Minutes - Committee of the Whole

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, July 6, 2026

City Hall, Council Chambers

Immediately following the regular City Council meeting beginning at 7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER:

Gahanna City Council met for Committee of the Whole on Monday, July 6,

2026, in Council Chambers. President of Council Trenton I. Weaver, Chair,

called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. The agenda was published on

Thursday, July 2, 2026. Vice President Jamille Jones was absent from the

meeting. All other members were present. There were no additions or

corrections to the agenda.

ITEMS FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION:

2026-0139

Transmittal Memo to Council via Ethan Barnhardt, Chair, 2026 Charter

Review Commission

President Weaver recognized several members of the Charter Review

Commission who were in attendance and invited them forward to

present.

Ethan Barnhardt, Charter Review Commission Chair, thanked President

Weaver and Council for the opportunity to discuss the work of the Charter

Review Commission. He explained that the Commission considered

numerous amendment proposals, including suggestions from

Councilmembers and others, and took its responsibility seriously

throughout the review process. He stated that the Commission

recognized that not every proposal warranted advancement and focused

on determining which amendments were appropriate, sufficiently

developed, and important enough to recommend to Council and

ultimately to the voters.

Carrin Wester, Charter Review Commission Vice Chair, provided an

overview of the Charter Review Commission's process and timeline. She

explained that the Commission consisted of seven members, with four

appointed by Council and three appointed by the Mayor, and that the

Commission held 11 public meetings during which public comment was

accepted at every meeting. Ms. Wester stated that the Commission held

its organizational meeting in February, elected its leadership, and

established its rules of procedure. She explained that the Commission

received presentations in late February and early March, including

information about local government and the City's strategic plan, to

ensure that members shared a common understanding before beginning

deliberations. Ms. Wester reported that during March the Commission

adopted its review process and framework, cataloged correspondence,

and reviewed suggested charter amendments submitted by the

administration, Council members, and members of boards and

commissions. She stated that in April the Commission focused on

deliberating the necessity of proposed amendments, considering the

potential consequences of changes, and consistently asking what issue

the proposed amendment was intended to address. She explained that

the Commission evaluated and scored the remaining amendments

before forwarding them to the City Attorney for draft language. Ms.

Wester reported that during May the Commission reviewed draft

language and the rationale for each proposed amendment. She noted

that the Commission removed some proposed amendments when it

determined that sufficient evidence or support for the changes did not

exist. She stated that in June the Commission finalized and revised the

proposed language, discussed single-subject rule requirements, clarified

the rationale for the recommended amendments, and concluded its work

at its June 8 meeting. She noted that the recommendations submitted to

Council reflected the Commission's final work, with only a few

subsequent changes.

Mr. Barnhardt explained that the Charter Review Commission developed

and adopted an evaluation framework to review and filter the proposed

charter amendments submitted for consideration. He stated that the

Commission first determined whether each proposal belonged at the

charter level, recognizing that some proposals were more appropriately

addressed through Council legislation or administrative rules. He

explained that the Commission also sought sufficient information to fully

understand each proposal before making recommendations. He noted

that Commission members relied on presenters and the City Attorney to

provide background information and legal context because the members

did not possess subject matter expertise in every area under review. He

added that the Commission also considered whether each proposal was

ready for drafting. Mr. Barnhardt stated that the Commission adopted

scoring criteria as part of its evaluation framework, although the scores

themselves did not determine whether a proposal advanced. Instead, the

Commission used the framework as a tool to guide discussions and

evaluate proposals through the lenses of governance relevance, public

impact, governance clarity and effectiveness, alignment with the City's

Strategic Plan, legal risk, and whether the proposal could be clearly

communicated to voters and prepared for the ballot. He explained that

the framework provided a consistent approach for evaluating proposals

throughout the review process.

Ms. Wester summarized the Commission's 10 recommended charter

amendments by grouping them into four categories. She explained that

the first category modernized and aligned charter language by updating

administrative department titles to reflect the City's current organizational

structure and by incorporating cleanup revisions submitted by the City

Attorney, including typographical corrections and other minor language

changes. Ms. Wester stated that the second category clarified and

standardized charter language by addressing elected official

qualifications and the abstention process for Councilmembers during

voting. She explained that the third category focused on reducing costs

and eliminating duplication. She noted that the proposed amendment

regarding the mayoral primary election would eliminate the requirement

to hold a primary election when only two candidates filed for the office of

Mayor, explaining that the existing requirement could result in

unnecessary election costs. She stated that the 2023 mayoral primary

election had cost the City more than $300,000. She added that the

second amendment in this category would transfer Board of Zoning and

Building Appeals responsibilities to the Planning Commission, as

recommended by the administration. Ms. Wester reported that the final

category addressed accountability and stewardship. She stated that the

proposed amendments established a process for adjusting ward

boundaries, clarified Planning Commission attendance requirements,

changed the Charter Review Commission review cycle from every five

years to every 10 years, and updated the charter's nondiscrimination

clause to use more inclusive and current language.

Mr. Barnhardt stated that the Charter Review Commission had

completed its substantive work and that Council would now determine

whether to advance the Commission's recommendations. He explained

that each recommendation reflected meaningful public discussion,

thorough legal review, and careful consideration. He stated that the

Commission took its responsibility seriously, devoted significant time

and effort to its work, and concluded that the proposed amendments

represented its final recommendations to Council and ultimately to the

voters. He thanked Council for its consideration and stated that the

Commission was available to answer questions.

President Weaver thanked Mr. Barnhardt and Ms. Wester for their

presentation and invited the City Attorney to provide an overview of the

procedural process before Council began asking questions of the

Commission.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained the Council's role in considering the

resolutions before it and scheduled for introduction at the next meeting.

She stated that the Charter mandated that any recommendations

certified by the Charter Review Commission be submitted to the

electorate. She explained that the Council's role did not include

evaluating the appropriateness of the resolutions, modifying the

recommended language, or determining whether the proposals served

the community's best interests because the Charter assigned those

responsibilities to the Charter Review Commission. She reminded

Council that its role was to acknowledge receipt of the

recommendations, approve the final drafted language, and direct the

Board of Elections to place the measures on the ballot. City Attorney

Tamilarasan also reported that staff had corrected two clerical errors

before submitting the resolutions. She explained that one resolution

contained an incorrect article number in columns two and three of the

exhibit, although column one contained the correct title, and staff

corrected that error. She also explained that the proposed

non-discrimination clause in Article 23.07 accidentally duplicated four

categories. Staff removed the duplicate language, and she emphasized

that the correction did not change the substance of the proposal.

President Weaver thanked City Attorney Tamilarasan for her guidance

throughout the Charter Review Commission process and opened the

floor for questions and comments.

Councilmember McGregor thanked the Charter Review Commission for

its work. She said she attended the Commission's final meeting when

members selected their recommendations and described the discussion

as lively. She remarked that she believed she chose a good meeting to

attend. She thanked the Commission members for the significant amount

of time they devoted to the process and noted that, although they did not

always agree, they worked well together, which she said was important.

Councilmember Renner thanked the Charter Review Commission

members for the time and effort they devoted to the charter review

process. He stated that, having served on Council for many years and

participated in several charter review cycles, he believed this

Commission's process distinguished itself by approaching the work

thoughtfully and methodically. He commended the Commission for using

a process that emphasized presenting changes in a manner that voters

could understand and stated that the Commission's process would be an

important part of explaining the proposed amendments to the electorate.

Mayor Jadwin expressed her sincere appreciation to the Commission

members for their service and commitment throughout the review

process. Having attended the Commission meetings, she remarked that

members demonstrated thorough preparation, extensive research, and

thoughtful consideration before each meeting. She acknowledged that

members did not always agree but consistently conducted their

discussions professionally and respectfully. She emphasized that the City

Charter serves as the foundation for the City's government and

establishes transparency and accountability to residents. She thanked

the Commission for its careful stewardship of that responsibility and

expressed her gratitude for its service.

Councilmember Bowers thanked the Commission members, including

Mr. Hill who was also in attendance, for their service. She asked about

the Commission's consideration of the City's form of government, noting

that the topic arose during the Commission's organizational meeting,

appeared in subsequent correspondence received by the Commission,

and generated discussion during the review process. She asked whether

the Commission believed it would be prudent to establish an ad hoc

committee or study group to examine the issue further.

Mr. Barnhardt responded that the Commission discussed the topic after

receiving correspondence and hearing presentations but did not identify

a sufficiently strong rationale to recommend further action. He stated that,

aside from Councilmember Padova's presentation and additional pieces

of correspondence, the issue did not emerge as a significant concern

during the Commission's review. He added that while Council possessed

the authority to pursue additional study if it chose, the Commission did

not believe it had sufficient support or information to recommend further

examination.

Ms. Wester added that the Commission sought to evaluate every

proposal objectively and consistently asked proponents to explain what

problem a proposed amendment would solve. She recalled asking

follow-up questions about the form of government proposal in an effort to

understand why such a significant change should be considered. She

stated that the Commission repeatedly returned to the question of

identifying a clear need for change and determining the consequences of

altering the existing charter language. She explained that the

Commission anticipated receiving additional information to support the

proposal but did not receive sufficient substantive information to justify

advancing the discussion.

Councilmember Bowers stated that the responses clarified the

Commission's position on why it had not recommended additional study

of the City's form of government despite receiving correspondence from

residents on the subject. Councilmember Bowers then asked the

Commission to elaborate on its recommendation to change the Charter

Review Commission's meeting frequency from every five years to every

10 years. She noted that Ms. Wester had indicated the proposed change

aligned with practices in comparable communities and asked her to

explain the Commission's reasoning and discuss what options remained

available for Council or residents to propose future charter amendments.

Ms. Wester explained that the Commission reviewed charters from

surrounding communities and found that a 10-year review cycle

represented the more common practice. She stated that the Commission

believed frequent charter revisions could gradually alter the foundational

document through incremental changes made during each review cycle.

She explained that the Commission wanted to avoid making changes

simply because a Charter Review Commission had convened and

sought instead to recommend amendments only when a clear need

existed. She added that the Commission concluded a 10-year review

cycle more closely aligned with surrounding communities and reduced

the temptation to make unnecessary changes.

Mr. Barnhardt added that the Commission observed inconsistencies

within the Charter that resulted from the frequency of past reviews. He

explained that each five-year review introduced additional revisions that

sometimes created new inconsistencies requiring future correction. He

stated that the Charter should remain a foundational governing document

that should not be amended too frequently. He noted that the City Charter

had been amended more than 80 times since the 1960s and stated that

the Commission concluded the current five-year review cycle was less

efficient than the 10-year review cycle used by most comparable

communities.

President Weaver thanked the Charter Review Commission members

for their service and expressed appreciation for the contributions of the

entire Commission. Referring to the procedural guidance provided by the

City Attorney, he asked whether Council wished to place the

Commission's 10 proposed charter amendments on the consent agenda

at the next meeting.

Councilmember Bowers asked the City Attorney to confirm whether

Council possessed the authority to place additional charter amendments

on the November ballot beyond those recommended by the Charter

Review Commission. City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed that Council

could advance a charter amendment at any time with five affirmative

votes. Councilmember Bowers stated that she wanted to gauge the

interest of her colleagues in considering additional charter amendments

that the Commission had not recommended. She specifically referenced

the organizational meeting date, noting that Senior Director Vollmer, Mr.

Barnhardt, and she had each raised the issue during the Charter Review

Commission process. She explained that the Charter currently

established January 2 as the organizational meeting date and suggested

allowing the meeting to occur during the first week of January instead.

She stated that this change would permit the meeting to occur on a

regular Monday rather than, in some years, on a Saturday, such as in

2027. She stated that the proposed change would maintain transparency

because meeting dates would continue to be publicly announced in

advance while also improving consistency by allowing the organizational

meeting to occur on the City's regular meeting day. She also noted that

the change could reduce the need for staff to work on weekends and

observed that, historically, the organizational meeting had not involved

significant legislative business and that newly elected officials could be

sworn in earlier if necessary.

Councilmember Schnetzer stated that the seven members whom Council

had jointly appointed to the Charter Review Commission had completed

a thorough, process-oriented review. He noted that several speakers had

expressed appreciation for the Commission's process and said he was

inclined to defer to the Commission's lack of a recommendation. He

recalled that one concern involved the remote possibility of an

emergency occurring before the newly elected officials had been sworn

into office, which could create an issue if the government was not fully

constituted. He reiterated that he would defer to the Commission's

decision not to recommend a change.

President Weaver asked when a term of office officially begins. He

referenced presidential inaugurations, noting that a new president

assumes office at noon even if the oath has not yet been administered.

He observed that the City Charter and the certificate issued by the Board

of Elections state that the term begins on January 2 but do not specify the

organizational meeting. He asked whether administering the oath or

holding the organizational meeting affected the official start of the term.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the Charter specifies the date

on which each elected official's term begins but also provides that an

official continues to serve until a successor is elected and qualified,

meaning sworn into office. She stated that if the organizational meeting

date changed, the term would still begin on January 2 as prescribed by

the Charter. However, she clarified that an elected official assumes the

duties of office upon taking the oath, and service continues until a

successor is elected and qualified.

Councilmember McGregor stated that she agreed with Councilmember

Schnetzer. She noted that Council had appointed the majority of the

Charter Review Commission members, who had completed the work

and reached their conclusions, and she saw no reason to add another

proposal. She also recalled that the Commission had discussed ballot

fatigue during its previous meeting and noted that the ballot already

contained 10 items. She said she did not see the value in adding another

item and observed that the organizational meeting typically lasts about

30 minutes, making the specific day of the meeting insignificant.

Councilmember Renner thanked the City Attorney for her interpretation of

the Charter. He remarked that the Board of Elections had informed him

for years that his term expired on December 31, which he found

somewhat puzzling, although he said he would defer to the City Attorney's

interpretation. He also said he found the discussion worthwhile and

believed a committee provided an appropriate forum for considering

ideas and offering opinions. Regarding the proposal, he stated that he

leaned toward making the process more efficient by holding the meeting

on a Monday. While he acknowledged the importance of deferring to the

Charter Review Commission's work, he emphasized that the seven

Councilmembers had been duly elected and that Council also had a

responsibility to question and consider the proposal. He said he looked

forward to further discussion.

Councilmember Padova stated that she preferred the consistency of

holding the organizational meeting on a Monday. She recalled that the

previous year's meeting had occurred on a Friday at approximately 4:00

p.m. because holding the meeting at the normal 7:00 p.m. time on a

Friday would have been inconvenient, particularly for staff, and a

Saturday meeting would also have been difficult for staff. She said she

remained mindful of respecting staff members' time. She added that

many residents associate Council meetings with Mondays, and even the

summer meeting schedule sometimes causes confusion, making a

different day for the first meeting of the year more difficult for the public.

She acknowledged the work and deliberations of the Charter Review

Commission but echoed Councilmember Renner's point that Council

also had the authority to consider the issue independently. She said the

matter was not one she felt strongly enough to insist upon, but she

preferred maintaining consistency by holding the meeting on a Monday

rather than changing the day each year. She also questioned how

officials could be sworn into office in the unlikely event of an emergency

before the organizational meeting if they had not yet taken the oath,

asking whether they could be sworn in outside of an official meeting that

required 24 hours' notice.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that officials could participate in a

private swearing-in ceremony, provided an individual authorized under

the Ohio Revised Code to administer oaths, such as a notary public or an

elected official with jurisdiction, administered the oath. She stated that

officials did not need to take the oath during a public meeting and could

instead hold a private ceremony before the formal organizational

meeting.

Councilmember Padova asked whether officials could assemble, take

the oath, and respond to an emergency without waiting 24 hours for a

publicly noticed meeting. City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed that a

private swearing-in ceremony would not require public notice or a public

meeting.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether Council intended to move all

meetings to Mondays, including meetings that fell on holidays, to

maintain consistency. Councilmember Padova replied that she

envisioned only the first meeting of the year following the existing holiday

schedule. She explained that if January 1 fell on a Monday, Council would

meet on Tuesday, consistent with the current practice for Monday

holidays.

Councilmember McGregor questioned why Council would not hold all

meetings on Mondays, regardless of holidays, if consistency remained

the primary objective. Councilmember Bowers responded that staff

scheduling factored into the discussion because staff would not need to

work on holidays. Councilmember McGregor replied that staff did not

need to attend the organizational meeting. Councilmember Bowers

acknowledged that point but noted that Council often paired the

organizational meeting with the first regular meeting of the year.

Councilmember McGregor observed that the first meeting of the year

typically included little business. Councilmember Bowers agreed that it

often did not but noted that some years included more business. She

explained that she wanted to hear her colleagues' perspectives because

several individuals had raised the issue, and she wanted to understand

whether Council considered the matter important. She thanked

Councilmember McGregor for the discussion.

President Weaver thanked Councilmember McGregor and stated that he

had watched or attended all of the Charter Review Commission

meetings, which he described as healthy discussions. He expressed

interest in continuing the conversation and agreed with Councilmember

Renner that, although the Charter authorizes the Charter Review

Commission to make recommendations, it also authorizes Council to

consider charter amendments. He encouraged additional discussion,

particularly because one Charter Review Commission recommendation

proposed changing the review cycle from every five years to every ten

years. He stated that declining to exercise Council's authority to consider

recommendations solely because the Commission had not

recommended them would amount to an abdication of Council's duty. He

said he looked forward to additional discussion if members wished to

propose draft language.

City Attorney Tamilarasan added that although Council could advance a

ballot measure at any time, the Board of Elections must receive the final

ballot language at least 90 days before the election. She stated that the

deadline would likely fall during the first week of August. President

Weaver observed that if Council chose to move the proposal forward, it

might not appear on the current ballot.

Ms. Wester thanked Council for its thoughtful discussion. She recalled

raising the issue several times during the Charter Review Commission

meetings and stated that individuals involved in local government often

hold differing opinions, which she considered beneficial because healthy

debate leads to better decisions. She explained that Commission

members with experience in local government, including current and

former officials, needed to distinguish between personal preferences and

objective analysis. She said she had challenged herself to determine

whether she supported or opposed proposals because of personal

preference rather than an objective need. She acknowledged the appeal

of holding meetings on a particular day or avoiding weekends but

explained that she had evaluated charter changes by asking what

objective problem they solved. She stated that the Commission did not

reject many proposals because of significant objections but because

they did not address issues fundamental to the Charter.

Mr. Barnhardt stated that he had initially supported changing the

organizational meeting date because previous governments where he

had worked followed that practice. However, he explained that he had

entered the Charter Review process intending to consider unintended

consequences carefully because of the importance of amending a

foundational document. He said that after further discussion, he became

concerned about a potential gap between the expiration of a mayor's

term and the swearing-in of a successor, particularly if an emergency

such as severe winter weather occurred during that period. He stated that

concerns about maintaining continuity of operations caused him to

reconsider his original position. He added that discussions throughout

the Charter Review process had changed his thinking on several issues

as members carefully evaluated possible unintended consequences, and

he wanted to clarify the reasoning behind his change in perspective.

Councilmember Bowers thanked Mr. Barnhardt for explaining his thought

process. She stated that one benefit of Gahanna's current practice

involved swearing all elected officials into office together, which fostered

unity. She acknowledged that both changing and retaining the current

process carried advantages and disadvantages, which prompted her to

raise the issue with her colleagues. She reiterated that Council also had

an obligation to consider the matter, expressed appreciation for the

Charter Review Commission's discussion, and said the conversation

among elected officials had also been valuable. She thanked everyone

for their patience during the discussion.

President Weaver thanked Ms. Wester, Mr. Barnhardt, and Mr. Hill for

their service, commitment to the community, and attendance. He

concluded by summarizing that Council intended to place all ten Charter

Review Commission recommendations on the consent agenda for the

next meeting.

RES-0026-2026

RES-0027-2026

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO THE MAYORAL PRIMARY ELECTION

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTED MUNICIPAL

OFFICIALS

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RES-0028-2026

RES-0029-2026

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO WARD BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES FOR COUNCIL

MEMBER ABSTENTIONS

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RES-0030-2026

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING

THE

ORGANIZATION

ADMINISTRATIVE

DEPARTMENTS

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RES-0031-2026

RES-0032-2026

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE

REQUIREMENTS

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RES-0033-2026

RES-0034-2026

RES-0035-2026

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO THE CONSOLIDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION

AND ZONING APPEAL FUNCTIONS

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION CONVENING

CYCLE

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE

ELECTORATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAHANNA CITY CHARTER

PERTAINING TO THE CITY'S NON DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS

Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 7/20/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:

2026-0144

Gahanna Civic Center (825 Tech Center Drive) Construction Update

2026-07-06

Senior Director of Operations Kevin Schultz announced that the City

would begin moving from City Hall at 200 S. Hamilton Road to the new

Gahanna Civic Center at 825 Tech Center Drive during the week of July

27. He recalled presenting the same transition schedule earlier in the

year and stated that the move would proceed as planned. He displayed a

recent photograph of the completed building and described it as a

well-designed facility that reflected the character and aspirations of the

Gahanna community. Senior Director Schultz reviewed the move

schedule, explaining that staff would begin relocating bulk items, records,

storage units, shelving, and similar materials during the week of July 27.

During the following week, staff would move furniture, office materials,

and workspaces. He stated that City operations would begin from the

new facility during the week of August 10. He explained that City Hall

would close on Monday and Tuesday of that week, operate by telephone

only on Wednesday, and reopen to the public in the new building on

Thursday, August 13. Senior Director Schultz explained that departments

would transition into the building over the following three to four weeks.

He stated that the Communications Center would relocate before other

departments so staff could become familiar with the building and police

department operations. He added that Information Technology staff

would also move early to prepare their workspaces and provide technical

support as employees arrived. He noted that the Police Department's

Field Services Division, including road patrol, would relocate during the

week of August 17.

Senior Director Schultz stated that the City planned to hold a building

dedication during the week of August 24, noting the significance of

scheduling the dedication on August 25 at 825 Tech Center Drive. He

explained that senior activities would likely begin during the same week

with tours, coffee, and light activities before formal programming started

the following week. Senior Director Schultz reviewed the transition

schedule for boards and commissions. He stated that the Planning

Commission would hold its final meeting in the current Council Chambers

on August 12, City Council would hold its final meeting there on August

17, and the Parks and Recreation Board would hold its final meeting

there on August 19. He reminded Council that August included a fifth

Monday while Council remained on its summer meeting schedule,

resulting in only two Council meetings during the month. He stated that

the first City Council meeting in the new facility would occur on Tuesday,

September 8, following Labor Day. Senior Director Schultz announced

that Councilmembers would have opportunities to tour the completed

building on July 21 and July 23. He added that boards and commissions,

including the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Board,

would tour the facility on July 29. He concluded by stating that the move

schedule remained firm and that the administration looked forward to

occupying and enjoying the new building.

Councilmember Bowers asked whether the building dedication would

occur after normal work hours. Mayor Jadwin replied that the City wanted

the community to participate in the celebration and that holding the event

during the day would make community attendance difficult.

Councilmember Bowers asked for additional information regarding the

project delays. She acknowledged the administration's discretion in

addressing the matter but stated that Council had an obligation to inquire

about the project's status, particularly because residents had raised the

issue during the meeting. Senior Director Schultz explained that the City

had previously discussed electrical issues during public meetings and

had identified them as a reason for delaying the move. He stated that the

administration focused on two priorities: ensuring the safety and

reliability of the building. He emphasized that the facility would house the

Police Department and Communications Center and therefore needed to

support public safety operations reliably. He explained that the

administration chose to delay occupancy until electrical issues had been

resolved to ensure both safety and reliability. He clarified that the work

primarily involved areas that general staff would not regularly occupy. He

stated that Elford completed the corrective work at no cost to the City and

noted that although the move had been delayed, the project budget had

not increased.

Mayor Jadwin added that the City faced no pressure to vacate the

existing buildings because it did not pay rent for those facilities. She

stated that the City had the flexibility to wait until the new building met its

expectations before moving and reiterated that the delay had not affected

the project budget.

Councilmember Bowers thanked Senior Director Schultz and Mayor

Jadwin for the clarification. She stated that she recalled previous

discussions regarding the electrical subcontractor and the general

contractor's responsibility for resolving those issues. Councilmember

Bowers asked whether the administration had established a timeline or

begun preliminary discussions regarding the future of the 200 S.

Hamilton Road and Rocky Fork properties. Senior Director Schultz

responded that the administration continued evaluating the property and

considering appropriate future uses. He stated that staff had discussed

the matter but had not yet devoted significant attention to it because other

priorities required their focus. He added that those discussions would

accelerate in the coming weeks and months. Councilmember Bowers

asked whether Council could expect further discussion within the next

quarter. Mayor Jadwin responded that the administration hoped to begin

that discussion within the next quarter but expected to do so by the end of

the year. She stated that the administration's immediate priority involved

completing the move into the new building and then focusing on the

Capital Improvement Program and budget process. She explained that

those discussions would provide a more appropriate opportunity to

evaluate the future of the property. She added that the administration

continued evaluating potential future uses for the property, considering

what would best serve the City, its residents, and future municipal needs,

and noted that Director Gottke also continued working on those

evaluations.

Senior Director Schultz stated that the Capital Improvement Program

Advisory Committee would meet later in July and suggested including a

discussion of the future of the 200 S. Hamilton Road property on the

agenda. He explained that the meeting would provide an opportunity for

the three Councilmembers serving on the committee and the

administration to discuss possible directions and review the range of

options available for the property. He added that staff could provide a

more detailed discussion once they had additional time to prepare.

Councilmember Bowers asked whether staff would follow up by email to

schedule the upcoming building tours for Councilmembers. Senior

Director Schultz confirmed that staff would send an email. He stated that

Council-only tours were tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, July 21, and

Thursday, July 23, at approximately 5:30 p.m., although staff remained

somewhat flexible with the time. He added that the tour for boards and

commissions was tentatively scheduled for July 29. He stated that the

email would include the dates and times. He initially indicated that

Councilmembers would not need to RSVP for the tours and noted that

the July 21 and July 23 tours were reserved for Councilmembers, while

the July 29 tour was intended for boards and commissions. Mayor

Jadwin suggested that Councilmembers RSVP for either the July 21 or

July 23 tour so staff would know whether anyone planned to attend each

date.

President Weaver asked whether anyone had additional comments

regarding the update. He thanked Senior Director Schultz for the

presentation and reflected that one of his first discussions as a newly

elected Councilmember, along with Councilmember Padova, involved

the City's facilities and the need for a new building. He stated that it was

exciting to see the project nearing completion, acknowledged that staff

looked forward to moving into the new facility, and expressed Council's

eagerness to occupy the building and see the benefits it would provide to

the community. He thanked Senior Director Schultz for the update.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING:

ORD-0024-2026

AN ORDINANCE TO LEVY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN

REAL ESTATE WITHIN THE 2025 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE

PROGRAM, TO APPROVE COSTS AND QUANTITIES, AND TO

DECLARE AN EMERGENCY

Senior Director Schultz explained that Engineering Director Hossein

Naraghi had taken additional time off around the Independence Day

holiday to return to Iowa and would return to Ohio the following day. He

stated that he was presenting the Engineering Department items in

Director Naraghi's absence and that Director Naraghi would attend a

future Council meeting for an introduction. He noted that the Department

of Engineering had three items on the agenda and that he would present

the first two, which related to the 2025 Sidewalk Maintenance Program

and the 2025 Sidewalk Maintenance Lookback Program.

Senior Director Schultz explained that the City must submit the special

assessments to the Franklin County Auditor for placement on the

property tax duplicate. He stated that the City mailed notices to affected

property owners on June 29 and notified them of the public hearing

scheduled for July 20. He explained that the City Code required these

procedural steps. He stated that after the public hearing, property owners

would have 30 days to pay the assessment in full, which would prevent

the assessment from appearing on their tax bills. If property owners

chose not to pay within that period, the City would certify the

assessments to the County Auditor, who would include them on the next

five annual tax bills. He requested emergency legislation authorizing the

City to levy assessments for the 2025 Sidewalk Maintenance Program

and the 2025 Sidewalk Maintenance Lookback Program, explaining that

the City needed to submit the assessments to the County Auditor before

September 8, 2026.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether property owners paid interest

on assessments that appeared on their property tax bills. Senior Director

Schultz responded that the assessments did not accrue interest over the

five-year repayment period. Councilmember McGregor referred to

language in the legislation directing the Clerk to certify the assessment

amount, effective date, and rate of interest to the County Auditor. She

asked whether that language referred to something different. Senior

Director Schultz asked which paragraph she referenced and, after

locating it, stated that the language matched the previous year's

legislation except for updated dates. He said he would need to review

the reference to the interest rate but reiterated that property owners did

not pay interest simply because they elected to spread the assessment

over five years. He explained that interest would apply only if a property

owner failed to pay the tax bill on time, in which case the special

assessment would incur the same interest charges as the delinquent

taxes.

Councilmember McGregor then asked why some properties listed

different amounts for the total cost of work performed and the owner

defect aggregate cost. She cited one example in which the amounts

differed. Mayor Jadwin identified the example as a property with a total

construction cost of $2,780 and an owner defect aggregate cost of

$2,180. Councilmember McGregor observed that most properties listed

identical amounts, while only a few differed. Senior Director Schultz

explained that some situations required the City to assume responsibility

for portions of the work. He gave the example of a corner lot where the

City replaced a curb ramp and the adjacent sidewalk panels. He stated

that staff would need to review individual properties to determine the

specific reason for each discrepancy. He added that in some cases the

City may have determined that grinding the sidewalk rather than

replacing it resolved the issue. Councilmember McGregor asked whether

damage caused by City trees could also account for the difference.

Senior Director Schultz replied that it could not. He explained that

although the Parks Department sometimes trimmed tree roots during

maintenance, property owners remained responsible for sidewalk

damage caused by trees located on their property.

President Weaver asked whether Council had any further discussion.

Hearing none, he stated that both ordinances would receive a first

reading on July 20 in conjunction with the required public hearing and

would appear on the regular agenda for adoption on August 3. He

thanked Senior Director Schultz for the presentation.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 7/20/2026;

Second Reading/Vote on Regular Agenda on 8/3/2026.

ORD-0025-2026

ORD-0026-2026

AN ORDINANCE TO LEVY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN

REAL

ESTATE

WITHIN

THE

2025 SIDEWALK

MAINTENANCE

LOOKBACK PROGRAM, TO APPROVE COSTS AND QUANTITIES,

AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 7/20/2026;

Second Reading/Vote on Regular Agenda on 8/3/2026.

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

CONTRACT WITH GLAUS, PYLE, SCHOMER, BURNS & DEHAVEN

(GPD GROUP) FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR

THE HAMILTON ROAD URBAN PAVING PROJECT (TR-26-02);

WAIVING SECOND READING; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Senior Director Schultz presented the third Engineering Department

action item concerning the Hamilton Road Urban Paving Program,

Capital Improvement Project No. TR-26-02. He explained that the project

appeared in the City's current Capital Improvement Plan and included

resurfacing Hamilton Road from the City's southern boundary to the

Granville Street and Havens Corners intersection. He stated that the City

planned to apply to the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for

matching funds and explained that ODOT had changed the program into

a competitive grant process requiring a formal application. Senior

Director Schultz explained that two amounts remained blank in the

legislation because the City had selected a consultant but had not

completed contract negotiations. He stated that ODOT required a

stamped engineering estimate before the application deadline, which

necessitated completing the procurement process before finalizing the

cost. He advised that staff expected to complete negotiations later that

week or early the following week and would provide the finalized amounts

to Council before first reading. He noted that the professional services

contract would exceed the City's $150,000 procurement threshold.

Senior Director Schultz stated that the Engineering Department had

solicited proposals from prequalified firms for design services and had

received two proposals. He explained that staff selected GPD Group

(Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns & DeHaven) as the preferred consultant.

He stated that the project included roadway resurfacing, curb and gutter

improvements, and sidewalk replacement for eligible residential

properties. He clarified that commercial property owners remained

responsible for sidewalk repairs adjacent to their properties. Senior

Director Schultz requested legislation authorizing the Mayor to enter into

a contract with GPD Group for design and engineering services for the

Hamilton Road Urban Paving Program. He requested emergency

legislation and a waiver to allow the City sufficient time to obtain the

stamped engineering estimate and submit the grant application before

the anticipated August 28 deadline. Senior Director Schultz also

recognized Sean Bock for identifying grant opportunities, coordinating

application requirements and deadlines, and preparing legislation

necessary for Council's consideration. He stated that those efforts

allowed the City to pursue third-party funding to support capital projects.

President Weaver thanked Senior Director Schultz for clarifying the

reason for the requested waiver, noting that the report initially appeared

to request a waiver for future grant opportunities through 2028. Senior

Director Schultz clarified that the design work would begin immediately

while construction would occur in 2028. He explained that successful

grant applications often require significant design work in advance,

including a stamped engineering estimate prepared and certified by a

professional engineer. He stated that the application requirements

illustrated the extensive preparation necessary even before applying for

grant funding. President Weaver thanked Senior Director Schultz for the

explanation and asked where the Hamilton Road improvements would

occur. Senior Director Schultz reiterated that the project extended from

the City's southern boundary north to the Granville Street and Havens

Corners intersection. President Weaver asked whether Council had any

additional questions. Hearing none, he stated that because the

legislation requested a waiver, Council would consider the ordinance on

the July 20 regular meeting agenda. He thanked Senior Director Schultz

for the presentation.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading with Waiver of Second

Reading/Vote on Regular Agenda on 7/20/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY:

ORD-0028-2026

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART 3, TRAFFIC CODE; TITLE 9,

PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES AND MOTORCYCLES; CHAPTER 373,

BICYCLES AND MOTORCYCLES, OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES

OF THE CITY OF GAHANNA BY ADDING SECTION 373.11, "RIDING

BICYCLES; HELMETS"

Chief of Police Jeff Spence stated that he had discussed e-bike

regulations with Council leadership and noted that e-bikes continued to

increase in popularity both locally and nationwide. He explained that

although the State of Ohio continued to consider legislation, the City

Attorney was preparing amendments to the traffic and criminal codes for

local consideration. He stated that the Police Department wanted to

discuss a proposed helmet requirement as part of its continued

educational efforts. He explained that the proposal would amend Chapter

373 by adding Section 373.11 to require individuals under the age of 18

to wear helmets while operating bicycles, electric bicycles, and powered

scooters. He stated that the proposal also specified helmet standards

and established responsibilities for parents and guardians. He noted that

the language closely mirrored ordinances adopted by neighboring

communities, including New Albany and Westerville, with minor revisions

for consistency. Chief Spence stated that the Police Department

continued its educational outreach efforts by partnering with the City's two

bicycle retailers, engaging with residents throughout the community, and

producing educational videos featuring himself and School Resource

Officer Gillespie. He explained that the videos would launch as part of a

three-part series. He also clarified that electric motorcycles differed from

electric bicycles because they lacked pedals and instead used foot

pegs. He stated that riders often confused electric motorcycles with

electric bicycles, even though electric motorcycles could travel between

40 and 50 miles per hour and frequently involved underage operators

without driver's licenses. He explained that the proposed helmet

requirement would apply throughout the City's 325 lane miles of

roadways, 192 miles of sidewalks, and 20.3 miles of shared-use paths.

President Weaver thanked Chief Spence for the community engagement

efforts and invited questions from Council.

Councilmember Bowers thanked Chief Spence for responding promptly

to Council's previous discussion. She stated that extending helmet

requirements to all bicycles without regard to classification represented

an important step and expressed appreciation for both the legislation

and the planned public education campaign.

Councilmember Padova thanked Chief Spence for preparing the

legislation and stated that, as a parent, she appreciated having a legal

requirement to reinforce the importance of wearing helmets. She asked

whether Class 3 electric bicycles included speedometers. Chief Spence

replied that many newer Class 3 electric bicycles connected to

smartphone applications that displayed speed, route tracking, and other

information. He explained that although many devices also included

onboard displays, riders commonly relied on connected applications.

Councilmember Padova remarked that relying on a phone display

seemed more concerning than she had expected. Chief Spence

acknowledged the concern and stated that some applications locked the

phone display to navigation and speed information. Councilmember

Padova asked whether scooters qualified as mobility devices under the

City's code. Chief Spence explained that scooters already fell within the

traffic code and remained subject to existing regulations, including

operation on sidewalks. He distinguished scooters from assisted

mobility devices, such as electric wheelchairs, which the code treated

separately. Councilmember Padova asked whether assisted mobility

devices could operate on sidewalks. Chief Spence confirmed that they

could and described an example involving a resident who operated a

recumbent-style electric mobility device that fit within that classification.

Councilmember Padova thanked Chief Spence for clarifying the

distinction and expressed appreciation for the proposed helmet

requirement.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked how the Police Department intended to

enforce the proposed helmet requirement, noting that the Department

had previously emphasized education over enforcement for similar

issues. He gave the example of a child who accidentally forgot a helmet

at a friend's house and rode home without it. Chief Spence stated that

the Police Department would continue emphasizing education and

positive reinforcement. He described existing partnerships with

Nationwide Children's Hospital and community outreach efforts that

rewarded helmet use with positive interactions, including distributing ice

cream. He explained that the proposed requirement would provide

officers with another enforcement tool, particularly when encountering

young operators riding electric motorcycles without helmets. He stated

that officers would generally use those contacts to educate riders and

parents, issue warnings, and encourage compliance. He noted, however,

that repeated violations could result in enforcement action. He described

one incident involving a 14-year-old operating an electric motorcycle at a

high rate of speed while wearing large headphones and committing

additional traffic violations after receiving two previous warnings. He

stated that officers impounded the vehicle and met with the rider's

parents because the vehicle qualified as an electric motorcycle rather

than an electric bicycle. He added that the Department would continue

educational efforts through the schools, School Resource Officers, the

Junior Police Academy, and additional outreach targeted toward middle

school students. He stated that enforcement would focus on repeated

noncompliance after educational efforts had failed.

Councilmember Renner thanked Chief Spence and Mayor Jadwin for

bringing the legislation forward. He stated that he had supported the

proposal during leadership discussions because he strongly believed in

promoting safety. He cautioned against overregulating technology and

emphasized that mobility promoted healthy and sustainable lifestyles. He

stated that education and addressing risky behavior represented the

appropriate approach and expressed appreciation that the Police

Department had adopted that strategy.

Councilmember Padova asked whether resources existed for children

who could not afford helmets. Chief Spence stated that the Police

Department had distributed helmets in the past and maintained strong

partnerships with Bicycle One and Trek Bicycle Store, both of which

promoted safety education. He noted that pending state legislation would

require safety information at the point of sale for electric bicycles. He

stated that officers had also personally purchased helmets when

necessary, provided bicycles to children in need, and hosted bicycle

repair clinics to support the community.

Councilmember Padova asked whether the Police Department had

conducted outreach through organizations such as the Boy Scouts and

Girl Scouts. Chief Spence replied that officers had recently met with a

Boy Scout troop and used the opportunity to discuss bicycle safety.

Mayor Jadwin added that officers had visited or planned to visit all City

summer camps because they provided opportunities to reach large

groups of children. She stated that School Resource Officers and

Community Liaison Officers had also contacted youth organizations

throughout the City and planned to continue educational outreach in

partnership with schools once the academic year began. Chief Spence

added that the Community Paramedic Program with Mifflin Township

Fire Department also supported the outreach effort. He stated that staff

distributed educational materials at the Pride Festival and that

Community Paramedic Beth DeConnick and Mifflin Township Fire

personnel helped educate residents through those community

interactions. Councilmember Padova thanked Chief Spence for the

information.

President Weaver asked whether Council had any additional comments.

Hearing none, he confirmed Council's consensus to schedule the

ordinance for first reading on July 20 and place it on the August 3

consent agenda for adoption. He thanked Chief Spence for the

presentation.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 7/20/2026;

Second Reading/Vote on Consent Agenda on 8/3/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY:

ORD-0027-2026

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF GAHANNA CODIFIED

ORDINANCES SECTION 133.08 REGARDING COPY CHARGES TO

AUTHORIZE

ENFORCEMENT

FEES

VIDEO

FOR

THE

PRODUCTION

CONSISTENT

WITH

LAW

OHIO

RECORDS

REVISED CODE SECTION 149.43

City Attorney Tamilarasan requested an amendment to the City's copy

charge provisions. She explained that the Ohio General Assembly had

authorized police departments and prosecutors' offices in 2025 to

include staff time when calculating the actual cost of fulfilling certain

public records requests for cruiser camera and body-worn camera

footage. She clarified that the authority did not apply to criminal discovery

requests, officer-involved incidents, or other exempt records identified in

the legislation. She stated that the amendment primarily addressed

requests submitted by automated systems that generated large volumes

of requests for body camera footage involving particular offenses,

creating significant administrative burdens without any mechanism to

recover costs. She explained that the Records Commission would

establish the specific policy and fee schedule and that the proposed

amendment would simply authorize the Commission to do so without

conflicting with the City's existing code.

Councilmember Bowers stated that she recalled significant opposition to

the state legislation from civil rights organizations and members of the

plaintiffs' bar. She expressed concern that charging staff time for public

records requests could undermine public policy because responding to

such requests constituted part of public service.

City Attorney Tamilarasan responded that the proposed fees would offset

the substantial staff time required to review and redact extensive video

footage. She explained that the legislation included numerous

exemptions to ensure that individuals with legitimate needs for the

records could receive fee waivers. She added that both the Chief of

Police and the City Attorney retained discretion to waive fees when doing

so served the public interest. She stated that the proposal sought to

balance transparency and public access to records with the need to

prevent excessive administrative burdens on staff.

Councilmember Bowers asked how the policy would apply to allegations

of excessive use of force that did not result in death, noting that such

incidents did not appear to qualify for an exemption. Chief of Police Jeff

Spence responded that the Police Department had an interest in

releasing information related to those incidents as quickly as possible.

He explained that the proposal sought to address situations in which

automated systems generated large numbers of public records requests

by using actual case numbers and defendants to submit valid but

burdensome requests through online portals. He stated that one Franklin

County agency had received 20 such requests within a single minute,

requiring staff to spend many hours reviewing and redacting footage. He

explained that the proposal sought to address technology-driven

requests intended to burden agencies rather than legitimate requests

submitted in the interest of transparency. He added that although many

public watchdog requests served legitimate purposes, some individuals

used the process to slow government operations or impose unnecessary

administrative burdens. Councilmember Bowers asked whether the

administration would consider expanding the exemptions to include all

use-of-force incidents rather than limiting them to incidents involving

firearms or fatalities. Chief Spence stated that he understood her

concern but cautioned that expanding the exemption could create

opportunities for abuse if automated systems submitted requests for

every use-of-force incident over an extended period. He reiterated that

the proposal sought to balance transparency with protecting staff

resources from excessive administrative burdens.

Councilmember Bowers observed that limiting requests based on

requester identity presented challenges because requesters could

remain anonymous, making it difficult to identify or aggregate repetitive

requests. Chief Spence agreed that anonymous requests complicated

enforcement of the policy. He stated that staff had worked diligently to

develop a policy that promoted transparency while preventing abuse. He

expressed openness to considering amendments but emphasized the

need to ensure that any changes did not create opportunities for the

process to become overly burdensome.

City Attorney Tamilarasan added that the Ohio Revised Code already

established several statutory exemptions. She explained that victims as

defined under Marcy's Law, victims' advocates, victims' attorneys, and

victims' insurance companies remained exempt from the proposed fees.

She noted that if an individual qualified as a victim under Marcy's Law in

an excessive use-of-force case, that person would already receive a

statutory exemption. She stated that she would revise the proposed

language to make those statutory exemptions more explicit.

President Weaver stated that the clarification would be helpful and asked

City Attorney Tamilarasan to provide the proposed fee schedule in

redlined form because he had not seen it included in the attachments.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the ordinance represented the

first step of a two-step process. She stated that Council first needed to

amend the code to authorize a fee schedule and that the Records

Commission would subsequently establish the actual fees during a public

meeting. She noted that the preliminary discussion had contemplated a

fee of $38 per hour of footage for an initial request, with subsequent

requests based on one-quarter of the time required to reproduce the

records. She emphasized that the Records Commission would

determine the final fee schedule, explain the methodology used to

calculate the fees, and discuss the rationale during its public meeting.

President Weaver asked whether Council had any additional questions

or discussion. Hearing none, he stated that the ordinance would receive

a first reading on July 20 and return for consideration on the regular

agenda on August 3.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 7/20/2026;

Second Reading/Vote on Regular Agenda on 8/3/2026.

ADJOURNMENT: