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, April 27, 2026  
City Hall, Council Chambers  
Immediately following the regular City Council meeting beginning at 7:00 PM  
CALL TO ORDER:  
A.  
Gahanna City Council met for Committee of the Whole on Monday,  
April 27, 2026, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council Jamille  
Jones, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:26 p.m. The agenda  
was published on Friday, April 24, 2026. All members were present for  
the meeting. There were no additions or corrections to the agenda.  
B.  
DISCUSSIONS:  
1. New Community Authority Presentation  
Caleb Bell and Michael Ringle, Bricker Graydon Wyatt  
2026-0083  
New Community Authorities Presentation by J. Caleb Bell and Michael  
Ringle, Bricker Graydon Wyatt 2026-04-27  
Introduction  
Jeff Gottke, Director of Economic Development, introduced a  
presentation and stated that Council would hear from regional experts  
on New Community Authorities (NCAs). He noted that the  
presentation would not come from him and clarified that the item did  
not include a request for action but served as an informational  
session. He explained that the purpose of the presentation was to  
provide additional understanding of an economic development tool  
that the city used in a limited capacity. He stated that he aimed to  
move toward the model presented and encouraged the Council to  
consider that approach. Director Gottke discussed the importance of  
expanding the city’s use of economic development tools to strengthen  
fiscal health and create opportunities for businesses and residents. He  
explained that the city used NCAs in a limited scope and geography  
and noted that the presenters would address ways to expand their  
geographic use and increase fiscal versatility for both the city and  
development projects. He then introduced Caleb Bell and Michael  
Ringle from Bricker Graydon Wyatt, noting that the firm served as a  
statewide leader in the creation and administration of NCAs. He  
reiterated that the presentation was informational and invited  
Councilmembers to ask questions at the conclusion.  
Caleb Bell introduced himself as Chair of the Public Finance Group at  
Bricker Graydon Wyatt and a partner in the firm, and he introduced  
Michael Ringle, Public Finance Attorney. He stated that they would  
provide a high-level overview of the NCA tool and asked Mr. Ringle to  
begin with organizational dynamics.  
Michael Ringle explained that a New Community Authority functioned  
as a separate political subdivision with a board appointed by the City  
Council or the statutory developer. He noted that the city previously  
used an NCA as a single development finance tool but stated that the  
presentation would address how the city could deploy the tool citywide  
and tailor it to individual projects while maintaining control. He  
explained that, at formation, the developer must control the land  
included in the authority and that the authority held flexible powers  
under the Revised Code to finance community facilities. He added that  
the tool supplemented the city’s economic development efforts. Mr.  
Ringle described the creation process, stating that a developer would  
file a petition with an organizational board, which in this case would  
involve submitting a petition to the City Council for review, a public  
hearing, and approval. He stated that the Council must determine that  
the authority served the public health, safety, and convenience. He  
also explained that both the developer and local government shared  
board appointments and noted that the Revised Code allowed the city  
to serve as the developer. Mr. Bell emphasized that concept, stating  
that the municipality could act as the developer of an NCA. He noted  
that several central Ohio communities, including Hilliard, Sunbury,  
Galena, Mount Vernon, and New Albany, used this approach to  
manage development activity within their boundaries. He explained  
that when the city served as the developer, Council would appoint the  
board, which would then carry out the city’s development plan. He  
stated that this approach allowed the city to direct development rather  
than respond to developer proposals. Mr. Bell provided an example  
from Hilliard, explaining that the city applied a community authority  
charge to all new residential lots through a policy that imposed a  
five-mill charge. He described the charge as similar to a municipal  
special assessment or unvoted debt capacity on new development. He  
stated that as development increased, the resulting revenue created a  
significant funding source that the city could use to address  
development priorities. He added that this approach could provide the  
city with greater leverage in working with developers by establishing  
clear policies and addressing needs through contractual agreements.  
Community Development Charges & NCA Enhancement  
Mr. Bell explained that the primary mechanism that enabled an NCA to  
operate was the community development charge. He stated that, in  
municipally driven authorities, these charges typically ran with the land  
through a recorded declaration. He compared the charges to  
homeowners’ association assessments but clarified that they  
functioned as millage, such as one, three, or five mills, applied as an  
assessment that provided a benefit to the property. He described the  
dynamic between existing and new development, stating that  
established residents already funded infrastructure such as roads and  
public facilities, while new development benefited from those prior  
investments. He explained that the community authority structure  
allowed new development to contribute appropriately to the existing  
community rather than creating tension between new and existing  
residents. Mr. Bell stated that the charges could take various forms,  
including fixed dollar amounts or millage, and noted that more  
advanced authorities could apply specialized charges such as hotel  
bed taxes or retail sales charges. He referenced Bridge Park in Dublin  
as an example of a development that utilized both types of charges.  
He explained that the approach allowed the city to take a more active  
role in shaping development outcomes by partnering with developers.  
He described how the city could allocate portions of the revenue to  
support site amenities and public improvements, such as parks and  
shared spaces, thereby enhancing overall development quality. He  
emphasized that the establishment of a community development  
charge created a future revenue stream that could support and  
improve development projects.  
Mr. Ringle outlined permissible uses for community development  
charges. He stated that the charges could finance, reimburse, or pay  
for community facilities, including land acquisition and development.  
He explained that the funds could also support debt service on bonds  
issued for such improvements and cover the costs of operating and  
maintaining those facilities. Mr. Ringle then described the types of  
community facilities that qualified under the statute. He identified  
public buildings, public spaces, recreational facilities, parks, open  
spaces, cultural facilities, streets, lighting, pedestrian access, bicycle  
systems, water supply, and sewer infrastructure as examples. He  
noted that the definition of community facilities exceeded the scope of  
public improvements typically eligible under tax increment financing.  
He stated that the broader definition allowed greater flexibility in both  
the types of charges imposed and the range of projects funded, as  
well as the geographic area in which funds could be used.  
Advantages of NCAs  
Mr. Bell outlined several advantages of New Community Authorities.  
He stated that they functioned as separate governmental entities with  
different rules than municipalities, which allowed for more efficient  
processes, such as expedited project implementation when working  
with developers on infrastructure like sewer installation. He explained  
that one significant advantage involved property taxation, noting that  
municipalities in Ohio could abate, redirect, or add taxes, and that  
adding millage through a community authority avoided conflicts with  
schools, counties, or municipal budgets. He stated that this approach  
augmented revenue without creating competition for existing tax  
resources. Mr. Bell explained that NCAs could operate for extended  
periods and noted that some defined terms, such as 20 years, while  
others operated for longer durations. He encouraged municipalities to  
consider defined terms based on community needs and market  
factors, including the marketability of lots. He stated that in Delaware  
County, numerous authorities existed, some with millage rates  
exceeding 10 mills per lot, and he noted that such charges had not  
negatively affected development demand. He stated that the use of  
community authority charges was common in central Ohio and that  
new development effectively contributed to the cost of existing  
community infrastructure.  
Mr. Ringle added that the structure included due process through a  
recorded declaration that disclosed the charges to prospective  
property owners. He stated that buyers received notice of these  
charges before purchasing property. He also noted that the presence  
of an NCA could enhance competitiveness by enabling additional  
amenities, and he stated that communities without such tools could  
face disadvantages in attracting development. Mr. Ringle explained  
that, because an NCA functioned as a separate political entity, it could  
issue debt supported by its charges without affecting the City’s debt  
capacity. He noted that this feature allowed municipalities to pursue  
significant infrastructure projects without straining general obligation  
capacity.  
Mr. Bell provided an example in which a major road improvement  
required significant funding and explained that a community authority  
could leverage development to finance such improvements without  
relying on the City’s general obligation bonds. Mr. Ringle concluded by  
noting that community development charges offered greater flexibility  
than other financing mechanisms, such as special improvement  
districts, and that boards could implement and adjust charges more  
easily. He added that, when private developers participated, they  
could access private markets to finance projects, which further  
expanded funding flexibility.  
Case Study: Bridge Park, Dublin, Ohio  
Mr. Bell presented Bridge Park in Dublin as a case study, describing it  
as a 30-acre development along the river that redeveloped former strip  
mall properties into a new space. He stated that parking infrastructure  
represented a significant cost and that the community authority system  
supported that development through multiple revenue sources. He  
explained that charges applied to real property secured debt, while  
additional charges applied to hotel stays and retail transactions within  
the district. He noted that the percentage added to restaurant bills  
within the district supported repayment of parking garage debt. He  
stated that layering these charges within a defined area proved  
effective and described the development as highly functional and well  
managed. Mr. Bell stated that such tools allowed municipalities to  
enhance development sites and emphasized that NCAs could apply to  
individual sites or multiple types of development. He explained that a  
single authority could manage different projects, including downtown  
developments and residential areas, and allow the city to maintain  
control when working with developers. He noted that Columbus initially  
created multiple authorities but later consolidated them into a more  
centralized structure to improve efficiency and oversight. He stated  
that a managed, city-led system provided a more effective approach  
than creating a new authority for each development.  
Mr. Ringle referenced considerations for forming a citywide NCA and  
stated that, although the presentation did not constitute a formal  
proposal, it outlined factors for the Council to consider. He then invited  
questions.  
Questions from Council  
Councilmember Schnetzer thanked the presenters and asked  
questions regarding the practical application of New Community  
Authorities. He referenced the example of Hilliard and asked whether  
an authority must consist of contiguous land or whether the city could  
establish a single, overarching authority across noncontiguous areas.  
Mr. Bell responded that changes in state law approximately ten years  
earlier eliminated contiguity requirements. He explained that  
municipalities could now apply a “Swiss cheese” approach, targeting  
specific developing areas and incorporating them into a single  
authority without requiring geographic continuity. He stated that  
separate developments could contribute collectively to shared  
community improvements, such as parks or facilities, under one  
authority. Councilmember Schnetzer acknowledged the potential  
benefit of such an approach in addressing public concerns about the  
impact of new development on existing infrastructure. He then asked  
about the relationship between NCAs and tax increment financing  
(TIF), specifically whether the tools functioned as complementary or  
conflicting mechanisms. Mr. Bell stated that the tools complemented  
each other. He explained that municipalities could redirect property  
taxes through TIF while also adding community development charges  
through an NCA. He described how a development could include both  
a TIF component and an additional charge, resulting in a combined  
tax structure. He stated that TIF often served as a primary tool for  
infrastructure improvements, such as roads, utilities, and traffic-related  
projects, while community authority charges could support site-specific  
amenities, including recreational facilities and community spaces. He  
explained that municipalities could adjust the balance between the two  
tools to meet project needs. Mr. Ringle added that using multiple tools  
could improve financing outcomes, particularly when projects require  
upfront funding. He explained that tax increment financing relied on  
future tax revenue generated after development, which could limit  
early borrowing capacity. He stated that layering community  
development charges could provide more immediate and predictable  
revenue streams, helping to support debt service during early project  
phases. Mr. Bell summarized that combining the tools could reduce  
variability in TIF revenue and create a more stable financing structure  
by incorporating community development charges. Mr. Ringle added  
that community development charges could also fund additional public  
facilities, including recreational amenities and services related to  
public safety, such as police and fire infrastructure, to accommodate  
increased demand from new development.  
Councilmember Bowers continued the discussion regarding the  
differences between New Community Authorities and Tax Increment  
Financing. She stated her understanding that TIF redirected existing  
property tax revenues for defined public benefits, while an NCA added  
an additional assessment to fund similar or expanded improvements.  
She also asked about governance, noting that a new governing body  
would oversee the use of those fees rather than the Council. Mr. Bell  
responded that the Council retained control by forming the community  
authority and serving as the developer through the municipal  
corporate body. He explained that the authority operated based on the  
Council’s policy and that a cooperative agreement between the city  
and the authority governed the use of funds. Mr. Ringle added that,  
while the Council typically adopted TIF legislation directly, in this case  
the Council would review and approve projects and the structure  
under which charges would later be applied by the authority’s board.  
Mr. Bell further explained that the Council controlled the admission of  
property into the authority, which allowed the Council to determine  
whether specific developments participated.  
Councilmember Bowers asked whether the authority’s board would  
petition for developments to be included. Mr. Ringle clarified that, after  
the initial formation, subsequent applications for additional land would  
come before the Council for approval. Mr. Bell noted that  
implementing such a policy required establishing clear expectations  
with developers and that initial adoption could present challenges as  
the City established new standards. Councilmember Bowers asked  
whether the authority could waive assessments. Mr. Ringle explained  
that municipal formations often began with city-owned land that carried  
no charges and that, in practice, charge levels were negotiated based  
on the needs of each development. He stated that while flexibility  
existed, he recommended establishing a baseline expectation for  
charges. Mr. Bell added that, after initial obligations were met, the  
authority could reduce charge levels over time, subject to contractual  
commitments. He provided an example in which a community  
authority reduced its millage as development matured and financial  
obligations decreased. Councilmember Bowers presented a  
hypothetical scenario involving future redevelopment within an  
established authority and asked whether the authority could reduce  
millage for such a project. Mr. Bell stated that any reduction would  
depend on existing contractual obligations, including outstanding debt,  
but noted that reductions could occur if those obligations were  
satisfied and if the Council granted the necessary authority.  
Councilmember Bowers asked whether residents voted on the millage.  
Mr. Bell stated that residents did not vote on the charges because the  
obligation attached to the property through a recorded declaration  
disclosed at the time of purchase. He explained that disclosure  
requirements ensured that buyers understood the charges and noted  
that standard real estate contracts in the region included such  
disclosures. Mr. Ringle added that the authority’s board operated as a  
public body and conducted open meetings accessible to residents.  
Councilmember Bowers asked about the relationship between  
property tax abatements and New Community Authorities. Mr. Bell  
stated that residential tax abatements were generally disfavored due  
to their impact on schools but acknowledged that some communities  
continued to use them. He explained that some municipalities paired  
abatements with community development charges to offset lost  
revenue, particularly in areas with existing abatement policies. He  
described this approach as a method to replace or supplement  
revenue that would otherwise be reduced through abatement.  
Councilmember Bowers remarked that the approach appeared to  
differ from traditional incentive strategies by focusing on maintaining  
community quality while supporting development. Mr. Ringle  
responded that the approach functioned as a more targeted method  
for economic development.  
Councilmember McGregor stated that Gahanna was largely built out  
and questioned the applicability of the NCA tool given the limited  
availability of undeveloped land. Mr. Bell acknowledged the question  
and stated that, even in built-out communities, redevelopment  
opportunities continued to arise. He explained that projects such as  
renovations, conversions of office buildings to residential use, and  
other property changes created opportunities to apply the tool. He also  
noted that annexation could introduce new development areas,  
depending on available corridors. Additionally, he described emerging  
applications of the tool in built environments, including the use of  
community authority charges on existing retail areas, citing an  
example in the Short North area of Columbus, where property owners  
agreed to implement a retail charge along North High Street. He  
stated that the tool could adapt to different development scenarios  
depending on property conditions and community needs. Mr. Ringle  
added that Bridge Park in Dublin provided an example of  
redevelopment, explaining that the site previously functioned as a  
struggling strip mall. He stated that the City of Dublin redeveloped the  
site, including construction of a suspension bridge connecting new  
development to the historic downtown, which supported reinvestment  
in that area.  
President Weaver thanked the presenters and asked about examples  
of communities that implemented a citywide New Community Authority  
approach, as well as the typical length of terms for such authorities.  
Mr. Bell responded that “citywide” referred more accurately to a  
citywide policy, as the authority itself applied only to consenting  
properties, typically new development. He cited Galena as an  
example, explaining that while the authority applied only to newly  
developing areas, the city maintained a consistent policy across  
developments. He stated that terms could vary and that some  
authorities used defined durations, such as 20 or 30 years, while  
others incorporated renewable or longer-term structures. He noted  
that communities often determined term lengths based on financial  
goals and anticipated revenue needs. President Weaver asked  
whether different areas within a citywide policy could include varying  
terms and requirements. Mr. Bell confirmed that the City could  
establish different structures, such as varying millage or charges  
depending on the type of development, including hotel or residential  
uses. He also explained that changes in state law expanded municipal  
control over the tool, eliminated contiguity requirements, removed  
minimum acreage thresholds, and allowed authorities to include  
different types of development rather than requiring a single,  
functionally related community. President Weaver asked whether the  
city could apply the tool to an existing residential neighborhood to  
support public improvements. Mr. Bell responded affirmatively in  
concept, and Mr. Ringle clarified that property owners would need to  
consent to participation. He explained that obtaining consent from  
existing homeowners could prove challenging due to mortgage  
obligations and the addition of a lien through the recorded declaration.  
He stated that communities more commonly applied the tool to  
redevelopment or new development areas. President Weaver asked  
about the process for implementing such an approach in an existing  
area. Mr. Bell stated that the city could establish a policy, create an  
authority, and then approach property owners to seek voluntary  
participation for funding improvements. He noted that such an  
application would represent a new approach for existing residential  
areas. Mr. Bell added that the city could use the tool to encourage  
voluntary participation in funding improvements, similar to a special  
improvement district, particularly for localized needs such as drainage.  
Mr. Ringle added that community development charges could support  
facilities across a broader area than tax increment financing, allowing  
new development to help fund improvements that benefited nearby  
built-out areas. President Weaver then asked whether the city could  
incorporate additional requirements, such as green infrastructure, into  
a NCA policy. Mr. Bell confirmed that the city could do so and  
recommended establishing broader policy goals rather than overly  
specific requirements. He provided an example from a community  
near the Darby area, where development policy required contributions  
to environmental objectives through either direct fees or participation  
in a community authority structure.  
Councilmember Bowers asked follow-up questions regarding the  
structure of a potential single NCA board and inquired whether the  
Council would determine the number of board members. Mr. Bell  
stated that the statute required a minimum of seven members and  
noted that some authorities had nine members, though he indicated  
that seven members typically worked best. He explained that the City  
Council formally appointed four members, while the city, acting as the  
corporate body and developer, appointed three members. He stated  
that Council could determine how to structure appointments, including  
whether to appoint all members directly or include staff or individuals  
with relevant expertise, such as developers or builders, while  
maintaining overall control of the board. Councilmember Bowers  
expressed concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly if  
developers served on the board, and noted similarities to community  
improvement corporations. She also raised concerns about  
governance under a single board, including the possibility of  
competing priorities and allocation of funds across projects. She  
stated that the concept required detailed policy consideration. Mr. Bell  
acknowledged those concerns and stated that the proposed approach  
emphasized a municipally driven policy framework, with the Council  
and administration providing direction. He explained that this structure  
reduced the likelihood of individual developers exerting influence over  
decisions and emphasized that the board would function similarly to  
other boards or commissions with policy oversight. Mr. Ringle added  
that the Council retained appointment and removal authority over  
board members.  
Director Gottke clarified his intended approach, stating that he viewed  
NCAs as a tool for new growth rather than for existing development.  
He stated that he did not intend to apply additional charges to existing  
property owners. He explained that he envisioned creating a flexible  
set of tools that the city could apply when working with developers on  
new projects, allowing the city and developers to structure charges  
that supported both development feasibility and city goals. He  
emphasized the need to balance affordability with revenue generation  
and described the approach as a “pay as you grow” model.  
Vice President Jones thanked Director Gottke for clarifying the  
concept and stated that his explanation helped summarize the key  
takeaway from the presentation. She then asked if there were  
additional questions. Seeing none, she thanked Mr. Bell and Mr.  
Ringle for their presentation and expressed appreciation for their time.  
2. Sustainable Ohio Public Energy Council (SOPEC) Rates Discussion  
2026-0084  
Gahanna Energy Plus (CCA) Program Updates Presentation by Luke  
Sulfridge, SOPEC 2026-04-27  
Corey Wybensinger, Senior Deputy Director, introduced Luke  
Sulfridge, Executive Director of Sustainable Ohio Public Energy  
Council (SOPEC), and stated that he would provide an update on the  
Gahanna Energy Plus community choice aggregation program. He  
explained that the program served as a tool to provide access to  
competitive electric rates, particularly through a 100 percent  
renewable option. He stated that the presentation would include an  
overview of the current program, newly established aggregation rates,  
and factors influencing those rates. He also noted that recent  
communication was sent to residents regarding the disclosure period  
for a new three-year term and stated that the presentation would  
address those details. He reminded residents that additional  
information, including rates and program details, was available on the  
city’s website.  
Luke Sulfridge thanked Council, Mayor Jadwin, and staff and reported  
that the program generated nearly one million dollars in savings for  
Gahanna participants compared to the standard service offer,  
contributing to approximately $40 million in total savings across  
SOPEC membership over five years. He noted that the data reflected  
figures through February 2026 and would continue to increase through  
June 2026. He stated that current rates remained below the AEP Ohio  
standard service offer and would continue through May 31, 2026. He  
advised residents to review current rates through available resources  
and noted that SOPEC maintained fixed, flat rates during the contract  
period.  
Mr. Sulfridge reported that rates would increase in the upcoming term  
and stated that SOPEC monitored market conditions to secure the  
lowest possible rates. He explained that regional energy markets,  
including PJM, faced capacity constraints due to limited new capacity  
and retiring legacy generation, which increased costs. He noted that  
capacity charges now comprised a significant portion of generation  
costs and described additional factors, including weather conditions  
and global conflicts, that affected energy prices. He emphasized that  
SOPEC’s fixed-rate structure protected residents from market  
fluctuations during the contract term.  
Mr. Sulfridge explained that the aggregation program allowed  
residents to opt out at any time without penalty and described the  
opt-out process, including a 21-day disclosure period following receipt  
of notification letters. He advised residents with independent supplier  
contracts to review any early termination fees before switching. He  
clarified that the program operated as an opt-out model, meaning  
residents participated automatically unless they chose otherwise.  
Mr. Sulfridge outlined additional benefits of SOPEC membership,  
including administrative support, legal resources, and grant  
assistance. He reported that SOPEC secured more than $25 million in  
grants and supported initiatives such as electric vehicle infrastructure  
and solar deployment. He also described advocacy efforts at the state  
and federal levels related to energy policy and capacity needs. He  
stated that renewable energy sources, particularly solar, provided a  
timely solution to meet increasing energy demand. Mr. Sulfridge  
explained that most Gahanna participants selected the renewable  
energy option, while a smaller number chose a non-renewable  
alternative. He provided information on how residents could access  
program details, opt in or out, and contact SOPEC for assistance. He  
then invited questions.  
Questions from Council  
President Weaver asked a clarifying question regarding the term of  
the aggregation program, noting that the letter referenced a one-year  
term while prior comments referenced a three-year term. Mr. Sulfridge  
explained that the pricing operated as a one-year fixed-rate product  
that reset annually, while the overall program structure functioned on a  
three-year cycle for notification and opt-out purposes. He stated that  
SOPEC would work with the city to establish each subsequent  
12-month term based on market conditions and clarified that the  
three-year reference in the letter related to the regulatory notification  
cycle. President Weaver acknowledged the clarification and  
commented that residents expressed concern about rate increases  
compared to the current price to compare. He stated his expectation  
that the standard service offer would also increase and noted that  
residents could wait for updated pricing information before making  
decisions, as SOPEC allowed participants to opt out without penalty.  
Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Mr. Sulfridge for the presentation  
and confirmed that the reported savings represented the difference  
between SOPEC rates and the standard service offer for participating  
residents and businesses. Mr. Sulfridge confirmed that the savings  
reflected reduced charges on customer bills compared to what they  
would have paid without the aggregation program. Councilmember  
Schnetzer asked about future energy rate trends and whether any  
relief might occur after recent increases. Mr. Sulfridge stated that he  
had not observed indications of near-term relief and explained that  
strong demand, including anticipated growth in data centers,  
continued to place pressure on the energy grid. He stated that supply  
and demand dynamics would likely maintain upward pressure on  
rates. He also noted that SOPEC continued to explore strategies such  
as solar deployment and large-scale generation projects to stabilize  
long-term costs.  
Councilmember McGregor commented that residents who used the  
“Apples to Apples” comparison tool should carefully review contract  
details, including monthly fees and cancellation terms, as some lower  
advertised rates included additional costs. Mr. Sulfridge agreed and  
advised residents to review contract terms closely, including teaser  
rates and renewal conditions, noting that rates could increase  
significantly after initial terms expired if customers did not monitor their  
contracts.  
C.  
ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:  
ORD-0012-2026 AN  
ORDINANCE  
AUTHORIZING  
A
SUPPLEMENTAL  
APPROPRIATION - General Fund for Contract Services to Support  
Cultural and Artistic Programming  
Miranda Vollmer, Senior Director of Administrative Services,  
requested a supplemental appropriation of $100,000 to support  
cultural and artistic opportunities through the Gahanna Area Arts  
Council. She stated that the administration and the Arts Council  
worked together to identify ways to enhance culture and art in the city  
and noted that the effort aimed to promote cultural vitality, civic  
engagement, and economic vibrancy. Senior Director Vollmer stated  
that the funding would support goals outlined in the Our Gahanna  
Strategic Plan, including elevating unique places, fostering inclusive  
and engaged neighborhoods, connecting the community, and  
strengthening Gahanna’s identity. She explained that the partnership  
would allow the city and the Arts Council to leverage additional funding  
through the Ohio Arts Council and the State of Ohio and noted that the  
Arts Council would serve as the official arts agency for the city. Senior  
Director Vollmer stated that staff continued to finalize the agreement  
and requested the supplemental appropriation due to its timing outside  
the budget cycle. She noted that, following review by City Attorney  
Tamilarasan, Mayor Jadwin could execute the contract under  
procurement thresholds. She also stated that Councilmember Padova  
requested the contract and that staff continued to negotiate its terms  
but developed portions of the scope with the Arts Council.  
Senior Director Vollmer outlined anticipated elements of the  
agreement, including continuation and expansion of existing  
programming such as Bright Blocks and LIVE at Headley Park, with  
potential expansion into 2027 and 2028. She stated that the city  
anticipated a three-year agreement to maintain continuity. She added  
that beginning in 2027, the Arts Council would serve as the primary  
producer for the city’s summer music and arts series and other  
mutually agreed-upon programming. She stated that the Arts Council  
would assist in identifying and applying for grants related to capital  
improvement projects and would support development of a master  
arts plan, including community engagement, consultant support, and  
preparation of a final report similar to the strategic planning process.  
She also noted that the Arts Council would align its work with both the  
city’s strategic vision and its own mission, establish strategic revenue  
and performance goals, and maintain a board of directors to ensure  
oversight and accountability. Senior Director Vollmer concluded by  
stating that the requested funding would come from the  
unencumbered, unappropriated balance of the general fund and would  
be allocated to the contract services line within the Department of  
Finance.  
Councilmember Schnetzer asked why the request differed from typical  
contract services line items in the budget, noting that such items  
usually appeared at a departmental or project level rather than  
identifying a specific organization. Senior Director Vollmer explained  
that the request specifically identified the Gahanna Area Arts Council  
because the organization held a unique ability to leverage additional  
funding through the Ohio Arts Council, which no other entity could  
provide for the city. She added that the administration sought to  
maintain transparency regarding how arts and culture funding would  
be allocated. Councilmember Schnetzer asked whether the city  
identified $100,000 in specific projects or programming for the current  
fiscal year. Senior Director Vollmer responded that staff continued to  
work through details of the agreement and that payments would occur  
on an invoice basis. She explained that the Arts Council would submit  
invoices for eligible expenses up to the approved amount, and the city  
would process those through its accounts payable procedures.  
Vice President Jones asked whether the Arts Council might not utilize  
the full amount. Senior Director Vollmer confirmed that possibility and  
explained that the Arts Council could invoice for specific program  
costs, such as Bright Blocks, and that the city would retain the ability  
to audit expenditures to ensure proper use of funds.  
Councilmember McGregor requested access to the Arts Council’s  
financial records for the previous one to two years. Senior Director  
Vollmer stated that she would request that information from the Arts  
Council.  
Vice President Jones asked how additional programming would be  
identified. Senior Director Vollmer explained that staff continued to  
develop those details and that the Arts Council could assume  
responsibility for certain programming, potentially reducing workload  
for the Parks and Recreation Department while also introducing new  
programs. Vice President Jones referenced the summer music series  
at Creekside, and Senior Director Vollmer confirmed that it fell within  
that category. Vice President Jones asked about the role of the Public  
Arts Advisory Committee. Senior Director Vollmer stated that the  
committee and the Arts Council would work together and that staff  
continued to define those roles.  
Mayor Jadwin added that the request differed from standard  
appropriations because the Arts Council required documented  
municipal support to access funding from the National Endowment for  
the Arts. She also clarified that the Arts Council would provide  
administrative support to the Public Arts Advisory Committee, while  
the committee would determine public art placements, noting that the  
roles would remain distinct but complementary.  
Councilmember Padova expressed support for the proposal and noted  
that the Arts Council’s access to additional funding opportunities made  
the approach fiscally responsible.  
Vice President Jones stated that the item would receive a First  
Reading on May 4, 2026, and proposed a vote on May 18, 2026.  
Councilmember Schnetzer requested that the item return to the  
Committee of the Whole with additional contract details for public  
review. Vice President Jones confirmed that the item would return to  
the Committee of the Whole on May 11, 2026, and proceed to a First  
Reading and anticipated vote on the Regular Agenda May 18, 2026.  
She then thanked staff for the presentation.  
Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 5/4/2026;  
Further Discussion in Committee of the Whole Scheduled on 5/11/2026;  
Second Reading/Vote on Regular Agenda on 5/18/2026.  
D.  
ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:  
Councilmember Padova:  
RES-0013-2026 A JOINT RESOLUTION AND PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAY  
2-8, 2026 AS "HERB'N RESTAURANT WEEK" IN THE CITY OF  
GAHANNA AND CELEBRATING THE CITY'S DESIGNATION AS  
THE HERB CAPITAL OF OHIO  
Councilmember Padova announced that Herb Day would take place  
on Saturday, May 2, 2026, and that Herb’n Restaurant Week would  
also begin that day. She stated that she intended to present a joint  
resolution and proclamation with Mayor Jadwin at the next meeting to  
recognize Herb’n Restaurant Week, celebrate Gahanna’s designation  
as the Herb Capital of Ohio, and highlight participating local  
restaurants. She noted that the event coincided with National Small  
Business Week and stated that the recognition would pair those  
themes together. She invited participating businesses to attend the  
meeting for the presentation and noted that she did not expect all  
businesses to speak.  
Recommendation: Introduction/Vote on Consent Agenda on 5/4/2026.  
E.  
ADJOURNMENT:  
With no further business before the Committee of the Whole, the Chair  
adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.