Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council moves 2026 appropriation amendment to full Council, staff detail capital and engineering needs

Canal Winchester City Council · June 15, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council voted to move ORD-26-013, an amendment to the 2026 appropriation ordinance, to full Council. Staff requested a $548,000 General Fund increase for technology and building needs, engineering services, OPWC application support, a railroad deposit and right-of-way costs.

Canal Winchester staff asked council on June 15 to move Ordinance ORD-26-013, an amendment to the 2026 appropriation ordinance, to full Council. Amanda Jackson outlined requests totaling $548,000 in the General Fund and additional allocations in other funds.

Jackson said the General Fund request includes $3,000 for a replacement finance computer, $60,000 to replace the roof at 36 South High Street, and $173,000 for construction services operating expenses (primarily engineering reviews and consultant work). She said $18,000 of the engineering request is specifically to support an OPWC application tied to the Hill Road project. Jackson also identified $125,000 for railroad underpass-related engineering and the deposit required by the railroad for plan review, and $312,000 in capital outlay tied to Casto right-of-way acquisition and ground stabilization for McGill Park Phase Two.

Council discussed how plan-review costs are typically pass-through and funded by developer fees, and whether the city should reevaluate fee structures if review workloads increase. Sims and Haire explained that complex developments and public infrastructure work have increased plan-review volumes and costs, and that engineering review fees scale with project complexity.

On a motion by McLaughlin, seconded by Bennett, council voted 6–0 to move ORD-26-013 to full Council. Jackson said some deposits (for the railroad) are unlikely to be returned and that most plan-review fees are recovered as part of development reimbursements.