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, February 23, 2026

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

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

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

Jamille Jones, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The

agenda was published on February 20, 2026. Councilmember Michael

Schnetzer was absent from the meeting. All other members were

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

ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

RES-0005-2026

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING

WAIVER OF STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT WATER QUANTITY CONTROLS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1113.02(e) OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY

OF GAHANNA FOR THE ACADEMY PARK

PROJECT (PK-25-08); PARCEL ID 025-004304

IMPROVEMENTS

Holly Boyer, Senior Utility Engineer, spoke on behalf of the Department

of Engineering regarding the Planning Commission waiver request for

the Academy Park project. She explained that the project abuts Big

Walnut Creek. She referenced City Code 1113.02(e), which allows a

detention waiver if a development does not increase runoff volume, does

not increase flooding, and does not damage the receiving stream. She

added that the code requires any future addition or modification

exceeding the original limits to undergo review and reapplication for a

waiver, clarifying that the waiver would apply only to this specific project

and not to any future projects. Ms. Boyer described the project scope.

She stated that Academy Park would remove a building and construct a

new facility with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - compliant

sidewalks, new playgrounds, a concession facility, extended parking, and

additional trails and sidewalks. She reported that the team’s analysis

showed no changes to site hydraulics after installation of the stormwater

pond required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She

explained that the request sought a waiver from Gahanna’s additional

critical storm requirements, which exceed EPA requirements. She stated

that staff had no objection to the waiver because the analysis showed

that site hydraulics would remain relatively unchanged. She noted that the

site currently had no stormwater controls and that the project would add

water quality measures in accordance with the EPA construction general

permit. She then invited questions from Council.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether the borrow pit formed during

the construction of Coldwell Court, the street just north of Academy Park,

still existed. Mayor Jadwin clarified the location of Coldwell Court as the

street that backs up to the northern part of the park. Ms. Boyer responded

that she was not familiar with the borrow pit and stated that she did not

live in Gahanna and was relatively new to the area. She asked whether

the design team knew if the borrow pit still existed.

Councilmember McGregor stated that she had additional questions but

needed to wait to ask them. She explained that her husband, who served

as mayor when the park was built, had questions regarding downstream

stormwater impacts and runoff effects. She stated that he planned to

contact Stephania Ferrell, Director of Parks and Recreation, to discuss

his questions. She indicated that she had no further questions at that

time.

Councilmember Renner stated that he had met with Director Ferrell, Ms.

Boyer, Catherine Eichel, and the project team. He expressed satisfaction

with the project and stated that the hydrology report justified the waiver.

He described the issue as primarily related to timing of peak flows,

particularly upstream flows, and noted that the report addressed

questions regarding soils. He emphasized that the site currently had little

to no stormwater control and stated that the proposed design would

enhance stormwater management. He explained that the improvements

would not only control stormwater but also provide water quality treatment

for runoff from asphalt and parking areas, if the system functioned as

designed. He stated that Big Walnut Creek qualifies as a warm water

habitat and that a 2016 ecosystem study described it as stable. He noted

that it is an Ohio-designated scenic river. He concluded that staff’s

proposal would protect and improve the creek’s habitat.

Councilmember McGregor expressed concern about the less than one

percent difference in runoff, stating that one percent could matter if it

affected a basement. She also referenced downstream cut bank erosion

and expressed concern about causing any additional increase. Ms.

Boyer responded that the one percent difference likely fell within the

margin of error for a modeling study. Councilmember Renner confirmed

that the hydrology report appeared in the legislation. Councilmember

McGregor acknowledged that she did not recall seeing it.

Councilmember Renner stated that the report addressed timing issues in

detail and suggested it might answer many of her questions. He added

that the team addressed his questions satisfactorily. Ms. Boyer added

that passing flows through the system before the peak of the storm

arrives would help the area’s hydrology. Councilmember Renner also

noted a substantial increase in the number and type of trees planned for

the project. He stated that the project would add species such as bald

cypress and willow oak, which promote enhanced infiltration due to their

root systems. Councilmember McGregor confirmed that the project would

add trees. Councilmember Renner shared a personal example of

planting a bald cypress in his backyard to help manage ponding and

sheeting water.

Councilmember Bowers thanked the presenters and stated that she

would find it helpful to understand the standard requirement, the benefits

it provides, and how the requested deviation compares. Ms. Boyer

explained that the standard requires calculation of the critical storm and

comparison of undeveloped and developed conditions to determine the

percent increase in runoff. She stated that the analysis showed an 85

percent increase in runoff without stormwater controls based on a

ten-year storm event. She explained that the standard would require

detention of the ten-year storm to the one-year pre-developed condition,

which necessitated a considerably larger pond than the site could

accommodate. Councilmember Bowers asked about the benefits of that

requirement. Ms. Boyer stated that it provides flood routing and flood

control, but explained that because the site sits adjacent to a fourth-order

stream, it makes more sense to pass flows through the watershed rather

than detain them.

Councilmember Bowers asked for clarification regarding the 85 percent

increase compared to the one percent difference discussed earlier. Ms.

Boyer explained that the 85 percent increase reflected conditions without

any stormwater controls. After incorporating the required water quality

volume pond into the modeling, the analysis showed only a one percent

difference, which essentially restored the site to its original hydraulics.

Councilmember Bowers summarized that the project would not fully meet

the city’s additional requirement but would improve upon existing

conditions. Ms. Boyer confirmed that statement and added that the

project meets all state permit requirements. She stated that the waiver

request sought relief from additional flood storage beyond state

standards. Councilmember Bowers confirmed that the project would still

meet state storage standards. Ms. Boyer affirmed that it would.

Councilmember Bowers noted that the retention pond and additional

trees could help offset the remaining one percent difference. Ms. Boyer

agreed and stated that increased tree infiltration would leave more room

in the ground for water. Councilmember Bowers thanked her for the

clarification.

Vice President Jones asked if there were additional questions or

discussion. She then stated that the resolution would come forward for

adoption on March 2, 2026, and asked whether the Council preferred to

place it on the Consent or Regular Agenda. Councilmember Bowers

recommended placing it on the Regular Agenda due to Councilmember

McGregor’s outstanding questions.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 3/2/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY:

MT-0010-2026

A MOTION TO CONFIRM THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY'S

APPOINTMENT OF JEFFERSON FIRE CHIEF BRADFORD SHULL

AND MIFFLIN FIRE CHIEF BRIAN DUNLEVY AS MUNICIPAL FIRE

SAFETY INSPECTORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1501.04 OF THE

GAHANNA CODIFIED ORDINANCES, TO REMAIN EFFECTIVE UNTIL

SUCH TIME AS A SUCCESSOR IS QUALIFIED AND APPOINTED

Director of Public Safety Tim Becker stated that, in accordance with the

Gahanna Codified Ordinances, the Director of Public Safety shall

appoint a municipal fire safety inspector subject to Council confirmation.

He stated that pursuant to subsection 1501.04 of the Gahanna Codified

Ordinances, he appointed Chief Bradford Shull of the Jefferson Township

Fire Department and Chief Brian Dunlevy of the Mifflin Township Fire

Department as the respective municipal fire safety inspectors. He

respectfully requested the Council’s confirmation of these appointments

by motion, with the appointments to remain in effect until a successor

qualifies and receives appointment.

Vice President Jones asked whether the Council had any questions or

discussion. Hearing none, she thanked Director Becker and stated that

the item would appear on the agenda for March 2, 2026. She asked

whether the Council agreed to place the item on the Consent Agenda.

The Council indicated agreement.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 3/2/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE:

ORD-0008-2026

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 921.04 OF THE CODIFIED

ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GAHANNA TO UPDATE SEWERAGE

SYSTEM CAPACITY CHARGES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Senior Deputy Director Corey Wybensinger appeared before the Council

on behalf of Director Anverse, Director of Public Service, to present a

proposed code change. He explained that the ordinance would amend

Section 921.04 of the Gahanna Code to revise sewer system capacity

charges. He stated that the current ordinance requires the City of

Gahanna to change its code if the City of Columbus changes its sewer

capacity charges. He explained that the proposed amendment would

modify that requirement. Mr. Wybensinger directed Council’s attention to

the redlined version of the ordinance and noted a one-word change

recommended by City Attorney Tamilarasan. He stated that the change

would revise the language from requiring the City of Gahanna to change

its code when the City of Columbus updates its rates, to requiring the

City of Gahanna to review and determine whether a change is

appropriate. He explained that the distinction allows discretion rather

than mandating an automatic update. He added that staff reviews this

section annually when presenting water and sewer rates, typically around

October, and that this amendment aligns with that practice. He stated that

the City of Columbus implemented this rate change outside of its normal

annual update cycle, with an effective date of April 1, 2026 rather than

January 1, 2026. He requested approval of the updated rate chart

included in the ordinance and asked Council to adopt the legislation as

an emergency measure to ensure it takes effect by April 1, 2026. He

explained that the City of Gahanna must collect sufficient revenue to

offset the capacity charges that Columbus will assess.

Vice President Jones asked about the impact on residents and whether

a simple explanation existed to describe the difference in rates for a

typical resident. Mr. Wybensinger explained that the charge applies when

a property taps into the system and reflects the water line size. He

clarified that the sewer capacity charge offsets that connection and

applies to new development or to customers who change or upgrade

their line size. Vice President Jones confirmed that the emergency

request sought to ensure the ordinance takes effect by April 1, 2026. Mr.

Wybensinger confirmed.

Councilmember McGregor asked when the City of Gahanna last

increased these rates. Mr. Wybensinger responded that the City of

Columbus reported its last rate change occurred in 2006. He stated that

the city’s current ordinance dated to 2014. He noted that since his tenure

began, staff made changes to this section, most recently in 2023, when

they added 10-inch, 12-inch, and 16-inch line sizes to maintain

compliance with Columbus. He stated that the rates for three-quarter-inch

through eight-inch lines remained the same. Councilmember McGregor

observed that the increase for larger line sizes appeared significant. Mr.

Wybensinger agreed and stated that Columbus shifted more cost

responsibility to larger consumers. Councilmember McGregor asked

how the change would affect current projects. Mr. Wybensinger stated

that he could not speak to the status of specific projects but explained

that the new rates would apply to any new builds that had not yet tapped

into the system as of April 1, 2026. He stated that any connections

completed before April 1, 2026, would fall under the current ordinance.

Vice President Jones asked whether the rate would apply to projects

already in process or with permits issued. Mr. Wybensinger explained

that staff calculates the fee based on line size and informs the applicant

of the amount due. He stated that the rate in effect at the time of that

calculation would apply, and the new rate would take effect April 1, 2026.

Mayor Jadwin clarified that applicants must pay the required fees before

the city issues permits. She stated that if the city already issued a permit,

the applicant would have already paid the applicable fees.

Clerk VanMeter asked for clarification regarding the agenda and whether

the request included a waiver or only an emergency designation. Mr.

Wybensinger stated that the request sought emergency approval and that

Council would not need a waiver if it waived the 30-day waiting period to

allow the ordinance to take effect by April 1, 2026.

Vice President Jones clarified the scheduling and stated that Council

would place the ordinance on the regular agenda for March 16, 2026, to

accommodate the emergency request.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 3/2/2026;

Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 3/16/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING:

RES-0006-2026

RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO PROVIDE

CONSENT AND ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH THE DIRECTOR OF

TRANSPORTATION WHICH IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE

REPAIR OF CONCRETE PARAPETS AND REPLACEMENT OF

VANDAL PROTECTION FENCE ON NORTH SIDE OF MCCUTCHEON

ROAD BRIDGE

Senior Director of Operations Kevin Schultz presented a request from

the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). He explained that ODOT

planned to repair the parapet walls on the McCutcheon Bridge over

I-270. He described the parapet walls as the abutment that previously

had a fence, which ODOT removed. He stated that the bridge itself lies

within the City of Columbus, but the eastern approach to the bridge lies

within the City of Gahanna. Mr. Schultz stated that ODOT requested that

the City of Gahanna pass a resolution of consent authorizing ODOT to

perform the repair work and to work within the city’s right-of-way. He

stated that the administration respectfully requested a resolution of

consent authorizing ODOT to complete the work. He added that ODOT

had not committed to a specific schedule but expressed hope to

complete the project by September or October of 2026.

Vice President Jones asked whether Council had any questions or

discussion. Hearing none, she stated that the resolution would appear on

the agenda for March 2, 2026, and asked whether Council agreed to

place it on the consent agenda. Council indicated agreement.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 3/2/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

ORD-0002-2026

AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING, APPROVING, AND RATIFYING THE

SUBMITTED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY OF GAHANNA TAX

INCENTIVE REVIEW COUNCIL FOR TAX YEAR 2024

Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth reported that he spoke with City

Attorney Tamilarasan earlier on this item. He stated that she heard back

from the county prosecutor, who identified no issues with how the Tax

Incentive Review Council (TIRC) meeting was conducted. He stated that

she advised that the City of Gahanna could proceed with accepting the

outcome of the TIRC meeting and keep the abatements in place,

consistent with the TIRC’s recommendation.

Vice President Jones asked whether Mr. Gottke had anything to add.

Director of Economic Development Jeff Gottke responded that he

agreed. Mr. Roth noted that the information differed from what he and Mr.

Gottke discussed earlier in the day, but he confirmed that he spoke with

Ms. Tamilarasan afterward. Mr. Gottke stated that he also spoke with her

and had not yet relayed that information. He concluded that they could

proceed as planned the following week without altering the legislation

and could accept the TIRC’s recommendations and continue the

abatements as they currently exist.

Director Gottke then outlined procedural improvements to prevent a

similar situation in the future. He stated that the city could hold the TIRC

meeting locally rather than participating in the larger meeting at the

county courthouse, coordinating a mutually agreeable time with county

representatives and local members. He stated that staff would also

collect and maintain annual appointment verifications for all TIRC

members, ideally through resolutions or meeting minutes, to ensure

proper appointments. He further stated that the city could appoint

mayoral-nominated, council-appointed alternates to serve if needed. He

explained that this approach would provide additional safeguards. He

concluded by reiterating that the county confirmed that Council could

proceed with the legislation as drafted.

Vice President Jones thanked staff and asked if there were questions.

Hearing none, she expressed appreciation for the forward-looking

recommendations. She confirmed that Council postponed the legislation

to a date certain and stated that it would return on March 2, 2026. She

asked whether Council preferred to place the item on the Regular

Agenda.

Councilmember Bowers suggested that Council may wish to confirm

once more with the City Attorney before proceeding, but indicated that

Council was likely fine to move forward.

Vice President Jones stated that, absent objection, Council would place

the item on the Regular Agenda to allow for one final confirmation with

the City Attorney. Council indicated agreement.

Recommendation: Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 3/2/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE:

ORD-0006-2026

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF GAHANNA CODIFIED

ORDINANCE SECTION 133.02 - PURCHASING PROCEDURES

Vice President Jones introduced the next agenda item regarding

purchasing procedures from the Department of Finance. She noted that

Council submitted questions and requested additional information. Vice

President Jones asked whether Director Bury would like to begin or

proceed directly to the submitted questions.

Prequalification Questions

Director Bury stated that she brought the questions Council submitted

along with the administration’s responses. She explained that her office

emailed the responses but wanted to review the answers during the

meeting. Director Bury addressed questions regarding the

pre-qualification of vendors. She clarified that the pre-qualification

applied strictly to architectural and engineering design services and did

not include construction management-type services. She also addressed

a mention of prevailing wage and explained that no costs associated with

the pre-qualification process existed. Vendors only submitted information

demonstrating their qualifications to perform the work. Director Bury

responded to a question about whether the city pursued this process due

to limited in-house capability as a smaller organization. She stated that

the process enhanced the City of Gahanna’s services. She explained

that the city managed many projects with numerous moving parts and

could not complete all work internally. As a result, the city relied on

professional contracted services to enhance the services provided to the

public.

Director Bury corrected her earlier statement regarding vendor

qualifications. She acknowledged that she previously believed the

three-year requirement appeared in the City of Gahanna’s Codified

Ordinances, but it did not. She explained that Section 153.68 of the Ohio

Revised Code required the city to maintain its lists of qualified vendors

and required vendors to certify annually that they remained qualified. She

stated that the city went beyond the requirements of the Ohio Revised

Code by requiring a full pre-qualification every three years.

Small Purchase Threshold Considerations

Director Bury then addressed the question of whether $100,000 should

serve as the small purchase threshold. She stated that the administration

believed the $250,000 threshold remained appropriate based on the

previous uniform guidance the city used. She expressed hope that

Council could provide additional context regarding the proposed

$100,000 threshold during the meeting. Director Bury confirmed that she

attached a copy of the 2022 federal procurement guidelines and

provided a link to the current guidance. She explained that the document

was lengthy, so she highlighted the sections addressing thresholds. She

noted that the federal uniform guidance included varying thresholds

depending on the type of purchase, such as domestic or foreign

purchases. She stated that the city incorporated the main thresholds into

its policy.

Director Bury discussed contracts between $10,000 and $250,000 that

fell outside of operations budget approval and stated that she included

that information in an email attachment. She emphasized that all

expenditures required authorized appropriations and remained within the

operating budget. Director Bury stated that the five largest vendors from

2022 to date appeared in the Council analysis report under the second

tab.

Director Bury explained the internal process for identifying professional

service vendors and entering into contracts below $250,000. She stated

that the decision tree outlined the process based on proposal amounts. If

a proposal totaled $10,000, staff opened a requisition and completed the

process. If the proposal exceeded $10,000 but remained under

$250,000, staff followed a small purchase process similar to the process

used when seeking Council authorization. Staff obtained quotes and

heavily weighed vendor qualifications for professional services. Staff

requested qualifications when seeking quotes, and a small group

evaluated and scored the submissions to determine which vendor

offered the best qualifications and price. Staff weighed qualifications and

cost, selected a vendor, and discussed the decision with the Mayor, who

signed the contract. If the amount exceeded $250,000, staff brought the

matter to Council to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract.

Director Bury then turned the discussion over to Miranda Vollmer, Senior

Director of Administrative Services, to address the reporting process

and how the administration planned to move forward.

Reporting and Strategic Plan Implementation

Senior Director Vollmer stated that at the previous meeting, Council

discussed various reports that the city could provide, and leadership also

discussed those reports in separate meetings. She highlighted Goal Two

of Our Gahanna, the strategic plan currently under implementation, which

focused on serving the community by providing high-quality municipal

services that were effective, collaborative, and responsive. She

explained that the slide outlined the objectives under the “Enhance

Internal Operations” section of that goal. Senior Director Vollmer noted

that although the city was not yet 60 days into 2026, implementation of

the strategic plan was underway and would continue throughout the year.

She stated that the city would work on various reporting mechanisms,

including the fourth quarter finance report, which Council would discuss

later that day. She explained that staff would explore how to incorporate

strategic planning elements and other reporting measures into that report

and throughout the budget process. She further stated that, as part of the

strategic plan implementation, the city would evaluate how to report

different items and that a consultant would meet with Council to discuss

preferred reporting formats, desired metrics, and enhancements to future

reports. She reiterated that staff were actively working on these efforts as

part of the implementation process. She concluded by emphasizing Goal

Two’s focus on serving the community and enhancing reporting to

Council and the community going forward.

Data Analysis

Director Bury explained that the information presented was based on

data analysis previously provided and reflected varying thresholds that

Council discussed and what those thresholds would authorize. She

stated that, using averages from 2022 through 2025, at the $250,000

threshold approximately 73 percent of professional service costs were

authorized, with about 12 contracts coming forward. At the $150,000

threshold, approximately 79 percent of costs were authorized, with about

11 contracts coming forward. At the $100,000 threshold, approximately

82 percent of costs were authorized, with about 18 contracts coming

forward. At the bid threshold, approximately 85 percent of costs were

authorized, with about 29 contracts coming forward. Director Bury added

that some of the contracts were continuing contracts with automatic

renewals, but staff included them in the total count as authorized

contracts. She concluded her remarks and thanked Council.

Vice President Jones asked whether Professional Services included all

contracts within that category. Director Bury clarified that the category

included only professional services, such as architecture, engineering,

software, and maintenance services. She explained that

construction-related or capital items fell under Capital Outlay or Capital

accounts and did not fall within Professional Services. Vice President

Jones confirmed that consultants and engineers fell within Professional

Services and acknowledged that other services existed in separate

categories.

Councilmember Bowers thanked staff for providing additional information

and thanked Director Vollmer for considering different reporting

structures. She stated that the discussion was productive and expressed

appreciation for the effort invested. She explained that Council

distributed a competitive bid threshold worksheet compiled by

Management Analyst Jessica Hilts for regional comparison. She noted

that, while Director Bury referenced federal procurement guidelines,

Council wanted to examine practices at the local and hyper-local levels in

Central Ohio. Councilmember Bowers stated that the spreadsheet, which

she asked Mr. VanMeter to incorporate into the minutes, included several

municipalities. She noted that Gahanna, Columbus, Grove City, and

Reynoldsburg operated under a strong mayor-weak council form of

government, and that Whitehall also operated under that structure,

although it did not appear on the list. She explained that in Columbus, city

council authorized Professional Service contracts exceeding $50,000. In

Grove City, Professional Services estimated to exceed $100,000

required requests for proposals at least once every four years, similar to

Gahanna’s pre-qualified vendor process, and included a reporting

requirement to their council tied to that cycle. She stated that

Reynoldsburg required their council approval for Professional Service

contracts exceeding $25,000 before execution, even if appropriation

already occurred. She added that other municipalities with city manager

forms of government had varying thresholds, with some maintaining lower

limits similar to the city of Powell and others adopting higher limits.

Councilmember Bowers stated that the Council also requested an

aggregation of data and that she had not initially requested an itemized

list of services over $10,000 but appreciated the Director of Finance

providing that information. She reported that from 2022 through 2025, the

city opened Professional Service contracts totaling approximately $14.5

million, all under the $250,000 contract threshold. She noted that the

contracts ranged from $10,000, above the micro-purchase level, up to

$250,000. She acknowledged that many contracts reflected routine

operating expenses, while others represented significant strategic and

capital investments that would benefit from public discussion before

Council. She stated that the Administration appeared aligned with

Council’s goal of creating structures that allowed for greater conversation

and improved transparency pursuant to the strategic plan.

Director Bury clarified that the list reflected the amounts for which

purchase orders were opened, not the actual expenditures. She

explained that actual costs varied depending on project scope, contract

duration, and other factors. She stated that staff used purchase order

amounts because the city opened contracts for their full quoted amounts

at the time of award, which provided a clearer basis for analysis. She

offered an example involving Information and Technology (IT) services,

explaining that the city might open a purchase order for a $10,000

renewal estimate but ultimately spend less depending on circumstances.

She reiterated that the list captured original quoted contract values rather

than final expenditures, for ease of analysis. Councilmember Bowers

responded that the contract value, rather than the final expenditure,

remained more relevant to the discussion because Council action at

different thresholds concerned contract authorization amounts. She

stated that the data therefore provided a more accurate reflection and

thanked Director Bury for the clarification.

President Weaver thanked staff and asked a follow-up question. He

inquired whether the city applied a standard contingency percentage

when opening purchase orders, citing an example in which he might

open a purchase order for $70,000 on a $65,000 quote to account for

incidentals and ensure he did not exceed the authorized amount. He

asked whether the city typically added a set percentage, such as 10

percent, or whether contingencies varied by contract. Director Bury

responded that contingencies varied by contract. She stated that

construction projects often included a 10 percent contingency, but larger

projects, such as 825 Tech Center Drive, included larger contingencies

depending on the project’s risks and scope. Senior Director Schultz

added that the contingency amount applied toward the $250,000

threshold. He explained that if a contract totaled $251,000 due to a

contingency, even if the city did not ultimately expend those funds,

Council would need to approve it. If the contract totaled $249,000, it

would fall under existing legislation and would not require additional

Council approval.

Councilmember Bowers stated that she felt very interested in hearing her

colleagues’ thoughts on the matter. She noted that the Council had

received all of the information late that day and acknowledged that

members might need additional time to review it. She said that the

Council’s actions the following week were not written in stone, nor were

the actions taken four years prior. Referring to her year-end Council

comments, she described government as an iterative process and

explained that when the Council identified different or better ways of

doing things, or recognized that certain practices no longer served the

needs of the community, it could revise them. She expressed interest in

her colleagues’ views because she believed this type of discretion and

review fell within the body’s responsibilities.

Mayor Jadwin thanked Councilmember Bowers for her comments and

noted that the matter remained pending. She explained that the original

submission of the report to Council included minor redlined revisions to

the procurement policy, after which the Council opened a discussion

regarding the threshold. She suggested that, for the following week, the

Council could approve the initial revisions and continue the conversation

about the threshold later. She stated that this approach would allow the

Council to finalize the retainage language, which she identified as the

original intent for bringing the item forward. She added that both Council

and the administration had received additional summary information that

afternoon and that the administration would benefit from time to review it

as well. She recommended that the vote the following week focus on the

initially proposed redlines while continuing the broader discussion.

Senior Director Schultz directed attention to the screen and noted that it

displayed procurement limits from other municipalities, which could be

compared to the information Councilmember Bowers and Ms. Hilts

compiled. Councilmember Bowers responded that each of those

communities appeared in the spreadsheet provided by the Council

Office. She explained that she had not mentioned them by name

because they operated under a city manager form of government. Senior

Director Schultz apologized and stated that he had not yet seen the

spreadsheet.

President Weaver thanked Mayor Jadwin and the administration. He

stated that when an item appeared on an agenda, he viewed it as an

opportunity to consider the matter before the Council rather than conduct

a wholesale review. He expressed appreciation for Mayor Jadwin’s

suggestion to move forward with the original redlines, as that reflected

the administration’s initial goal, and he welcomed the willingness to

continue broader discussions. He stated that he felt comfortable

proceeding with the redlines while continuing dialogue. He noted that

both the administration and the Council Office provided extensive

materials and that he would benefit from additional time to review them.

He referenced prior conversations about reporting elements and

observed that such reporting appeared to align with the strategic plan

discussions. He stated that he had not yet reached a conclusion

regarding a specific dollar threshold but remained open to further

discussion. He highlighted quarterly reporting by other municipalities and

suggested that the Council could schedule such reporting as part of the

Finance Committee’s quarterly updates, possibly as an attachment, to

address concerns. He concluded by expressing appreciation for the

research and effort devoted to the matter, the integration with the

strategic plan, and the administration’s willingness to continue

discussions. He reiterated that he supported moving forward with the

original redlines so the administration could proceed with its work.

Councilmember Padova thanked everyone who helped compile the

information. She echoed President Weaver’s comments and stated that

she also felt comfortable moving forward with the redlines while

continuing the discussion after voting on the administration’s original

proposal.

Councilmember Renner stated that he previously discussed the matter at

length when it first arose. He said that Councilmember Weaver and

Councilmember Padova made strong points and suggested that the

Council consider moving forward with the redlined version. He

emphasized that procurement thresholds did not function solely as an

administrative tool but determined how the city stewarded taxpayer

dollars. He reiterated that he sought to understand the community value.

He stated that he understood the value for staff and reviewed the data.

Drawing on his experience as a county director, he said that the current

Ohio Revised Code felt restrictive and did not accurately reflect today’s

market values. He explained that the State used three-year-old inflation

data in its calculations, which did not reflect current conditions. He

suggested that $100,000 might prove more appropriate and stated that

he did not believe the Revised Code threshold should control, but that the

threshold should be higher. He recalled that in 2022, after COVID-19, the

city increased the threshold to activate projects and distribute incoming

funds to benefit residents. He concluded by reiterating his question

regarding the community value.

Councilmember Bowers recalled that prior to the 2022 rule change, the

threshold stood at $50,000 and that the Council made a significant

increase to $250,000.

Director Bury clarified that the $50,000 threshold did not include

professional services and applied only to construction contracts. She

explained that the original legislation excluded professional services.

Councilmember Bowers thanked Director Bury for the clarification.

Director Bury stated that the city created a threshold for professional

services in 2022 because no threshold previously existed, and no one

knew when to bring those items forward. Councilmember Bowers asked

whether professional service items previously came forward sporadically.

Director Bury confirmed that they did. Councilmember Bowers asked

whether some met the $50,000 level and others did not. Director Bury

confirmed that as well.

Councilmember Bowers summarized that before the 2022 revision, the

city operated under an unclear policy in which some items came before

Council at the $50,000 level while others lacked clarity. She

acknowledged her colleagues’ concerns about the volume of information

provided shortly before the meeting. She asked what moving forward

would look like and whether the Council would advance the underlying

ordinance with the proposed redlines and then bring the matter back to

committee within two weeks or the following week. She stated that she

did not want to lose momentum, given the effort invested and the value of

the conversation. She also recognized that the administration worked

with PlanningNEXT on strategic plan implementation and expressed a

desire to maintain focus on the procurement discussion.

Senior Director Vollmer referenced Goal A.16 of the strategic plan, which

sought to streamline procurement and financial practices. She stated that

the administration could prioritize that goal during implementation and

place it in the immediate zero-to-three-year timeline.

Senior Director Schultz stated that he did not believe the administration

would understand Planning NEXT’s proposed reporting structures within

two weeks or even a month. He referenced a spreadsheet with 300 lines

that outlined numerous goals and objectives within the strategic plan. He

distinguished between discussing a procurement threshold and

discussing reporting structures. He stated that the administration needed

to assess how quarterly reports functioned, how the city utilized them, and

how the city could enhance them without discarding existing processes.

He emphasized the need for a deeper understanding of Council’s

expectations. He cited the Capital Improvement Program as an example

and explained that project sheets included planned expenditures for

design, construction management, and construction. He noted that those

figures served budgeting purposes but did not constitute approvals and

did not necessarily remain fixed. He stated that the administration

needed to determine how to collect and report various plans and data

appropriately, which would require more time.

Councilmember Bowers asked a question regarding the 320-line

spreadsheet referenced by Senior Director Schultz and inquired whether

it represented an export from the city’s accounting software. Director

Bury clarified that the 300-line spreadsheet related to the strategic plan

and listed actions within that plan, not accounting data. Councilmember

Bowers stated that she misunderstood and believed he referenced a

different 300-line spreadsheet. Senior Director Schultz explained that the

comprehensive strategic plan would require significant effort from staff.

Councilmember Bowers clarified that her question concerned the

300-line document provided to Council that afternoon and asked whether

that document represented an export from the accounting software.

Director Bury confirmed that it did.

Councilmember Renner agreed with Senior Director Schultz’s earlier

comments regarding the Capital Improvement Program and stated that

they connected to the question of community value and outcomes. He

said that whatever threshold the Council ultimately selected would prompt

dialogue with Council about the status of projects. He noted that several

items on the list provided to Council for this discussion had not previously

come before Council and that neither Council nor the public knew their

status. He stated that bringing contracts or additional funding requests

before Council created an opportunity to revisit and explain projects,

even if Council discussed them six months earlier, and that this process

benefited the public. He acknowledged that he struggled with the

$250,000 threshold and viewed it as high. He asked how the Council

might address that concern and stated that the question might not lend

itself to an immediate answer. He suggested that Council could pass the

legislation but keep the threshold question active on the agenda moving

forward, as he wanted continued discussion on that issue.

Senior Director Schultz responded by asking what problem the Council

sought to solve by reducing the threshold from $250,000 to another

figure. He noted that Council had unanimously approved the increase

from $50,000 to $250,000 a few years earlier. He asked whether the

concern centered on alignment with other municipalities or on a

perception that the administration did not provide sufficient information.

He stated that the administration aimed to operate transparently and

referenced recent contract amendments and Capital Improvement

Program processes. He asked whether the issue stemmed solely from

differences between the city’s threshold and those of other municipalities.

Vice President Jones asked for clarification regarding whether

professional services fell under the $50,000 threshold prior to the

proposed redlines. Director Bury explained that in 2022 the

administration conducted a comprehensive review of the procurement

policy. She stated that auditors advised the City that its policy did not

comply with federal uniform guidance requirements. She said the

administration incorporated uniform guidance standards to ensure

compliance with federal awards and addressed internal issues, including

the absence of a clear process for professional services. She explained

that the previous policy included a competitive bidding threshold that

excluded professional services and provided no consistent avenue for

bringing those services before Council. She described the prior process

as sporadic and inconsistent, which made it difficult for the administration

to determine when Council action was required. She stated that the 2022

overhaul sought to ensure compliance, eliminate uncertainty, and clarify

when Council action became necessary. Vice President Jones thanked

Director Bury for the clarification and responded to Senior Director

Schultz’s question regarding the problem to solve. She stated that, for

her, the issue involved transparency and visibility, particularly with respect

to professional services. She said that Council often did not see

spending in that category until budget discussions. She suggested that a

consistent reporting process might provide the visibility Council sought

and asked whether such reporting could address those concerns.

Councilmember Bowers emphasized that the discussion did not present

an either-or choice between reporting and procurement threshold

changes. She stated that both could and should receive attention. She

said she would welcome a reporting proposal from the administration,

developed internally or with consultants. Regarding the procurement

threshold, she noted that the administration recommended maintaining

the $250,000 level, while initial research suggested that amount

exceeded thresholds in other central Ohio communities. She proposed

bringing the procurement threshold discussion back in two weeks after

Council had time to review the research. She clarified that doing so

would not require a decision within two weeks but would allow Council to

continue the conversation without losing momentum. She reiterated that

reporting and threshold levels represented separate functions that

warranted discussion.

Vice President Jones stated that she did not disagree and reiterated that

she responded to the question about the problem to solve. She

acknowledged the proposal to revisit the matter in two weeks and asked

what Council wanted to see at that time. She asked whether Council

simply needed time to review the materials before continuing the

discussion.

Councilmember Bowers stated that she envisioned keeping the matter

as a discussion item rather than drafting a new ordinance at that time.

She proposed advancing the current ordinance, as originally proposed,

to second reading the following week while retaining the topic on the

committee agenda for further discussion. She said that after additional

Council discussion, the Council could consider advancing a different

ordinance later, possibly after the administration had time to recommend

reporting processes. She stated that she had no additional requests of

the administration at that time and asked her colleagues to review the

materials, determine whether they had further questions, and consider

what threshold range they believed appropriate, whether that remained at

$250,000 or changed.

Vice President Jones summarized that Council would support passing

the original redlines the following week without Councilmember Bowers’

recommended changes. She sought confirmation from Council and

received agreement. She stated that Council would keep the

procurement threshold as a discussion item on committee agendas for

further consideration. She noted that the ordinance already received first

reading and would proceed to adoption the following week. She asked

whether Council preferred to place the item on the Regular Agenda or the

Consent Agenda and, after discussion, stated that Council would place it

on the Consent Agenda. She thanked the administration and the Council

Office for the information provided and expressed appreciation for their

willingness to continue the discussion.

Recommendation: Second Reading/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 3/2/2026.

ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Discussion on Gahanna New Community Authority Appointment Resolution

President Weaver provided an update regarding the New Community

Authority appointment for the Crescent. He reminded Council that it

previously made several appointments to the newly created community

authority and noted that one of those appointments was coming due. He

stated that, based on conversations with City Attorney Tamilarasan and

Director Gottke, an underlying resolution governing those appointments

required review before Council could make a new appointment. He

added that he and Director Gottke planned to bring the resolution before

the next committee for consideration. After Council reviewed and

resolved the matter, it could proceed with the appointment.

MT-0009-2026

A MOTION TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE COUNCIL

RULES OF PROCEDURE AS PROPOSED BY THE AD HOC

COUNCIL RULES COMMITTEE (EXHIBIT A)

Councilmember Bowers thanked Clerk VanMeter for keeping the ad hoc

committee on track. She reported that she, Councilmember McGregor,

and Councilmember Padova met twice to review Council rules, consider

recommended redlines from the City Attorney, and address general

cleanup items. She noted that Council had before it two sets of minutes

from meetings held on February 2, 2026, and February 12, 2026, and

thanked Clerk VanMeter for preparing them. She confirmed with Clerk

VanMeter that the committee would recommend adoption of those

minutes at the next Regular Meeting, and he affirmed. Councilmember

Bowers stated that the committee reviewed the minutes and believed

they accurately reflected the discussions. She then reviewed the

proposed rule changes. She explained that many of the redlined edits

addressed cleanup items and that City Attorney Tamilarasan reviewed

them. She noted that the revisions included numerical cleanup to correct

inconsistent numbering conventions throughout the rules. She highlighted

a substantive edit to Section 3.04 to clarify that, in the absence of the

Vice President, the President would chair a Committee of the Whole

meeting, as the prior language omitted that clarification. She also

described additional cleanup in Section 5 related to meetings, which

aligned the rules with the City of Gahanna Charter and current practices.

She stated that none of the recommended changes altered current

practices. She further explained that revisions related to Executive

Sessions aligned the rules with existing practices and confirmed the City

Attorney’s authority to request Special Meetings and Executive Sessions

along with other elected officials. Councilmember Bowers stated that the

purple redlined edits, beginning in Section 8, reflected the City Attorney’s

recommendations to standardize procedures for bringing forward

ordinances and resolutions. She noted that these recommendations

were promulgated the previous year and recommended for incorporation

into the rules. She added that the committee briefly discussed Public

Hearing, or Hearing of Visitors, practices. Although members considered

amendments to those practices, they decided to maintain the current

rules. She stated that the committee weighed the pros and cons of the

current approach and did not find sufficient justification to make changes,

but welcomed further discussion if Council wished to consider

amendments in the future. She then invited questions and offered

Councilmember McGregor and Councilmember Padova the opportunity

to add comments. Councilmembers Padova and McGregor stated that

they had nothing to add.

President Weaver thanked Councilmember Padova, Councilmember

Bowers, and Councilmember McGregor for their efforts in reviewing the

rules. He recalled that during the Organizational Meeting he asked them

to undertake that work and make a recommendation. He also thanked

Clerk VanMeter for taking the minutes and for his diligence in

accommodating the additional meetings.

Vice President Jones echoed her appreciation for the committee’s work

and expressed particular appreciation for the discussion regarding

Hearing of Visitors. She requested that Council continue to review the

requirement for individuals to publicly share their address. She

acknowledged that the issue appeared to be isolated and might not

justify a rule change, but asked Council to keep the concern in mind

moving forward. Council agreed to place the item on the consent agenda

for the following week.

Recommendation: Introduction/Adoption on Consent Agenda on 3/2/2026.

Councilmember Padova:

RES-0004-2026

A JOINT RESOLUTION AND PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH

2026 AS "WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH" IN THE CITY OF GAHANNA

AND HONORING LAURA M. FISHER, THE FIRST WOMAN ELECTED

TO SERVE ON THE VILLAGE OF GAHANNA COUNCIL IN 1921

Councilmember Padova presented a proposed joint resolution

proclamation for Women’s History Month honoring Laura M. Fisher, the

first councilwoman elected to serve on the Village of Gahanna Council in

1921. She stated that Tom Gregory, who presented the previous month,

would attend the meeting and provide a shorter presentation of

approximately seven to ten minutes. She noted that he gathered

photographs and additional information about Laura Fisher. She

expressed hope that Mayor Jadwin would join in recognizing the

proclamation and invited any edits or questions from Council.

Vice President Jones asked for questions or discussion and thanked

Councilmember Padova for bringing the resolution forward. She stated

that she looked forward to the information Mr. Gregory researched and

confirmed that Council would place the item on the Consent Agenda for

the following week.