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, May 11, 2026

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

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

May 11, 2026, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council Jamille

Jones, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. The agenda was

published on May 8, 2026. All members were present for the meeting.

There were no additions or corrections to the agenda.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

ORD-0019-2026

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A

PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH REAL PROPERTY

INVESTMENTS, LLC AND TRIVIUM DEVELOPMENT LLC FOR

PARCEL

ROAD

170-000488-00 LOCATED

4710 EAST

JOHNSTOWN

Director Gottke introduced the proposed annexation of an adjacent

parcel to the previously annexed Toney parcels. He explained that the

item involved a pre-annexation agreement for the neighboring property

and deferred further discussion to David Fisher, counsel for the

applicant.

David Fisher stated that the proposed pre-annexation agreement

mirrored the agreement previously adopted for the Toney property

annexation. He explained that the owners of the neighboring house on

East Johnstown Road approached the applicant about selling their

property for annexation as part of the overall project. He said the

applicant entered into a contract approximately one month earlier to

purchase the property and planned to incorporate it into the development

if Council approved the annexation. Mr. Fisher explained that the

additional parcel would provide an opportunity to create increased

buffering for adjacent properties, particularly for neighbors to the south

along Pamela Drive. He stated that the planning process remained in the

early stages, although a preliminary plan appeared in Council’s packet.

He noted that the parcel consisted of approximately one-half acre and

that the proposal would combine the property into a single overall project.

Mr. Fisher then offered to answer questions from Council.

Vice President Jones asked whether Council had any questions or

discussion regarding the proposal. With no questions or further

discussion, Vice President Jones stated that the item would return for

first reading on May 18, with second reading and adoption scheduled for

June 1. Council determined that the item would proceed on the regular

agenda rather than the consent agenda.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 5/18/2026;

Second Reading/Vote on Regular Agenda on 6/1/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

Returning for further discussion (First Reading held 5/4/2026)

ORD-0018-2026

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF

GAHANNA CODE, PART ELEVEN ZONING, TO UPDATE AND

CLARIFY CODE PROVISIONS, REINSTATE OMITTED STANDARDS,

AND IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF ADOPTED PLANS

Michael Blackford, Director of Planning, stated that he provided a

presentation on April 6 and believed Council introduced the proposed

code changes for a First Reading the previous week. He stated that he

was present to answer any questions regarding the proposed

amendments.

Councilmember Renner stated that he had reviewed the proposal

through the lens of sustainability and resiliency and expressed concerns

regarding Section 1117.07 and the added language related to increased

flexibility for the Planning Commission concerning master development

plans. He stated that he understood the need for flexibility, particularly

within the Creekside Mixed-Use District, but wanted language added to

clarify that any deviation from strict zoning standards must include written

findings and must not reduce environmental, stormwater, or ecological

performance standards. He stated that he believed the current language

could allow the City to negate strict standards. He referenced item

number eight in the section and stated that he wanted stronger language

requiring written analysis and consideration of ecological performance,

environmental impacts, stormwater runoff, and riparian access. He

offered to provide suggested language. Director Blackford stated that

additional language might be helpful, but he expressed some confusion

because the proposed amendments did not change any existing

requirements. He explained that most of the standards Councilmember

Renner referenced related to engineering requirements and primarily fell

under Chapter 9, with some under Chapter 11. He stated that those

standards must still be adhered to. He further stated that any additional

language might fit better within the major development plan approval

criteria located in a separate section of code. Director Blackford stated

that staff could review the suggestion. He added that the intent of the

amendments was to increase standards and encourage developers to

exceed minimum standards, particularly through green infrastructure

language drawn directly from the land use plan. He emphasized that staff

did not intend to encourage reductions in the standards. Councilmember

Renner responded that the language appeared to allow the Planning

Commission to waive standards if it identified an economic benefit.

Director Blackford acknowledged the concern and stated that the issue

depended on the specific standard involved and whether it fell under

Chapter 9 or Chapter 11. He reiterated that Chapter 9 standards could

not be varied and stated that staff could consider adding clarifying

language in an appropriate section of code. Councilmember Renner

asked to work with Director Blackford to ensure the code specifically

addressed ecological performance, environmental impacts, and

stormwater runoff measures. Director Blackford agreed to review and

consider those items and stated that staff would need to determine the

most appropriate language and placement within the code.

President Weaver thanked Director Blackford for his work on the zoning

code overhaul and the subsequent round of edits. He then asked

questions regarding Section 1109.01 and the proposed changes related

to electric vehicle parking and variance requests. President Weaver

stated that the issue appeared to involve policy considerations and

asked for clarification regarding the difference between an EV-ready

parking space and an EVSE (electric vehicle supply equipment) space.

Director Blackford explained that EV-ready spaces generally included

underground conduit infrastructure, while EVSE spaces included the

actual charging equipment necessary for vehicle charging from day one.

He stated that EV-ready spaces allowed future tenants or users to install

the charging apparatus later as part of their build-out. President Weaver

stated that the report and redlined draft indicated the City had received

several variance requests seeking relief from EVSE requirements in

favor of EV-ready spaces. Director Blackford clarified that applicants

had frequently requested variances to avoid installing EV infrastructure

entirely, rather than requesting EV-ready accommodation. He stated that

staff had likely granted more of those requests than they ideally would

have preferred. President Weaver stated that the matter appeared to

involve broader policy considerations regarding how the City should

encourage sustainability efforts. He expressed a preference for requiring

applicants to seek variances rather than granting broader flexibility in the

code itself. He stated that he preferred to encourage sustainability goals

by maintaining stronger requirements. Director Blackford responded that

the proposed amendments would likely move the City closer to its

sustainability goals because applicants would have more opportunities to

comply without seeking variances. He explained that applicants often

requested the maximum possible deviation from the code during the

variance process and stated that recent experience showed many

applicants received approval for eliminating EV requirements altogether.

He noted that the City had received feedback from experienced

professionals across the country indicating that Gahanna’s requirements

exceeded those in many other jurisdictions, including some areas of

California. Director Blackford stated that staff aimed to scale back the

requirements slightly while still encouraging compliance with

sustainability goals. He further stated that staff hoped the proposed

amendments would result in some level of EV infrastructure rather than

none. President Weaver asked whether applicants generally justified

variance requests by claiming the requirements created an undue

burden. Director Blackford stated that applicants frequently cited budget

concerns and acknowledged that such concerns often resulted in granted

variances. President Weaver asked whether staff knew the average cost

difference between EV-ready and EVSE spaces. Director Blackford

stated that he did not have that information. President Weaver then

asked Mayor Jadwin whether MORPC or the sustainability committee

could provide guidance or model language related to EV infrastructure

requirements. He stated that he wanted the City to remain aspirational

without imposing overly burdensome requirements and wanted to strike

an appropriate balance. Mayor Jadwin stated that the MORPC

roundtable had not discussed template ordinance language specifically,

but she believed resources might exist. She offered to investigate the

matter and stated that MORPC had a meeting scheduled in

approximately three weeks. She also stated that she could contact a

roundtable member with expertise in the field to determine whether

additional guidance existed. President Weaver acknowledged Director

Blackford’s point that allowing EV-ready spaces might better achieve the

City’s goals based on the types of variance requests staff had received,

although he reiterated his preference for applicants to fully meet the

sustainability goals whenever possible. Director Blackford stated that the

matter ultimately represented a policy decision for Council and that staff

would implement whatever direction Council chose.

Councilmember McGregor asked about Creekside and Section

1103.17(c), stating that the proposal appeared to allow businesses to

avoid following the code if the City considered the business desirable for

the area. She expressed concern that the approach did not seem fair to

businesses that had previously complied with the code requirements.

Director Blackford acknowledged her concerns and explained that

variances already served a similar purpose, although variances operated

under strict legal standards intended for abnormally shaped lots or

irregular topography. He noted that the City routinely requested and

granted variances for issues such as EV charging stations. He also

pointed out that the Creekside area contained significant additional

guidance within the land use plan and strategic plan regarding the

district’s vision. Based on his 12 years of experience in Gahanna, he

believed advancing that vision and meeting those goals carried greater

importance than strict adherence to the zoning code. He noted that every

new construction project he had worked on had requested and received

variances. He added that residents frequently argued the City allowed

requests in the present that it had denied in the past, particularly in

residential cases, but his research showed the City had routinely granted

such variances over time. Director Blackford explained that the proposed

process supported goals in the land use plan and strategic plan related

to streamlining permitting. He stated that the process removed traditional

variance criteria and instead evaluated developments based on how

effectively they advanced the goals of those plans. While a specific

business could factor into the evaluation, he emphasized that staff would

consider multiple factors. He also noted that the City had received no

new construction projects in the Creekside District during his 12 years

with the City, so no recent developments had faced standards different

from those proposed for future projects. Councilmember McGregor

referenced developer Ben Hale, who had completed significant

development projects in the past. She recalled that Mr. Hale had

supported stricter standards as long as future developers had to follow

the same requirements. She expressed concern that when one

developer invested additional money to meet stricter requirements and

later developers did not have to meet those same obligations, the earlier

development could lose value. She stated that she believed all

developers should follow the same standards. Director Blackford stated

that he understood both Mr. Hale’s position and Councilmember

McGregor’s concerns. However, he argued that the proposal would

better accomplish the consistency Mr. Hale described. He explained that

although variances should remain independent and should not influence

future requests, approved variances often created precedents. He gave

the example that if one property owner received approval for an eight-foot

fence, subsequent applicants became more likely to receive the same

approval. Over time, the original justification weakened, and the variance

effectively became the standard. He observed that the City frequently

requested and granted variances, which often reduced the strength of the

justifications and shifted arguments toward comparisons with

neighboring properties. In his view, that process allowed more applicants

to circumvent the code and prevented consistent standards. Director

Blackford stated that the proposed process would allow the City to

evaluate the overall quality of a project and determine how effectively it

advanced the goals of the land use plan and strategic plan. While he

agreed that Councilmember McGregor had raised a valid concern, he

believed the proposal would help the City achieve higher-quality projects

throughout the district. He added that the process would allow the City to

deny requests for the same deviations when another project had

provided desired features such as structured parking, public art, or rain

gardens and the new project had not. He concluded that the proposed

tool provided a more appropriate method for ensuring quality projects.

Councilmember Bowers thanked Director Blackford for his comments

and asked follow-up questions from a practical perspective. She asked

whether a significant economic development project currently under

consideration involved a development team or applicant working on a

major development plan in collaboration with the Planning Department.

Director Blackford confirmed that applicants had to come through his

office and said projects typically were submitted directly to staff, although

collaboration occurred about half the time. Councilmember Bowers

asked whether staff evaluated projects by identifying deviations from

code and determining whether those deviations aligned with broader

land use and strategic goals. Director Blackford agreed and clarified that

staff separated economic development considerations from land use

decisions. He said the process focused on accomplishing land use and

strategic plan goals rather than property values or economic

considerations. Councilmember Bowers asked whether staff could

decline to recommend approval of a major development plan if the

requested deviations did not holistically meet land use goals. Director

Blackford confirmed that staff could withhold approval of deviations if a

project failed to meet those goals. He explained that the proposed

process allowed planners and the Planning Commission to evaluate

projects based on how they advanced the goals and outcomes identified

in the land use plan and strategic plan, rather than relying on the more

legal and technical variance criteria related to irregular property

conditions. Councilmember Bowers asked whether staff currently worked

with applicants on requested variances before bringing

recommendations to Council. Director Blackford said staff routinely

identified variances during the review process and informed applicants

about modifications needed for compliance. He stated that applicants

often requested variances because they did not budget for certain

requirements or did not want to comply with them. He added that staff

generally preferred compliance with the code but noted that the Planning

Commission often found it difficult to deny variances after approving

similar requests on previous projects. Councilmember Bowers asked

whether staff envisioned submitting a deviation matrix or deviation list to

the Planning Commission as part of future applications. Director

Blackford confirmed that applicants would still need to provide a list of

requested deviations and justifications. He explained that the

justifications would focus on how the project furthered the goals of the

strategic plan and land use plan. Councilmember Bowers asked how

Director Blackford would measure the success of the proposed process

if Council adopted it. Director Blackford said the City would need

projects to move through the process before making future amendments,

but he believed the process would succeed immediately for several

reasons. He said the strategic plan emphasized streamlining permitting

and noted that consolidating multiple applications into a single

application would provide added value for applicants and customers. He

also stated that the process would make the strategic plan and land use

plan more relevant during project review and would help the City achieve

larger community benefits identified in the land use plan. He contrasted

that approach with variances, which he said generally benefited

individual projects rather than the community as a whole. He gave

examples such as allowing additional height in exchange for structured

parking, public art, or rain gardens that aligned with land use plan

recommendations.

Vice President Jones thanked Director Blackford and asked whether

Council preferred to place the legislation on the Consent Agenda or

Regular Agenda for Second Reading and adoption on May 18, 2026.

Councilmembers indicated a preference for the Regular Agenda. Vice

President Jones confirmed that the legislation would appear on the

Regular Agenda and thanked Director Blackford for his presentation.

Recommendation: Second Reading/Vote on Regular Agenda on 5/18/2026.

ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:

Returning for further discussion (First Reading held 5/4/2026)

ORD-0012-2026

ORDINANCE

AUTHORIZING

SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATION - General Fund for Contract Services to Support

Cultural and Artistic Programming

Miranda Vollmer, Senior Director of Administrative Services, returned to

Council to provide additional explanation regarding the request for

funding. She explained that the request involved a supplemental

appropriation of $100,000 to establish a partnership with the Gahanna

Area Arts Council (GAAC). She stated that the partnership would provide

cultural and artistic opportunities for residents and visitors while

promoting cultural vitality, civic engagement, and economic vibrancy. She

added that the partnership would strengthen the community, expand

existing offerings, and bring additional resources into Gahanna in a

responsible and strategic manner. Senior Director Vollmer referenced

the Our Gahanna Strategic Plan and stated that residents had expressed

a desire for vibrant and inclusive public spaces, additional

communitywide events, and stronger cultural and artistic experiences.

She explained that the proposal directly responded to those priorities.

She noted that several arts programs supported by the City currently

operated directly through the City, which made them ineligible for state or

federal arts funding. Although the City already invested in those

programs, she stated that the current structure did not maximize that

investment. Senior Director Vollmer explained that partnerships between

municipalities and arts councils were common nationally. She stated that

more than 2,500 local arts agencies nationwide received tax revenue

from municipalities and that more than 98% of those organizations

operated as 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations similar to GAAC. She

stated that partnering with GAAC would create the structure necessary to

access funding opportunities currently unavailable to the City. She

explained that the partnership would position GAAC as the official arts

agency for Gahanna, allowing the organization to apply for and receive

grants at the state and national levels that the City could not pursue

directly. Senior Director Vollmer stated that the partnership would allow

GAAC to leverage outside funding and return those dollars to the

community instead of losing them to other cities. She described GAAC’s

mission as connecting and enriching the community through participation

in and engagement with the arts. She noted that GAAC had already

established itself as a trusted leader in arts programming, events, and

outreach in Gahanna during the past eight years. She also stated that

GAAC had built credibility at the state level by receiving taxpayer funding

and remained the only organization in Gahanna eligible to receive Ohio

Arts Council funding while holding the highest sustainability designation

from the Ohio Arts Council.

Senior Director Vollmer explained that the proposed contract included

opportunities for the City and GAAC to collaborate on identifying capital

improvement projects that could leverage outside funding, expanded

programming, and long-term initiatives such as a public art master plan.

She stated that the proposed investment totaled $100,000, although a

substantial portion did not represent new spending. Instead, she

explained that the proposal shifted the administration of existing

programs. She used Creekside Live as an example and explained that

transitioning the program through GAAC would make it eligible for grant

funding. She also noted that the partnership would allow the Arts Council

to convert in-kind services into trackable and accountable expenses that

could count toward grant eligibility, improving transparency and financial

efficiency. Senior Director Vollmer stated that the contract included

strong oversight measures. She explained that the City would pay only

approved invoices submitted by GAAC. She also stated that GAAC

would provide annual reports detailing expenditures and outcomes and

that both the City and the State could audit financial records. Senior

Director Vollmer emphasized that the timing for the funding request

remained critical. She explained that GAAC operated on the State fiscal

year because it received funding from the Ohio Arts Council, with that

fiscal year beginning on July 1. She also noted that federal funding

opportunities through the National Endowment for the Arts had recently

opened and would close in early July. Senior Director Vollmer concluded

by stating that the Administration recommended approval of the

$100,000 appropriation to enhance arts and cultural opportunities in the

City, provide residents with the experiences identified in the strategic

plan, and bring additional resources into Gahanna. She then offered to

answer questions from Council.

Councilmember Schnetzer thanked Senior Director Vollmer and

referenced questions he had raised during the April 27, 2026,

Committee of the Whole meeting regarding the structure of the proposed

partnership. He acknowledged her earlier explanation that the

arrangement would allow the Gahanna Area Arts Council (GAAC) to

leverage funding through organizations such as the Ohio Arts Council

and the National Endowment for the Arts. He then asked whether the City

and GAAC had identified $100,000 worth of programs and projects for

the remaining seven months of the fiscal year. Senior Director Vollmer

responded that the scope of work distributed to Council included five

areas of focus, some of which did not lend themselves to precise dollar

amounts. She referenced Bright Blocks as an example and explained

that the Parks Department currently provided labor assistance for the

Arts Council without charging for those services. She also discussed

performing arts programming and explained that GAAC qualified for the

Ohio Arts on Tour program through its status with the Ohio Arts Council.

That program would cover one-third of the performance fees for

Ohio-based performing arts groups. She noted that programs such as

Creekside Live would soon begin and stated that, moving forward,

GAAC could coordinate those performances and additional events. She

explained that the $100,000 appropriation would help GAAC build the

infrastructure necessary to leverage outside funding and return tax dollars

to the community. She added that without the funding, GAAC could not

expand programming or additional initiatives within the City.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked for clarification regarding the Bright

Blocks example and questioned whether the City currently provided labor

for the program. Senior Director Vollmer confirmed that the City did

provide labor support. When Councilmember Schnetzer referenced her

statement about charging services back to the City, Senior Director

Vollmer acknowledged that she had misspoken. She clarified that the

City provided various in-kind services to the Arts Council and other

organizations in Gahanna without reimbursement. Councilmember

Schnetzer stated that he was trying to understand the flow of funds and

asked how the existing arrangement would change under the proposed

$100,000 authorization. After requesting clarification of the question,

Senior Director Vollmer explained that her earlier example had not

accurately reflected the arrangement. She instead referenced Creekside

Live, performances at the Farmers Market, and Fourth of July

entertainment, all of which the City currently funded entirely. She

explained that if GAAC administered those programs through the

proposed partnership, the organization could apply for Ohio Arts on Tour

funding, which would reimburse one-third of the associated costs. She

stated that this approach would bring State tax dollars back to Gahanna

rather than allowing those funds to go to communities such as Dublin or

Columbus. Councilmember Schnetzer then asked about the draft

agreement attached to the agenda and whether that document

represented the contract discussed during the previous Committee of the

Whole meeting. Senior Director Vollmer confirmed that the attached

agreement constituted the contract, assuming the correct version had

been attached. Mayor Jadwin added that the agreement remained

subject to any revisions or adjustments based on Council feedback.

Councilmember Schnetzer confirmed that the draft agreement served as

the working document. Councilmember Schnetzer asked what benefits

the average resident would receive from the arrangement, aside from the

benefits provided to the Arts Council. He asked whether the partnership

would produce cost savings, expanded programming, or other tangible

results. Senior Director Vollmer responded that the benefits included all

of those outcomes, as well as the opportunity to leverage tax dollars

currently paid by residents that otherwise went to other cities,

municipalities, and organizations throughout Ohio instead of returning to

Gahanna. Councilmember Schnetzer clarified that residents paid those

taxes to the State rather than directly to the City of Gahanna. Senior

Director Vollmer confirmed that understanding and explained that the

State distributed those tax dollars through the Ohio Arts Council, but

those funds currently did not return to Gahanna. Councilmember

Schnetzer also asked whether the Administration had identified any risks

associated with the partnership and what steps had been taken to

mitigate those risks. Senior Director Vollmer acknowledged that any

partnership carried risks and stated that one possible risk involved the

arrangement not working as intended. She explained that the contract

included provisions allowing either party to terminate the agreement with

at least 90 days’ written notice. She also noted that the agreement

allowed termination within 30 days in the event of a material breach. She

added that the City Attorney’s Office, including Mr. Roth, had approved

the contract language. Mayor Jadwin also addressed Councilmember

Schnetzer’s earlier question regarding the seven-month timeframe. She

explained that GAAC operated on a fiscal year running from July 1

through June 30, unlike the City’s calendar-year fiscal cycle. As a result,

she stated that the proposed agreement would function as a 12-month

contract beginning upon adoption and continuing through the following

year. She added that once GAAC entered its new fiscal year, the

organization would have greater flexibility to apply for State funding

opportunities related to 2027 programming. Councilmember Schnetzer

clarified that she referred to fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for the Arts

Council, and Mayor Jadwin confirmed that understanding.

Councilmember McGregor asked why the proposed increase extended

over the next two years rather than remaining at $100,000 each year to

evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Senior Director Vollmer

responded that this remained a possibility. She explained that when the

City entered contracts extending beyond one year, staff would request

funding during the appropriations process in the annual budget cycle.

She stated that staff would include the additional $150,000 in the

October budget proposal and noted that if Council chose not to fund the

contract at that level, the City would need to amend the contract. She also

explained that the proposed increase in 2027 reflected the possibility

that the initiative could establish itself as a priority and support

development of a master arts plan identified in the strategic plan. She

added that the additional funding would also support collaboration on

other City events.

Vice President Jones asked whether the agreement could free Parks

and Recreation staff or other City staff to focus on other responsibilities

by shifting certain duties to the Arts Council. Senior Director Vollmer

confirmed that the arrangement would free staff time when the Arts

Council handled performer bookings or managed art programming. She

also stated that the Arts Council would provide administrative support to

the Public Arts Advisory Committee, which would reduce demands on

her time and the time of a management analyst assigned to those duties.

She explained that when the City pursued projects such as public art

sculptures, the Arts Council would manage administrative tasks required

under the public arts policy, including scoring matrices, requests for

proposals, and related processes that otherwise consumed significant

staff time. She further stated that the Arts Council would assist with any

future master arts planning efforts by coordinating consultants, gathering

public and stakeholder input, and preparing reports and presentations.

Vice President Jones thanked her for the explanation.

President Weaver noted that the scope of work contemplated additional

items beginning in 2027. Senior Director Vollmer confirmed that

statement.

Councilmember Schnetzer asked whether the Arts Council would serve

as the delivery mechanism through which the City carried out its goals

and objectives while the City retained control over decisions. Senior

Director Vollmer confirmed that understanding. Councilmember

Schnetzer asked whether the City would still maintain authority over

public art decisions, joking that the City would not suddenly install a

“statue of David” in Creekside Plaza. Senior Director Vollmer responded

that the public arts policy would continue to govern any art placed in

public spaces. She explained that a master planning effort would first

identify appropriate locations for public art before implementation.

Mayor Jadwin referenced language in the scope of work stating that

additional projects would occur as agreed upon and directed by the City

in coordination with the Arts Council. She explained that if the City

wanted to establish a new music concert series or another project, City

officials would direct the Arts Council accordingly. She added that if the

Arts Council proposed an idea that the City approved, both parties would

work together to align projects.

Councilmember Padova asked whether the Arts Council’s board of

directors served on a volunteer or paid basis. Senior Director Vollmer

stated that she believed the board operated on a volunteer basis. A

comment from an Arts Council member in the audience followed

indicating that board members made donations to the Arts Council in

order to serve on the board.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether the Arts Council would

continue operating with volunteers or hire paid staff. Senior Director

Vollmer stated that the Arts Council could choose to hire paid staff if its

board of directors approved that decision. She emphasized that the City

would not dictate staffing decisions. She explained that if the Arts Council

entered into the contract, the City would hold the organization to the same

contractual standards applied to other City vendors. Councilmember

McGregor then asked whether the City would provide funding directly or

reimburse the Arts Council through invoices. Senior Director Vollmer

explained that the Arts Council would invoice the City in the same manner

as other vendors. She stated that staff would review and approve

invoices before forwarding them to the Finance Department for payment.

Mayor Jadwin clarified that the agreement did not involve simply

providing the Arts Council with a lump sum payment. She reiterated that

payments would occur on an invoice basis.

Vice President Jones noted that the Arts Council could potentially spend

less than the approved amount. Senior Director Vollmer confirmed that

possibility. Vice President Jones stated that the legislation had already

received its first reading and would appear on the next week’s regular

agenda for second reading and adoption.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether any staff hired by the Arts