Gahanna council rejects 12-year, 80% tax abatement for Tech Center spec warehouse

Gahanna City Council on Aug. — after an extended public hearing, multiple amendments and hours of debate — voted down an ordinance that would have authorized a Community Reinvestment Area agreement to provide a 12‑year, 80% tax abatement for a speculative industrial building on Tech Center Drive.

The council rejected the measure after council members expressed concerns about the size of the abatement, the transactional nature of speculative development and the complexity of the applicant ownership structure.

The ordinance, introduced as Ordinance 0030‑2025, would have authorized the mayor to enter into a CRA agreement with Velasquez Gahanna JVLP to facilitate construction on parcels identified in the ordinance. The council approved three technical amendments — correcting a parcel number, removing the emergency designation and substituting an updated CRA exhibit — but ultimately the final vote on the ordinance failed 4‑3.

Why it matters: supporters said the project would put an underused parcel into productive use, generate income tax and create local jobs; opponents said the scale of the tax break (approximately $3.7 million over the abatement term) outweighed the projected benefits and risked a short‑term, transactional relationship rather than a long‑term community partner.

The record and debate

Applicant representatives and property owners spent much of the evening outlining the economic case. "We know the economic need for the abatement has been demonstrated," said Jonathan Postweiler, a project representative, arguing the site had been marketed for more than 15 years with little interest and that the abatement was necessary to attract tenants. "We know this project does not proceed without this abatement. A vote against this ordinance is a vote to suppress job growth," he said.

Paul Smith, who identified himself as a partner with Velocis, addressed concerns about unrelated litigation and financial backing, saying the project's primary equity sponsor is Sumitomo Corp of America and that Huntington Bank would provide debt financing. Bo Taggart, who runs KBC's Ohio office, said the development would solve site constraints and create "shovel‑ready" space the region demands.

Supporters and the administration pointed to projected revenue and job numbers in the economic analysis circulated to council. The city’s economic development director, Jeff Gotke, recapped projections showing an increase in property tax revenue at the site from roughly $406 annually today to about $44,000 after development, and estimated the abatement value at roughly $3.7 million (about $310,000 annually). The developer and administration projected roughly 37 jobs at an average salary of about $55,000.

Opponents raised policy and equity concerns. Councilwoman Padova said she could not "support tax abatements for billion dollar companies while the people who live here are struggling to afford to stay in their homes because of rising property taxes." Councilwoman Jones said the deal felt "transactional" and criticized the complexity of the ownership structure and lack of transparency about the end tenant. Councilman Weaver said he had concerns about assignability and long‑term accountability.

Council action and amendments

Council adopted a motion to amend the ordinance in three ways: correct the second parcel number to 025‑013634‑00, remove the emergency clause and substitute a revised CRA agreement exhibit (draft titled "CRA agreement draft clean KBC‑Velocis 08.04.2025"). The city attorney summarized key changes in the substituted draft: clarifying the job and payroll provisions by referring explicitly to a chart, and tightening assignability language so subsequent transfers would generally require city approval except for mere changes in company ownership or bank‑required assignments for financing. The amendment passed on roll call votes recorded in the meeting.

After further discussion, the council voted on the ordinance as amended. The roll call on the final approval was: Schnetzer — yes; Renner — yes; Weaver — no; Bowers (council president) — no; Jones — no; McGregor — yes; Padova — no. The motion failed and the ordinance did not pass.

What the council did not decide

Council did not approve the abatement and did not change zoning or ownership rights; several council members and the mayor emphasized that the vote concerned only the discretionary tax incentive request. The administration and the applicants may pursue future proposals; no formal direction to staff to renegotiate or resubmit was entered on the record that night.

Quotes

"We are funded largely by income tax that's generated from the businesses and jobs that are located here," Mayor Jagwin said in support of the administration's economic‑development approach, urging the council to consider long‑term revenue and local job creation.

"We know our approval process has been uniquely detailed and lengthy," Postweiler said, describing prior revisions to the agreement and the removal of an emergency clause after council concerns.

What comes next

Because the ordinance failed on final passage, the proposed CRA agreement and abatement are not in effect. The parties may choose to revise and resubmit the proposal at a future meeting; council did not vote to refer the item to committee that night. Residents and stakeholders who testified will likely receive follow‑up from the administration or applicants.

(Reporting based on public testimony, council debate, amendments and roll calls recorded at the Gahanna City Council meeting.)