200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Committee of the Whole

Trenton I. Weaver, Chair

Merisa K. Bowers

Jamille Jones

Nancy R. McGregor

Kaylee Padova

Stephen A. Renner

Michael Schnetzer

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Monday, June 9, 2025

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

Gahanna City Council met for Committee of the Whole on Monday, June 9,

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

Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The agenda was published on

June 6, 2025. All members were present for the meeting. There were no

additions or corrections to the agenda.

PRESENTATIONS:

Our Gahanna Strategic Plan Update:

Sarah C. Bongiorno and Bailey Morlan (Planning NEXT)

2025-0122

Our Gahanna - Strategic Plan Update to Council 6.9.2025

Sarah Bongiorno of Planning NEXT provided an update on the Our Gahanna

Strategic Plan. She reported that the team recently completed the second

round of community engagement at the end of May and were processing

input and feedback as they continued to develop the plan’s recommendations.

Ms. Bongiorno reviewed the process timeline, noting that they were currently

in the stage of developing economic development strategy goals and drafting

the plan’s recommendations. She emphasized that this was an exciting

phase as the various elements of the plan were beginning to come together.

She also previewed that a third round of community engagement was

approaching and would be discussed later in her presentation.

During the second round of engagement, the team connected with over 450

participants through exit questionnaires completed at various community

events. In addition to these events, they collected demographic data through a

"tell us about yourself" survey and received over 250 responses to an online

survey. The engagement events included a Taco Tuesday family night, a

small business morning coffee networking event, a young professional happy

hour, participation at the city’s Economic Development Annual Meeting, a

meeting with high school students through the Key Club, and a senior citizen

lunch at the senior center. Ms. Bongiorno displayed photos of the events and

described the engagement format, which included pop-up style stations that

allowed participants to engage at their own pace. She summarized the

demographic representation from round two. Each area of the city was well

represented geographically. Age representation was strong across most

groups, though slightly lower among individuals aged 15 to 24. The

participation rate for residents aged 25 to 34 had significantly improved from

the first round. While participation from the Black/African American

community and Hispanic/Latino residents remained slightly lower than

desired, the team closed the gap since the first round and planned to continue

focused outreach efforts for the third round.

Ms. Bongiorno then reviewed the major themes and results gathered at the

various engagement stations:

Elevating Unique Places: Feedback for Creekside included interest

in business vitality, connectivity, accessibility, community events,

additional housing and mixed-use development, as well as parking

infrastructure and maintenance. For public spaces, participants

supported connectivity through trails and sidewalks, flexible multi-use

spaces, green space conservation, and safety improvements.

Neighborhood feedback highlighted strong neighborhood pride with

requests for increased walkability, lighting, community engagement,

and traffic calming measures.

Fostering Economic Development: When asked to select top

development priorities, participants most frequently chose retail and

restaurant opportunities, mixed-use development, and

manufacturing/skilled trade jobs.

Serving Our Community: Participants offered input on a variety of

services and improvements, including expanded community facilities

and recreational opportunities (such as senior activities, new park

amenities, an outdoor amphitheater, and a Creekside playground),

increased cultural festivals, and enhanced public services (such as

leaf collection, street sweeping, streetlight replacement, snow

removal, composting, recycling, and transportation options for senior

citizens). Connectivity, walkability, and traffic calming remained

consistent themes, along with continued interest in government

transparency and responsiveness. Economic development feedback

included additional restaurant and retail options, support for small and

minority-owned businesses, mixed-use zoning, business retention

efforts, and balancing development with conservation and green

space preservation. Housing affordability for young professionals and

seniors also emerged as a priority to ensure residents of all ages can

live in Gahanna.

Celebrating Our Identity: Participants favored placemaking

concepts such as creek activation, diverse park amenities, and public

plazas with seating and street activation features.

Ms. Bongiorno outlined next steps. The team was drafting plan

recommendations based on the input received, technical analysis, and staff

feedback. A joint Steering Committee and Directors meeting would occur the

following week to review the first draft of recommendations and provide

additional comments. Preparations are underway for the third round of

engagement, which would include an open house on August 26, 2025, and a

"road show" where informational display boards would be placed at various

community locations to allow extended public viewing. The materials would

also be made available online. Ms. Bongiorno encouraged Council members

and the public to participate in this final round to review and comment on the

plan’s content. She concluded her presentation and invited any questions.

Questions & Comments from Council

Councilmember Padova expressed her appreciation for the update and stated

that she enjoyed reviewing the results gathered thus far. She had a few

questions regarding the "Celebrating Our Identity" results. Councilmember

Padova recalled that the board displayed several options, possibly nine or

twelve, and noted that some of them could potentially be grouped together.

She requested to review the pictures again to see the total selection counts.

Ms. Bongiorno confirmed that this could be done.

Councilmember Padova further inquired about the process for incorporating

big ideas submitted by participants into the plan. She asked how unique or

innovative suggestions would be filtered and presented in the plan. Ms.

Bongiorno explained that much of the input was themed. However, for that

specific question, they sought standout ideas, even if only one person

submitted them. She mentioned that all the ideas were databased. Currently,

they were collaborating with Director Vollmer to determine the appropriate

level of detail for the plan. Some ideas might be included as examples or

sidebars within the plan, accompanied by descriptive paragraphs explaining

the recommendations. Ms. Bongiorno also proposed the option of compiling

the more detailed or specific ideas into an appendix, which could serve as a

reference for department directors and Councilmembers as they worked on

the plan. She noted that this approach was used before and would ensure

that all input remained accessible. Councilmember Padova agreed and

expressed that such an appendix would be excellent. She shared that

occasionally, residents mentioned participating in surveys but never seeing

the results. Having access to the ideas would allow the Council to identify any

low-hanging fruit or easily actionable items.

Councilmember Jones addressed the upcoming third round of engagement

scheduled for August. She asked how the team planned to close

demographic participation gaps and increase engagement among

underrepresented groups. Ms. Bongiorno responded that they planned to

bring the issue to the steering committee at its next meeting to brainstorm

strategies. She emphasized the importance of being intentional with outreach

efforts. She described the roadshow as an opportunity to meet residents

where they already gathered, such as at the Young Men’s Christian

Association (YMCA), library, senior center, small businesses, and other

frequented locations. While the team made efforts to address gaps in the

second round, they aimed to continue refining their approach with the

committee's input. She noted that the online tool was also effective, with 300

to 400 participants in the first round and about 250 in the second. However, to

address specific demographics, the team intended to conduct further work

with the steering committee.

President Bowers briefly added a related suggestion, referring to the "Serving

Our Community" themes. She asked if an appendix could be created to

provide additional context for the terms included in that section. She believed

such context would help the Council better understand the reasoning behind

the words and ideas presented. Ms. Bongiorno agreed and explained that the

presentation was significantly condensed for the meeting. She stated that the

team asked questions to prompt diverse responses across categories such

as services, physical improvements, big ideas, issues, and open-ended

comments. However, respondents sometimes interpreted the questions

differently, resulting in answers that did not always fit neatly into one category.

The team collapsed all responses into a single database but maintained the

raw data. Ms. Bongiorno confirmed that they could create an appendix

containing this data to allow the Council to review and better understand the

input.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

ORD-0030-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA AGREEMENT WITH VELOCIS

GAHANNA JV, LP TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN

INDUSTRIAL

BUILDING

PARCELS

027-000110-00 AND

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

REINVESTMENT AREA #3; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Jeff Gottke, Director of Economic Development, addressed the Council to

present the proposed Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) abatement

agreement. To prepare for the presentation, he: reviewed similar CRA

agreements, analyzed market demand data, studied peer city abatement

agreements, watched the Council’s Economic Development 101 program,

reviewed recent Council meetings that discussed abatement agreements,

held private one-on-one meetings with some Councilmembers, and engaged

in multiple conversations with the applicant. He stated that he felt confident

that the proposal was well-researched and reasoned. Mr. Gottke identified

three primary takeaways. First, the application passed the "but for" test, which

he planned to explain in detail. Second, the proposal guaranteed a minimum

number of jobs and payroll for the city, which was not included in previous

agreements, to his knowledge. Third, he emphasized that the project would

benefit the city, the property, and the schools. He reminded the Council not to

let the pursuit of a perfect deal prevent acceptance of a good one.

Vice President Weaver requested that Mr. Gottke first provide a high-level

overview of the proposal.

Mr. Gottke explained that the project involved 10 acres of undeveloped land

located at the northwest intersection of Science Drive and Tech Center Drive,

adjacent to the Burns and Scalo site where trees were recently cleared. The

land had remained vacant and for sale since 2008. The proposed project

entailed 141,000 square feet of flexible industrial space, divisible into three

warehouse or light industrial units for lease. It was a speculative development,

with each tenant occupying between 30,000 to 70,000 square feet. The

developer planned to fully lease the space by 2027, following a one-year

construction timeline. Mr. Gottke then detailed the projected impact of the

project. The total investment would reach approximately $20 million, including

land purchase and construction costs. The project guaranteed a minimum of

37 jobs, generating an estimated $466,770 in city income tax, with an average

salary on site of just under $56,000. Total workforce income would reach

$17.5 million, while regional gross domestic product (GDP) contribution would

amount to $18.5 million. Economic output across the 43230 zip code was

projected at $28.9 million, with $4.5 million generated in state, federal, and

local tax revenue. The schools would receive nearly $1.3 million through

income tax sharing, unabated tax value, and increased base tax. Mr. Gottke

added that the project would not result in any new students. He

recommended a 12-year abatement at 80%, noting that the company had not

requested nor been offered any other city-administered incentives. The CRA

was classified as Area 3, which allowed for negotiated abatements. He

explained that the developer cited high construction and land development

costs, including topography and drainage issues, as reasons the project

would not be financially feasible without the abatement. Without the

abatement, rental rates would exceed market rates, making the project

unviable. The abatement would help subsidize rents to market levels.

Director Gottke stated that the proposed abatement aligned with similar

speculative developments in both the city and neighboring communities. After

analyzing five comparable projects based on jobs, payroll, abatement rate,

location, and project impact, he determined that this proposal fell in the

middle. He highlighted the unique inclusion of guaranteed income tax

collections, explaining that the developer would guarantee the projected

income tax even if tenants did not meet the expected amounts, ensuring

consistent revenue for the city and schools over the life of the agreement. He

reiterated that the flexible industrial space was in high demand across the

Columbus region, particularly in Gahanna due to its location. The parcel was

available for sale for an extended period, and a company was now willing to

take on its development. He also noted the inclusion of an emergency clause

in the legislation, as the developer needed to close on the property sale by

July 14, 2025, and the seller would not grant an extension. He concluded by

summarizing that the project guaranteed income tax collections, offered a

highly desirable use that would lease quickly, and passed the "but for" test.

President Bowers thanked Mr. Gottke for his overview and clarification

regarding the guaranteed income tax collections. She referred to a 2019 CRA

agreement for a previous speculative project, which also projected a similar

number of jobs. That project failed to meet its job targets, resulting in a

reduction of its abatement. She requested additional clarification on how the

job performance number for the current proposal was determined, particularly

without identified end users. Director Gottke explained that the developer, who

was guaranteeing the job numbers, led the discussion. Industry standards for

jobs per square foot guided the projection, and even at the minimum of 37

jobs across 141,000 square feet, the figure remained within an acceptable

range.

President Bowers confirmed that the developer would guarantee income tax

collections for at least that minimum number of jobs, which Mr. Gottke

affirmed. President Bowers then compared the proposed abatement to the

nearby Burns and Scalo project, which guaranteed 52 jobs within 72 months

and received a 70% abatement over 12 years. She asked for the justification

for recommending 80% for the current project. Director Gottke responded

that, during discussions with the developer, he inquired how much abatement

would be necessary to make the project financially feasible. The developer

provided a figure, and Director Gottke used his financial model to calculate

the required abatement. The agreed-upon 80% abatement was slightly less

than what the developer initially indicated but still acceptable to the developer.

The approach involved working backward from the project’s financial needs

rather than arbitrarily assigning a percentage.

President Bowers shifted the discussion to the use of the parcels and asked

whether the developer committed to refrain from requesting TIF (Tax

Increment Financing) dollars for infrastructure or site improvements, noting

that the parcels were located within the Central Park TIF district. Director

Gottke stated that the developer had not requested TIF funds at that point.

President Bowers asked whether the developer would commit to not

requesting TIF dollars. Mr. Gottke suggested that the developer could be

asked directly but noted that, based on past practice, the Council had not

approved such requests when made after the fact. He added that the

absence of a current request could serve as a marker that no TIF support

was being sought or anticipated. President Bowers acknowledged that this

clarified the situation and created a record that no request for TIF funds was

made or expected. Mr. Gottke confirmed this understanding.

President Bowers continued the discussion by referencing the land use plan.

She acknowledged that the plan served as a guide rather than a mandate for

the use of individual parcels. She noted that the parcels under discussion fell

within the South Gateway Focus Area and had been identified for industrial

research and innovation uses, including industrial research, development,

laboratory design, and technology uses. She asked whether the project would

align with the innovation district and whether there could be any guarantee of

such alignment. Director Gottke deferred the question to the applicant’s

representatives, stating that one of the leasing agents was present and could

speak to the anticipated uses and demand for the site. President Bowers

confirmed that there were currently no identified users for the property. Mr.

Gottke confirmed this. She then inquired whether a local property manager

was involved who could assist the out-of-state applicant with understanding

regional trends. Mr. Gottke affirmed that such a person was involved and

clarified that the applicant was a joint venture between a local and an

out-of-state company.

Director Gottke then introduced David Hodge of Underhill and Hodge, and

Beau Taggart from KBC, who represented the applicant. Mr. Hodge

introduced himself, noting that while he previously appeared before Council in

the past, it was several years since his last appearance. He stated that he

was standing in for his law partner, Aaron Underhill, and was briefed on the

project. He addressed President Bowers' earlier questions. Mr. Hodge

confirmed that the project was a speculative development but emphasized

that the developer agreed to backstop the minimum job and payroll

guarantees in the CRA agreement. In reference to the prior CRA agreement

mentioned by President Bowers, he stated that he could not comment on that

project as he was unfamiliar with its size or scope and could not determine

whether it was comparable to the current proposal. Regarding TIF funding,

Mr. Hodge stated that Mr. Gottke provided an accurate response. He

confirmed that there were no discussions or requests for TIF dollars during

negotiations. Addressing the land use plan, Mr. Hodge stated that to his

knowledge, the applicant had no current zoning or rezoning applications

pending with the Planning Commission. He indicated that the intended uses

were permitted under the property’s existing zoning classification. Mr. Hodge

then deferred to Mr. Taggart to speak about market trends and potential

tenants. Mr. Taggart introduced himself as representing KBC. He clarified that

although KBC was a national company based in Chicago, he managed their

newly opened Ohio office. He previously worked for Cushman and was

responsible for leasing the property. He clarified that while he was not the

developer, his success was tied directly to the ability to secure tenants for the

property.

President Bowers asked for clarification on the roles of KBC and Velocis in

the project. Mr. Taggart explained that Velocis served as the managing capital

partner, while KBC was the developer. Velocis and KBC formed a new entity,

Velocis Gahanna JV, LP, to purchase the property and execute the

development. Mr. Taggart confirmed that this entity would also guarantee the

income tax payments. Mr. Taggart then described the market trends that

informed their decision to pursue this project. He explained that Gahanna

offered a unique and strategic location due to its proximity to both New Albany

and the larger Columbus market, as well as excellent freeway access and a

strong labor pool, including high-end labor. He contrasted Columbus’s

industrial market with those in cities like Cincinnati and Indianapolis, noting

Columbus’s more diverse mix of tenants, which included advanced

manufacturing, biotech, retailers, distributors, and third-party logistics (3PLs).

He highlighted Gahanna’s potential to attract advanced manufacturing firms,

supply companies such as Burns and Scalo next door, local headquarters

like ADB across the street, and biotech firms such as Amgen, which recently

leased 52,000 square feet on Claycraft as overflow space from its New

Albany facility. Mr. Taggart stated that the Columbus industrial market had

recently seen 52 out of 60 deals close under 150,000 square feet, which

aligned perfectly with the size of the proposed development. He added that

they already received early interest from potential users through preliminary

marketing efforts. Mr. Taggart concluded by expressing confidence in the

project’s viability and leasing prospects.

Councilmember Jones addressed the applicant to ask about the tenant rental

model. She inquired whether the building would accommodate one business

occupying the entire space or be divided among multiple businesses. Mr.

Taggart explained that the building was designed to accommodate up to three

users. It could house a single tenant occupying 141,000 square feet, similar

to ADB across the street, or be divided among smaller users, such as two

tenants with 70,000 square feet each or three smaller tenants.

Councilmember Jones continued by asking about the lease terms and how

the developer would ensure the building remained at full occupancy and job

capacity. She expressed concern about scenarios where a tenant might

commit to creating 37 jobs but ultimately employ only a few people. She

questioned whether rental agreements could include provisions to prevent

this and ensure compliance. Mr. Hodge addressed her question, stating that

the CRA agreement would be attached as a mandatory exhibit to the lease

agreements. The leases would include mandatory reporting obligations to the

City of Gahanna and the Tax Incentive Review Council (TIRC). If tenants

failed to meet the obligations stated in the agreement, Gahanna and the TIRC

would have the ability to unwind the CRA.

Councilmember Padova thanked the applicants for attending and answering

questions. She referenced the spreadsheet provided to Council and asked for

clarification about the line item for “community impact programs” showing

$500. Mr. Gottke explained that the $500 reflected the past practice of

requiring businesses receiving CRA abatements to join the Gahanna Area

Chamber of Commerce. The amount represented the cost of chamber

membership. Councilmember Padova continued by expressing her concerns

about CRA agreements in general. She explained that she wanted to see

businesses investing in the Gahanna community. She noted that without

knowing the future tenants, it was difficult to evaluate how involved the

businesses would be in the community or the long-term stability of the jobs

created. She stated that while she recognized the value of the initial

investment, she remained concerned about the lack of identified end users

and the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate community impact. Mr. Hodge

acknowledged the challenge and agreed that speculative projects often

created a "chicken and egg" scenario. He explained that potential users

frequently considered multiple communities, such as Obetz, Canal

Winchester, New Albany, and others, when evaluating sites. The availability of

abatements played a significant role in their decision-making. Mr. Hodge

emphasized that while it would be ideal to present identified tenants, that was

not possible at this stage. Instead, the developer conducted a thorough

market analysis and identified baseline job and payroll figures to ensure

minimum commitments. He expressed hope that more jobs would ultimately

be created and that those jobs would benefit Gahanna residents and the

surrounding region. Councilmember Padova thanked Mr. Hodge for his

response, stating that both her question and his answer were somewhat

circuitous, but she appreciated his efforts to address her concerns. She also

thanked the applicants for providing additional clarity and Director Gottke for

his work and the detailed financial spreadsheet provided to Council.

Councilmember Schnetzer addressed Director Gottke, noting that most of his

questions were likely for Mr. Gottke, but welcomed input from the applicants

as well. He began by acknowledging and appreciating Director Gottke’s

efforts to evaluate the necessity of the incentive, particularly in asking how the

abatement would be used. He stated that Mr. Gottke’s explanation made

sense, noting that the abatement would help achieve market-rate rents rather

than simply increasing profits for the developer. Councilmember Schnetzer

then raised a qualitative question concerning the suitability of the project for

the parcel. He observed that the site was located between Burns and Scalo

and ADB Safegate, both significant developments for the city that served at

least as regional, if not national, headquarters. He asked for the Economic

Development Department’s view on whether this project represented the best

use of the land or if there was potential for a higher-impact or higher-valued

use in the near future, given the region’s growth. Mr. Gottke described the

situation as a "bird in the hand" scenario. He emphasized that the land was

for sale for a long time, was not well-suited for development, and that a

company was now proposing a project for which there was clear market

demand. He stated that while speculative development with flexible space did

not rule out the possibility of landing a headquarters tenant in the future, the

proposed use made sense for the site. He confirmed that, in his professional

opinion, the project was a good fit.

Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Mr. Gottke, noting that some of his

questions were partly rhetorical for the record. He then moved on to

quantitative questions related to the CRA Abatement Return on Investment

calculator/spreadsheet provided. Since it was the first time many

Councilmembers had seen the tool in its current format, he asked for

clarification to better understand the calculations. He began by asking about

the "unabated tax load" of $387,570, which appeared consistent throughout

the 12 years. Mr. Gottke clarified that this figure represented the tax value on

the improved property after the project was complete, not the

pre-development value. Councilmember Schnetzer then confirmed that the

"abated value" of $310,000 reflected the 80% abatement applied to the

$387,570 tax amount. Mr. Gottke affirmed this, stating that both figures

represented tax dollars, not the overall property value. Councilmember

Schnetzer emphasized that the property taxes abated represented tax

savings for the developer and did not involve any direct cash outflow from the

city. Mr. Gottke confirmed this. Councilmember Schnetzer next inquired about

the "after-sale base tax" amount of $64,459, asking for clarification on its

meaning. Mr. Gottke explained that following the sale, the land’s base value

would be recalculated as a vacant parcel. This base amount of $64,459

would continue to be paid annually throughout the term of the abatement.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked whether the breakdown of the $64,459

showed the allocation between the schools and the city. Mr. Gottke replied

that the spreadsheet did not show that breakdown but explained that the

schools would receive 58.5% of that amount, which equaled approximately

$37,000. The city’s portion was about 3% of that total. Councilmember

Schnetzer further confirmed that under the city’s income tax sharing

agreement with the school district, income tax collections would be split

equally between the city and the schools. He then asked whether the TIF

payments of $32,199 would continue to accrue to the city. Mr. Gottke

confirmed that they would. Councilmember Schnetzer concluded by

confirming that when adding all of those revenue streams together, the total

community benefit amounted to approximately $2.5 million. Mr. Gottke

confirmed that calculation was correct.

President Bowers offered a clarification. She noted that during previous

discussions on the Burns and Scalo project, Council had similarly been told

that those parcels were difficult to develop. She emphasized that the area in

question, including the 825 Tech Center project, the new Civic Center, Burns

and Scalo, ADB, Edison, and The Menlo, and The Peak, were a highly active

and desirable part of Gahanna. While she acknowledged Director Gottke’s

"bird in the hand" analogy, she wanted to reinforce that Gahanna remained an

attractive location for companies due to its workforce and accessibility. She

then shifted to questions about the Return on Investment (ROI) chart. She

confirmed with Director Gottke that if the project proceeded without any

abatement, the total tax load would be $387,570 annually. Mr. Gottke

confirmed this. President Bowers calculated that, absent an abatement, the

school district would receive approximately $226,728 annually, based on their

58.5% share of property taxes. Mr. Gottke confirmed her calculations. She

then reviewed the projected revenue under the proposed abatement,

confirming that, at its peak, the schools would receive approximately

$108,071 annually. This figure included $45,000 from the partially unabated

property taxes, $25,000 from income tax sharing, and approximately $37,000

from the base land tax. Mr. Gottke confirmed these amounts and

acknowledged that the base tax portion was not broken out on the

spreadsheet but would be included in future reports.

Vice President Weaver clarified that all the figures being discussed assumed

that the property would be developed and the abatement granted. If the

property were not developed, it would remain taxed at its current base value.

Director Gottke agreed with this explanation.

President Bowers reviewed the spreadsheet further to ensure full

understanding of the tax amounts involved. She confirmed that the full tax

load with no abatement would be $387,570, that $310,000 would be abated

annually over 12 years, and that the school district’s foregone revenue from

the abatement would total approximately $181,259 annually. Director Gottke

affirmed these calculations. President Bowers continued to express concerns

about the proposal. She stated that she saw no basis for invoking an

emergency clause to expedite the ordinance’s passage. She also noted that

the city previously negotiated a 70% abatement with Burns and Scalo for a

larger number of guaranteed jobs with comparable or higher wages. Based

on these comparisons, she could not support the current proposal as

presented. Furthermore, she voiced concerns about the enforceability of the

guaranteed income tax payments, given that the responsible entity was newly

formed for the project. Mr. Taggart responded that the tenant leases would

contain provisions requiring tenants to pay additional sums if they failed to

meet the required job numbers, thereby backing up the income tax guarantee.

President Bowers asked whether Velocis Gahanna JV, LP or Velocis

Gahanna JV, LLC would be responsible for initiating legal action against

tenants who failed to meet these requirements. Mr. Taggart was unable to

answer definitively, but stated that he would consult with the developer.

Director Gottke clarified that the city's agreement was directly with Velocis.

The city would not involve itself in how Velocis enforced its leases; Velocis

would remain responsible for ensuring that the guaranteed income tax

payments were made. President Bowers maintained her concern,

emphasizing that the agreement placed obligations on a newly created entity,

which could present challenges in terms of collectability. Mr. Hodge

acknowledged her concerns, noting that President Bowers was raising valid

legal issues. He stated that the developer intended to invest significant capital

in the project and would own a valuable real estate asset post-development.

He indicated that the ownership structure could be addressed to ensure that

the entity responsible under the CRA agreement was the same as the

property owner. President Bowers acknowledged that this matter could be

discussed further with legal counsel. Mr. Hodge reiterated that the applicant

was eager to move forward, as numerous contract extensions already

occurred and time was running short. He emphasized that the property was

on the market for 17 years and that the proposal represented what the market

would support. He praised Council for thoroughly evaluating the proposal,

noting that everyone was working to ensure Gahanna received the best

possible deal. Mr. Hodge concluded by expressing his broader support for

CRA programs. He argued that abatements helped create opportunities that

ultimately benefited the community. He stated that while the initial 12-year

abatement would generate no school children, it would eventually result in full

tax revenue for the school district once the abatement expired. He

emphasized that the proposal would benefit public health, safety, welfare, and

education in the long run.

Councilmember Schnetzer stated that throughout the discussion, it had

become clear that many of the figures presented in the spreadsheet reflected

the total benefit to the broader community, which included overlapping

jurisdictions such as the schools, county, and township. He emphasized that,

as a city councilmember, his primary focus was on the city’s direct benefit.

He requested an addendum to the spreadsheet that would isolate the benefit

to the city itself, along with a recalculated return on investment (ROI)

percentage. He noted that this additional information would significantly

influence his decision. While he was not yet comfortable advancing the

proposal, he was open to further discussion once the information became

available.

Councilmember Padova sought clarification from Mr. Hodge regarding the

developer’s role. She noted that Mr. Hodge repeatedly stated that “they want

to be here,” but emphasized that the developer would not actually operate any

business on-site. Mr. Hodge confirmed that the property owner would not be

the end user or operator but would build the facility to lease to one or more

tenants.

Vice President Weaver stated that he typically evaluated projects by

considering whether they represented the highest and best use of the parcel.

He acknowledged Director Gottke’s earlier statement about balancing ideal

outcomes with practical opportunities. While he appreciated the information

presented, he remained concerned about the discrepancy between the

abatement terms granted to Burns and Scalo and those proposed here. He

stated that he was not yet prepared to support the proposal but appreciated

the time and effort that went into preparing the presentation. He also

confirmed that, to date, the city had not received other inquiries regarding

development of this parcel.

Councilmember McGregor asked Director Gottke why the property was not

developed sooner and what limitations made the parcel less desirable. Mr.

Gottke explained that, for much of the past 17 years, the property was

marketed for office use, which generated no interest. More recently, industrial

users expressed interest. He identified significant site challenges, including

topography, extensive grading and tree clearing requirements, the presence

of a utility line limiting buildable space, and stormwater drainage issues, all of

which increased development costs. Councilmember McGregor also asked

about the nearby path leading to Taylor Road. Mr. Taggart clarified that the

existing path would remain in place.

Vice President Weaver addressed the procedural next steps. He proposed

that the legislation proceed to a first reading at the next Council meeting on

June 16, 2025, followed by a return to committee on June 23, 2025, for further

discussion. He acknowledged the timing constraints expressed by the

applicant and clarified that while some Councilmembers requested additional

information, such requests would not hold up the process. Councilmember

Schnetzer agreed, confirming that the additional financial information he

requested was for his personal evaluation and not a condition for advancing

the legislation.

Director Gottke explained that if Council delayed action beyond the proposed

timeline, the emergency clause would still be required to meet the contractual

deadline for the land sale. Mr. Hodge concurred.

President Bowers confirmed that the proposed site plan was scheduled for

review by the Planning Commission that week. She noted that the site plan

included parking that would abut the existing city easement where the path

was located, but the path itself would not be affected.

Councilmember Jones asked whether Council would need the updated

financial information prior to the first reading or if it could be provided later.

Vice President Weaver clarified that no changes to the legislation were being

proposed at this time and that the requested information would serve to guide

Councilmembers’ individual decisions prior to the final vote.

Hearing no objections, Vice President Weaver concluded that Council would

proceed with the proposed schedule. Mr. Hodge thanked Council for their time

and acknowledged Vice President Weaver’s procedural solution, which

allowed the proposal to remain on its anticipated timeline while giving Council

the opportunity to continue evaluating the request. He expressed appreciation

for the opportunity to present the proposal.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 6/16/2025;

Return to Committee of the Whole for Further Discussion 6/23/2025; Second

Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 7/7/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:

Gahanna Civic Center - 825 Tech Center Drive Update

2025-0123

Gahanna Civic Center (825 Tech Center Drive) Construction Update

6.9.2025

Kevin Schultz, Senior Director of Operations, provided the monthly update on

the Gahanna Civic Center project. He informed the Council that significant

progress had continued at 825 Tech Center Drive. He invited Council

members to schedule appointments for site tours, mentioning that staff

remained available every Tuesday and could make additional

accommodations as necessary.

Exterior & Interior Progress

For the May update, Schultz reported that site grading and final site

preparations were well underway. However, recent torrential downpours

impacted some of the curb work and gravel installation at the front of the

building. Despite the weather challenges, a significant amount of concrete

was already installed. The bioswale was also installed at the front of the

property. Schultz anticipated that all curbs would be in place by the middle of

the following week, with the initial asphalt course scheduled for installation by

the end of June. He noted that the front of the property was beginning to take

shape, visually. He reported that rooftop units were installed, allowing for air

movement and conditioning on the second and third floors. This air circulation

supported painting and other interior finishing work by controlling humidity

levels. Elford would be moving their construction trailer off-site later in the

week and would begin operating out of the building. This transition would allow

work to begin on the back parking lot, including conduit installation for electric

vehicle chargers and preparation for the asphalt overlay. This work would also

accommodate the finalization of the generator, which was installed but not yet

connected.

Interior work continued to progress. Fire suppression systems were

completed, tested, and inspected. Ceiling grids and heating, ventilation, and

air conditioning (HVAC) diffusers were being installed on the second floor. All

lighting and lighting controls were installed and were operational on the third

floor, with similar work progressing on the second floor. Framing on the first

floor was nearly complete, positioning the entire facility for drywall and finish

work to commence. Schultz noted that the project was 73% complete, based

on time. Through the month of May 2025, the project experienced 27 weather

days, with additional weather-related delays occurring due to recent rain. He

then referenced several photos. A photo from June 4, 2024, showed the

progress over the past 367 days. A recent drone photo, taken by GIS staff

member Joe Collin, highlighted the presence of a curb layer actively following

gravel outlines at the site. Mr. Schultz stated that the exterior of the site was

beginning to come to life and that the parking lot and front entrance would

soon resemble their final appearance. He also showed photos of the bioswale

installation, describing the process and materials used, and explained that

further discussions on sustainability features would take place in upcoming

updates. A final photo depicted the drive lane leading to City Hall, the Police

Department, and the Senior Center, where visitors would be dropped off. Mr.

Schultz remarked on the building’s aesthetic appeal, acknowledging his

personal bias but stating that the building was striking and represented how

the City of Gahanna wanted to present itself. He also expressed appreciation

for Ms. Bowers' earlier comments about the project serving as a catalyst for

development in the area.

May Financial Updates

Reviewing the financials, Director Schultz stated that 56% of the total $59.6

million construction contract was invoiced, totaling just under $33.5 million. Of

the $4.8 million in allowances and contingencies, approximately 43% of the

allowance funds and about 47% of the contingency funds were spent, totaling

about 46% of the $4.8 million. He concluded that the project remained

financially healthy and continued to trend positively within the overall budget.

Schultz then offered to take questions on the current construction progress

and May financials before proceeding to discuss the public spaces within the

building.

Questions from Council

President Bowers thanked Director Schultz and expressed her enthusiasm

for the project’s progress, stating that it had gone as well as it possibly could.

President Bowers requested that Mr. Schultz provide, via email, a more

detailed breakdown of the expenditures to date and anticipated future

expenditures, organized by area. She recalled a chart previously provided by

Elford that identified vendors and expenditures and suggested that a similar

format might be helpful. She clarified that her request was part of the

Council's due diligence and not due to any concerns or suspicions. Schultz

confirmed that he understood the request and explained that he would

organize the data by discipline, such as electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and the

other 30 or so trades involved in the project. He noted that while the report

would be lengthy, it would sum up to the total figures already presented.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked a clarifying question regarding the

budgeted allowances and contingencies table. He inquired if the $1.844

million figure was derived by taking 43% of $1.054 million and 47% of another

amount. Schultz explained that the $1.844 million was calculated by taking

46.39% of the total $4.776 million shown on the third line of the chart.

Councilmember Padova offered a comment, noting that she intended to

share it during the previous update. She remarked on the impressive daily

work taking place on the construction site, highlighting the multiple trades and

workers simultaneously performing their specialized tasks. She commended

everyone involved in the project for their dedication and expressed her

appreciation to Director Schultz and his team for keeping the Council

informed and for extending invitations to visit the site. She stated her intention

to take advantage of the tour opportunity soon. Schultz responded by

expressing his gratitude for the comments. He emphasized that many

individuals contributed to the project’s success, including city staff, Elford,

MSA, Terracon, local vendors conducting special inspections, and the city’s

building department inspectors, who conducted daily inspections to ensure a

quality project.

Project Objectives & Public Spaces Review

Director Schultz continued his presentation by offering a brief overview of the

project objectives. He emphasized that the design aimed to create an inviting

and approachable space with a clear civic presence, while maintaining a

community- and service-focused atmosphere. He explained that these

objectives directly related to the public spaces inside the facility, which he

would highlight. He described the images displayed on the screen, noting that

they did not fully capture the scale and feel of the interior space as designed.

The rendering in the upper left corner showed the main lobby as visitors

would experience it upon entering the building. The customer service desk

was oriented toward the main doors, with City Council Chambers clearly

visible immediately to the right, rather than further down a hallway. Mayor’s

Court would also be easily accessible from this area. Schultz briefly reviewed

the layout of the City Council Chambers. He referenced a rendering and a

current construction photo, noting that the photo did not fully convey the

space’s configuration. Using markers on the diagram, he pointed out the main

entrance, the center of the dais, and other reference points. He explained that

the dais would sit approximately 20 inches lower than the current dais,

offering a different feel for both Councilmembers and presenters. He also

noted that the back entrance allowed access from the holding area to Mayor’s

Court, and that a built-in internal handicap ramp was incorporated into the

dais design for accessibility.

Director Schultz then introduced a video flythrough of the facility. He explained

that the video would begin at the front entrance, proceed through the main

lobby, into City Council Chambers, pass the Mayor’s Court waiting area,

continue through the Police Department’s secure lobby, travel down a

corridor to the Senior Center, and eventually return to the main lobby. As the

video played, Schultz continued to narrate, pointing out design features such

as the customer service windows and the interior corridors. He highlighted

how the design incorporated natural light and landscaping views, drawing

attention to how visitors’ eyes would be drawn to the outdoor landscaping

visible through interior windows, creating a connection between the indoor

and outdoor spaces. He credited MSA for the building’s design and Elford for

bringing the vision to life. Schultz concluded his prepared remarks and invited

additional questions from Councilmembers.

Additional Questions and Comments

Councilmember Padova thanked Director Schultz for mentioning the

landscaping and raised a question regarding the incorporation of herbs into

the design. She inquired whether herbs would be included, acknowledging

that it might not be to the extent of the Geroux Herb Garden at the current

location, and asked how such elements might be incorporated. Schultz

responded that he was not entirely certain of the specific planting plan details.

He explained that Parks and Recreation staff reviewed the landscaping plan

and provided feedback to the landscape architects, requesting changes to

several plant and tree selections. Some of the originally proposed species

were either not preferred or potentially invasive. As a result, adjustments were

made to ensure the landscaping would feature native and lower-maintenance

plantings. While he could not confirm whether herbs would be included, he

assured the Council that the area in front of the building would have a

park-like setting for visitors conducting business or attending other functions.

Mayor Jadwin added that herbs were incorporated into the building’s internal

design and graphics, including elements such as the frosting on conference

room windows. She explained that efforts were being made to reflect the

city’s heritage and history through these design features. Additionally, she

mentioned that a historical timeline recognizing the city’s past would be

included within the building to honor Gahanna’s special designation and

historical significance. Schultz concluded by stating that a special

presentation on the graphics package would be scheduled closer to the fall,

allowing Councilmembers to review the proposed designs for features such

as window frosting and other interior graphics.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION:

ORD-0027-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN

ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CENTERPOINT CHURCH

FOR THE USE OF PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 670 MCCUTCHEON

ROAD; AND AUTHORIZING

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION

FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (3250)

Stephania Ferrell, Director of Parks & Recreation, presented a proposal

concerning Sunpoint Park. She explained that the park served a wide variety

of users and activities, often generating high parking demand. Due to its

proximity and convenience, the private parking lot owned by Centerpoint

Church was frequently used for overflow parking. Director Ferrell stated that

the administration, in coordination with Centerpoint Church, respectfully

requested an ordinance authorizing Mayor Jadwin to enter into an access

agreement with Centerpoint Church. She further requested a supplemental

appropriation of $150,000 for the first payment of the 20-year agreement. She

clarified that Centerpoint Church would remain responsible for maintaining the

parking lot.

Councilmember Padova asked whether there was any prior agreement with

Centerpoint Church regarding parking. Director Ferrell explained that since

the park’s opening in 2019, the parking challenge existed, but no formal

agreement was in place. This proposal represented the first formal resolution

of that long-standing issue. Councilmember Padova inquired further, asking

whether the issue stemmed from complaints about parking or simply from the

need to clarify responsibility. Director Ferrell confirmed that Centerpoint

Church was not upset about the parking but, as a private property owner,

retained responsibility for maintenance. She added that the church was willing

to accommodate park users as long as their own use of the lot was not

disrupted. Councilmember Padova questioned the cost of the agreement,

noting the initial $150,000 payment followed by a second payment for a total

of $300,000 over 20 years. Director Ferrell confirmed that the agreement

amounted to $15,000 annually for 20 years. She explained that the fee

reflected the maintenance costs and the significant level of access being

granted, which allowed use of the lot every day except Sunday mornings and

religious holidays. Councilmember Padova asked whether athletic fields at

Sunpoint Park contributed to the high parking demand. Director Ferrell

confirmed that athletic fields were located adjacent to the church lot, and

multiple amenities often operated simultaneously, increasing the need for

parking. She noted that, for convenience, visitors frequently used the church

lot for access to the fields.

Councilmember Jones asked whether the city had any control over

maintenance expectations under the agreement. Director Ferrell responded

that the access agreement outlined specific maintenance standards,

including restriping the lot every two years, snow removal, and debris

clearing.

Councilmember McGregor acknowledged that while the payment amount

seemed high, it was a large lot. She asked for an estimate of the cost to fully

repave the lot. Director Ferrell estimated that a full-depth replacement would

cost over $300,000 for a one-time repaving. Councilmember McGregor noted

that the city did not always utilize the full lot but had done so on occasion for

large events, such as National Night Out. Director Ferrell confirmed that the

city coordinated with the church for such events and used the entire lot at

times. Councilmember McGregor expressed that the price seemed fair for the

length of the agreement.

President Bowers agreed, emphasizing that Centerpoint Church had proven

to be a valuable partner not only to Parks and Recreation but also to arts and

community groups. She stated that the agreement reflected shared

responsibility and respect for the church's property.

Vice President Weaver commented that this arrangement appeared

preferable to the city undertaking full maintenance responsibility itself.

Councilmember McGregor added that Sunpoint Park existed because

Centerpoint Church originally planned to build apartments on the site but

ultimately sold the land to the City of Gahanna after discussions with Mayor

Tom Kneeland. She inquired whether similar discussions occurred with the

church near Stonybrook regarding the trailhead parking lot. Director Ferrell

explained that the City of Gahanna engaged in ongoing conversations with

that church, but multiple pastoral transitions led to differing perspectives on

how that property should be used. She stated that discussions would

continue as appropriate if the trailhead option remained viable.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 6/16/2025;

Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 7/7/2025.

ORD-0028-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

FOR GRANT FUNDING AWARDED BY THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF

NATURAL

RESOURCES

(ODNR)

AND

AUTHORIZE

THE

TRANSFER OF MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE BOAT SAFETY GRANT

PROGRAM

Director of Parks and Recreation Stephania Ferrell informed Council that the

administration received grant funding from the Ohio Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Parks and Watercraft. She explained that the grant

was a reimbursement grant and required matching funds. The total amount of

the grant was $18,931. Director Ferrell stated that, for recordkeeping and

compliance purposes, the agreement required the creation of a separate and

dedicated account titled the "Boat Safety Grant Operating Equipment Fund."

This account was established to meet the compliance requirements. She

reported that the administration was respectfully requesting an ordinance for

a supplemental appropriation in the full amount of $18,931. The matching

funds for the grant were previously appropriated. However, the administration

also requested an additional appropriation of $4,733, representing the match

funds, to be transferred from the Recreation Materials and Supplies account

to the Recreation Transfer Out account. Finally, Director Ferrell requested

authorization for the Finance Director to transfer those funds into the

dedicated Boat Safety Grant Operating Equipment Fund in order to remain in

compliance with the grant agreement. There were no questions or

comments.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 6/16/2025;

Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 7/7/2025.

ORD-0029-2025

AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES

AGREEMENT

WITH

KLEINFELDER

ENGINEERING, LLC FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES

FOR THE WOODSIDE GREEN AND HANNAH PARK POND

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS

Director of Parks and Recreation Stephania Ferrell presented the

administration’s request to proceed with improvements at Woodside Green

Ponds and Hannah Park Ponds. She reported that a request for proposal

(RFP) process had been initiated to secure professional services for these

projects. Following the RFP process, Kleinfelder Engineering was selected to

lead the project. Director Ferrell requested that Council authorize Mayor

Jadwin to enter into a professional services agreement with Kleinfelder

Engineering. She noted that funds for the project were already appropriated

as part of the 2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

Councilmember McGregor referenced the scope of services, which

mentioned a previous plan by Kimley-Horn, and asked whether the city had

paid for that earlier study. Director Ferrell confirmed that the city funded the

Kimley-Horn study, but explained that it was only an exploratory review. While

helpful for initial planning, the Kimley-Horn report did not provide the level of

detail necessary to proceed to construction or bidding, which the new

contract with Kleinfelder would address.

President Bowers asked how the administration determined that Hannah Park

required pond maintenance, as she did not recall prior discussions specific to

that park. Director Ferrell explained that Hannah Park contained a functioning

stormwater pond, and completing improvements sooner would provide

long-term cost and functional benefits. She emphasized that addressing

these needs early would help maintain the ponds' intended purpose.

Vice President Weaver noted that the scope included aesthetic

improvements and asked Director Ferrell to summarize those elements for

the record. Director Ferrell stated that, at Woodside Green, which was

frequently used for fishing, the administration would explore feasibility options

such as piers for safer fishing access, particularly for youth, and slip ramps

for boating. She noted that Hannah Park ponds were regularly used for

activities such as kayaking instruction for summer camps and middle school

adventure programs, and improvements would focus on enhancing safety

and accessibility for programming purposes.

Councilmember McGregor recalled prior discussions about the need to

dredge Hannah Park ponds due to silt accumulation. Director Ferrell

confirmed that this project would address that issue, with the upcoming

phase determining the necessary dredging depth.

Councilmember Renner inquired about public awareness efforts for the

project, noting the absence of public outreach components in the proposal.

Director Ferrell explained that public education and communication would be

a key part of the project. She stated that while dredging and related work

might not be visually appealing, it was necessary and would be carefully

explained to park users. Public communication would include a variety of

methods, such as videos, direct letters to nearby residents, updates on the

city website, and social media announcements, coordinated by the city's

marketing and communications team.

Councilmember Renner asked about the expected timeline for the work.

Director Ferrell responded that the permitting and environmental review

processes would require significant time. She stated that activity at Hannah

Park was not anticipated until 2027, while work at Woodside Green could

potentially begin earlier. However, due to the proximity of Woodside Green to

a floodway, extensive permitting would also be required, making exact

timelines uncertain at this stage. Councilmember Renner further asked

whether the work might occur during peak park usage periods. Director

Ferrell acknowledged that was a possibility but assured Council that the

department was also considering other ongoing improvements at nearby

parks, such as Academy Park, to minimize concurrent disruptions to multiple

sites.

Councilmember McGregor asked about the disposal process for dredged

materials, noting that drying out the material could take considerable time.

Director Ferrell explained that multiple options would be evaluated depending

on the material's composition. Options included dewatering on-site,

transporting to a landfill, or other disposal methods, which would be

determined as part of the project’s scope once the material was fully

assessed.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 6/16/2025;

Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 7/7/2025.

RES-0028-2025

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE

FUNDING FROM THE OHIO URBAN FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM

ADMINISTERED BY THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY

Director of Parks and Recreation Stephania Ferrell presented a request for

Council authorization to apply for grant funding through the Ohio Department

of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Forestry. She explained that the

grant application required formal authorization from the city’s governing body

to proceed. The administration respectfully requested a resolution granting

the authority to submit the application.

Councilmember McGregor asked for clarification on the specific location

referenced in the grant materials, which mentioned Interstate 270. Director

Ferrell explained that the targeted project area was identified in a map

included as part of the grant cycle materials. She stated that only the Royal

Manor area of Gahanna qualified for funding under the grant’s eligibility

criteria, and the proposed project would focus on that location.

Vice President Weaver expressed his appreciation to Director Ferrell and the

administration for their continued efforts to pursue external funding sources.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 6/16/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE:

ORD-0026-2025

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 - Various Funds for Retirement Expense

Purposes and Real Estate Settlement Fees

Director of Finance Joann Bury requested supplemental appropriations as

part of the city’s normal budget monitoring process. She explained that

several accounts required additional funding to cover expenses through the

remainder of the year. The primary need stemmed from severance payouts.

She reported that the city experienced three retirements so far in the year and

anticipated three more by year-end. The initial retirements largely depleted the

available balances in those severance accounts. Additionally, Director Bury

noted that adjustments were needed for auditor and treasurer fees related to

first-half income tax collections. While the department estimated these fees

based on percentages and historical trends, the actual collections came in

slightly higher than expected. She stated that these types of mid-year

adjustments were typical once the first settlement amounts were received.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 6/16/2025;

Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 7/7/2025.

RES-0026-2025

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TAX BUDGET OF THE CITY OF

GAHANNA, OHIO, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,

2026

Director of Finance Joann Bury presented the 2026 annual tax budget and

requested a resolution authorizing its submission. She explained that state

law required the budget to be filed with the county budget commission by July

20, 2025. The purpose of the tax budget was to enable the budget

commission to confirm that the city needed all of the property tax revenues

currently being levied and to certify those amounts. She emphasized that the

tax budget was not an appropriation request. The process would culminate in

October 2025, when the county budget commission would set the tax rates

and amounts, which would then return to Council for approval by resolution.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 6/16/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY:

RES-0029-2025

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE GAHANNA CITY ATTORNEY TO

JOIN AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF CINCINNATI

CASE PENDING BEFORE THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

CONCERNING TAXPAYER STANDING

City Attorney Tamilarasan presented a memo outlining a legal matter

currently under review by the Ohio Supreme Court involving taxpayer litigation

and standing requirements. She explained that the litigation originated from

Cincinnati, where a taxpayer filed a lawsuit without alleging any specific public

harm or private injury. Traditionally, in such taxpayer suits, the courts require

that plaintiffs demonstrate some form of harm, either to themselves or to the

public, as a basis for legal standing. City Attorney Tamilarasan clarified that

taxpayer litigation allows individuals to file suit if they believe a municipality is

misapplying funds or acting outside its legal bounds and the city’s law director

or solicitor fails to initiate corrective legal action. The longstanding legal

precedent required an articulable harm to proceed with such suits. In the

Cincinnati case, the plaintiff filed litigation purely on disagreement with the

city's decision, without identifying a harmed public interest or personal injury.

She emphasized that this issue did not affect citizens' rights to challenge

municipal actions through referendums or other mechanisms, but was

specific to taxpayer lawsuits, which, while infrequent, carry significant legal

precedent. Should the Ohio Supreme Court overturn the appellate court

decision, it could erode the standing requirement and potentially lead to an

increase in similar lawsuits, regardless of whether any harm is demonstrated.

President Bowers expressed appreciation for the explanation and noted that

she previously shared some discomfort about the city potentially joining the

lawsuit. She asked for clarification on Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section

733.59, which City Attorney Tamilarasan referenced in her memo, seeking to

better understand the origins of the taxpayer right to file such suits.

City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed that ORC 733.59 governs taxpayer

suits, granting taxpayers the right to bring suit in their own name on behalf of

a municipal corporation if the law director or solicitor fails to act. This statute

empowers the solicitor to file injunctions or other legal actions to restrain

wrongful municipal acts, and if the solicitor declines, a taxpayer may initiate

legal action to protect the public interest. She added that Gahanna’s city

charter mirrors this statutory provision. She further explained that while the

courts have long recognized the right to taxpayer litigation, they have

consistently required plaintiffs to demonstrate standing by articulating a public

right that is being infringed. In the Cincinnati case, both private injury and

public harm were absent, leading the appeals court to find no standing.

President Bowers asked whether the city’s legal position would advocate that

plaintiffs must articulate a specific public right, rather than demonstrating

individualized harm. City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed this, stating that

their position would be that a plaintiff must identify a public right being

advanced in order to proceed with taxpayer litigation. The city would not argue

that personal injury was required, only that a public right must be implicated.

President Bowers thanked City Attorney Tamilarasan for the clarification,

stating that the explanation resolved her concerns.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 6/16/2025.

ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:

Councilmember Schnetzer:

RES-0024-2025

JOINT RESOLUTION AND PROCLAMATION HONORING AND

RECOGNIZING KYLEE TIBBS, GAHANNA LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL'S

FIRST-EVER OHSAA STATE WRESTLING CHAMPION

Councilmember Schnetzer introduced Resolution 0024-2025, which

recognized Ms. KyLee Tibbs, a student-athlete at Gahanna Lincoln High

School. He noted that Ms. Tibbs earned the distinction of becoming the

school’s first-ever state wrestling champion, across both boys’ and girls’

divisions. Councilmember Schnetzer also mentioned that she was an

impressive student academically. He explained that the resolution language

was intended to serve as a proclamation, and that the resolution was

reviewed by the administration. Councilmember Schnetzer stated that, due to

Miss Tibbs' international travel schedule, the goal was to present the

resolution as early as Monday, June 16, 2025. He apologized to his

colleagues for the short timeline and invited any necessary amendments or

edits to the resolution.

Vice President Weaver extended his congratulations to Miss Tibbs, remarking

on her impressive accomplishments both athletically and academically.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 6/16/2025.

Councilmember Jones:

RES-0025-2025

JOINT

RESOLUTION

AND

PROCLAMATION

HONORING

JUNETEENTH & THE INAUGURAL JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION IN

THE CITY OF GAHANNA

Councilmember Jones presented a joint resolution and proclamation honoring

Juneteenth, as well as recognizing the upcoming Juneteenth celebration. She

noted that the celebration would take place on the upcoming Saturday, June

14, 2025, prior to the Creekside Blues and Jazz Festival. Councilmember

Jones explained that the resolution language followed the format used in

previous years for Juneteenth, with the addition of a whereas clause

acknowledging the celebration and honoring the committee that worked since

the fall to plan the event. She stated that the resolution was scheduled for

presentation next week, and that the committee members were invited to

attend the meeting.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 6/16/2025.

Councilmember Bowers:

RES-0027-2025

A JOINT RESOLUTION AND PROCLAMATION HONORING DR. PAUL

KAUFMAN, MD, FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO UROLOGIC CARE

AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

President Bowers introduced a joint resolution and proclamation recognizing

Dr. Paul Kaufman and his work through the Central Ohio Urology Group. She

explained that the Central Ohio Urology Group played a significant role as an

anchor in the development of the Tech Center Drive corridor, particularly in

attracting state-of-the-art medical facilities to the Buckles Tract area. Dr.

Kaufman was instrumental in bringing together small urology practices to

form what became the lasting entity of the Central Ohio Urology Group.

President Bowers noted that Dr. Kaufman faced significant health conditions,

and that his colleagues were eager to recognize his contributions to their

practice, the region, and the field of urology. She then invited Mayor Jadwin to

add any further remarks.

Mayor Jadwin affirmed President Bowers’ comments, emphasizing that Dr.

Kaufman’s colleagues were very excited to honor him. She expressed her

enthusiasm that the city would recognize him through this joint presentation,

which would both honor Dr. Kaufman and acknowledge the role of Central

Ohio Urology Group as the first medical office building at Crescent at Central

Park.

President Bowers stated that, if adopted, the resolution would be presented

offsite at 5:15 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. She reminded Council that

a save-the-date notice had already been sent and encouraged everyone to

mark their calendars. She added that a building plaque dedication would take

place at the same time. Mayor Jadwin confirmed that the sign was already

installed and that a ceremony would be held around the plaque as part of the

event.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 6/16/2025.

Discussion: Additional Anticipated Resolutions

President Bowers reminded Council that she previously circulated a note

inviting members to submit resolutions they would like to bring forward or

partnerships they were interested in pursuing. She explained that the previous

resolution planning calendar, which covered the first half of the year, had now

expired. Staff were requesting input from Council members to help guide their

workload and provide appropriate support. President Bowers encouraged

members to notify staff as soon as possible if they had resolutions they

wished to advance or introduce. She shared that, in addition to the Kaufman

resolution scheduled for July 2025, she planned to introduce a resolution in

recognition of Disability Pride Month, commemorating the 35th anniversary of

the Americans with Disabilities Act. She intended to bring this forward later in

the month. President Bowers also highlighted another potential resolution

recognizing Killian Sullivan, a Gahanna student recently named the American

Birding Association's 2025 Young Birder of the Year. She noted that Killian

identified nearly 300 bird species and taught workshops at the Grange

Audubon Insurance Center. She expressed interest in recognizing him as part

of World Animal Month and Habitat Day on October 6, 2025.

Councilmember McGregor offered a clarification, noting that Killian’s lifetime

list may actually be closer to 680 species worldwide, as his birding

experiences included international travel. She explained that the 300 species

likely reflected his count for the current year, and that his goal was to become

the youngest person to reach 700 species. President Bowers acknowledged

the correction with humor, thanking Councilmember McGregor and stating

that the resolution would reflect the correct information.

Mayor Jadwin expressed interest in jointly sponsoring the resolution honoring

Killian Sullivan. She remarked that the children in Gahanna’s community

continued to be amazing and deserved recognition. President Bowers agreed

and added that the recognition tied well into the city’s ongoing initiatives

focused on protecting old-growth trees, preserving habitats, and maintaining

the city’s over 800 acres of parkland. She emphasized the importance of

educating the community on how to attract migratory birds and celebrating