the CIC to carry out the demolition work on the

designated buildings. Councilmember Jones confirmed her understanding

that the CIC would retain ownership of the property until its official transfer

and asked whether the CIC would remain responsible for any carrying costs

during that period. Mr. Lamb confirmed that the CIC would remain responsible

for such costs because Connect would not yet own the property.

Councilmember Jones then asked whether the land would be reassessed

after the buildings were demolished so the CIC would not continue paying

taxes on structures that no longer existed. Director Gottke explained that a

form would be filed with the county auditor notifying them of the demolition,

which would trigger a reassessment of the property. Councilmember Jones

thanked him and raised one final question. She expressed appreciation for

Connect’s investment in the community and for the provisions in the

development agreement outlining commitments such as student internships

and event support over ten years. However, she said that after reviewing the

agreement, she did not see clear contingencies or accountability measures to

ensure that those commitments would occur. She asked how the City could

ensure that the developer would follow through on those obligations. Mr. Lamb

explained that Connect could not begin detailed discussions with the school

district or other entities until the development agreement was formally

authorized. He said that if Connect failed to fulfill the commitments outlined in

the agreement, it would constitute a breach of contract with the City, which

would provide an enforcement mechanism. He added that similar terms had

been included in Connect’s agreement with the City of Marysville, where the

company had met multiple times with the local school district to launch its

internship program. He stated that Connect planned to begin construction on

that project early next year, with internships starting shortly thereafter or by

the following school year, depending on the district’s preference. He noted

that, at one of the community events in the current project area, he had met

several school representatives who would oversee the internship program

and said he looked forward to developing that partnership further.

Councilmember Jones thanked Mr. Lamb for the clarification and said she

had no further questions.

Councilmember McGregor stated that she had two follow-up questions after

reviewing the development agreement. She referred to section 6.1.1 and

expressed concern about the language granting the developer the right to sell

or lease the property. She asked for clarification on that provision. Mr. Lamb

explained that once the property transferred to the developer and construction

began, Connect would need to retain the right to sell or lease the property in

order to establish separate legal entities for ownership and development

purposes. He said the developer was contractually obligated to proceed with

the general development as outlined in the agreement. He further clarified that

the agreement before Council involved two separate development firms, each

of which would create specific entities to hold and develop the property in

accordance with the development agreement. He said that retaining the ability

to transfer the property into those entities was a necessary part of the

process. Mayor Jadwin asked whether that was standard business practice.

Mr. Lamb confirmed that it was. He said Connect currently operated between

97 and 102 limited liability companies (LLCs) under its development umbrella,

and such structuring was typical in large-scale real estate projects.

Councilmember McGregor acknowledged the response and indicated the

provision had initially caused some concern. She then asked about the Tax

Increment Financing (TIF) arrangement. She questioned whether the City

could include Mifflin Township in the TIF distribution because the taller

buildings in the project might require the township to purchase special fire

equipment to serve them. She asked if Mifflin could be exempted from having

its tax revenue diverted into the TIF, similar to the way schools had been

excluded in the Creekside TIF. Director Gottke responded that if Mifflin

Township believed it was entitled to a portion of the TIF revenue, it could

make that request to the City. He said the City would not proactively allocate

funds without such a request. Councilmember McGregor stated that she was

making the request herself. Director Gottke explained that TIF funds function

best when concentrated rather than divided among multiple entities. He

reminded Council that the $5 million loan the City had agreed to pay off for the

Community Improvement Corporation would be repaid using these same

revenue sources. He said that spreading TIF funds too thinly would slow

repayment to the City. He reiterated that if Mifflin Township wanted funds, it

could formally request them.

President Bowers clarified that Councilmember McGregor’s question related

to whether the City could choose to exclude Mifflin Township’s portion of

property taxes from being redirected into the TIF, just as school property

taxes were not included. She said Council would need to know both the value

of the property taxes that would have gone to Mifflin Township and whether

exclusion was legally possible. She asked that staff return with that

information. Director Gottke noted that the City had a separate compensation

agreement with the schools in exchange for expedited processes and their

cooperation on incentive programs, including TIFs. He stated that no such

compensation agreement existed with Mifflin Township. Councilmember

McGregor recalled that during the Creekside TIF process, Mifflin Township

had been excluded because the department needed to purchase specialized

fire equipment to reach four-story buildings. She said the current project

would include a seven-story building, creating similar needs. She added that if

Mifflin Township had to make the formal request for consideration, she would

contact them directly to encourage them to do so. Mayor Jadwin

acknowledged her concern and said the City would need to understand what

such an arrangement might look like and whether it could be implemented.

Vice President Weaver said that, from his perspective, it might be simpler to

establish a separate standalone agreement with Mifflin Township rather than

attempting to divert a portion of the TIF revenue stream on an ongoing basis.

He noted that this approach would be more practical from an administrative

standpoint.

City Attorney Tamilarasan addressed the Council to clarify several legal

points discussed during the meeting. She began by referencing

Councilmember McGregor’s earlier question about Section 6.1.1 of the

development agreement, which concerned the developer’s right to sell, lease,

or market the property. Attorney Tamilarasan explained that Section 6.2 of the

agreement contained a restriction on assignment or transferability. She stated

that the developer could not assign or transfer the agreement to anyone other

than an affiliate entity created for development purposes without the City’s

express approval. She noted that while the creation of special-purpose

entities was standard practice in development projects, this provision

provided an additional safeguard for the City by prohibiting the sale to

unrelated third parties without consent. Attorney Tamilarasan then addressed

Councilmember Schnetzer’s earlier comments regarding contingency

planning and the City’s potential exposure. She explained that her role

included ensuring that proper procedures were followed and that all

components of the agreement aligned legally and procedurally. She stated

that, for example, the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) legislation would be

handled separately from the development agreement. She clarified that while

the current draft of the agreement referenced the TIF as a non-school TIF,

any additional details or decisions about what would be included or excluded

from the TIF would occur later, during the legislative process establishing it.

She also addressed Councilmember McGregor’s earlier question about the

two city-owned lots mentioned in the development agreement. Attorney

Tamilarasan stated that those properties would need to be conveyed to the

Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) in order for them to be included

in the development deal. She noted that although discussions and revisions to

the agreement were ongoing, the current draft listed those parcels as

CIC-controlled, which they were not at that time. She explained that legislation

would need to come before Council authorizing the transfer of those parcels

to the CIC before they could be conveyed to the developer. Whether that

transfer occurred before or after the finalization of the development

agreement would depend on how the language was negotiated in the final

version. Councilmember McGregor sought to confirm her understanding on

whether the City would have to transfer the lots to the CIC before those

parcels could be included in the development agreement. Attorney

Tamilarasan noted that while the specific timing remained under negotiation,

the conveyance would be required at some point to effectuate the agreement.

Councilmember McGregor thanked Attorney Tamilarasan and thanked the

developers for their work on the project. She stated that she supported Phase

One of the development but did not support Phase Two and had no further

comments.

Vice President Weaver stated that he looked forward to continued

engagement and outreach with the community regarding the project. He

noted that the development would likely be one of the largest projects

undertaken during many Councilmembers’ tenures and emphasized the

importance of proactive public communication. He acknowledged that

outreach efforts had already begun and encouraged maintaining transparency

and consistent updates to the community. Vice President Weaver said he

looked forward to reviewing the consultant’s findings and launching the project

website to provide residents with access to information and updates. He then

asked Mr. Lamb to discuss the measures Connect had used in other projects

to mitigate construction impacts on surrounding businesses, noting concerns

raised by current Creekside business owners.

Mr. Lamb explained that Connect had multiple projects underway in urban

areas, including downtown Springfield and near the Trolley site off Broad

Street. He said the company had engaged surrounding property owners

before construction began, provided contact information, and established

communication channels so nearby business owners could reach the

construction team if issues arose. He stated that Connect’s use of

industrialized building units reduced the number of on-site workers compared

to traditional construction, which minimized parking congestion, noise, and

waste. He noted that industrialized units also allowed Connect to complete

construction more quickly, reducing the time heavy equipment remained in

the area. He added that Connect would apply the same proactive

communication and mitigation strategies in this project to minimize impacts

on nearby property owners and businesses.

Councilmember Jones asked whether an estimated timeline existed for

receiving the revised development agreement, particularly if the initial goal had

been to hold a vote the following Monday. Mayor Jadwin responded that,

based on President Bowers’ earlier comments, Council would not hold a vote

on Monday. She asked when Council could expect to receive the redlined

version of the development agreement from all parties and requested that it

be provided by the end of the week so Council could review it in preparation

for discussion at the Committee of the Whole meeting on October 27, 2025.

She further asked Council to establish a timeline for when it anticipated taking

a vote, noting that another agenda item scheduled to follow this discussion

would also be affected by that decision.

President Bowers acknowledged the sensitive timeline the Council faced and

stated that she understood the preference to use Connect for the demolition

work. She said she was willing to advance the process at a reasonable pace

but emphasized that, without a final development agreement, it was difficult to

determine whether a vote could occur on November 3, November 10, or

November 17. Mayor Jadwin noted that November 10 would not be possible

because it coincided with the Committee of the Whole meeting. President

Bowers stated that, procedurally, Council could call a special meeting and

designate November 10 as the date for the ordinance to move forward,

though she was uncertain whether that would be feasible. Mayor Jadwin

asked if it was realistic to have a finalized redlined version of the development

agreement by the end of the week, addressing the question to the City

Attorney, the development team, Director Gottke, and Mr. Lamb. Mr. Lamb

confirmed that it was possible from the developers’ side. City Attorney

Tamilarasan and Director Gottke also agreed. Mayor Jadwin stated that if all

parties could provide the redlined agreement, it should be shared with Council

in anticipation of the next Committee meeting and distributed early enough for

members to review in advance. President Bowers agreed.

Mayor Jadwin said that, regarding timelines, she wanted to ensure that

feedback from community conversations and roundtable discussions,

particularly those President Bowers had held, was incorporated into the

overall process. She suggested combining all feedback to ensure that

community input was fully captured and shared. President Bowers agreed

and thanked her.

Councilmember Padova asked Connect whether the project remained on a

timeline that required Council approval in order for demolition to be completed

by the end of the year. Mr. Lamb responded that he would need to consult

with Connect’s construction and engineering teams. He said that the loss of

even a week was significant given the short timeframe and potential weather

impacts at this time of year. He requested permission to return by

Wednesday morning to provide an update to the administration.

Vice President Weaver stated that Council would plan to bring the item back

to the Committee on October 27, 2025 for further review.

Recommendation: Postponement of Second Reading to a Date Certain on

Regular Agenda on 10/20/2025; Further Discussion in Committee of the Whole

Scheduled 10/27/2025.

ORD-0046-2025

A N

O R D I N A N C E

A U T H O R I Z I N G

S U P P L E M E N T A L

General

APPROPRIATIONS; AND WAIVING SECOND READING

Fund Development Contract Services for the Gahanna Community

Improvement Corporation

Vice President Weaver announced a brief recess. The Committee stood in

recess at 8:05 PM.

The Committee reconvened from recess at 8:10 PM and proceeded with the

remaining items of business.

Director of Economic Development Jeff Gottke stated that, following the

earlier discussion, the administration sought to expedite the process by

implementing a contingency plan to ensure the demolition occurred in a timely

manner. He explained that Plan A involved completing the development

agreement so that demolition could begin and finish by December 31, 2025.

Plan B, which he described as a longshot, involved requesting a short-term

extension from the Department of Development into February or March of

2026. Plan C, the current proposal, served as a protective measure to ensure

the project could proceed and the grant funds could be utilized. He noted that

if Plan C became necessary and the appropriation were used, the

Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) would not retain the grant funds,

and the money would return to the City, leaving the City held harmless in the

transaction.

President Bowers asked whether an agreement would be executed between

the City and the CIC to transfer the money and ensure its reimbursement to

the City. She asked when that agreement could be presented. Mayor Jadwin

stated that the timing would depend on Council’s schedule for voting on the

development agreement and determining whether the funds were necessary.

She said the administration would bring the agreement forward if needed.

President Bowers asked whether the ordinance needed to advance to first

reading the following week. Mayor Jadwin confirmed that it did. She said the

item was presented as a precaution to ensure funds were appropriated in

case they became necessary, explaining that waiting until after a vote on the

development agreement would be too late. President Bowers asked how the

City could accomplish the appropriation efficiently, with the understanding that

the funds would be reimbursed. Senior Director of Operations Kevin Schultz

stated that, similar to the City’s annual $5 million allocation to the CIC, this

expenditure would qualify under the existing annual agreement. He said the

City would need to coordinate the reimbursement details with the Finance

Department but did not foresee an issue. He explained that the City might

need a legal mechanism to hold the CIC accountable for repayment, though

the supplemental appropriation itself would be covered under the existing

agreement. He noted that the timing would not allow for a new ordinance

establishing a separate agreement unless Council introduced it at the table on

Monday for passage with an emergency and waiver, which would be the only

way to meet the required timeline. Mayor Jadwin agreed. President Bowers

clarified that the City typically provided a $300,000 annual allocation to the CIC

and asked if the proposed transfer would align with that agreement. Mayor

Jadwin confirmed that it would, explaining that this would serve as another

appropriation under the existing agreement. She added that if the City

transferred the funds and the CIC later received grant dollars, those funds

would need to return to the City. She said the administration could bring a

separate reimbursement agreement on Monday if needed. President Bowers

agreed that the proposal addressed her concern. Director Schultz noted that

multiple parties would need to approve the arrangement, including the City

Attorney and CIC attorneys, but confirmed that the mechanism could proceed

concurrently with the supplemental appropriation. President Bowers

suggested including language in the ordinance to specify that the transfer

would be reimbursable. Director Schultz clarified that the item was a

resolution for supplemental appropriations, which required only one reading.

Mayor Jadwin stated that the suggested reimbursement language should be

added to the resolution. President Bowers noted that the legislation appeared

before Council as an ordinance with a waiver. Mayor Jadwin stated she

believed it was a resolution for authorizing supplemental appropriations. Vice

President Weaver confirmed that it was listed as an ordinance with a waiver

requested. Director Schultz acknowledged the clarification and explained that,

because it was a supplemental appropriation, it required only one reading and

did not carry a 30-day waiting period. Mayor Jadwin asked if the amendment

language could be added. President Bowers confirmed that the language

could be amended before the ordinance came forward for first reading. Vice

President Weaver stated that the ordinance would appear on the regular

agenda for a vote with the waiver requested. City Attorney Tamilarasan noted

that the existing contract with the CIC would expire on December 31, 2025,

and stated that any reimbursement obligations extending beyond that date

should be addressed separately. Mayor Jadwin stated that the new CIC

agreement would come forward before the end of the year. City Attorney

Tamilarasan confirmed that the reimbursement provision could be included in

either the new agreement or a separate one. Vice President Weaver

concluded that the ordinance would appear on the regular agenda for the

following week and thanked everyone for their input.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading with Waiver of Second Reading

and Adoption on Regular Agenda on 10/20/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING:

MT-0013-2025

A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GAHANNA BIDDING FOR THE

CLOTTS ROAD (SA-1105) AND SERRAN DRIVE (SA-1099)

SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc stated that he had seven items for

Council’s consideration. He explained that the first six items were grouped in

pairs, which he would present two at a time. He said the first two items

related to sanitary sewer improvements at Serran Drive and on Clotts Road

near Middle School East and Riva Ridge. He requested permission to bid and

acceptance of an access easement to the sewer located at the rear lot of 135

Serran Drive. He then paused to invite questions.

Vice President Weaver, seeing no questions, stated that Council would place

the item on the consent agenda.

Recommendation: Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/20/2025.

ORD-0045-2025

ORDINANCE

ACCEPTING

ACCESS

EASEMENT

AGREEMENT FOR 135 SERRAN DRIVE TO PROVIDE CITY ACCESS

TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on

10/20/2025; Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 11/3/2025.

ORD-0047-2025

AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON

PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 490 AND 495 CRESCENT CIRCLE,

PARCEL IDS 025-014183 AND 025-014182

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc stated that the next two items

concerned the Crescent development located off Tech Center Drive, just

north of the new Sheetz fueling station. He explained that a sanitary sewer

had been installed as part of the development and had passed all inspections.

The project had entered its punch list warranty period. He added that the

items included the conveyance of a sanitary sewer easement that required

Council approval for recording.

Vice President Weaver asked if there were any questions regarding the

items. Seeing none, he stated that Council would place them on the consent

agenda.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on

10/20/2025; Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 11/3/2025.

ORD-0048-2025

RES-0048-2025

AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER

INFRASTRUCTURE

(SA-1113)

LOCATED

ALONG

CRESCENT

CIRCLE

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on

10/20/2025; Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 11/3/2025.

A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RES-0013-2025, THE 2026 SIDEWALK

MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AREA RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY, TO

REVISE THE 2026 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AREA

FOR THE CITY OF GAHANNA

Director of Engineering Tom Komlanc stated that items five and six related to

the City’s sidewalk program. He explained that the administration proposed an

amendment to the program area for the 2026 sidewalk program. He said the

amendment was necessary because the City anticipated coordinating with

the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) on an urban paving project in

2027. In preparation for that project, the City needed to advance work on

Hamilton Road and Granville Street, including curb, gutter, ADA, and sidewalk

improvements. He noted that funds would be reallocated from other program

areas to cover the work not included in the ODOT paving project. He said the

City would later revisit the streets originally scheduled for 2027 or 2028 once

funding allowed.

Vice President Weaver asked whether the amendment would affect the

sidewalk program timeline for the areas being deferred. Director Komlanc

confirmed that it would. He said the streets removed from the 2026 program

would shift to the 2027 or 2028 schedule. He explained that residents on

those streets would receive notice when the work was rescheduled.

President Bowers clarified that the 2026 sidewalk maintenance program,

which Council had approved in March, identified approximately 115 affected

parcels. Director Komlanc stated that the City also maintained a lookback

program that tracked maintenance needs on previously improved streets. He

said the City planned to include work on Hamilton Road and Granville Street

and to replace a longer section of Hines Road, which shared similar

pavement conditions. He explained that the adjustment aligned with budget

expectations and the City’s historic spending patterns for the sidewalk

program. President Bowers asked whether about 30 parcels had been

identified on Hines Road and confirmed that the lookback program would

remain unchanged. She also asked whether the urban paving program

included a cost share from ODOT. Director Komlanc confirmed that the City

would receive cost-sharing assistance from ODOT for paving activities on

Hamilton Road and Granville Street, including pavement markings. President

Bowers asked what percentage ODOT would contribute and whether it

represented a significant portion of the total cost. Director Komlanc stated

that ODOT’s contribution was significant, although he did not recall the exact

cost per lane mile at which the reimbursement was capped. He noted that the

partnership provided substantial savings compared to fully funding the project

locally. President Bowers stated that she wanted to ensure the City continued

to serve as many residents and homeowners as possible through the

sidewalk program, noting its benefits compared to code enforcement. She

said she appreciated the inclusion of Hamilton Road and Granville Street in

the revised plan. Director Komlanc stated that, through the City’s Capital

Improvement Plan, staff continued to address street maintenance and

reconstruction needs. He said the City aimed to make steady progress on

corrective actions and ADA compliance through planned investments in 2027,

2028, 2029, and 2030.

Councilmember Jones stated that the 2026 sidewalk homeowners had not

yet been notified. Director Komlanc confirmed this. Councilmember Jones

then asked when the notifications would take place. Director Komlanc

explained that the department was finalizing the program so they could notify

homeowners and give them the opportunity to perform the work themselves if

they chose to opt out. He noted that as time progressed toward the winter

months, the department risked bidding the project without allowing as much

time as desired for homeowners in the program area.

Councilmember Schnetzer clarified that two different programs were running

concurrently, the lookback program and the annual sidewalk maintenance

program. He stated that it appeared funds from the annual sidewalk

maintenance program were being redirected to take advantage of an

unexpected opportunity and asked if that was correct. Director Komlanc

confirmed that it was. Councilmember Schnetzer referred to Vice President

Weaver’s earlier comments about the sidewalk program following the street

maintenance program and asked what would happen to Caroway Boulevard,

Crystal Cay, Moorfield Drive, Pond Hollow Lane, and Woodside Meadow

Place. He asked how the city would catch up on those areas. Director

Komlanc responded that the department would look at programming for years

2027 and 2028, reviewing pavement condition ratings and available capital

appropriations for 2027 through 2029. Based on those ratings, the department

would allocate which streets would receive maintenance. Councilmember

Schnetzer stated that he assumed the city anticipated a set amount of

funding each year for street maintenance, street rebuilds, and sidewalk

maintenance. He questioned how the city would adjust if a year of work were

skipped. Director Komlanc explained that by advancing the work in 2026, the

city might otherwise have used that funding in 2027 to complete work on

Hamilton Road, Granville Street, and Hines Road. He described it as

essentially a switch in scheduling, with Hamilton Road being advanced to

ensure right-of-way clearance and compliance with ODOT requirements.

Councilmember Schnetzer stated that the clarification made sense and noted

that the city was simply switching the timing of the work.

Councilmember Padova asked for confirmation that under the Urban Paving

Program, the city would still pay 50% of the cost for residential properties.

Director Komlanc confirmed that this was correct.

Vice President Weaver asked if there was any further discussion on the two

items. Hearing none, he stated that the items would be placed on the consent

agenda.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/20/2025.

RES-0049-2025

MT-0014-2025

RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO REPAIR

AND/OR REPLACE SIDEWALKS IN THE 2026 URBAN PAVING

SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AREA FOR THE CITY OF

GAHANNA

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/20/2025.

A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GAHANNA BIDDING FOR THE

WHITE SWAN COURT & EMBASSY COURT STREET REBUILD AND

WATERLINE REPLACEMENT (ST-1120)

Director Komlanc stated that the final item was a request for permission to

bid the White Swan and Embassy project, which included waterline

replacement, street reconstruction, and related sidewalk work.

Vice President Weaver asked if there was any discussion on the item.

Hearing none, he requested consent agenda for this item as well.

Recommendation: Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/20/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION:

ORD-0044-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN

EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COLUMBIA GAS OF OHIO, INC., TO

PROVIDE NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO THE CELL TOWER

LOCATED AT LOWER MCCORKLE PARK

Stephania Ferrell, Director of Parks and Recreation, introduced the first item

related to a request for an easement from Columbia Gas of Ohio. She

explained that the easement would provide service to an emergency

generator at an existing cell tower located at Lower McCorkle Park. Ferrell

stated that the easement would align with the existing service road currently

in place. She requested an ordinance authorizing the mayor to enter into an

easement agreement with Columbia Gas of Ohio.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked whether the proposed easement would

affect the city’s ability to repurpose the land in the future, as the area had

previously been identified for possible redevelopment. Ferrell responded that it

would not. She noted that an existing AEP easement already aligned within

the same parcel and that the proposed easement would not disqualify any

future use.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on

10/20/2025; Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 11/3/2025.

RES-0045-2025

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SUBMIT AN

APPLICATION TO THE MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING

COMMISSION (MORPC) FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

(FTA) SECTION 5310 FUNDING UNDER THE ENHANCED MOBILITY

FOR OLDER ADULTS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

PROGRAM

Director Ferrell presented the second item, a resolution of authority to apply

for funding hosted through MORPC. She explained that the funding

opportunity was offered under the Federal Transit Administration Section

5310 program, which supports enhanced mobility for older adults and

individuals with disabilities. Ferrell stated that, if awarded, the funds would be

used to host a pilot program to supplement transportation for Senior Center

members. She noted that the application required a resolution of authority for

submission and requested Council’s approval of that resolution.

Vice President Weaver expressed his enthusiasm for the proposal, stating

that he was excited to see the initiative moving forward and thanked Ferrell for

bringing it to Council.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether the pilot program would provide

transportation beyond trips to and from the Senior Center. Ferrell replied that

the program would serve only transportation to and from the Senior Center.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/20/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:

RES-0050-2025

A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE CITY'S APPLICATION FOR

STATE CAPITAL GRANT FUNDING FOR THE CREEKSIDE PLAZA

AND FLOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Kevin Schultz, Senior Director of Operations, reported that the administration

was preparing an application to state legislators for the 2026-2027 State

Capital Budget. He explained that the city planned to submit the Creekside

Plaza and Flood Mitigation Project for potential funding consideration. Schultz

stated that state officials had indicated a resolution of support from City

Council would strengthen the application. He requested that Council approve

a resolution to accompany the submission.

Councilmember Padova asked how the request aligned with prior approvals,

noting that Council had not yet approved the remainder of the project for

FEMA-related improvements. Schultz clarified that the application did not

obligate the city in any way.

Councilmember McGregor asked how much funding the city planned to

request. Schultz responded that the exact amount was still to be determined.

He said the city did not intend to request full project funding but would likely

seek up to six million dollars, noting that any award would likely be a fraction

of that amount.

Mayor Jadwin added context regarding the capital budget process. She stated

that she had attended a MORPC luncheon the previous week where

Representative Jarrells discussed strategies for state capital budget

requests. She explained that applicants often either request more funding and

expect less or request only what they need. The mayor noted that, consistent

with Schultz’s comments, even if the city requested six million dollars, it

would be pleased to receive one million. She said the Montrose Group was

assisting with the application and that the city planned to take a strategic

approach to maximize appeal and funding potential.

Councilmember McGregor suggested that the city emphasize the flood

mitigation aspects of the project over the plaza improvements. Schultz

explained that, in practice, legislators tended to favor visible downtown

revitalization projects over infrastructure work such as flood mitigation, which

was difficult to visualize. He compared it to underground utilities, noting that

while people expected them, they rarely recognized their presence or value.

Mayor Jadwin concluded by noting that the city had previously submitted the

same project as a flood mitigation request two years earlier.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 10/20/2025.

ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:

Councilmember Weaver:

RES-0047-2025

A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING OCTOBER AS NATIONAL ARTS &

HUMANITIES MONTH