200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Committee of the Whole

Trenton I. Weaver, Chair

Merisa K. Bowers

Jamille Jones

Nancy R. McGregor

Kaylee Padova

Stephen A. Renner

Michael Schnetzer

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Monday, February 10, 2025

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

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

February 10, 2025, in Council Chambers. Vice President of Council

Trenton I. Weaver, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The

agenda was published on February 7, 2025. All members were present for the

meeting. There was one addition to the agenda under Items from the Council

Office: Community Grant Program Appointments.

ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

ORD-0001-2025

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY OF GAHANNA CODE PART

ELEVEN ZONING CHAPTER SECTION 1117.10(e)(1)A - REQUIRED

IMPROVEMENTS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Director of Planning Michael Blackford presented Council with a request to

amend Section 1117.10 of the zoning ordinance. He clarified that this was not

a new zoning code, as this section was in place for over 50 years. The code

pertains to infrastructure-related improvements, including sidewalks, storm

sewers, and street lighting. However, the existing language did not clearly

define when adherence to these requirements was necessary. The proposed

amendment aimed to clarify that these standards would apply specifically to

site civil engineering plans, which are generally associated with large-scale

land disturbances, typically one acre or more. This would include subdivisions

and new construction projects, such as office buildings and retail areas. The

amendment would ensure that adherence to these infrastructure

requirements would not apply to minor permits, such as shed or fence

permits, thereby streamlining the process for smaller projects. Director

Blackford noted that the amendment was presented to the Planning

Commission, which unanimously recommended its approval. He also

mentioned that additional code changes related to this topic, located in

Chapter 9, would be brought before the Council in the near future. He assured

the Council that approving this amendment would not create any

inconsistencies within the zoning code.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether the amendment would only apply

to large parcels. Director Blackford confirmed that it would, explaining that

while the code did not specify an exact parcel size, site civil engineering plans

generally apply to areas around one acre or larger. However, other triggers

could apply in certain cases, depending on the nature of the development. He

reiterated that the amendment was designed to remove unnecessary

infrastructure requirements for minor site improvements on already

developed properties.

President Bowers sought further clarification, asking if the standards would

apply to new construction, new builds, or total redevelopment of an existing

parcel. Director Blackford confirmed that in those cases, adherence to these

standards would be required.

Councilmember Renner inquired about how the proposed zoning code

amendment came about. Director Blackford explained that the code in

question was not new, with his research dating it back to at least 1975. Over

time, as new staff members joined the department, they reviewed existing

regulations and interpreted them based on the way the code was written. He

noted that the current language did not differentiate between different permit

types, which led to discussions among staff and the determination that a

code amendment was necessary to clarify when adherence to the

requirements was required. Councilmember Renner then asked if there was

a specific permit or project currently before the Planning Commission that

hinged on this amendment. Director Blackford responded that there was no

single permit dependent on the change. However, he stated that the issue

had become apparent through the zoning and building permit process and

was being addressed through the proposed amendment.

Councilmember Padova expressed her appreciation for the update and noted

that there had been some confusion over the past year regarding these

zoning requirements. She asked for clarification on how the amendment

would apply to a residential home build versus a larger development, such as

a strip mall. Director Blackford explained that a new home would also have to

adhere to the requirements, as outlined in the code. He stated that most of

the regulations related to infrastructure improvements were contained in

Chapter 9, which would be presented to Council soon for further discussion.

The upcoming changes to Chapter 9 would provide additional details and

examples to help clarify when these standards apply, making the process

clearer for both internal staff and external applicants. Councilmember Padova

then asked if there would be a larger effort to train staff on how to guide

residents when they call with questions about whether they need a site civil

engineering plan or other permitting requirements. Director Blackford

confirmed that staff training would be part of the process.

President Bowers asked if the design plan application would distinguish

between different types of developments. Director Blackford requested

clarification on her question. President Bowers elaborated, asking if the

application process would specify different permitting paths based on the type

of development. Mayor Jadwin referenced the terminology "design review and

final development plan" for clarification. President Bowers asked if the

application process would distinguish between different types of development

requests. Director Blackford explained that while larger projects generally

have a clearer understanding of the permitting process due to early

communication with city staff, smaller projects, such as interior

improvements or painting a building, follow a different path and involve

different personnel, such as contractors rather than engineers or architects.

He stated that the city strives to provide clear roadmaps to applicants to

minimize uncertainty and ensure successful project outcomes.

President Bowers then asked whether, after the adoption of the proposed

changes to Chapter 11 and the forthcoming amendments to Chapter 9, a

more structured process review would take place. Director Blackford

confirmed that the amendments would provide further specificity regarding

when requirements apply and would be closely tied to the application and

permitting process. President Bowers also inquired whether the amendments

would not only clarify who is exempt from subsection (e) but also provide

guidance for minor project applicants on what is required. Director Blackford

responded that, due to the complexity and diversity of projects, there would

not be a single checklist applicable to all cases. Instead, staff would guide

applicants through the necessary requirements based on the nature of their

projects. He reiterated that while the permitting software provides prompts

and flags relevant requirements based on the type of permit being submitted,

the best approach remains direct communication with staff to ensure

applicants have the necessary information.

President Bowers acknowledged the effort to improve clarity and expressed

appreciation for making the permitting process as straightforward as possible

for residents looking to make property improvements. Director Blackford

emphasized that the goal is to make the permitting process as efficient as

possible for external applicants, which, in turn, improves efficiency for internal

staff. He reaffirmed the city's commitment to working closely with residents

and developers to guide them through the necessary steps.

Councilmember McGregor asked whether there was anything pending that

would be directly affected by the proposed amendment and questioned why it

was being considered as an emergency measure. Director Blackford clarified

that he had not specifically requested emergency status and was unsure

where that designation had originated. He explained that while there was no

single large-scale project in mind, that this amendment would immediately

impact, numerous permits were currently under review that could be affected.

He noted that while major projects like Sheetz or the Johnstown Road

apartments would not be directly influenced, smaller permits such as

right-of-way permits, shed permits, or fence permits currently have staff

comments requiring additional information. If the amendment were adopted,

some of those requirements could potentially be eliminated.

President Bowers asked if the emergency designation would assist permit

applicants by expediting their improvement projects. Director Blackford

confirmed that it would. He explained that the original intent was to adopt this

amendment in conjunction with the forthcoming Chapter 9 changes, but since

those were not yet ready, the decision was made to proceed with Chapter 11

separately to provide relief to permit applicants sooner. President Bowers

expressed appreciation for the amendment, stating that it would help

individuals looking to complete site improvements without requiring full civil

engineering plans.

Recommendation: Introduction/First Reading on Regular Agenda on 2/17/2025;

Public Hearing and Second Reading/Adoption on Regular Agenda on 3/3/2025.

ITEMS FROM THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:

825 Tech Center Drive Update

2025-0033

Gahanna Municipal Complex (825 Tech Center Drive) Construction

Update 2.10.2025

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

progress at 825 Tech Center Drive. He noted that the last update was given in

November 2024, covering work completed through October 2024, and that

the budget season had temporarily delayed further discussions. He

expressed appreciation for the opportunity to share the latest developments

and reiterated that the project was successfully meeting all ten of its

objectives. Schultz acknowledged the many individuals who contributed to the

project, including Chief Spence, Senior Director Miranda Vollmer, Senior

Deputy Director Corey Wybensinger, the Mayor, and Council. He emphasized

that the project reflects a collective effort and that its quality speaks to the

dedication of all involved. He stated that the update presented was current as

of the end of January 2025, with financials and progress reflecting that

timeframe. He also noted that the drone footage included in the presentation

was captured that morning, providing a real-time look at the site.

Exterior and Interior Updates

Regarding key progress points, Schultz reported that American Electric

Power Company, Inc (AEP) placed a new transformer on the site. From

December through early January, the transformer was upsized, and the

building operated on temporary power. Additionally, sheathing was installed

on the front of the building to allow for the placement of temporary heaters,

which enabled continued construction inside the facility. Schultz detailed

interior progress, noting that drywall installation had begun on the second and

third floors. Thanks to the temporary heating system, some areas had already

been taped and spackled, with utility rooms and smaller spaces even

receiving finished paint. He explained that painting these areas before

installing electrical conduits made the process more efficient. He emphasized

the rapid progress made despite challenging winter conditions, highlighting

that, as of that evening, some painted walls were already in place-an

impressive milestone considering the frigid temperatures just a few weeks

prior.

Senior Director Schultz noted that exterior metal framing was completed,

along with all structural steel. He reminded Council that they participated in

the beam signing ceremony, which took place either just before or just after

Thanksgiving 2024, depending on weather conditions. Schultz reported that

masonry work had begun on the sally ports and other areas of the building

where brick would be applied. He attempted to display drone footage

showcasing the progress, but technical difficulties prevented the video from

playing properly. He offered to remain after the meeting for anyone who

wished to view the footage. He described key construction developments,

including the exterior metal framing of the multi-purpose room, which was

currently underway. He pointed out workers walking on the roof and

acknowledged that it appeared somewhat precarious. Additionally, he

highlighted masonry work being conducted on different sections of the

building. Schultz mentioned that curtain wall installation had begun, explaining

that this term refers to the glass front of the building. He noted that the exterior

of the building would change rapidly over the next few weeks as more glass

and masonry elements were put in place. Looking ahead, he stated that the

goal was for the building to be fully enclosed and dried in by the end of March

2025. Given that it was early February, he expressed confidence that the next

several weeks would bring significant visible progress toward that milestone.

He reported that the entire exterior of the existing structure had been

spray-foamed for insulation. This improvement was incorporated during the

extensive demolition phase, allowing the team to insulate the entire exterior

shell. Additionally, rear windows were replaced, enhancing the overall quality

of the building and improving its HVAC performance. Fireproofing work was

being carried out in mechanical shafts and other areas. Schultz also

mentioned that as part of the project, certain elements of the building were

being updated or repaired due to incomplete work from the original

construction in the late 1990s. He concluded by noting that network, audio,

and video cabling installation had begun, with low-voltage cabling rough-ins

now in progress on the second and third floors. Wiring was being installed,

marking another step forward in the building's development.

Schedule

Senior Director Schultz reported that the project was 34% complete based on

time. He noted that there had been approximately 12 weather days since the

project began on May 1, 2024, most of which occurred in December 2024

and January 2025, due to extreme cold temperatures, which made outdoor

work, such as hanging steel, particularly difficult. He also acknowledged that

there were one or two weather days in November 2024, that he did not

correctly report in the previous update.

Photo Walk-Through

Schultz then reviewed exterior and interior construction progress, sharing

several project photos. He highlighted the training center and firing range

located in the basement of the building, pointing out the observation bay

windows overlooking the training facility and the staircase that was installed to

provide access between the basement and the upper levels. Next, he

described the multi-purpose room, located at the front of the building, noting

that the exterior steel framing was completed and that sheathing was

beginning to be installed in preparation for masonry work. He also pointed out

progress on the two sally ports, where brickwork was underway to match the

existing structure. Schultz reported that site work for stormwater facilities had

also begun, acknowledging that while much of the focus tends to be on the

visible construction, critical infrastructure work, such as stormwater

management, was progressing as well.

Reviewing interior developments, he described the city staff locker room in

the gym facility, showing photos of four restroom areas and locker space that

was framed. He also shared an image of an area within the first floor of the

Police Department, highlighting the location of the evidence room and noting

that additional concrete pour backs were needed before further interior

construction could take place. Schultz also discussed the installation of the

curtain wall and glazing, explaining that these elements would significantly

transform the building’s exterior over the coming months. He concluded by

showing an image of the main hallway, noting that the perspective of the

photo was with him standing at the customer service windows looking toward

the Senior Center. He pointed out that a similar corridor would connect the

main lobby to the Police Department, further enhancing the accessibility and

functionality of the building.

Budgeted Allowance & Contingencies

Senior Director Schultz provided an update on the financial status of the 825

Tech Center Drive project and outlined upcoming developments. He reported

that the project was 34% complete based on time, and that approximately $22

million, or 37% of the total construction contract, was invoiced and paid. This

total covered labor, materials, and work completed on-site. He presented two

financial charts summarizing the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

contracts with Elford, which reflected the total construction agreement.

Schultz explained the budgeted allowances and contingencies built into the

project. He reminded Council that allowances, totaling approximately $1.1

million, were already included in the $59 million project budget. Allowances

cover anticipated expenses, such as miscellaneous demolition, which

accounted for unexpected additional work. He gave an example of extra

demolition costs due to the discovery of an additional layer of tile beneath the

carpet that was not originally anticipated. He clarified that allowances do not

increase the overall project cost but rather absorb unexpected costs within

the original budget. He further described the two types of

contingencies-owner’s contingency and construction contingency-which

cover unforeseen expenses or necessary changes. One example he cited

was the need to upgrade network cable trays in the fitness room from wire

racks to solid steel trays for security reasons, preventing unauthorized

access from the workout area to the police facility.

Currently, the total budget for allowances and contingencies is approximately

$4.8 million, of which $485,000, or about 10%, has been used. Schultz

emphasized that the project remains financially healthy, as only a small

percentage of the contingency funds were expended at this stage. He also

mentioned that upcoming costs, such as upgrades to electric vehicle (EV)

chargers in the back parking lot, would be included in a future update.

Looking ahead, Schultz stated that he would continue to provide project

updates at the first Committee meeting of every month until the building is

completed. Future presentations would include side-by-side renderings and

real-time photos from the same vantage points to show how the construction

was progressing in comparison to the original design. He encouraged Council

members to schedule site visits in the coming weeks, noting that the second

and third floors were largely complete, allowing for a clear sense of how the

Council Office space and other areas would look and function. He

emphasized that while visiting the site earlier in the project might not have

been as informative, due to the steel framework and unfinished structure, the

space had now taken shape and was ready for walkthroughs. Schultz

concluded by noting that the temporary heating on the second and third floors

was effective, making site visits comfortable even in cold weather. He

reiterated his willingness to coordinate individual or group tours for

Councilmembers to experience the transformation firsthand. He then opened

the floor for questions.

Questions from Council

President Bowers thanked Senior Director Schultz for his comprehensive

update and asked for clarification on the overall completion status of the

project. She noted that Schultz had provided updates on completion by time

and total payout but inquired whether there was an estimate for the overall

project completion.

Director Schultz responded that the project had been affected by 12

weather-related workdays, which were business days rather than calendar

days. However, he stated that progress remained on track, and the addition of

temporary heating had helped maintain momentum. He noted that he had not

received any negative reports regarding the schedule. He informed the

Council that an owners' meeting was scheduled for the following day,

February 11, 2025, where discussions would begin on logistics and planning

for the transition from the current facility to the new building. He highlighted

that one key consideration would be when IT personnel could enter the facility

to begin network installations, which would provide a clearer timeline for

occupancy. Schultz cautioned that the term “substantial completion” would

play a significant role in determining the move-in date. He explained that

substantial completion refers to the point when Elford turns over the building

to the city but emphasized that occupancy would not be immediate. Furniture

installation alone is expected to take two to three months, which would place

the move-in timeframe around January or February of the following year. He

stated that part of the logistical planning process would involve determining

the sequence of department relocations, identifying which groups would move

first and which would transition later. He anticipated that a more

comprehensive project schedule would be available for presentation at the

March or April update, providing a clearer picture of when the building would

be fully operational.

ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL OFFICE:

Historical Records Digitization Grant Final Report

2025-0027

Village of Gahanna Records Grant Project - Final Report 2.10.2025

Deputy Clerk of Council Sophia McGuire provided an update on the historical

records digitization project, which was funded by a grant from the Ohio

Historical Records Advisory Board (OHRAB). She reminded the Council that

she presented an interim report and appropriation request in August 2024.

The grant, awarded in April 2024, provided $2,940 in funding to scan and

make accessible historical Village Council records from 1881 to 1970.

McGuire reported that the scanning process was completed in the spring and

summer of 2024 through a collaboration with ScanWorks and Council Office

intern Charlie Schneider. The digitized records included meeting minutes,

ordinances, and resolutions, totaling approximately 4,100 pages scanned

from original record books. As part of the grant requirements, the project

made these records publicly accessible through the Legistar system rather

than keeping them solely in office archives. Additionally, an index of

ordinances and resolutions would be uploaded to Legistar for improved

access. She noted that some records were previously digitized from

microfilm created in the 1990s, but these copies were low quality, difficult to

read, and not searchable. In contrast, the newly scanned documents were

high-quality, full-color PDFs that met archival standards and significantly

improved legibility.

McGuire provided a demonstration on how to access the historical records

through gahanna.legistar.com. She explained that users should select

“Agendas and Minutes”, filter for all years and City Council records, and

ensure the meeting date dropdown is adjusted to display the oldest records

first. Clicking on the meeting minutes link would provide a clear, zoomable

document for public viewing.

Although the grant-funded portion of the project was complete, McGuire

outlined next steps to enhance accessibility. Since most records before

1955-1956 were handwritten, they remain unsearchable. To address this,

McGuire proposed two options: 1) Artificial Intelligence (AI) transcription

services, such as Transkribus, which could generate text from handwriting

recognition, though quality control would be needed, and 2) Volunteer-based

transcriptions, where community members or historical groups could

manually transcribe records, allowing keyword searches in Legistar. She

emphasized that engaging volunteers, possibly through the Historical Society,

could help promote the project while making records more accessible.

To ensure long-term preservation, McGuire reported that all digitized records

were backed up in multiple locations: an external hard drive, the city’s internal

network, and Legistar. The original physical records would be stored off-site

in a climate-controlled facility to prevent deterioration. She encouraged

Council members to share information about the project through social media

or word of mouth to help connect residents with Gahanna’s historical records.

Vice President Weaver expressed enthusiasm for the project, calling it “really

amazing” and praising the effort to preserve the city’s history.

Councilmember Jones also commended the work, referencing recent news

coverage about declining cursive literacy and appreciating that Gahanna’s

records were now clear and accessible. McGuire acknowledged that cursive

readability remains a challenge, requiring a targeted audience familiar with

historical handwriting styles.

Councilmember McGregor asked about the time range of the records, and

McGuire confirmed that meeting minutes extend into the 1960s, while

ordinances and resolutions continue through 1970-1971, the year Gahanna

became a city. Post-incorporation records were already digitized and

available online.

Vice President Weaver reiterated his appreciation for the project and noted

that his day job involves working with AI tools for deed recognition and data

extraction from historical records. He highlighted how similar technologies

could enhance accessibility and accuracy for archival records and thanked

McGuire for her work.

Federal Policy Advocacy

2025-0026

Protecting Tax-Exempt Status of Municipal Bonds

Vice President Weaver introduced a discussion on federal policy advocacy,

specifically regarding proposed changes to the tax-exempt status of

municipal bonds. He referenced a document from the U.S. House Ways and

Means Committee that was shared by Councilmember Schnetzer, which

outlined approximately 50 pages of proposed policy items, including one that

would remove the tax exemption on interest earned for municipal bonds.

Weaver and Schnetzer followed up on this issue by meeting with MORPC’s

Director of Government Affairs to explore advocacy efforts against the

proposed removal of this exemption. Weaver noted that Schnetzer conducted

an analysis estimating that if the exemption were removed at the time the city

issued bonds for the 825 Tech Center Drive project, the increased interest

rates would have resulted in an additional $15.5 million in costs over the life of

the loan. He invited the Council to consider how they would like to engage in

advocacy on this issue, particularly given the many anticipated changes at the

federal level with the new Congress and administration.

Councilmember Schnetzer provided additional context, explaining that the

issue stemmed from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, which

enacted tax cuts that are set to expire on December 31, 2025. Without

Congressional action, most individuals would see a tax increase, and

Congress is now exploring options to extend those tax cuts. To extend the tax

cuts, Congress is expected to use a reconciliation process, which allows

passage of budget-related legislation with a simple majority, bypassing the

filibuster. However, the process requires that each provision be analyzed for

its impact on the federal deficit. Extending the existing tax cuts for another ten

years is projected to increase the deficit by approximately $4.5 trillion. On

January 17, 2025, the House Ways and Means Committee released a

51-page document with over 100 proposed revenue-generating measures to

offset the deficit increase. Among them was the proposal to remove the

tax-exempt status of municipal bonds. The Congressional Budget Office

(CBO) scored this change at $250 billion in additional federal revenue over a

ten-year period, while municipal advocacy groups estimate that the cost to

state and local governments could reach $800 billion over the same period.

Schnetzer explained that municipal bonds are critical for funding large capital

projects at the local and state level. Just as individuals typically finance

long-term assets like homes through mortgages, local governments use

bonds to fund projects such as city halls, police headquarters, and

infrastructure improvements. He reiterated that when Gahanna issued $64

million in bonds for 825 Tech Center Drive, the tax exemption kept interest

rates lower. Had the bonds been taxable, the city would have incurred an

additional $15.5 million in costs over a 27-year period. While the proposed

change would not impact existing municipal bonds, Schnetzer stressed that

future projects would be significantly more expensive to finance, creating

financial pressures on local budgets. He emphasized that this is the primary

concern and reason for potential advocacy efforts. Schnetzer concluded by

turning the discussion back to Vice President Weaver, asking if Council would

like to take action to ensure that Congress understands how removing the

municipal bond tax exemption would negatively impact Gahanna and other

local governments.

Vice President Trenton Weaver provided an update on advocacy efforts

following discussions with Joe Garrity, Government Affairs Director at the

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC). Garrity recommended

that the city reach out to the Ohio Municipal League (OML) and collaborate

with other local governments in Central Ohio. Weaver reported that he had

contacted Director Starrett at OML and had also reached out to Mayor

Grooms of Dublin. He explained that Ohio has two representatives on the

U.S. House Ways and Means Committee: Congressman Mike Carey and

Congressman Max Miller. Since Congressman Carey represents part of

Central Ohio, Weaver had informed Congresswoman Joyce Beatty’s office

as a courtesy, though he noted that her influence on this particular issue

would be limited since it was being handled by Ways and Means. Weaver

expressed willingness to reach out to Congressman Carey’s office but

deferred to Mayor Laurie Jadwin, who indicated that she already initiated

contact.

Mayor Jadwin confirmed that she was in the process of scheduling a meeting

with Representative Carey. She encouraged continued outreach to

Representative Beatty, emphasizing her influence and extensive network.

Additionally, she reported that she was also reaching out to Representative

Troy Balderson to discuss the issue. Mayor Jadwin shared that during a

recent Central Ohio Mayors and Managers Association meeting, she had

spoken with Mayor Grooms of Dublin, as well as other Central Ohio mayors,

none of whom were previously aware of the proposal. She thanked

Councilmember Schnetzer for bringing the issue to the city’s attention. She

noted that Mayor Spalding of New Albany, whose district is also represented

by Congressman Carey, was reaching out to Carey’s office as well. She

stressed the importance of expanding advocacy efforts beyond Central Ohio

and leveraging OML’s network to engage municipal leaders across the state,

encouraging them to contact their respective congressional representatives.

Vice President Weaver thanked Mayor Jadwin for her efforts and reiterated

the importance of coordinated outreach. Weaver then suggested that the

Council consider passing a joint resolution or formal letter, noting that similar

actions were taken in the past on issues of significant municipal impact.

President Bowers inquired whether there were additional federal policy items,

aside from the proposed removal of the municipal bond tax exemption, that

could impact municipal finance.

Councilmember Schnetzer responded that while there were other policy

considerations listed in the House Ways and Means Committee’s recent

document, the municipal bond exemption was the most direct and significant

issue for Gahanna. He explained that other provisions, such as changing the

tax-exempt status of private activity bonds, taxing nonprofit hospitals, or

increasing taxes on university endowments, would primarily affect specific

sectors rather than directly impacting the city’s financial operations.

Schnetzer reiterated that the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds allows

local governments to borrow at lower interest rates. He explained that when

Gahanna issued $64 million in bonds for 825 Tech Center Drive, the city

secured an interest rate between 3.5% and 4%, whereas taxable interest

rates at the time were two percentage points higher. He equated the potential

financial burden to that of an individual homeowner with a 3% mortgage

suddenly facing a 5.5% rate, emphasizing that such an increase would

impose a significant cost burden on future municipal projects. He also noted

the political contradiction in the proposal, highlighting that infrastructure

investment is one of the few bipartisan priorities in Washington, D.C., yet this

policy change would make financing infrastructure projects substantially more

difficult. He concluded that removing the municipal bond tax exemption would

be the most critical issue for the city to focus on.

President Bowers agreed and supported Vice President Weaver’s earlier

suggestion of drafting a joint resolution or proclamation opposing the policy

change. She suggested that if the resolution were aggregated with other

communities or worked on in partnership with the Ohio Municipal League

(OML), it could be mirrored across the state and even nationwide. She also

mentioned that the National League of Cities (NLC) could be a valuable

advocacy partner, though she only had limited contacts within the

organization.

Councilmember Schnetzer added that several governmental finance

organizations had already taken notice of the issue. He pointed to the Public

Finance Network (PFN), which includes groups such as the Government

Finance Officers Association (GFOA), International City/County Management

Association (ICMA), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the

National Association of Bond Lawyers (NABL), and the Council of

Development Finance Agencies (CDFA). He suggested that these

organizations could provide guidance, talking points, and additional advocacy

support.

President Bowers agreed that these organizations might already have

advocacy efforts underway and suggested that next steps should involve

collaboration between the administration and Councilmembers to coordinate

outreach efforts.

Mayor Jadwin confirmed that she had already begun outreach efforts and

supported the idea of dividing responsibilities to maximize impact.

Councilmember Schnetzer also mentioned that the PFN maintains a website,

BuiltByBonds.com, which features a map of municipal bond-financed

projects. He suggested that Gahanna could upload details about 825 Tech

Center Drive to help demonstrate the importance of municipal bonds in

funding essential infrastructure. Mayor Jadwin agreed and stated that Finance

Director Bury would be able to assist in providing the necessary details for

submission.

Elected Officials' Compensation Review - Preliminary Discussion

President Bowers introduced a discussion regarding elected officials'

compensation, noting that while the city had conducted compensation

reviews and adopted a compensation plan for employees, these reviews did

not include elected officials' salaries. She stated that there had been no

review or adjustments to elected official salaries in over a decade, possibly

longer. She cited Section 4.17 of the city's Code of Ordinances, which places

salary determinations for elected officials within the purview of City Council.

According to the ordinance, any salary changes would take effect at the start

of a new term and continue through that term, ensuring that current

officeholders do not vote on their own salaries. Any changes made would

apply only to subsequent councilmembers after an election cycle. President

Bowers emphasized the importance of reviewing and potentially amending

elected officials’ salaries for several reasons. She referenced a preliminary

survey conducted the previous year that compared Gahanna’s elected official

salaries with those in peer cities across the region. The survey indicated that

Gahanna's compensation was below regional standards. She stated that

maintaining competitive compensation was important for ensuring fair pay for

those who serve the public, especially for individuals who do not have passive

income or other financial resources to supplement their time commitment to

public service. Additionally, she highlighted a practical concern raised

previously by Councilmember McGregor-City Council salaries have fallen

below the threshold required to qualify for OPERS health insurance credit.

She noted that ensuring future councilmembers meet OPERS eligibility

requirements was a compelling reason to consider adjustments.

President Bowers proposed introducing three separate ordinances to

address compensation for the Mayor, the City Attorney, and for City

Councilmembers. She sought feedback on the effective date for ward seats,

explaining that for at-large members, the Mayor, and the City Attorney, the

new compensation would take effect on January 2, 2028, at the start of the

next term. However, for ward seats, the decision would be between an

effective date of January 2, 2026, or deferring changes until January 2, 2030.

She noted that delaying changes until 2030 would mean an additional

four-year gap in OPERS credit eligibility, which she felt was a long deferral.

Regarding the amount of compensation, she indicated that she would present

research comparing regional and peer communities at a subsequent

committee meeting. She also suggested benchmarking full-time elected

positions (such as the Mayor and City Attorney) against executive and senior

staff salaries within the city. In terms of process, President Bowers stated

that she intended to bring the topic back to committee in two weeks for further

discussion, with firmer details and data. She proposed advancing the

ordinances for a first reading in March.

Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth provided legal clarification regarding the

timing of setting elected officials' salaries. He explained that the Ohio Ethics

Commission generally requires that salaries be established before the filing

deadline for the election. The rationale is that potential candidates should be

aware of the compensation before deciding to run for office. He noted that

some communities have made errors by setting salaries too close to the

election, and the Ethics Commission discourages such timing.

President Bowers acknowledged Roth’s clarification and noted that ward

seats in Gahanna do not have a filing deadline until August, as there is no

primary election. She stated that if the Council finalized salary changes in the

first quarter of the year, they could still take effect for 2026.

Councilmember McGregor remarked that she had previously proposed a

salary review and adjustment two and four years ago, but the issue had not

moved forward at that time.

President Bowers expressed her support for advancing the discussion,

stating that she was committed to bringing the matter forward.

Councilmember Schnetzer suggested that before drafting any ordinances,

the Council should first review relevant data on regional salary comparisons.

He acknowledged that this topic had been discussed before but wanted to

ensure a data-driven approach before proceeding.

President Bowers clarified that no ordinances had yet been drafted. She

confirmed that she would first bring the topic back to Committee for

discussion, during which she would share survey data on peer communities’

compensation structures. She stated that she would not advance any

ordinances for a first reading until after the Council had reviewed the

information. She also referenced a recent Columbus Dispatch article that

examined regional mayoral compensation, which highlighted that Gahanna’s

mayoral salary was below the regional average.

Vice President Weaver sought confirmation on the timing of salary

adjustments for at-large members. He noted that at-large Council terms

expire on January 1, 2028, and asked whether their salaries could take effect

in January 2028 under the proposed plan. He also inquired whether ward seat

salaries could be adjusted mid-term or if such a change would be

impermissible.

President Bowers responded by referencing Section 4.17 of the city’s Code of

Ordinances, which requires that compensation be fixed for a full term and

continue from term to term. Based on this provision, she interpreted that

salary adjustments could not take effect in the middle of a term and would

have to be established at the start of the next term.

Councilmember McGregor clarified that if salary adjustments for ward

councilmembers were approved this year, they would take effect in January

2026, whereas salary changes for at-large councilmembers, the Mayor, and

the City Attorney would take effect in January 2028. She reiterated that

salaries cannot be changed in the middle of a term.

President Merisa Bowers confirmed that this interpretation aligned with

Section 4.17 of the city's Code of Ordinances, unless legal counsel advised

otherwise.

Assistant City Attorney Roth affirmed that this was correct, stating that there

would be a temporary disparity between ward and at-large councilmembers’

salaries until all positions cycled through their respective terms.

President Bowers acknowledged this as an unfortunate side effect of the

city’s staggered election system but noted that it was unavoidable given the

structure of Council terms.

Vice President Weaver expressed appreciation for the clarification and stated

that he had seen some of the data compiled by the Clerk’s Office. He looked

forward to a more in-depth discussion and believed that sharing the data

would be beneficial for all councilmembers.

Councilmember McGregor requested that the data include city size,

population, and other relevant demographic information to provide additional

context for comparisons. Vice President Weaver confirmed that such details

were included in the compiled data.

Councilmember Renner remarked that while he welcomed discussions on

the topic and was interested in reviewing the data, he was unlikely to support

any salary adjustments unless the current compensation levels were

significantly out of line.

Community Grant Program Appointments

President Bowers informed the Council that, during the pre-leadership

meeting, Deputy Director Wybensinger shared that there would be two

positions on the Community Grant Program Review Board that required

Council appointees. She wanted to ensure that Councilmembers were aware

of this before the next Council meeting, where they could enter Executive

Session to discuss potential appointees. Bowers clarified that the

appointments would be for a one-year cycle and would require only a

short-term commitment. She also noted that Wybensinger expressed a

desire for appointments to be made as soon as possible to allow the program

to proceed without delay. She then invited the administration to add any

further details.

Mayor Jadwin stated that there were no additional updates but reminded the

Council that during the budget discussions last year, there was a request for

the administration to explore non-tax revenue sources to help fund the

Community Grant Program. She informed the Council that Finance Director

Bury would address this topic during the year-end financial report at the

March 24, 2025, Committee meeting.

Councilmember Jones asked for clarification on the timeline for administering

the Community Grant Program and why it was important to make

appointments quickly.

Deputy Director Wybensinger explained that since the program was

transitioning from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to local

dollars, some aspects of the program were being revamped, though the main

priorities would remain unchanged. He outlined the following timeline:

First week of April 2025: Grants would go live.

Mid-to-late April 2025: A two-to-three-week application period for nonprofits

to apply.

Third week of April 2025: Grant applications would be submitted for review.

Last week of April/First week of May 2025: The committee would review

applications and make selections.

Wybensinger noted that the committee typically required only a

two-to-three-hour commitment from its members. Since this would be the

third year of the program, the process had been refined to be as efficient as

possible. He also mentioned that the committee would be expanding from

three members to five, which could make scheduling more complex, but they

would attempt to accommodate members’ availability, including early morning

meetings if necessary.

ADJOURNMENT:

With no further business before the Committee of the Whole, the Chair

adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.