200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Committee of the Whole

Jamille Jones, Chair

Merisa K. Bowers

Nancy R. McGregor

Kaylee Padova

Stephen A. Renner

Michael Schnetzer

Trenton I. Weaver

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Monday, March 23, 2026

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

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

March 23, 2026, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council

Jamille Jones, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The

agenda was published on Friday, March 20, 2026. All members were

present at the meeting.

Vice President Jones announced two changes to the evening’s agenda.

She stated that Council would remove Item D from the Department of

Administrative Services section of the agenda and would add a

discussion at the end of the meeting regarding a resident’s request for

recognition.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:

2026-0064

Gahanna Civic Center (825 Tech Center Drive) Construction Update

3.23.2026

Kevin Schultz, Senior Director of Operations, introduced the first agenda

item as an update on the 825 Municipal Complex project and reported a

slight delay from the previously discussed timeline. He explained that

electrical work caused the delay, noting that numerous small outstanding

items prevented the team from completing the commissioning process.

He stated that commissioning involved testing the building to ensure full

functionality, particularly for the Police Department, which required

flawless operation. Director Schultz explained that the executive team

considered moving City Hall and the Senior Center into the building

before the Police Department. He stated that internal discussions led

them to reject that option due to concerns about public confusion

regarding police services. He reported that the team focused on verifying

the entire electrical scope across all floors and the building expansion,

including circuits, generator connections, and uninterruptible power

supply systems. Director Schultz stated that he stopped providing firm

dates due to repeated delays. He indicated that commissioning would

likely begin on or around April 17, 2026, and noted that the process

would not take long but would delay occupancy. He added that the team

expected to provide a clearer schedule within the next 10 to 14 days.

Director Schultz reported that the building’s appearance represented a

positive development. He described the facility as visually impressive,

warm, and aligned with project goals. He reviewed photographs showing

the exterior, including the main entrance, signage, landscaping, and

aerial views that highlighted the park-like setting. He also described

features such as the Police Department entryway, secured parking

areas, and Senior Center access points. Director Schultz also reviewed

interior images, including the main corridor, Council Chambers entrance,

and office areas. He highlighted design elements such as graphics, study

enclaves, and locally produced maps integrated into the building. He

described additional interior features, including conference rooms,

departmental spaces, and standardized furniture layouts. He contrasted

the new facility with the existing building, noting a significant improvement

in environment and functionality. Director Schultz concluded by

expressing appreciation for the Council’s patience. He stated that the

building would serve as a valuable resource for both staff and the

community and anticipated occupancy within the next 30 to 45 days. He

then invited questions.

Questions from Council

Councilmember Padova thanked Director Schultz for the update and

stated that the building looked very nice. She expressed excitement

about seeing it in person and asked how the delay would impact the

revised April 2026 meeting schedule. Director Schultz responded that

the Council could choose to reinstate the normal April 2026 schedule by

reversing the previously adopted adjustment to Council’s rules. He noted

that leadership discussed the schedule and stated that the decision

remained with Council.

President Weaver thanked Director Schultz for the presentation and

agreed that the building would serve as a tremendous community asset.

He deferred to the administration regarding scheduling and noted that

combining meetings could create long evenings. Mayor Jadwin asked for

clarification on the April 2026 schedule discussed at the leadership

meeting. President Weaver confirmed that the City Council planned a

Regular meeting on April 6, 2026, and both a Regular meeting and

Committee of the Whole on April 27, 2026. Mayor Jadwin stated that

maintaining the existing calendar would likely ease staff workload as they

completed preparations for the building. She indicated that the

administration would defer to the Council’s preference. Councilmember

McGregor confirmed that the Council would not hold a Committee of the

Whole meeting until the end of April 2026, and President Weaver

affirmed that understanding. Councilmember Padova asked whether the

two meetings on April 27, 2026, would still occur in the current facility.

Mayor Jadwin advised that the Council should plan to meet at 200 S.

Hamilton. President Weaver stated that he had no objections to

maintaining the existing schedule. Councilmember Bowers asked how

the schedule would affect May 2026 meetings. Mayor Jadwin responded

that the administration did not anticipate changes to the May 2026

schedule and expected to move into the new building by the end of April

2026, although she noted uncertainty. She added that the location of

meetings in May 2026 would depend on the readiness of the new facility.

Councilmember Bowers asked about the status of technology installation

in the new Council Chambers. Director Schultz explained that staff could

not finalize installation until completing the electrical inspections on the

first floor of the new civic center. He assured Council that staff would fully

test systems and train personnel before holding meetings in the new

chambers. He added that the technology would resemble current

systems and would not require a steep learning curve. Councilmember

Bowers asked whether the city would maintain overlap with the current

facility, and Director Schultz confirmed that plan.

President Weaver asked whether the City Council should consider

scheduling a Committee of the Whole meeting on April 6, 2026. Mayor

Jadwin stated that she believed that was part of the earlier discussion.

President Weaver suggested scheduling it and canceling if unnecessary

to avoid missing agenda items. Director Schultz agreed.

Vice President Jones clarified that the Council would not change the May

2026 meeting schedule but might continue meeting in the current facility

during the transition. Director Schultz confirmed that understanding. Vice

President Jones asked for any additional questions and thanked Director

Schultz for the update. She expressed excitement about moving into the

building. Director Schultz stated that staff would schedule a tour for

Councilmembers once the building reached an appropriate stage for

walkthroughs.

2026-0065

Creekside

Flood

Mitigation

and

Plaza

Improvements

Project

Presentation 3.23.2026

Director Schultz provided an update on the Creekside Plaza project

recalling that he last presented the project to Council approximately in

August 2025. He reported that Fishbeck and POD provided updated

cost estimates in December 2025, and stated that recent focus on the

825 Municipal Complex project delayed further progress on Creekside.

He explained that staff had re-engaged on the project and sought the

Council’s direction on next steps. He stated that the project reached

approximately 60% design status and that staff aimed to determine how

much of the overall project the Council supported. Director Schultz

reviewed how the project aligned with the City of Gahanna’s strategic

plan, Our Gahanna. He stated that the project supported goals related to

elevating unique places, connecting the community, and celebrating

community identity. He emphasized that Creekside represented one of

the city’s most unique assets and that the proposed improvements would

enhance both local and regional engagement.

Director Schultz reviewed the project components, including flood

mitigation for the creek bank and parking garage, trail improvements with

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access, reconstruction of

retaining walls, enhanced visual access to waterways, replacement of

brick pavers, streetscape improvements, and redesign of the lower plaza

and lagoon area. He explained that the redesign would create a more

functional and accessible gathering space. Director Schultz presented

updated cost estimates and stated that the full project ranged from

approximately $22.8 million to $24.3 million. He noted that the estimate

included both construction and soft costs and that the project remained

listed in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with flood mitigation

identified as a top priority.

Director Schultz then outlined a reduced scope option that addressed

safety, maintenance, and required flood mitigation. He detailed

components labeled A through H, which included ADA ramp

improvements, guardrail repairs, brick paver removal and replacement,

stair and curb reconstruction, pedestrian bridge repairs, restroom

improvements, fountain and pump system repairs, and miscellaneous

structural repairs. He explained that many existing elements did not meet

current standards or had deteriorated due to age and water infiltration.

Director Schultz stated that the estimated cost for these safety and

maintenance improvements totaled approximately $6.2 million, and when

combined with flood mitigation, resulted in a total project cost of

approximately $12 million. He explained that this reduced option would

restore existing conditions but would not include enhancements such as

trail improvements or plaza reconfiguration.

Director Schultz stated that staff needed to provide direction to Fishbeck

and POD regarding whether to advance the full project or focus on the

reduced scope. He noted that funding would likely involve bonds and

acknowledged uncertainty regarding market appetite for financing. He

concluded by requesting the Council’s feedback to guide the next phase

of design and project development.

Vice President Jones stated that she had one quick clarification before

turning the discussion over. She asked whether section 6.2 included

items A through H and what the next line referenced. Director Schultz

explained that the next line referred to flood mitigation of the garage and

the creek bank itself.

Councilmember Bowers thanked Director Schultz for bringing the item

forward for further discussion. She asked whether he conducted a similar

exercise to identify true or expected costs for the full Creekside

Reimagined project, noting that the first line item appeared more

solidified than in the previous year. Director Schultz replied that the

estimating worksheet presented those figures, including categories such

as flood improvement mitigation, garage mitigation, trail improvements,

lower and upper plazas, and streetscape elements. He stated that the

Fishbeck estimate appeared very solid. Councilmember Bowers

referenced the cumulative project budget shown at the bottom of the

worksheet as $24,229,000 and asked for confirmation. Director Schultz

confirmed the figure and explained that he provided a range on a

previous slide by adjusting escalation and design contingency from

15%to 7.5%. Councilmember Bowers then asked whether the

administration organized or quantified feedback received from the public

during prior community engagements regarding the Creekside

Reimagined conceptual renderings. Director Schultz clarified that the

previously presented estimate around August 2025 was approximately

$22 million. He stated that goal statements one, three, and four in the

strategic plan reflected community sentiment and indicated a desire for

change at the plaza. He noted that staff conducted both public and

private engagement efforts and that he held numerous one-on-one

conversations with residents. He identified the most common questions

as how the project would differ from the 2008 effort and how it would be

funded. He reported that the public had not expressed negative feedback

regarding the renderings, though some individuals opposed the splash

pad due to concerns about pets. He concluded that overall feedback was

very positive and that engagement occurred at multiple events.

Councilmember Bowers stated that her experience aligned with his

summary, noting that feedback on the public improvement project was

consistently positive, while feedback on private development was more

varied. She emphasized concerns regarding funding, differentiation from

prior efforts, engineering continuity, and project oversight. She asked

how Director Schultz responded to questions about how the project

would differ from past efforts. Director Schultz responded that the project

began before his tenure as Senior Director of Operations and

emphasized that the city approached the project differently from its early

2000s efforts. He stated that staff took significant time to develop a solid

project scope and estimate and analyzed the project in detail. He

described a deliberate process in which staff refused to advance without

resolving key questions. He explained that identifying items A through H

and associated challenges reflected the recognition of extensive work

required to support capital funding. He stated that planning and public

engagement for the project differed from past efforts and emphasized the

administration’s commitment to ongoing transparency, similar to updates

provided on other projects. He added that even a smaller $12 million

project would warrant consistent discussion due to Creekside’s

importance as a foundational city asset.

Councilmember Bowers stated that she remained concerned about how

the City of Gahanna spent public dollars and ensured a return on

investment for the community. She asked about the potential impact of

increasing the project from approximately $12 million to $24 million on

other capital improvement plan projects and whether trade-offs existed.

She also emphasized the need to address funding questions and

confirmed that the city would not pursue a tax increase or additional

public contributions. Director Schultz stated that the Capital Plan included

some uncertainties but remained solid overall. He cited West Johnstown

Road and the Westside Utility Project as examples of projects fully

supported within the plan. He explained that staff pursued additional

funding opportunities, including an application for a $12 million Better

Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) discretionary

grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation. This was unrelated to

the Creekside work but would increase available city resources. He also

referenced applications to the Franklin County Transportation

Improvement District and other funding sources. He emphasized efforts

to expand funding pools to accomplish more without increasing taxes. He

reiterated that the city would not pursue a new tax levy and instead sought

to address deferred maintenance and community priorities through

strategic funding. He described the Creekside project as both a deferred

maintenance effort and a re-envisioning initiative. He acknowledged the

increased project cost and stated that the city aimed to leverage external

funding sources, including a previously secured $250,000 federal

earmark and ongoing requests for additional federal support. He

concluded that expanding funding sources remained critical to meeting

community needs and advancing city projects.

Mayor Jadwin added that Councilmembers might recall that when they

adopted the Capital Improvement Plan, they intended it to forecast and

identify projects appropriately. She explained that the plan allowed the

city to project costs, prioritize projects, and fund them in phases over

time so that the City Council could clearly see how projects aligned with

one another. She stated that the capital improvement plan marked a

significant step forward in forecasting project impacts. She

acknowledged the comment regarding no new taxes and emphasized

the importance of understanding and utilizing all available revenue

sources, including Tax Increment Financing funds (TIF), to reinvest in

infrastructure. She noted that she and Director Bury discussed potential

funding mechanisms but explained that staff could not provide more

concrete answers until they determined the project’s final cost. She

stated that funding sources would vary depending on whether the project

cost $5 million, $11 million, or $20 million. She reiterated that the

administration actively pursued outside funding sources, had already

secured some funds, and continued to seek additional funding for

multiple projects. She explained that securing funds for one project could

free up resources for others. She concluded that the Capital Improvement

Plan served as the guiding framework to ensure that projects did not fall

behind. Director Schultz added that the project would also require private

investment from the building owner, estimated between $2 million and $3

million depending on final project details.

Councilmember McGregor asked about the $11 million project, removing

and reinstalling bricks. She expressed concern that many of the existing

bricks had disintegrated and questioned whether reinstalling them would

lead to continued deterioration. She asked whether the materials or

installation methods contributed to the issue. Director Schultz responded

by reframing her question and explained that the city could replace the

existing bricks with different pavers for approximately $6 million. He

stated that consultants from POD and Fishbeck indicated that 15 to 25%

of the existing bricks would likely not be reusable, and he acknowledged

that the loss could be greater. He stated that the original material likely

did not suit a high-traffic area and that the construction method also

contributed to the problem. He referenced issues observed at the 825

Municipal Complex project, including voids and unstable sand beneath

structures, which required reinforcement to maintain functionality. He

stated that multiple issues affected the pavers and agreed that even if the

city completed the $6 million portion of the project, the area would

continue to require ongoing maintenance, which would create additional

costs that remained difficult to estimate. Councilmember McGregor

asked whether ADA ramp standards changed since the plaza’s

construction in 2008 or whether the ramps had not met standards initially.

Director Schultz stated that his understanding indicated that the

standards had not changed. Councilmember McGregor then asked

where water entered the pump room. Director Schultz responded that

water seeped in from the roof, which also functioned as the floor, and

noted that water entered the garage in the same manner.

Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Director Schultz and stated that he

appreciated the information presented, noting its complexity. He

explained that he understood the proposal as consisting of approximately

$12 million in flood and safety essentials and a $24 million version that

reflected what was shared publicly. He recalled that earlier discussions

included potential funding sources such as city funds, private

contributions, grant funding, and possible sponsorships. He stated that

affordability remained the central concern. He asked whether completing

individual components, such as the pavers estimated at approximately

$2.5 million, would preclude elements of the larger reimagined project.

He further questioned whether the proposal functioned as an either-or

decision between completing essential improvements or pursuing the full

project. Director Schultz stated that he and the administration viewed the

situation as an either-or decision. Councilmember Schnetzer confirmed

that this meant a choice between a $12 million project and a $24 million

project. Director Schultz affirmed that understanding. Councilmember

Schnetzer asked whether any funding sources depended on selecting

one option over the other, noting that grants often favored new projects

over maintenance. He asked whether the city could reduce the $12

million gap through sponsorships, private contributions, or grants.

Director Schultz stated that staff received mixed feedback regarding

grant funding. He explained that some advisors encouraged focusing on

more visible or appealing project elements, while others recommended

prioritizing practical improvements such as flood mitigation. He stated

that staff attempted to balance those approaches in grant applications.

He added that the city had not encountered restrictions related to Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood mitigation funding. He

explained that grant outcomes often depended on reviewer perspectives.

He noted that earlier in his career, grants often funded a large portion of

projects, but current trends required municipalities to contribute a larger

share. He stated that the city pursued smaller grant opportunities rather

than large requests, noting that a recent state capital request sought

approximately $4 million. He concluded that pursuing multiple smaller

funding opportunities did not disadvantage the project.

Councilmember Schnetzer stated that the purpose of the discussion

involved gauging the City Council’s perspective. He noted that the

Council previously prioritized the Creekside plaza project among major

initiatives. He stated that while the Council reached consensus on

prioritization, questions remained regarding how to fund the project and

bridge the financial gap. He expressed interest in receiving more

detailed information about funding strategies and stated that, although

there was interest in moving forward, practical affordability constraints

remained unclear. Director Schultz stated that he agreed and suggested

continuing to work with Fishbeck and POD to advance the design while

ensuring consideration of the larger project. Councilmember Schnetzer

reiterated that the City Council needed additional information regarding

affordability, efficiencies, and functionality improvements for the plaza.

Councilmember Padova thanked staff for bringing the item forward and

stated that her views aligned with those expressed by Councilmember

Bowers and Councilmember Schnetzer. She stated that she strongly

supported Creekside and acknowledged that maintenance needs

existed. She indicated that the estimated cost for maintenance did not

surprise her. She asked whether completing the full $24 million project

would improve future maintenance conditions and reduce long-term care

needs. She referenced concerns about deteriorating bricks and asked

whether the full project would provide greater longevity and reduce future

expenses. Mayor Jadwin asked for clarification regarding

Councilmember Padova’s statement about the level of care at the plaza

and stated that she disagreed with any suggestion that the city had not

maintained it properly. Councilmember Padova clarified that she did not

intend to suggest that the city had failed in its responsibilities but instead

referred to the need for a significant reinvestment in infrastructure. Mayor

Jadwin acknowledged the clarification. Councilmember Padova

reiterated her concern that the city should avoid replacing materials with

similar materials that would deteriorate again and asked whether the

project would result in more durable outcomes. Director Schultz stated

that feedback from POD and Fishbeck indicated that some original

construction methods may not have met current standards. He cited

examples such as railings and guardrails that were not fully affixed to

structures as required today. He explained that material selection and

updated construction practices would reduce maintenance needs and

increase longevity. He stated that the project would not replace old

materials with identical materials if those materials proved unsuitable. He

acknowledged that maintenance would always remain necessary but

stated that improved foundational elements would reduce overall

maintenance demands and extend the lifespan of the improvements. He

added that future councils would likely address smaller maintenance

items rather than undertake another full-scale overhaul within a similar

timeframe.

Councilmember Padova asked whether replacing the existing fountain

with a splash pad would provide maintenance benefits or simplify

operations compared to the current lagoon system. Director Schultz

responded that simplifying the lagoon and pump room could provide

some benefits, but noted that a splash pad would introduce different

maintenance requirements, including water treatment for increased

usage. He stated that the change might slightly increase complexity but

only marginally. He added that routine maintenance activities, such as

cleaning and repositioning furniture, would continue regardless of the

design. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Department would

continue to manage those responsibilities. Councilmember Padova

asked whether staff engaged with the owners of the three private

buildings affected by the project and whether they supported the

proposal. Director Schultz stated that staff spoke with the management

company and that it supported the project. He stated that staff also spoke

with the property owner, who appeared reserved but indicated that he

supported the direction of the conceptual designs. He added that the

property owner recognized responsibility for certain flood improvements

on private property, as the city could not use public funds for those

repairs, and that the city would manage and oversee the project.

Councilmember Renner thanked staff for the information and stated that

the presentation provided a rapid overview of the project, including

emergency and flood-related needs estimated at approximately $12

million. He stated that he understood staff reached a point where

direction to the design team was necessary and asked why the issue

returned at that time. He noted that the Creekside Reimagined project

had previously been discussed in conjunction with private development

and questioned the timing and process. He expressed concern that the

Capital Improvement Plan advisory process had not met for several

months and stated that he felt frustrated that the Council had not received

sufficient time or information to address the issues. Director Schultz

responded that the Capital Improvement Plan advisory committee last

met around October or November 2025, before the budget process, and

confirmed that the committee had not met in 2026. Councilmember

Renner stated that he did not recall the October 2025 meeting and

remembered only the budget discussions. Director Schultz reiterated that

the meeting occurred just before the budget process and noted that prior

discussions included both public and private aspects of the Creekside

project. He stated that he perceived some Councilmembers expressed

hesitation about proceeding with the full $24 million project. He explained

that staff planned to return in the first quarter of 2026 after receiving

updated cost estimates in December 2025. He added that work on the

825 Municipal Complex project required significant time and affected his

ability to advance other responsibilities, including scheduling advisory

committee meetings, and he apologized for that delay. He stated that

staff sought to determine whether to proceed with the larger project or

limit the scope to essential safety and maintenance improvements. He

acknowledged that advisory committee discussions could have occurred,

but stated that staff would likely have reached the same point of seeking

City Council’s input. Councilmember Renner stated that earlier

engagement would have allowed the Council to provide feedback on key

issues and better understand the project. He stated that he wanted to

assist but lacked sufficient information to provide meaningful direction.

Mayor Jadwin stated that the presentation largely repeated information

shared in August 2025, with updated cost estimates. She explained that

staff reached a point where they could not proceed with design direction

or provide more detailed project information without understanding the

City Council’s level of interest in the full project. She clarified that staff did

not seek a formal vote or commitment but instead sought general

consensus to guide next steps. She stated that the design approach

would differ significantly depending on whether the Council supported the

full project. She added that businesses at Creekside requested

construction timelines and expressed concerns about uncertainty, and

she explained that staff could not provide schedules without defining the

project scope. Councilmember Renner acknowledged the explanation

and stated that he received communications from businesses. He stated

that he viewed the issue as one of project phasing and requested clearer

information on phases and timelines to better respond to stakeholders.

He reiterated that he supported the project but lacked sufficient

information to determine whether to support the $12 million or $24 million

option. Director Schultz stated that the City Council’s expression of

support for the larger project would allow staff to work with finance staff to

evaluate potential bond packages and funding strategies. He stated that

it would also allow him to engage a construction manager to begin

pre-construction services, including scheduling and timeline

development. He explained that current estimates assumed a 30-month

schedule, but that further analysis could refine that timeline. He stated that

initiating those steps without the Council’s input would be inappropriate.

He added that staff would continue refining the design, budget, funding

strategy, phasing, and business impacts and would return to the Council

with additional information, similar to the process used for the 825

Municipal Complex project. Councilmember Renner stated that he

needed to understand trade-offs and potential impacts associated with

each option before deciding and concluded his remarks.

Councilmember McGregor stated that the project made her sad because

the original construction should have been completed properly. She

stated that the city should not have needed to address flood mitigation

issues and should have obtained the appropriate Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain permits during the initial

construction. She stated that the bricks should have been installed

correctly and that the city now needed to spend significant funds to

correct those deficiencies. She emphasized the need for proper

oversight by credentialed professionals during the current project. She

stated that removing and reinstalling the same bricks did not make sense

and referenced her own experience with a similar issue. She stated that

the floodplain work and brick replacement must occur because the bricks

contributed to leaks in the garage. She stated that the remaining

question involved whether the city should include additional

enhancements that would improve functionality and overall quality.

President Weaver thanked Director Schultz for the presentation and

stated that he appreciated the information. He stated that he shared

many of the sentiments expressed by other councilmembers. He

emphasized that safety and floodproofing work must occur but stated that

those improvements alone would not create the type of community space

residents expected. He stated that the Creekside Reimagined concept

would achieve that goal and expressed his belief that the Council

generally shared that view. He stated that, as a general indication of his

position, he supported continued exploration of the full project. He stated

that residents expressed a desire for a successful Creekside and that

completing only minimal repairs would not meet that expectation. He

described the limited $12 million option as insufficient and stated that

replacing the pavers without broader improvements would not provide

value. He requested that staff schedule a Capital Improvement Plan

advisory committee meeting and noted that Councilmember Renner

made a similar request previously. Director Schultz stated that he would

schedule a Capital Improvement Plan advisory committee meeting.

Vice President Jones stated that she agreed with the comments made

by other Councilmembers. She stated that Council supported the more

comprehensive version of the Creekside project but recognized that

funding remained a key consideration. She stated that completing the full

project appeared more fiscally responsible than completing only partial

improvements and potentially incurring additional costs over time. She

thanked staff for the presentation.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING:

ORD-0010-2026

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO

CONTRACT WITH CAP-STONE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE 2026

STREET

REBUILD

AND

WATERLINE

PROGRAM

(ST-1120 /

TR-CM-02)

Director Schultz stated that he appeared on behalf of the Engineering

Department to present two awards. He introduced the first item as the

2026 Street Rebuild and Water Line Program contract award. He stated

that bids opened on March 3, 2026, and that the city received five bids.

He explained that staff deemed one bidder non-responsible and

therefore recommended awarding the contract to the second-lowest

bidder, Cap-Stone and Associates. He requested the Council’s action to

authorize Mayor Jadwin to sign a contract with Cap-Stone and

Associates in the amount of $585,845, which included a 10%

contingency. He also noted that the project included a separate

construction administration and inspection contract, generally estimated

at 15% of the total, in the approximate amount of $87,000. He stated that

staff included additional reporting details in the materials to provide more

comprehensive information about project delivery.

President Weaver stated that he had no comments on the project itself

but expressed appreciation for the enhanced report format. He

specifically thanked staff for including additional information and for

explaining why staff did not select the non-responsible bidder.

Councilmember Bowers stated that recent discussions about the Capital

Improvement Plan prompted her questions. She explained that she

brought her Capital Improvement Plan materials to better understand how

the project sheet aligned with the contract under consideration. She

referenced project TR-CM-02, the street rebuild program, and noted that

the project sheet identified $355,000 in construction management costs

funded by the capital improvement fund and $2.25 million funded by the

Water Capital Fund. She also referenced $500,000 encumbered from

the prior year. She asked how the proposed $585,845 contract aligned

with those figures. Director Schultz explained that the Capital

Improvement Plan and the Capital Budget did not represent the same

information. He stated that staff developed the Capital Improvement Plan

in August 2025, prior to finalizing the budget. He explained that staff later

revisited the figures during the budget process and adjusted allocations

between the maintenance program (CM-01) and the rebuild program

(CM-02). He stated that the document Councilmember Bowers

referenced no longer reflected current figures because staff had since

realigned funding. He added that staff initially anticipated completing

more waterline work during the season but adjusted the scope due to

resource constraints, as the city executed both the 2025 and 2026

programs concurrently. He stated that staff would update the project

sheets during the year to reflect actual conditions and noted that staff

typically reported such adjustments at Capital Improvement Plan advisory

committee meetings, though he did not recall the exact timing of those

discussions. Councilmember Bowers acknowledged the explanation and

referenced prior meeting dates, noting a July 7, 2025, meeting and

uncertainty regarding an October 6, 2025, meeting. She stated that she

expected the process to return to alignment.

Vice President Jones asked whether Council had additional questions or

discussion. She echoed appreciation for the report format and asked

whether Council would place the item on the Consent Agenda for April

27, 2026. Council raised no objections.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 4/6/2026;

Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 4/27/2026.

ORD-0011-2026

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO

CONTRACT WITH VISU-SEWER OF OHIO, LLC FOR THE 2026

SANITARY AND STORM SEWER CLEANING PROJECT; AND

DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Director Schultz presented the second item, the 2026 Sanitary and

Storm Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) program. He stated that bids

opened on March 10, 2026, and that the city received three bids. He

reported that Visu-Sewer of Ohio LLC submitted the lowest, most

responsive, and most responsible bid. He stated that the total contract

amount equaled $398,000 and included a 10% contingency for

unforeseen items. He explained that the project included sanitary line

cleaning and therefore qualified as a construction project subject to

applicable guidelines. He noted that staff would manage construction

administration and inspection in-house and would not require a separate

contract for those services. He requested that Council approve an

ordinance authorizing Mayor Jadwinto enter into a contract with

Visu-Sewer of Ohio LLC for the CCTV and sanitary sewer cleaning work.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether the city previously had a truck

capable of televising sewer lines and whether the city still owned that

equipment. Director Schultz confirmed that the city still had the equipment

but explained that the scope of the current project covered the entire area

south of U.S. Route 62 and required more time and manpower than staff

could provide.

Vice President Jones asked whether any additional questions remained.

Hearing none, she stated that Council would place the item on the

consent agenda for April 27.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 4/6/2026;

Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 4/27/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:

ORD-0012-2026

ORDINANCE

AUTHORIZING

SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATION - General Fund for Contract Services to Support

Cultural and Artistic Programming

Removed from agenda.

ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:

1. Procurement Code Discussion

2026-0054

Procurement Code Research Materials

Vice President Jones introduced the next agenda item, a continued

discussion of the procurement code. She reminded those present that

the City Council focused on threshold amounts, visibility, reporting, and

transparency. She invited the administration to provide a brief recap and

review updated documents.

Corey Wybensinger, Senior Deputy Director, stated that the

administration had discussed the item with City Council since early

February and sought to understand the Council’s perspectives on

thresholds and reporting enhancements. He referenced the March 9,

2026, Committee of the Whole meeting, where the administration

presented recommendations to adjust procurement thresholds. He stated

that the administration recommended maintaining the Micropurchase

threshold at $10,000 and reducing the Small Purchase threshold for

Non-Construction items to $150,000, with Construction thresholds

aligned at the same level to streamline processes. He explained that this

change would increase the number of items brought before Council and

noted that all purchases above $150,000 would require the Council’s

review. He stated that staff already modified reporting based on the

Council’s feedback, including enhancements to project reporting and

consideration of adding purchase order reports to quarterly reporting. He

noted that staff could provide reports more frequently but that activity

levels varied throughout the year. He added that staff would continue

refining reporting through the strategic planning process and returned the

discussion to the Council for feedback.

Vice President Jones asked whether the Council could receive purchase

order reports on a regular basis and inquired about the feasibility of

providing them in a less labor-intensive format. Senior Deputy Director

Wybensinger stated that the initial report was a standardized, less

labor-intensive report, while the more recent version required additional

manual effort. He also noted that staff provided a revised internal

procurement flowchart used for training. He explained that any ordinance

changes would require a review of internal controls, coordination with

Administrative Services, and staff training to ensure compliance. He

stated that implementation would require sufficient time to complete

these steps. Vice President Jones then directed discussion to the

threshold amount and noted that Council also considered a $100,000

threshold. She invited Council feedback on whether members aligned

with that figure.

Councilmember Bowers thanked the administration for its work and

stated that the discussion was productive. She noted that bringing

additional items to the Council agendas provided value by increasing

public access to information. She referenced data on public engagement

with Legistar, the city’s legislative portal, and stated that usage levels

were significant. She supported maintaining the $10,000 Micropurchase

threshold and cautioned against overcorrecting by placing too many

items on the Council’s agendas. She stated that her review of purchase

orders suggested that a lower threshold would add approximately two

additional items per month, which she considered manageable. She

stated that items above approximately $90,000 often related to larger

capital or strategic initiatives and suggested establishing a $100,000

threshold, with the option to reevaluate in the future.

Councilmember Padova thanked staff for the updated procurement

decision tree and asked about a footnote referencing competitive

solicitation types. She noted that the document did not include a dollar

threshold and asked whether that information appeared elsewhere.

Senior Deputy Director Wybensinger explained that the referenced

footnote related to the competitive solicitation section and that the

$150,000 threshold in the ordinance governed that requirement.

Councilmember Padova acknowledged the clarification and confirmed

that the threshold remained defined elsewhere.

President Weaver asked whether the administration considered

implementing an annual 3%increase to threshold amounts, similar to

practices at the state and county levels, or whether the administration

preferred periodic reevaluation. Mayor Jadwin stated that the

administration discussed that approach internally but determined that it

would create confusion for staff due to frequent changes. She explained

that maintaining consistent thresholds would provide greater clarity.

President Weaver stated that he agreed with that approach and noted

that state-level changes occurred less frequently. He expressed

appreciation for the administration’s reporting improvements and stated

that the additional information was helpful. He also referenced concerns

about smaller vendors’ ability to compete for projects. He stated that he

supported reducing the threshold and reiterated his prior preference for a

$100,000 threshold but acknowledged that he represented one

perspective among several.

Councilmember Renner stated that he supported a $150,000 threshold

based on current economic conditions and increasing costs. He

emphasized the need to support the administration with practical and

logical policies.

Councilmember Schnetzer stated that he agreed with Councilmember

Renner and noted that his experience in the field carried weight. He

referenced the prior $250,000 threshold and observed that adjustments

over time could lead back to higher thresholds. He stated that he did not

see a strong need for change but supported $150,000 as a reasonable

compromise.

Councilmember McGregor stated that she initially supported a $100,000

threshold but agreed that rising costs justified adopting a $150,000

threshold.

Councilmember Padova stated that she did not observe a significant

difference between $100,000 and $150,000 based on her review of prior

purchase orders and expressed support for the $150,000 threshold. She

also stated that the updated procurement chart appeared simpler and

easier for staff to follow.

Vice President Jones stated that she appreciated the discussion,

research, and collaboration and expressed support for the $150,000

threshold along with enhanced reporting measures. She asked the

administration to provide a timeline for next steps. Senior Deputy

Director Wybensinger stated that the administration planned to return at

the next Committee of the Whole meeting with a redlined version of the

proposed changes. He stated that the process would allow time to

finalize internal controls and develop a training plan for implementation.

Councilmember Bowers asked whether the administration could present

a redlined version on April 6, 2026, and stated that she supported

moving forward efficiently. She expressed appreciation for the outcome

and described it as a balanced solution that simplified processes while

increasing transparency.

Mayor Jadwin thanked the City Council and stated that the administration

appreciated reaching a compromise. She noted that staff devoted

significant time and effort to the discussion, including responding to the

Council’s requests and evaluating options. She acknowledged concerns

raised about the pace of the Capital Improvement Plan process and

reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to continuing that work. She

explained that staff managed multiple responsibilities, including major

projects and staffing transitions, and emphasized that no items were

intentionally delayed. She reiterated the administration’s commitment to

providing necessary information and collaborating with Council. She

stated that staff would return with a redlined version on April 6, 2026.

Vice President Jones thanked the administration and acknowledged the

time and effort contributed by staff.

2. Resident Recognition Request

Councilmember Bowers stated that she sought to gauge the City

Council’s interest regarding recognition for a Gahanna family’s high

school-aged son who recently completed his Eagle Scout requirements.

She asked whether her fellow Councilmembers preferred to prepare a

certificate of recognition for presentation at the Eagle Scout ceremony in

April 2026, or to include recognition within a resolution for National

Volunteer Month. She noted that the Council previously combined

national month recognitions with recognition of individuals in the

community and suggested that National Volunteer Month would provide

an appropriate opportunity to recognize the Eagle Scout’s contributions.

Vice President Jones stated that she supported connecting the

recognition to National Volunteer Month and noted that the Eagle Scout

achievement involved significant volunteer work.

Councilmember Bowers acknowledged the feedback and stated that she

would bring the item forward on the April 6, 2026, Regular Agenda and

circulate a draft in advance.

ADJOURNMENT:

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

adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.