City Council - Regular Meeting

How's everyone doing in school?

Bye.

Bye.

Thank you.

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the September 8th, 2026 meeting of the Housing Planning and Development Committee. A few items under agenda this evening. First is approval of the minutes of the July 13th, 2026 meeting of the HP&D Committee. Can I do or hear a motion?

So moved. And a second.

SECONDED MOTION PASSES THANK YOU FIRST UP ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT COMMUNICATION FROM PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT BAKER COUNCILPERSONS BIXOTINE AND EVANS REGARDING THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM THIS WAS REFERRED TO HPND AND THE CASE ADVISORY BOARD ON JULY 6TH I THINK BOTH THINGS WE'RE GOING TO HEAR TONIGHT ARE UPDATES ON THINGS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN WORKING ON OVER THE PAST MONTHS SO WITH THAT I BELIEVE IT'LL TURN OVER TO COUNCILMAN BAKER

Sure. Thank you, Chair Evans. And the communication speaks for itself in the sense that it's, you know, the Traffic Call Me Program was started a few years ago by this administration. A lot of, but it was also kind of new, like not a lot of communities were doing this. So a lot of what was formed was based upon what's inside the brain of Dave Voss, which is a dangerous and amazing place to be, I'm sure. And DANGEROUS. AND SO THE INTENT OF THIS COMMUNICATION WAS BOTH TO LIFT UP SOME OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND GOOD WORK OF THE TRAFFIC CALL ME PROGRAM, BUT ALSO IT'S A GOOD POLICY OF ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EVER ABOUT FIVE YEARS TO LOOK AT SOMETHING, HOW IT'S DOING, REFLECT, THINK ABOUT REFINEMENTS, SEEK INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC. THIS IS PURELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM. DO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME LOOSE CODIFICATION OF IT OR NOT? WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC THINK ABOUT IT? WHAT ARE THE SUCCESSES? WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT IN THE AMOUNT OF WORK MR. BOSS IS DOING? ARE THERE WAYS TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT? AND I AM AN EX-OFFICIAL MEMBER OF THE CASE BOARD AS WELL AND HEARD MR. BOSS' PRESENTATION, SO I'M SURE HE WILL DO THAT FOR US AND TAKE OUR INPUT AS WELL. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE, CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT, THANKS, PRESIDENT BAKER. AND I'LL JUST ADD, AS A LITTLE BACKGROUND, COUNCILPERSONS BAKER, PIXENSTEIN, AND MYSELF DID HAVE A REALLY GOOD MEETING WITH CITY OFFICIALS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE MAYOR WAS IN ATTENDANCE, AND PUBLIC WORKS ABOUT THIS PROGRAM. ALL OF US IN COUNCIL, I THINK, CAN AGREE THIS IS SOMETHING WE HEAR QUITE A BIT ABOUT FROM THE COMMUNITY PRETTY MUCH EVERY SINGLE DAY. So it was a great touch point. I think we had a lot of productive conversation there, but looking forward to the presentation this evening. So I'll turn it over to Assistant Director Boss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I've just got a couple of slides, a little bit of background I'll walk through the process. Hopefully you're familiar with the traffic calling process, but for now I'll just hit some of the highlights and then kind of some of the numbers of the last couple years, just in terms of some metrics of the program and the throughput. And then the last slide is kind of a follow-up to the meeting that we had in terms of some of the things that we were planning on making changes, and I got one to add from the case meeting last week as well to consider. This is some background on traffic homing. This was a pretty big research project when I got here, 2018, 2019 timeframe. Not a lot of local or regional cities had traffic homing policies at the time, and so a lot of this information I've I pulled it in terms of research and then also learned from kind of the past and then the efforts on Woodward Avenue here in Lakewood, as well as, and then I was fortunate enough to lead the Marlow Avenue, which was our project, which became our pilot, where I was kind of to test and refine this whole process over about a two-year period with the residents of Marlow Avenue. And so one of the biggest things driving traffic calming is obviously it's intended to address volume and speed issues on a given, typically a residential neighborhood street. So that's one of the big focuses is ours. The program does not focus on major east-west collectors or commercial-dominated roads. That's why I call it the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. It's focused on those north-south residential blocks within the city. One of the biggest things with traffic homing is it's contextually driven. So it means different things to different people depending on where you live. Somebody who lives on Hall with its 18-foot right of way and the homes that are like, I think the building line on Hall has got to be like 12 or 15 feet, you're a lot closer to traffic that is in a much narrower street. And it feels a lot different than, say, a resident who's on Manor Park. who's got a 60-foot, a much larger right-of-way and a 60-foot setback. And so the cars going the same speed feel much different to those two different blocks. We try to respect that. And the program did have a prioritization system that takes those things into account. But that's one of the discussions I'll come back to this with one of the recommendations from the case committee that I thought was valid in terms of being better in terms of that contextually driven process. And then one of the last things is obviously this was designed and it still is or remains a resident driven process. And so there's three specific touch points. through the process that, as a street, kind of matriculates through and that residents start it. Residents say they want to do something about an issue if it's been identified, and then residents are the ones that actually approve the plan before it gets implemented. And those are all lessons that were learned through Woodward through the Marlow pilot process. And so when I get to that in the next slide, this was mainly for case for folks. The thresholds themselves, hopefully the council members are familiar with it. There's three main thresholds that we consider during step two of the process when we collect data and look at the speed and the volume data for the street. These are simply an objective basis to compare every block that we look at to truly try to define what is a problematic block and what is not. Any program where you are trying to make a decision on acting or not acting, you have to have some form of objective thresholds that drive that so that you can basically just explain and back up your decision making especially in a resident-driven process like this. The volume, 600 average daily traffic, that is a nationally-driven standard in terms of identifying neighborhood-scale roads. When you start talking about road classifications, usually a neighborhood local road is at 600 average daily traffic or below in terms of a standard. So anything above that That was where I drew the line on that, is that if you have higher than kind of that national regional classification for a residential road, could be problematic in terms of the volume. Eighty-fifth percentile speed of 30 miles an hour was another standard that I pulled. That, while it's a little technical, 85th percentile is how you derive speed limits. And so 30 miles an hour, when you have an 85th percentile, that means that the It's just like an education 80th percentile in terms of all the volume that are there. Your average speed ends up being at or above the limit. And so that's why I believe that one's also proven over time to be a good threshold that's there. And then the last one was actually a local threshold that we derived from the Marlowe pilot program. Through looking at data historically on Marlow in terms of defining that as a problematic street, working with the residents, that 5% of volume at 35 miles an hour or higher was just something else that I was looking for, kind of an excessive speed. criteria to look at. Some street you may have a ton of people traveling just at 30 miles an hour, and it may not feel like they're speeding, and so you may not necessarily qualify on that 85th percentile speed. Other streets, and Marlow was one of them, where you had a smaller number of people doing much higher speeds on the block that was impacting the safety in terms of the speed and the volume there. And so these three objectives give kind of that basis when we look at the data for each block. And to qualify over time, a block has to basically meet or exceed two of the three of these. So they don't have to meet all three of them, but they have to meet two of them.

So I'll walk through the process here real quick.

So it is a five-step process. There are off-ramps as you go through. So not every street goes all the way through. But every street does start with a resident nominating the block. And so it's not something that we go out looking for streets. These streets come to us. Again, that's the first step in that residence process. So it's streets nominated. The street has to meet the physical qualifications that we've set forward in a policy. And again, this really, these things at 1,000 foot in length have a 25 mile an hour speed limit, not a cul-de-sac or a dead end or a designated emergency route. Really focuses the program in on blocks that we can effectively work with interventions to slow people down or reduce the volume. A block that is less than 1,000 feet between control measures, there's a lot of times that putting an intervention in the middle of that block could be too impactful. And a lot of times a block, in our experience, and I walk through the data collection, a block that's less than 1,000 feet I don't believe is ever qualified in terms of our data. Cars just don't. They don't have the distance to get up going as fast as a block, say, like Lauderdale that's over 2,500 feet. And so that, again, it's proven itself over time. We don't get a lot of nominations from these blocks, even for the number of people that are not aware of the policy. So I don't have to explain it a whole lot. The biggest one is the emergency routes. I have to explain those to folks, and that is pretty straightforward in terms of our snow band streets and in terms of fire and police. And most of those designated emergency routes are our main east-west corridors and some of the main north-south streets. So if a street is eligible, we then start data collection. This is the step that takes the longest out of all of them. I should mention also, if a street is nominated and we go into data collection, I notify the resident that nominated them. And it also goes over to my counterpart in the police department. That's one of the ward officers, neighborhood police officers. helps me maintain the radar log with the patrol division. And so these streets go on the radar log. So as we begin data collection, they begin, within their available capacity, a focused enforcement on the streets that are on that radar log. This is kind of the first step of action, I guess you could say, against the street that's nominated is if it can be solved by enforcement, that's the best outcome, I think, for everybody. And so that's why we do start focused enforcement right away. And so a lot of times, and those streets do stay on the radar log for a long time, and it's something that they manage as capacity is available. And then the neighborhood officer and I also work the data collection. So we split that up. Each block you try to get at least three sets of data, different seasons, in school, out of school, to get differing conditions so that you get a good kind of round objective picture of the conditions, long-term conditions on that block. Those are then, once I get those sets, they're averaged so that you get like a clean objective look at that street, and then they're compared against the thresholds. And so if a street meets or exceeds two of those three thresholds, every resident, you basically, every resident on that block gets a letter from me. If they don't, I basically go back to the resident who nominated it. And I also, I've gotten the habit of I copy each of the council members from the ward that street is on and all the at-large members as well as the administrative members so everybody's aware of kind of the streets that don't qualify and the ones that do qualify and are moving on. and try to explain, given the data, why the street wasn't. If there's something else that we can do, we do that. One of the examples is the radar speed signs have become pretty popular. And so if your street is close to qualifying, typically if your 85th percentile is above 27 miles an hour, so you're kind of getting up there but you're not close or you just don't qualify, We typically try to put a radar speed sign on there. That benefits the block. It's an educational intervention, but it also benefits us. It increases our network of signs and data that's out there. And so it is something that we like to do for those blocks. So if the street qualifies, the residents all get those letters. They get a electronic survey, and they get a hard copy survey. And they get an explanation of kind of what the program is, what the data was collected and why they're getting a letter, why they're street qualified, and then what they're being asked to provide. The survey basically asks the resident to provide information on what they've observed, on the traffic, on the volume, on the speed, what direction is it predominantly from, is there specific hours that it's predominantly in. And then ultimately the last and final and most important question that we highlight is, Basically, do you support intervention? Do you want to do something about this? And so if we get 50% of the households on that block to say they want to do something, 50% or more, then they move on to the next step. And that's basically that plan development. I start to work on a traffic calming plan for that block. If they don't get 50% for that, I go back to everybody that's on the block. And again, sometimes we will keep them on the focus enforcement list. Sometimes I will give them a radar speed sign or we'll get one for the block if that's the direction that we go. Because there are a lot of open comment stuff. I do read all the comments. And so on a lot of blocks, if they don't get the 50%, there's a lot of comments sometimes that say, can we just get a radar speed sign or one of the signs that shows your speed. Easy, easy solution. But I do communicate that with everybody. And so they'll get a letter, an email back, both for those blocks. So for step four, so if you've gotten 50% or more and I develop a plan, we then schedule a block meeting. So I will come out to that block, set up. I know a few of you may have attended some of these in the past. I will walk through the data again. I'll walk through the process again. And then I typically have a big, I have handouts and a big poster of the block in terms of the interventions that we're planning to do. We do predominantly, we go with the rubber speed tables that we have. That's our primary intervention. It's easy. They're cost effective. And more importantly, our guys can install them without any engineering support in terms of plans, designs, or alterations to the roadway outside of the installation of the table itself. And so that block meeting, I review that plan, where the tables are going. If there's leeway in terms of the installation, we'll talk through that. And sometimes we do make adjustments when we're out there. In the last year or so, I've tried to bring in, if I can, based on the length of the block, two different options in terms of the number of tables and where they are. Some blocks you can get away with two. You can get away with three. I think Lauderdale started with four or three. And so you let the people from the block meeting give you an indication in which direction they want to go. You kind of coalesce around a single option before the end of that meeting. Some blocks, you just cannot shift where the tables are, and that's all based on block characteristics, where the driveways are, and the parameters that we use to install those tables so that they don't interfere with drainage or people pulling into their driveways. And then at the end of that block meeting, I basically hand out petitions. And so that's one of the things that we found to have been easy. And usually there's a couple folks that are there that are kind of excited about it, and they're the ones that start walking around collecting signatures. I found that to be the most effective means of doing it is, again, having the residents drive this process. I give them typically up to two months, sometimes longer if they need it. I will say that most of the time people get signatures within about two to three weeks if they're appropriately motivated. Sometimes it takes a little bit longer. We have never had a block get to the block meeting and not get 60% of the households to sign up for support. Typically, if you get to that point, you're going to get to installation. But that is the second gate. And that's an important gate, again, from a resident-driven process, is that they have to approve it. And my experience, at least the lesson I learned from the Woodward plan, is that 51% is not a good number. when you're going to install something. And so we went to 60%, just as kind of a majority, as a marker for a majority. And so we do require 60% or more of block households to approve the plan to move on the installation. Once they approve it, we move on to procurement and then scheduling the installation. If a block were to not get 60% of block households to support it, what I would do is I would probably schedule another block meeting with them and maybe talk through different options or try to highlight what the main issues are that's keeping the block from getting there. It's not just a done deal. We would try to get them through to success. Even if success means no tables, just a radar speed sign. But to try to get somewhere where we make the folks as happy as we can. Just to address the problem that started the whole process. So that's kind of the general process through the steps. Just to wrap up here. In terms of numbers, we worked our way through 112 nominations over the last couple of years. This started in 2020. You can kind of see the fits and starts of numbers. Generally, in 2020 and 2021, like the city kind of got it out of its system, like everybody that thought that their block had a problem, all nominated their streets. It took us basically until about 2023, 2024 to work through all those numbers. And then we started getting more re-nominations, and as word spread, more nominations. And now we have a lot of nominations. In fact, we have 44 that are currently under study right now, and we've processed 68 blocks since June of 2020. 22 of those blocks, 22 of the 68 have had qualifying conditions, and only nine of those have gotten all the way through. the block meeting and table installation. And like I said, I mentioned before, if they got to 50% and we got to a block meeting, they got to 60 and they got beyond. We've never had a block fail to get 60%. The 22 with qualifying traffic conditions, we just had a number of blocks that in the surveys failed to get enough support, enough folks to say that they wanted to do something about it. Most of those blocks ended up getting a radar speed sign. You can see we have 37 signs that are currently installed out there, and I've got 13 that are waiting to go up. And that's just a process that I work with Public Works and the sign shop as they kind of rotate through all their different work schedules and duties to get those things up. But you can see the renominations in the process. We have been getting more renominations. There's no strict intent in terms of regulating renominations. If someone wants to renominate their block after they don't qualify, I don't have an issue with it. I just add them to the end of the list. So that is something that I have seen other cities that have put restrictions on renominations, like you have to wait a year or two years or whatever. I just felt as slow as our process works in terms of data collection, putting somebody at the end of the list is basically like restricting them for two, three years, unfortunately. But that's kind of the numbers of where we're at right now. What we discussed in the earlier meeting and what I plan to do right now is we are going to double our data collection capacity. I talked briefly with Lieutenant Joyker in the police department, and I'm going to sit down. I want to meet with all the neighborhood officers and talk through kind of how I work right now with Officer Schmitz and how we could do that with all four of them to have four of the Black Cat radars going up at any given time. I think that'll help a lot. And also turning it over to the officers to do it. Right now, I do one and Schmitz does the other one. And I can tell you that He's out and about. I am not. And it's harder for me to change the radar than it is for him. And so having them as a collection asset will help an awful lot. I can work with Kevin Wehner up in the mayor's office with better outreach and information. I had a little one-pager in 2022, probably too wordy, but I did use to send that out as people asked for it and they could read through kind of the basics of the process that reinforced what was on the website. And so it did help some blocks, but I definitely could use his expertise and to make that a better product to get information out on the program. And then the last thing that I'll mention is from the case meeting, one of the recommendations that I need to work through and develop a little bit more that I thought was valid was that to make it more of a context-driven process is that it is possible to take those thresholds, especially the 85th percentile speed threshold, and you can design that into a span of 85th percentiles based on the width, those priority metrics that I developed for the program. So the width of the right of way, the width of the tree lawn, the setbacks of the homes, If you took an average, which I have, of Lakewood and where that kind of average sits for all of those values and how a street matches up against that, you could come up with a percentile method where you could apply a deviation to that 85th percentile. So a street like Hall, that the houses are really jammed up there, maybe they only need an 85th percentile of 27 miles an hour instead of 30. I thought that was a good suggestion. I just need time, more time to go back and develop that so that a street that where a car going 20 does feel like it's going 50, could kind of get credit for that. But I'd have to apply the inverse to that as well for some streets. And so there's lots of ways to do that, but that's the final recommendation that I'm still working through. So with that, Mr. Chair, hopefully I didn't take too much time, but I appreciate the time to explain the program.

No, that's fantastic. Thank you, Assistant Director Boss. I think it's always good for us to get an update or just to kind of re-familiarize ourselves with this program for people who might be watching this from home. You know, the traffic calming, it's not arbitrary. It's data-driven. And it takes an awful lot of time to do. And we're all... I know I'm grateful. We're all grateful to the time Assistant Director Boss puts to this. It's a labor of... RESPONSIBILITY, I'LL SAY, THAT HE BEARS, BUT HE DOES A GREAT JOB. BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR COMMENTS, LOVE THE NEXT STEPS HERE. I THINK SIMPLY QUICKENING UP THE PROCESS IS GOING TO BE A BOON AND A GOOD THING TO HEAR FOR A LOT OF OUR RESIDENTS. ONE OF THEIR FRUSTRATIONS IS IT JUST TAKES A LONG TIME, SO WITH MORE OF THE A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENCY AND MORE UNITS, THAT'S FANTASTIC. I REALLY LOVE THE LAST PIECE ABOUT CASE, ABOUT BUILDING IN THIS OTHER LAYER OF DATA WHERE THERE'S DEVIATIONS, BECAUSE I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THERE ARE STREETS THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT PHYSICALLY, AND THAT CAN HAVE A HUGE IMPACT. SO I'M REALLY GLAD TO SEE YOU ARE WORKING ON THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS ON THAT, AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE FIRST, AND THEN ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT. Councilpersons Baker or...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the administration for being here. And we're also going to talk about a different We've got another item on the agenda, too, right, tonight? Okay. So I'll try to be fast. So thanks, Mr. Boss, for doing such careful and diligent work over the years. Just for context, the Woodward project was something I started with Mayor Summers way back when as a ward two council person, and it was growing pains kind of a process and experience. Now, chicanes are different. than speed tables and they're perceived as exotic and strange and at the time ugly and concrete because they were new and concrete. Probably Chief Fairbanks can flash back to some of that. They work. BUT IN TERMS OF ADOPTING STANDARDS, I'M KIND OF OF TWO MINDS. I THINK YOU'RE NOT INCORRECT TO ERR ON THE CAUTIOUS SIDE, BUT I DON'T THINK CUTTING AND PASTING THE WOODWARD EXPERIENCE WITH JUCAINS IS NECESSARILY THE STANDARD THAT WE SHOULD HAVE FOR SPEED TABLES, ESPECIALLY THIS MANY YEARS LATER. IT SEEMS THAT WE'VE GOT Is it really only eight or nine streets? They've got speed tables, right? Or is that including also the chicanes?

It doesn't include Wilford.

Okay. So that's starting to become a more and more broadly experienced feature of Lakewood streets, and maybe that's why you're getting more applications and adoptions. Also, the other thing is the standards. I think the conversation that we have is, if we could build upon the prudent methodology that you've got. And I heard you loud and clear that the speed tables can be installed without a lot of engineering time and headache. So that's all great. But what standard are we using? And so the 85% is defining reality from the ODOT on down perspective. What I'm always trying to do is be responsive to residents who are looking for safety and the perception of safety and the perception of a residential character in their neighborhood, and they'll experience changing traffic patterns when there's detours from road projects, et cetera. So that certainly is taking objective data and putting it more local neighborhood definition of what the standard should be on that data but but as you've heard me over the years make the argument for i think we should make it a little easier and shade our standards towards that perspective like mr evans i think that's a great innovation on taking the hall example of a narrower street there could be a curve or a parameter that acknowledges the narrower streets I'm not sure I would make it more difficult to attain on a wider street because wider streets invite more speed, right? So anyway, you're certainly super qualified to comb through these details, but I would just, I think what I and my colleagues are experiencing constantly is hey, this is a problem. Can we respond? Well, I can keep calling the police and they'll respond, but they can't be there 24-7, 365. And former Ward 2 neighborhood officer says, I show up in a big white shark, the people slow down for a second and then they speed as soon as they get around the corner. So that's only so good. Either the road design is really our main tool and I'd love to see it deployed more. I know the case board had allocated to it from city council a certain tranche of funds for traffic calming outside of the process you just laid out. I'm guessing that hasn't moved forward yet. Maybe that could be a source of funds to expand the tool sets you just described, because I think that would be a good and prudent way to kind of have the best of both worlds.

So that was my thought. Thanks.

THANK YOU. AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BRUCE, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I KNOW JUST PUTTING TOGETHER A PRESENTATION AND COMING ON TOP OF ALL THE DATA COLLECTION YOU'RE DOING, APPRECIATE ALL THAT WORK. KIND OF THE WAY I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM LIKE A HIGH LEVEL POLICY PRIORITY POSITION FROM COUNCIL AND THE ADMINISTRATION. AND SO IT'S LIKE WE HAVE SOME POLICIES IN THE CITY THAT ARE APPROVED BY RESOLUTION THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED UNLESS THEY ARE, SO THEY'RE BASICALLY COUNCIL-LEVEL POLICIES, IS THE WAY I DESCRIBE THEM. SO THERE'S ADMINISTRATION-LEVEL POLICIES THAT THE ADMINISTRATION CAN CHANGE AND UPDATE BASED UPON THE WIMS OR THE EXECUTIVE RANCH, RIGHT? AND THERE'S SOME POLICIES WE HAVE THAT OUR COUNCIL NEEDS TO APPROVE IF THEY CHANGE. AND THEN THERE'S THE LAKEWOOD CODIFIED ORDINANCES. SO WE KIND OF HAVE LIKE THREE LEVELS OF HOW WE CAN IMPLEMENT POLICY AT THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD. I KIND OF, I'M INTERESTED IN MAYBE MAKING THIS A COUNCIL-LEVEL POLICY SO IT ALLOWS A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN THE CODE, BUT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN ABILITY TO HELP SHAPE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. AND THE ONE THING THAT I'VE CONSTANTLY STRUGGLED WITH IS, AND THERE WAS PUBLIC COMMENT IN CASE ABOUT IT AS WELL, AND CASE IS GOING TO CONSIDER THIS FURTHER SO THEY MAY HAVE A MORE FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BACK UP TO US, BUT IF A STREET IS OBJECTIVELY MEETING THE STANDARDS, AND WE DON'T IMPLEMENT SOMETHING, THEN WHAT DOES THAT SAY, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S A POLICY DECISION, RIGHT, THAT WE'RE MAKING. THE STREET HAS ALL THREE LEVELS OF NEED, RIGHT, OR OF PROBLEM, BUT THERE'S NOTHING GOING IN PLACE. NOW, IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S A MORE TRANSIENT POPULATION AND THEY'RE MAYBE NOT AS ORGANIZED TO, YOU KNOW, SO THEY'RE RENTERS AND SO, BUT DON'T THEY DESERVE CALLING THE STREETS AS WELL. AND SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE AND UNDERSTAND BETTER AND UNDERSTANDING THAT, LIKE, WE'RE AT THE FOREFRONT AND WE HAVE WAY MORE CITIZENS ENGAGEMENT THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF CLEVELAND DOES. CITY OF CLEVELAND DECIDES THEY WANT TO DO TRAFFIC CALLING THE STREET. THEIR ASPHALT CREW SHOWS UP AND JUST PUTS IT THERE, RIGHT? THERE'S REALLY NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. I'M NOT SAYING WE DO THAT, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT, BUT I THINK WE MAY BE ABLE TO MOVE TOWARDS THE OTHER END. AND THEN, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE TWO OF THE THREE MET perhaps that's when it's a 60% vote or 70% vote. Because there are some streets that really want it, that have some problem, but they don't quite meet the threshold of where we're at. And so those are kind of the policy implementation issues that I'm interested in working on. And I think and interested in my colleagues in making this a council level policy that is set for review every five years and that we, you know, be changed materially unless it comes back before council. But interested in everyone's thoughts on that.

I'll weigh in before, quickly before going to other council persons. I agree. I think this is something that council should take up on a policy basis. I think right now it's probably not the, I'd love to see what Assistant Director Boss comes up with that last point for the new methodology. how that plays into that, and as well as if CASE has any further feedback on how this could look, and then take it up at that point to see where that policy would lead. Any other comments from other colleagues? Councilman Bixenstein.

Thank you, Chair, and I'll be quick. I know we need to move on here. Thank you very much, Assistant Director Boss, for all your terrific work and for this presentation. I'll be sure to share it with constituents. And I do want to point out, my street was one of the ones in that... a lot you had in 2021. And I will say that a radar sign is a pretty nice consolation prize. It's not perfect, but it certainly has been effective. So I appreciate the emphasis on that. I also appreciate the case recommendation regarding context. I understand this needs to be an objective A process is driven by objective metrics. But context does matter. And I'll give you one example that I recently heard about. And I met with some residents on Alameda. And I mistakenly said, oh, you have this unique street that has this median. And so you have this natural traffic calming. That must be really nice. And it turned out I was 100% wrong. And instead, because there's no risk of running into head-on traffic the opposite direction, the residents there contend people actually go faster. And I realize that's a unique street, but the point is there's a lot of contextual considerations throughout the city. And so I appreciate when we can look at context more, such as the case recommendation. And I also support what Vice President Baker is saying about making this a council policy that's reviewed every five years. So thanks again.

Any other comments? President Keppel.

Thank you. And thank you, Assistant Director Boss, for the presentation, always informative. I think it's worth thinking about this too is this has been, and I also just want to express my appreciation for all of the staff who have been involved with collecting this data and working on the program. You know, I think to go to Councilman Bullock's point, when some of this started, the public sentiment may have been more on the side of I don't want interventions on my street. And therefore, there was, you know, and that took a lot of work. I remember former Council President Litton talking a lot about this traffic calming and working to get in place to get a program in place that sort of balanced the safety needs with the public input process. And, you know, now that we've had a sort of sample set of years of working on this, it's good to relook at it. And as well as I think the public sentiment has shifted, we talked about this in zoning the other day about at one time the public sentiment was very, very concerned about tattoo parlors in Lakewood. And now I think probably less concerned about tattoo parlors in Lakewood. The same thing is if the public sentiment, what I hear all the time from residents that pretty much everywhere I go is there's too much speeding, particularly coming out of the pandemic. So I feel like that shifting towards being able to be proactive without as much burden on our staff would be a positive. So I'd be interested to Vice President Baker's point of looking at that way with the purpose of trying to respond to the public need and hopefully reduce some of the staff burden.

Any other comments from the board before we move on? So again, we'll take no action on this item tonight, but I'm looking forward to hearing more from Assistant Director Boss on the last point, and also if CASE has additional feedback so that we can. I'm happy to take this up in committee as soon as we have more things to discuss so that we can move towards that policy-based decision. There are a couple of people who stepped in. Is anybody here to talk just about this specific item, which is neighborhood traffic calming? Great. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCILMEMBER BULLOCK, RESUMING DELIBERATIONS ON PROPOSED RULES FOR LAKEWOOD PROPERTY SEEKING TO OPERATE IN SHORT-TERM RENTALS. AGAIN, THIS ONE IS AN UPDATE. I KNOW COUNCILMAN BULLOCK'S BEEN WORKING, HAS MADE SOME PROGRESS WORKING WITH FOLKS AT CITY HALL OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, SO IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A QUICK CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT AND AN UPDATE, SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILMAN BULLOCK.

Hi, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity. I think, I mean, I can answer questions. So we're not entertaining tonight a motion to amend or refer out the legislation. We're just envisioning this as an update, right?

It's an update, but it's my understanding that you and Councilman Baker will be working on drafting this legislation together, so that's a majority of this committee. I will make a motion to discharge so that we can do that without it being...

burdened in the committee and then we'll take it up as soon as the new legislation is ready to be talked through okay um i i'm certainly flexible i don't know that he and i have communicated about that um at all which is good since we shouldn't outside of a meeting um so you know i'm receptive to that i mean what we've had the opportunity what i've had the opportunity to do is talk to many but not all departments in the administration. So I can share or recap what I've had the chance to discuss with them. I'm actually looking at the finance department has corresponded with me a little bit about the status of bed taxes and what we may or may not collect. And I have to circle back to them and really learn properly what the finance department's understanding of the status quo is, what we do today with no legal change, about FINANCIAL COLLECTIONS THAT MIGHT AFFECT SHORT-TERM RENTALS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THIS IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENGAGE COLLEGIALLY WITH ALL THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS IN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, IN THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THEN WHEN WE'RE READY, WE CAN MAKE ANY REVISIONS IF WE LIKE OR KEEP keep what we have and then consider it. So I guess I'm happy to answer questions from colleagues or recap. You know, I've had a chance to talk to fire, police, building department. And then we've done some conversations with a peer municipality on the east side. We've done some research. We've also heard that there's the potential for our software in the building department to get a module that makes tracking a bit easier and less expensive. But absent that, there's a $35,000 fee that Granicus may charge us to track all of this. So we've been doing our due diligence is the bottom line. Is there something more specific?

Great, thanks. No, I guess what I'm most interested in is what the, if quickly any takeaways from your meetings with fire police and the bill department, because I think those are the things that we haven't had a chance to hear in this committee to this point, because those are happening. And since we have those folks here.

Yeah, so to quickly summarize what I recall, and then of course tap them, is fire department has a, THEY'LL HAVE A FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY MAY ALREADY BE, YOU KNOW, IMPLEMENTING AND ADHERING TO. THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL SIGN POSTING TRAINING DETAILS TO CONFIRM THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ACTUALLY REALLY TRULY IN COMPLIANCE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE'S ANTICIPATED HIGH ROTATION OF TENANTS IN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AS OPPOSED TO A LONG-TERM RENTAL. But that's largely consistent. The police perspective is that the chronic nuisance ordinance and other safety measures already on the books give them the authority needed to manage the behavior of persons at or coming or going to and from the properties. So presumably they could have the authority already. The building department, I think, you know, Chris, the through line is that the building code is designed to address structures, not the people inside the structures. As we think about this, there's a couple different tools that the city may apply, financial, public safety, building code, fire code, and then just the public policy question of affordable neighborhoods. and the impact of a commercial operation on a residential character of a neighborhood. So this really does span a lot of departments.

Great, thanks. So with that, I'll ask Chief Fairbanks or Commissioner Parmalee or anybody planning it as well, any comments right now about where we're heading with, you know, looking at this potential new ordinance?

I'll just make a couple quick comments, Mr. Chair, members of the board. The communications that came out regarding the registration of these short-term rentals, STRs, we have the registration already written into codified in 1306.43. That's where the housing licenses live. Much like the requirement of a local agent, again, was in 1306-44. Required inspections live in 1306-49. So all of that lives under the current housing license ordinance group. And I'm, am I pro short-term, anti short-term? We've all stayed in them. I don't, you know. They can be good. They can be bad. But what I've told Councilman Bullock 100 times over is it's not These aren't structure issues we're dealing with. I mean, these are people. These are people issues. These are nuisance issues with the folks within the dwelling units. I have worked with CitizenServe over the past couple weeks. I just got another report they gave me that identified 48 additional short-term rentals. I went through them today. There was probably about 15% of those that were flagged because they didn't select the short-term rental box inside the housing license application. So I went in, edited the application, identified them as a short-term rental, and then within that report they run, I have a hyperlink that goes to VRBO, Airbnb. So I saved that link to the housing license case in case there was some argument that comes up. There was a handful of them that weren't identified that we're working on sending some correction notices out to now, just because they're not in compliance with the local registration that is the housing license. And that's the only kind of teeth we have at this point in time. But talking about the housing licenses and how these things are going to register, 130643B, if I own a two-family and it's owner-occupied, but I decide I want to rent out one unit, Airbnb one unit, I'm exempt. from the housing license requirement. And we all know what's going on in the world economy today, but there's going to be some owner-occupied folks that might be carving out a little bit of a living that I think we should be sensitive to when we're looking at an ordinance change. Classification of bed and breakfast, and we can all work with each other, but there's already built in local provisions for rental property and we just have to figure out what side of the aisle this lives on right like that what gives me heartburn and I know the fire department oh they won't speak to the you know I'm I'm not the voice of everybody right now but you know one and two family home It's not the majority of these properties that are causing issues or the behavior inside the properties. It's the minority of them, the handful that are the police calls. My concern is on the commercial corridors, be it Detroit and Marlow, we have a 15-, 20-, 30-unit apartment building turning into an Airbnb. Well, that's a hotel by definition. That's transient use. Those are the ones that are going to cause issues, late night response calls for PD and fire. So as a whole, we all need there needs to be some substantive change. But I try to really wear my common sense hat approach when I look at this kind of stuff. So open for more communication with members of the committee, committee president, folks within City Hall, outside departments. But again, in my world, nobody's paying $400 or $500 a night to live in squalor. I mean, these properties are pretty well kept, and it's a behavioral issue. So that's all I have. Thanks, Commissioner.

Any other feedback? Chief Fairbanks.

I'm going to let the fire marshal speak to just some internal ideas that we had with Councilman Bullock and Commissioner Parmalee on how we can improve safety for folks that decide to stay in one of these rental properties. If we can improve the overall safety of that property, we can improve the safety of the people that are staying there. The big thing that we are going to be looking at is that it is It's just like going to a hotel. It's an unfamiliar setting for the folks that are staying there. So for us to eliminate barriers is going to be key to improve that safety for people that are staying there. The fire marshal has worked up just a checklist of some items that we can address within our scope. just to make sure that we can eliminate any of those barriers to improve the safety. And I will just let him speak to a few of those that we've brainstormed and collaborated on internally.

Thanks, Chief. Yeah, so as Chief was saying, when we start to look at these and consider all of the inspections that we're doing, we have a lot of commercial properties, a lot of multifamily apartment buildings that we're out inspecting. And these don't seem to be, I know we've gotten a few calls from some residents about some concerns. But generally, my assumption is that these are put together pretty well. There's just a few items that we would like to see them adhere to just as we would any other apartment building owner or any other regular rental that someone may have. A lot of our focus is on making sure that our exits are clear. We know where they're at. So understanding that these are transient guests. They're not familiar with these buildings. They don't know exactly where everything's at. So we want to make sure that it's easy exit for them when something happens. So we want to make sure that our exits are clear, but we also A lot of the concerns that we have from residents are in these multifamily, two, three resident structures is securing the units from other guests. And what you start to see is they secure them with double deadbolts. So basically, you would need a key on both sides to unlock the door. That isn't permitted, but I understand why they're doing it. They're trying to make it secure so guests can get to the hallways without having to interfere with other guests. Still is a big concern for us. And then when you start to look at anything else, smoke detectors, we want them on every floor of the home and every room. I think when you're talking about rentals and having people stay in places that they don't normally stay, we want to make sure we're max protected. So I don't want just one smoke detector. I'd like to see one throughout in each sleeping quarter, in the main area, things of that nature. Also want to consider the use of carbon monoxide. A lot of times now when you buy these smoke detectors, combination smoke detectors, 10-year lithium ion batteries, pretty easy for these owners to install them and really not have to revisit that for quite some time. Fire extinguishers are also important. These are messages we share with people at a block party. Fire prevention week's coming up. We talk about it a lot with the kids and even the parents that are present that fire extinguishers are great to have in an emergency if you're comfortable enough using them. So these are great to put in the kitchen. Should someone have an accident, they'd be able to have quick action but also still be able to get out if they don't feel comfortable. And then we're just backing up some of the things we already do with open burning, having these short-term rentals. We already know that people that live here are often doing open burning and generally not a problem until someone calls. However, in these situations, it would be advised that it might not be a good idea to even have a fire pit on the premises, as well as making sure we hammer home no charcoal grills, really no grills at all on porches, decks, things like that. So we just want to make sure that we, again, are able to help control some of the behaviors, that the structures are already in good standing most of the time. We just want to make sure that the stay is comfortable, that they feel confident on exiting the building should they need to, and that they don't feel trapped, which is the phone calls that we typically would get, and then making sure that they're protected with smoke detectors and fire extinguishers throughout. These are a lot of things that we look for on our general inspections. These are the same things that we look for for residents that are in the adoption process when we go out and we look at their homes for that. So we're really doing a lot of this already. It's just how can we apply this to these and make sure that it's happening. I don't know the realistic capabilities of putting these on annual inspections and following up with them. I don't know what that would look like. We do have about 1,600 structures that we're inspecting annually or at least working through. So there's a lot to do. But I think during the application process and once they get their occupancies, if that's something that Chris and I work on together to say, OK, to get your occupancy or get your license, we need to check off a few things. And that would be this. No different than our food trucks. So that's pretty much what I have.

Great, thanks. I really appreciate that feedback. I'll go next to members of the committee if there's any follow-up. Vice President Baker.

Yes, thank you, Fire Marshal Berth and Chief and Commissioner Parmley. I would really like to discharge this from committee tonight so that Councilman Bullock and I can work on it with the administration. I mean, I'm hearing that... So if we pass the ordinance or some version of the ordinance that's before us, we basically outlaw short-term rentals because there's no bed and breakfast in the city and no one's ever gone through the process. If we want to have more of a heavily regulated approach, like I said, you can follow the continuum, have no regulations or heavily regulated or outlaw it, right? What I'm hearing is that they're not entirely different from regular rentals, but they require more care and attention from city staff. AND WHEN YOU HAVE 400 UNITS IN OUR CITY THAT ARE NOT INHABITED BY RESIDENTS THAT ARE PAYING INCOME TAXES, THOSE TAXES THEN BENEFIT EVERYTHING THE CITY DOES FOR THEM. POLICE RESPONSE TIME, TRASH PICKUP, ROAD PLOWING, PARKS DELIVERY. THOSE PEOPLE ESSENTIALLY, AND THE OWNER SO THAT YOU DISTINGUISH THE BEHAVIOR WITHIN THE UNIT FROM THE STRUCTURE. BUT IF THERE ARE OWNERS THAT ARE CONSTANTLY HAVING PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEHAVIOR ISSUES IN THE UNIT, THERE HAS TO BE A MECHANISM TO HOLD THOSE OWNERS ACCOUNTABLE. SO I THINK I'M LEANING MORE TOWARDS A HEAVILY REGULATED APPROACH, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THE MODERN MARKETPLACE OF KIND OF OPTIONS TO STAY, I THINK IT WOULD MAYBE NOT BE THE BEST THING FOR LAKEWOOD TO TOTALLY BANISH THEM, BUT I THINK WE NEED A HEAVILY REGULATED TO HANDLE THEM, AND TO DO THAT, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FEE STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH IT TO PAY FOR THE ENFORCEMENTS OF THOSE REGULATIONS, WHETHER THAT'S THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, OR WHOMEVER. SO I'D LIKE TO GET THIS DISCHARGED FROM THE COMMITTEE. THE CITY OF CLEVELAND DOESN'T ALWAYS HAVE THE BEST MODELS. I THINK THEIR MODEL IS A DECENT PLACE TO START. LAST TIME WE WERE IN COMMITTEE, WE TALKED ABOUT IT. THEY BASICALLY INSTITUTE A BED TAX. There's kind of like a saturation requirement per street. There's really defined kind of egress maps that have to be posted in every dwelling unit. So to a fire marshal birth's perspective, But there is no doubt that these units require more city attention than regular I rent for a year. So they need enhanced regulation, and they need some fee structure to pay for those enhanced regulation. That's my perspective. I'd like to discharge this tonight so that we can continue to work on it.

Thanks. Councilman Bullock.

Yeah, I'll be receptive to whatever motion the committee wants to make. To add to what Councilman Baker just said, There is one other. So what I gather is that there's been an administrative interpretation of this new business practice that short-term rentals are a subcategory of rental and that they're compliant with our zoning code. And so we've had this conversation. There's the other argument though that this is a new category. THAT IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, A FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED NEIGHBORHOODS. AND OUR ZONING CODE SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT. AND SO WE'VE NEVER MADE AN EXPLICIT DECISION AS A CITY COUNCIL OR EVEN I DON'T KNOW THAT A MAYOR HAS EVER MADE AN EXPLICIT DECISION. WE'VE JUST KIND OF FOUND OURSELVES WITH THIS PRACTICE SPREADING. AND AS EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS A NEW CATEGORY AND NOT JUST A REGULAR RENTAL OR IS THAT If there's demand for a hotel, then the hotel would show up in one of our commercial corridors. We've got the Days Inn right now, and what's the other one? Travelodge. So outside of those, we haven't had a proper hotel in Detroit, Madison, or some other commercially zoned district. What we have had, and I fielded a couple calls from the greater New York City area code, is investors wanting to DO THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL PRACTICE IN OUR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED NEIGHBORHOODS. ARGUABLY THERE'S A CARRYING COST THAT THE NEIGHBORS EXPERIENCE BASED ON THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF TRANSIENT USE AND REGULAR IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY NUISANCE BEHAVIORS AND YET THE COST TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GREATER THAN ZERO AND RIGHT NOW I DON'T THINK WE'RE CAPTURING THAT OR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT IS VERY LEGITIMATE CONVERSATION TO INCLUDE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE FROM A BAN OR A HIGHLY REGULATED OR JUST TO CONSIDER THEM POTENTIALLY BED AND BREAKFAST WHICH DO PERMIT THEM BUT THEY HAVE BUT THE EXISTING CODE HAS PRETTY STRICT REQUIREMENTS OR WHAT COUNCILMAN BAKER IS TALKING ABOUT. I THINK ALL OPTIONS SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE AND I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT TO SWEEP UNDER THE RUG OR just kind of shrug our shoulders and say, well, the neighbors can live with it. And quite frankly, the tech bro model is break things, move fast. They did that with Uber. Now they're doing it with neighborhoods with Airbnbs. And I think what we're saying in Lakewood is there's a cost that we have to completely factor in here.

Mr. Chair. Thanks, Councilman. And to Councilman Baker's point, I think we're in a particularly in alignment on this issue in our thinking of this. So looking forward to working with you. Is there anybody in the audience that was here to speak just to this specific issue, short-term rentals? Please step up, state your name and address if you're comfortable.

My name is Helen Brand. I live in Lakewood.

Should I give the property address?

Okay. It's 1588 Warren Road. Am I allowed to give you guys any forms that I've printed off?

I have a packet for each of you. To the council clerk's desk in the back.

Tiffany?

So I would like to start off with that we own a short-term rental in Lakewood. We have owned it for the last five years. As a family, my husband and I, we personally run it ourselves. We've had no issues. We have security cameras. We have screening people so that nobody below a four can book our place because we're all so concerned. Let me take a breath. We're also concerned with our property being cared for. We have five units in the building. Two are dedicated as short-term rentals. Two of them are long-term rentals. We have hosted many professionals, nurses, traveling doctors, people coming for family. What else? I did pull for the last year, I pulled the police records for all noise disturbances and citizen complaints from January 1, 2025 to May 30th of 2026. I have zero complaints for an address of 14227 to 29 Delaware Avenue. I guess there was a complaint that another neighbor had with a particular property that really brought this awareness to Lakewood City Council. But in the last year, there's been zero complaints from that. We do have a noise ordinance in Lakewood. So my question about that situation that I guess spearheaded this is with the noise ordinance that we already have There is a procedure for the city to go through in order to cite property owners So my question is was that done through the city like it was supposed to be handled and then cite the property owner or is this just something that was not dealt with like it was supposed to be and So I think we already have a noise ordinance that is supposed to be handling these situations, whether they're short term, long term. Property owners do need to be required to not be taking from our city services. And then my third point is we already, as a landlord, we have to get a permit for occupancy for our rental. And each unit we have labeled. The two is short-term Airbnbs, and the other three, well, one is not rented right now at the moment, but the other two. well, it should be all three of them, but our long-term tenants. So we've been doing that as responsible property owners. So we already have that. I think the issue is we don't mind if there's an extra Tenancy thing I think the issue is for short-term rentals. I think the issue is is that people are having with outside investors coming in and If possibly Maybe it would be to get that license to be a short-term rental and If that could be something that you would have to prove residency either in Kiga County or in Lakewood for those permits, I think that would also maybe take someone's concerns that people have. Let's see. So my other question is, because we've been listing those, occupancy tenancy as Airbnb's would we have the possibility of being grandfathered in if there's more than one per property would we have the opportunity to do that because we've been responsible you know we have 300 short-term rentals that's approximately 1% of all rental properties in Lakewood You know, I looked into, I didn't print that copy of the police reports, but on the two hotels we have in Lakewood, there is so many property disturbance calls within the last year. I mean, I probably wouldn't have had enough paper to print it all up. There was that many.

So when we're talking... Yeah, unfortunately, the time is, everybody's limited to five minutes to speaking.

Would you like to say my other statement?

We are over time on this, so if you can just very quickly make a comment, and also you can follow up with us directly after the fact as well. There will be this is the last time we're going to discuss this in a public forum. We're going to move through this today. In fact, we're going to take this back and actually rewrite the language and it'll be back in this committee again. So you will have another opportunity to comment publicly on this. I apologize. We're just running over time. We have a lot of business in the regular meeting of council. But thank you for your comments. They're definitely appreciated. Is there one more person? If you have to come up to the, state your name and address for the record if you're comfortable with the address and you have five minutes.

Hi, my name is Sierra Kravik and this is my husband Jordan Kravik. We'll split the five minute time. We are at 1540 Warren Road, which there are quite a few short-term rental properties already in our close vicinity, so we aren't really sure about how that grandfathering process will happen, but we are speaking on behalf of our own property as well as other residences on Warren Road. We want to allow businesses to operate. We do believe that these businesses need to go through the proper channels and permitting in terms of host responsibility. Our neighbor has recently announced to us that he wants to turn his property into an Airbnb so we're now looking at five or six within a half mile of our house.

Yeah, sure. So we've had multiple issues already with the neighbor, with his longer term rentals, with taking care of the house and taking care of things that fall onto our property. He doesn't live in Lakewood or Cuyahoga County and has been reluctant to answer us and take care of things that happen between us. So I think our focus is to I guess just say yes, we want. businesses to be able to operate within Lakewood, but have to go through the proper channels, whether they have to live in Lakewood or Cuyahoga County or that sort of thing. So I think that's our focus.

Yeah, just in terms of timely responses and all that, things like noise complaints and stuff, you can file the paperwork and it'll take weeks and weeks, and in that time there could be multiple stays. So we're kind of worried in terms of if someone's already maybe an irresponsible landlord or that this just could exacerbate the number of issues that their neighbors have to deal with. Thank you.

Great. Thanks for your comment. Anybody else from the public at this time? And again, we will have a lot of opportunity to debate this. If there's no other comments, I'd like to make a motion to discharge this ordinance from committee so that Council Members Baker and Bullock can continue to work on the language.

Second.

Motion's made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. That's all the business board committee. We'll take a quick break and be back for regular council.

Folks, since we went a little over, can we make it a very quick break? So five minutes max.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Bye. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Come on.

All right, we will call to order the regular meeting of City Council. If you're able, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Now pause for a moment of silence.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Vice President Baker? Here. Council Member Bixenstein? Here. Council Member Bullock? Here. Council Member Evans? Here. President Keppel? Here. Council Member Hamilton-Steiner?

Here.

Council Member Strebeck? Here. Reading and disposal of the minutes of the regular meeting of council held July 20, 2026. Move to approve without the necessity of a reading.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye. And that motion passes. Reading and disposal of the minutes of the August 5, 2026 community conversation.

Move to approve without the necessity of a reading.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. And that motion passes. Without objection, I'd like to move the first item to the end of the docket. We'll start with item two.

Item two, communication from Councilmember Hamilton-Steiner, Council President Keppel, and Vice President Baker regarding City of Lakewood FLOC contract. Councilman Hamilton-Steiner?

Yes, thank you. One second to pull up. Okay. Dear colleagues, the City of Lakewood is in year four of a five-year contract with FLOC Safety, FLOC, for Lakewood Citywide Surveillance Camera Program. At the August 5th, 2026 Board of Control meeting, the administration approved an amount of $125,000 FOR A PAYMENT ON THE CONTRACT WITH FLAC. INITIALLY IN APRIL 2021, THE CITY ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH FLAC FOR 40 CAMERAS AT AN AMOUNT OF $110,000. ADDITIONAL CAMERAS WERE ADDED IN FEBRUARY OF 2023, BRINGING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAMERAS TO 50. IN JULY 2023, THE CONTRACT WAS AMENDED FOR THE CURRENT FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT IN WHICH WE ARE IN YEAR FOUR. There is growing concern amongst our residents over the city's use of FLAC, the company, and use of the ALPR, automatic license plate reader, in general. Communities throughout Northeast Ohio and beyond are examining specific policies surrounding use of this technology and determining what guardrails, if any, are needed for its responsible and ethical use. There are members of the state legislature working on bipartisan legislation to either ban the technology outright or at least put some guardrails on the system. We all can appreciate technology and how it can make our lives easier and safer. Police officers have benefited from technological advances which have kept them and subsequently our communities safer. Bullet resistant vests, body cams, and enhanced on the job communication tools and devices. Technology used responsibly and how it is supposed to be can be a good thing. We are, however, hearing from residents that they are concerned about the use of flock. In particular, we have heard privacy concerns, questions about what data and information is being shared with other agencies and with which outside agencies the city has shared information. Additional questions include how much crime has been solved and or deterred as a result of this technology. Our residents trust that council members are working with the administration on this issue to have their concerns addressed. We have met with Mayor George, Chief Fisher, and the IT department to better understand how Flock is used to gather preliminary answers to these important questions. and discuss responsive policy and procedure updates. We found this dialogue informative and constructive, and we want the rest of Council to have the opportunity to ask questions and for residents to hear directly from the administration about the City's use of FLOC. We respectfully request that this communication and subsequent ALPR policy be referred to Public Safety or Committee of the Whole for future discussion.

Thank you. I will first move to refer to Public Safety Committee.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. We do also have, I saw we had two e-commons on this topic. I don't see anyone signed in on this sheet to speak on this, but I see some folks who I know are interested in this topic. Did anyone want to? Well, first, let me go discussion from council members, and then I'll open it up to public comment. Any other comments from council members? All right. If you want to, those members of the public want to speak, if you want to come up one at a time, the mic's on. You'll have up to five minutes. You address me. And thanks.

I'm Mr. Christopher. I live in Lakewood. I have pretty much my whole life. Born in Fairview Hospital. The privacy issue is not the only one. that we're concerned with. The financial issue is not the only one that we're concerned with. We are also concerned with the abuse of this system. And it seems, frankly, quite apparent that it has been abused since its conception a number of times, far more than it has ever helped any community. I try not to live my life in fear. would hope you guys would try to do that too. And a state where we are all put into a system, a database, where we're all tracked, all of you as well, same as me, could be mistaken at any point in time for a violent criminal. These are not the ways in which we go about finding these people in our community it's just not how we do it saying that flock is for our safety is disingenuous at best i'd really like to see a path where we get rid of these completely all together thank you thank you next

Good evening. My name is Ed Rand, 1298 Donald Avenue, and I've been a lifelong Lakewood resident. I am here once again to insist that Lakewood discontinue its use of flock surveillance. No amount of policy or guardrails will convince me that the dubious benefits of these cameras outweigh the risk of harm to our community. We're told that we're not assisting ICE or aiding in investigations to hinder reproductive rights. However, our city shares with dozens of ICE-friendly 287G agencies, as well as two regional fusion centers. Any of these agencies could query our flock system on behalf of DHS or other agencies. The Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center in particular was dropped from Cleveland's sharing agreement for providing backdoor access for ICE. Now, in theory, these agencies are required to disclose the nature of their search, but it is easy enough to enter other or fabricate a reason altogether. It is a felony to falsify this, but it's unclear who investigates such a violation. Would it be us? Would it be the violating agency, the federal government? And then who would prosecute the crime? Further, and maybe more distressingly, we have no proof that Lakewood is following its own policies. Multiple public records requests for audit logs have been submitted to allow us to see who is searching our system and what the nature of those searches are. Every last one has been denied under an exemption in the ORC for images and data captured by ALPRs. Guidance from the ACU suggests that audit logs are not, in fact, qualified under that exemption, and yet the city continues to deny its residents the right to see who's viewing our data. Irrespective of whether they qualify under the exemption, we do have to ask, why do we feel the need to hide these logs? In closing, it's my belief the continued use of this technology by our city represents poor stewardship of our residents' Fourth Amendment rights and an abandonment of our vulnerable communities. I urge you all to take swift action to correct it. The flock cameras need to come down or be covered. All data sharing with outside agencies should be immediately terminated. This is not something that should be allowed to sit in committee. It needs to be dealt with urgently. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Did anyone else want to speak on this topic?

Hello. My name is Kyle Warren. I'm a lifelong resident of Lakewood, even born at Lakewood Hospital, and very proud to be a member of Lakewood. I would like to express my concern with the current contract the City of Lakewood has with Flock, and it reconsiders renewing with this company. Flock cannot be trusted as a private company, which has been frequently used by ICE. The government agency has consistently violated the constitutional rights of our immigrant community and terrorized our immigrant communities. Even with proposed inaccess to data by ICE, how do we know that they are not accessing this data if there is no state or federal oversight? In addition, FLOC is not a government agency. It is a private corporation that is profiting off the data collection with little to no state or federal oversight of how the data is used or collected. Concerns of the constitutionality of FLOC have been issued by the American Civil Liberties Union for violations of the Fourth Amendment against unlawful search and seizure, among other issues. um i have actually always felt safe in lakewood and i really appreciate lakewood police and all they do for our community and i don't feel a surveillance state makes us safer lakewood can continue its proud history of being a progressive community for all including our immigrant community by ending its contract with flock thank you for your time and attention to this matter thank you um did anyone else wish to speak on this topic

Hello, my name is Ashley Drachenberg, and I am not a lifelong Lakewood resident. I'm actually a fairly new resident, and I moved here because the community is known throughout Northeast Ohio as already being a safe community. So adding these cameras, which is a cost to us, really doesn't make us any safer. Additionally, communities that have already ended their contracts with Flock are still having their cameras being operated. That is an unethical business practice. So Flock is already known to be an unethical business. If our city were to continue business with such an unethical company, what does that say about us? Does it say that we too are in hand unethical with them? additionally it is wasted money because the flock is willing to operate these cameras without these cities paying them through a contract why are we paying them how many times are we voting on closing down schools because of funding and how many classes are being overcrowded when this money could have gone to you know these schools instead but we're putting it towards these flock cameras when we don't even have to pay them they'll just run them Additionally, flock cameras and cameras like them by Axon and other companies are known to have faulty technology with dire consequences. This will make us an unsafe community. And if it's a faulty technology, that means that we are guinea pigs. Does that make us any more safe? I think not. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else on this topic? Okay. All right. So just procedurally, just to make sure folks understand, this is at this time just a communication just to help the public understand some of the information that we gathered when we had our meeting with the administration and the police and IT and to get that information to all of council and the public. THERE'S NO VOTE CURRENTLY BEFORE COUNCIL TO EXTEND OR CANCEL THE CONTRACT. WE'RE IN YEAR FOUR OF A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT, BUT AT THIS POINT, THIS IS A COMMUNICATION WHERE WE WILL HAVE A COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE YOU CAN PROBABLY HEAR MORE ABOUT SOME OF THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT I HEARD FROM IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT TONIGHT. I know some of the conversations I've had with some of you before, I think it'll be informative to have those. You may likely have more questions after that meeting too, and that's okay. We'll continue that dialogue, but this is the first step to help folks understand where we are as a city, the steps that have been taken. what we're doing moving forward. Councilman Hamilton-Steiner.

Thank you, President Kuppel. Yeah, so just to reiterate what President Kuppel has said and sort of the rationale and purpose behind this is to get that public engagement piece that we know is so important And because of public records and meetings and three of us on council had the opportunity to meet with the administration, but the rest of council has not. And so this is a way for all of us to be able to get that same information and ask those questions and really talk about this in a public setting. SO THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNICATION. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU OR AS MANY THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN COMING BACK TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY MEETING WHERE WE REALLY START DIGGING INTO THIS AND CONTINUING THAT CONVERSATION.

Thanks, Madam President, and thanks to my colleagues for bringing up this important topic. Look forward to the meeting. I guess to the residents who've spoken, I've heard your thoughtful comments once or twice before. I'd welcome the chance to meet afterwards or, I don't know, maybe you're going to go home before the end of the meeting. if we could get in touch by email and I could meet the group for coffee or lunch or something and make sure I'm hearing everything fully and completely. I'd appreciate the education and the perspective. I also want to say, and I typically don't try to get too national with politics. I don't have much confidence in the Trump administration. I do have confidence in Lakewood Police Department, and there's a huge difference between those things. I think it's a good piece of organizing to say, hey, if gerrymandered districts and gerrymandered information and gerrymandered money and gerrymandered society has short-circuited democracy such that we can't get the federal government to respond to us, then let's at least talk to our local community and maybe even our state, although our state government is plenty gerrymandered too. So let's try to start where we can begin, and I agree with that. At the same time, there's the difference between the federal government, as currently led by the Trump administration, and our local community. So I'm hoping to see the shades of gray here. And so that's where I start the conversation. But maybe we could, I don't know quite whom to connect with, but if some people could shoot me their email contact details, I can set up something afterwards. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other council members? All right. So with that, we have a motion and a second to refer this communication to public safety for further discussion. All those in favor?

Aye. And that motion passes. Item three, communication from Vice President Baker regarding annual comprehensive financial report for the City of Lakewood for the audit period January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Vice President Baker.

Thank you. Dear colleagues, as you may remember, in April of this year, Council adopted Ordinance 27-2025, which amended Chapter 60 Audit Committee of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood. Under the new code, the Lakewood City Council Finance Committee now serves as the audit committee to provide independent review and oversight of the city's financial reporting processes, internal controls, and independent auditor comments. To that end, Finance Director Mahoney has invited representatives from ZUPCA and Associates to review the results of the annual comprehensive financial report for the City of Lakewood for the audit period January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025 at our next Finance Committee meeting to be held on September 14, 2026 at 7 p.m. The intent of this meeting is to have a public discussion with the auditors on their findings and opportunity for the audit committee to ask questions and provide feedback on the city's financial performance. The Finance Committee looks forward to hearing from the independent auditors and ensuring the City of Lakewood continues to maintain and strengthen the high degree of financial integrity THE CITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR OVER THE YEARS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO REFER THIS COMMUNICATION TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

SECOND. MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

AND THAT MOTION PASSES. ITEM FOUR, REPORT FROM VICE PRESIDENT BAKER REGARDING SEPTEMBER 1ST MEETING OF THE COMPLETE AND ACTIVE STREETS EDUCATION AND ADVISORY BOARD. VICE PRESIDENT BAKER.

THANK YOU. DEAR COLLEAGUES, THE COMPLETE AND ACTIVE STREETS EDUCATION ADVISORY BOARD MET ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 FOR ITS THIRD QUARTER MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I'M PROVIDING THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO KEEP MY COLLEAGUES INFORMED REGARDING THE CASE BOARD'S WORK. THE PRESENTATION FROM THE MEETING IS ALSO ATTACHED HERE, TOO. FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE, CASE BOARD MEMBER EMILY LIMBURGS, I SPELLED THAT WRONG, SO I APOLOGIZE, EMILY, WHO'S IN THE CROWD, DIDN'T CATCH IT, AND JOHN MITTERHOLZ'S MIDDERHOLZER'S TERMS ARE EXPIRING AT THE END OF 2026 AND BOTH EXPRESS THE WILLINGNESS TO SERVE ANOTHER TERM SHOULD THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION WISH TO REAPPOINT THEM. MEETING FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON TWO AREAS. ONE, FURTHER REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SHARED USE PATH CODE AMENDMENTS AND TWO, INITIAL REVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM. ON THE PROPOSED SHARED USE PATH AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN JUNE AND REFERRED BY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BOSS PRESENTED SEVERAL UPDATES BASED ON PRIOR DISCUSSIONS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD UPDATE CHAPTER 301 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES TO MORE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH AMONG MOTORIZED BICYCLES, ELECTRIC BICYCLES, LOW-SPEED MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, AND HIGH-POWERED ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES REFERRED TO IN THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION AS E-MOTOS. The proposed amendments would remove the existing e-scooter speed limit from the reckless operation section, expressly recognize electric bicycles and low-speed micro-mobility devices as permanent on sidewalks under specific regulations, and create a new section governing riding on bikeways and shared use paths. Notably, the updated proposal removes the prior restriction on adults operating electric bicycles and mobility devices on shared use paths while maintaining other restrictions on e-motos and motorized bicycles. The proposal would also permit the Director of Public Safety to restrict certain aspects of operation in particular areas through signage. The proposed legislation further creates new regulatory framework for Emotos. These vehicles will be classified separately from electric bicycles and low-speed micro-mobility devices and will be subject to additional requirement, including minimum age of 16. The case board voted in favor of an age limit of 16, but had discussion about an 18-year age limit. helmet and rear view mirror requirements, restrictions on passengers and prohibitions on operations on bikeways, shared use lanes and sidewalks. Finally, proposed amendments would clarify responsibility for infrastructure maintenance by distinguishing sidewalks from municipally designated bikeways and shared use paths and making the city responsible for repair and maintenance of municipally designated shared use paths. The case board ultimately favorably referred the amended version of the legislation back to council with some additional comments that were captured by Assistant Director Boss. Second major topic was CITY'S TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BOSS PROVIDED FEEDBACK ON THE CITY'S EXISTING APPROACH, INCLUDING THE HISTORY OF TRAFFIC CALMING EFFORTS AND THE THRESHOLDS CURRENTLY USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A STREET HAS QUALIFYING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. THE EXISTING THRESHOLDS INCLUDE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC OF AT LEAST 600 VEHICLES AND 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED OF AT LEAST 30 MILES PER HOUR AND AT LEAST 5% OF TRAFFIC TRAVELING AT 35 MILES PER HOUR OR GREATER. Administration also presented several potential improvements to the Traffic Calling Program. These include purchasing two additional radar units, bringing the city's total to four, coordinating traffic data collection through the Ward Neighborhood Police Officers, and obtaining streetlight data subscription to provide additional traffic information and context. The presentation also identified improved outreach and information regarding the traffic calming process in the area for improvement. These proposed changes are particularly relevant as the city continues to receive a substantial number of traffic calming requests. Improving the city's ability to collect and analyze traffic data while also making the process easier for residents to understand could help the city respond more efficiently and consistently to neighborhood concerns about speeding and cut-through traffic. Near the end of the meeting, Board member Jeff McCourt addressed the case board and advocated for additional active transportation and safety study related to the pending issue before the Board of Education regarding the potential repurposing of Lincoln Elementary School and its effect on the safety of walking and biking to school and our transportation network. The chair did not entertain a formal discussion or motion due to time constraints, but acknowledged the topic could be discussed at a future meeting. I'll continue to participate in the case board's work and keep counsel informed as the board continues to fulfill its duties. And with that, I will take a drink of water, but I'll make a motion to receive and file that communication.

Second. Motion's been made and seconded discussion. And I'll just note my appreciation to Vice President Baker for that excellent report. There's a lot of great work happening in case and exciting to have that feedback and informing us. We do have several e-comments on this topic. So council members, make sure you take a look at those. They will be entered into the record. And we do have some folks signed in to speak. But before I go to them, any comments from council members? All right. So we'll first go to Jeff Dudzik. Where are you, Jeff? There you go. Welcome back.

Thank you, President Keeble, for the opportunity to speak again. It's been a little while. I think you may know who I am, but I am a resident of Bunce Road, Jeff Dujic, 1493 Bunce Road. I also just want to remind you that I probably walk or bike more miles in Lakewood than I drive. I don't consider myself a commuter cyclist, but recreationally a few times a week, at least in the summer, I probably walk a lot. I wanted to just note that this, perhaps not unsurprisingly, was the most commented on issue on the agenda tonight. And I wrote opposed and I did that just to get attention. I really do agree with most of what the case board has proposed for the multimodal path. I, in fact, agree with most of the comments of the support. But I have a significant concern with the speed and I felt that that was important enough for me to address in person, not that you don't read the comments but I want to make sure I'm heard. I wasn't going to come here tonight but one of the things that motivated me was on my walk to CVS from Bunce Road and back, just multiple instances I hate to use the term cyclist, but I think some of them were emotos, just one of them circling around Giant Eagle on the sidewalk and going into that ditch, jumping up it. And on Bunce Road, as I was doing a little bit of yard work before coming here, just a few scooters just going in traffic in the wrong lane and then back on the sidewalk. And I think it's just to be expected. Not everyone will behave properly. So in any event, I agree with the eMotos. I agree with almost everything on the speed. I just want to remind you and I won't reiterate them over multiple times, I've tried to impress upon you that Bunce Road is not the Metro Parks path. There are significant number of intersections that are used by cars. We know what the challenges are. It is multi-bidirectional and so is the traffic and you're going to have cases where somebody is on a path with somebody turning behind the car. I'm concerned that there will be some conflicts. At 20 miles per hour, which any bike can do, even a class one, the stopping distance for an average driver, rider, and you have to, you know, realize part of it's the braking, part of it's the reaction time, it's about 70 feet. The driveway distances on Bunce Road are about 50 feet apart. So you're talking about further than the distance if that car does turn in for the bicycle to react to stop. There was an incident in June, and I do read the Ohio crash sites. I know there's a lot there in the data, but look at where the ones that had injuries or suspected injuries. You see what you'll do is you'll find a lot of the bicycle or scooters or other mobility devices. And in June, there was an Andrews in Detroit, a 20-year-old on an e-bike. I looked up the type in the police report. It was a Class 1, 20 miles per hour, just ran in the crosswalk. The driver had a green light, and he ran into the car. Again, you can't expect that everyone is going to behave properly. I am just really surprised at the support for the aversion to having a speed limit and I just don't understand why. I can't see any responsible person on Bunce Road traveling 20 miles per hour and thinking that that's okay and that's safe unless you really pulled the wool over our eyes. This was a multi-use path intended for use by lower speed devices, by pedestrians. And I realize that, you know, the biggest concerns are vehicles and bicycles as far as injury or death. But walking on a 10-foot path with a bike going 20 miles per hour by you is not a comfortable experience. It freaks my wife out all the time. I'm a cyclist. I go about 10 miles per hour, maybe 12. I don't go 20, and I don't have an e-bike either. I just don't understand the argument that it's be reasonable. We do it for cars. School zones are challenging, so make it 20 miles per hour. Enforce it. Be safe. Vice President Baker, you said something in the last meeting about, you know, Cleveland doesn't always have the best models. So the argument of aligning it with adjacent communities doesn't work for Bunce Road. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right. And next is Emily Lindbergh.

Hi, good evening, President Kuppel and Council. My name is Emily Lindberg. I live on Lauderdale Avenue. Tonight I want to speak specifically about the Emoto provision in the proposed code revisions. And I want to acknowledge that my position on this topic has changed since the case meeting last week. First, I want to make a distinction between the different types of devices we're talking about here. Legal electric bicycles, as defined by the Ohio law, are bicycles, and I believe they should be treated as bicycles when it comes to where they are permitted to operate in Lakewood. I also support allowing low speed micro mobility devices on sidewalks and shared use paths because like electric bicycles, these devices can provide a low cost and low emissions transportation option for people who may not otherwise be able to travel independently without some assistance. E-motos, however, are fundamentally different. They function more like motor vehicles, except that they are not subjected to the same regulatory framework. Their operators do not need a driver's license, and the vehicles do not require registration. At the case meeting last week, I was the person who proposed that Emotos should only be operated in the street by people over 18. However, the very next day, I attended the Ohio Active Transportation Conference in Dublin. I attended a session titled Adapting Standards for the Modern World, How Personal Mobility Scooters and E-Devices Create a Need to Update Design Standards and Policies. The panel included Matthew Lindsay, Director of Environment and Economic Development for the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, Jean Alene Willis, Director of Transportation and Mobility for the City of Dublin, and Steve Magus, an attorney specializing in bicycle and transportation law. I learned from these panelists that the municipalities that they represent not only prohibit e-motos from being operated on their sidewalks and shared use paths, which is what we talked about at CASE, but they also don't permit them on their public streets. That session made me reconsider whether Lakewood should allow e-motos on our streets at all. Then I spoke individually with Steve Magus, and that conversation reinforced my position. I now believe Lakewood should prohibit emotos on our streets, not just for people under 18 or 16, but for everyone. If Ohio law eventually establishes a licensing and registration framework for these vehicles, I could see a reasonable argument for allowing them on our streets under that framework. But at this time, that framework doesn't exist. I want to be clear that my position on electric bicycles and low speed micro mobility devices has not changed. I continue to believe that electric bicycles and low speed micro mobility devices should be allowed to operate anywhere a bicycle can operate in Lakewood. I also support addressing reckless operation of these devices rather than creating a specific speed limit that would be extremely difficult to enforce. Although I do serve on case, I am here tonight to speak on my own behalf and to share my own perspective. I think it's important that I continue to educate myself, seek out additional information and expertise, and be willing to reconsider my views when I learn something new. I also think it's important to make my own recommendations known, even when they may differ from where case ultimately lands. In this case, I changed my position on one specific question, whether e-motos should be permitted on Lakewood streets. After what I learned last week, I believe they should not. Thank you.

Thank you. Did anyone else want to speak on this topic? I saw some people go over to, yep, come on up.

Just want to go into the e-models and who should be allowed and whatnot. I agree with Emily. Until there's a framework, no one should be allowed to write them. And on top of that, as he has put in the ordinance, 16, it should be increased to 18 because a lot of e-models have a lot of torque and people... Someone with a more developed mind should be operating such a very strong torque machine. And I'll also support lecture bicycles on shared use paths because there's parents who want to take their kids to school in an eco-friendly way with cargo bikes or just on normal bicycles as well, normal e-bicycles as well. And that's about it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who wanted to speak on this topic? Just on time to talk about this?

Dan Zielinski, 2197 Northland. I put an e-comment there, but I'll just add that I ride bikes, I walk a lot, and I also have a Vespa, an electric Vespa. And I had to go and I had to get a motorcycle license and I got to wear a helmet and do all the motorcycle things. This kind of in-between class of e-motos. Having experienced this full spectrum of two-wheeled vehicles, my electric assist bicycle is very different from my electric scooter in that it is, The framework around licensing I think is appropriate to count it as a motorcycle, but this in-between class of these e-motos, I think they do land, it seems to me they land more in the motorcycle class and they should have a little bit more of a framework around them. I'm not terribly familiar with the case, what you guys talked through, but it sounds like you're building a framework to, TO IDENTIFY THEM AND SEPARATE THEM OUT AND REGULATE THEM. I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. YEAH, THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? I'LL JUST, I'LL GO TO VICE PRESIDENT BAKER AND THEN, GO AHEAD.

YEAH, AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, SO THIS IS CASE'S RECOMMENDATION BACK TO CITY COUNCIL. SO CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW DIG INTO THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND ULTIMATELY PASS and amend the codified ordinances. The speed limit issue is one that we're going to have to consider as a council and as administration. Case's recommendation was regulate behavior and not speed. But maybe we want to regulate speed. So that's a question we have to answer. Case's recommend we don't. But it's ultimately our decision. So I just wanted to make that point. Thanks.

Thank you. Um, yeah, and it's, you know, as we've had these, uh, conversations, um, with the administration, uh, we've had previous committee meetings and then, uh, vice president Baker and, uh, councilman Hamilton Steiner. And I met with the administration about, um, this, and a lot of times I think it's really important. I appreciate everyone tonight distinguishing between the different classes of e-bikes versus these emotos. The fact that we even have to kind of come up with our own term. about what to call these things. These are the equivalent of those of us who are old enough to remember mopeds, and you had to get a license and be a certain age and follow the rules of the road. We've just had an explosion of these, what we're calling emotos, this summer, I would say, and a lot of young kids riding them who don't really understand the rules of the road. I talked about that, about getting them out of our parks, which I appreciated. Mayor's public safety director took action on that after we had that meeting. And then making sure that, you know, I think we've all experienced seeing some reckless operation of those devices and having them drive as fast as that they can go on the sidewalks particularly, but also in the public rights of way. like the like roads and shared use paths so I think that's a really important topic you know as we've an assistant director boss has spent a lot of time going through this as well we're seeing a lot of municipalities who are trying to figure this issue out because they're hitting the markets and hitting our streets before they've had proper regulation at the state level so I think that's a really good point of the potential for So we have to kind of attack this on both fronts. One front is reaching out to our state representatives to try to get some legislation going at that level to regulate them. But in the meantime of the actions that we can take locally to protect our residents, both those using those devices and the other folks operating in the right supply. I really appreciate Case's thoughtful feedback on this. This is part of why, you know, we put this group together to get a lot of different perspectives. I agree that I'm still interested in thinking about or I'll just say I'm interested in thinking about speed on the shared use path in the in the particular setting. Enforcement's always a challenge. As we talked with Chief Fisher in our e-bike meeting, we have rules on the books right now to enforce speed on the sidewalks. You're supposed to ride at a speed that somebody walking. Most people probably go faster than that, but they're not going 40 miles an hour. So there's a big difference in these different devices. So all to say, I'm interested in digging into this further. I really appreciate Case's thoughtful recommendations, everyone's thoughtful comments tonight. And we'll keep going. All right. Any other comments? Councilman Bullock.

Thanks, Madam President. Just to build on and echo some of the comments that have come before. First of all, nice work by a lot of people who are committed, our practitioners, are doing ongoing research. Ms. Lindbergh is going to seminars and conferences on it. Mr. Dudzik, you're a very experienced person living where the first multi-use path is going to be. And to all of us in the administration, I think this is a good start, a good success. We've got a lot of thoughtful members of the community that are aggregating around the case board. Some are on the committee, some are not. But I think the system is doing a nice job of giving us a lot of research and thoughtfulness and practical experience to make an informed decision. TIP OF THE HAT, AND I WILL BE DOING A DEEP DIVE. I'VE GOT A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO READ CAREFULLY AND CATCH UP TO THE LATEST. TO THE LEADERSHIP OF COUNCIL, DO WE KNOW THE APPROXIMATE TIMEFRAME? JUST SO I CAN BUDGET MY OWN TIME, ARE WE ANTICIPATING WORKING THROUGH THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CASE AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S DRAFT ORDINANCE? in the next couple of weeks or before the end of the year, or do we not have a set time frame?

Yeah, I think the draft is still in housing planning and development. So I'm going to turn to the housing planning and development chair on that one about scheduling. But I think we all have sense. I'll just say I sense some urgency. Just the number of young people I see writing the emotes in particular of addressing this sooner rather than later.

It's documented for September 21st. That was the day we had available. The assistant director boss was available. So it will be. moving as quickly as we can.

That was a softball right to the strike zone. And just briefly, Madam President, the school district did announce a new policy of no e-bikes on campus. You've got to walk your bike to arrive at the middle school or the elementary school. I don't know if that applies to high school or not, but for sure those other two now. Do people follow that? That's a different question. And I also appreciate the careful thought about what standard would be most easily enforceable, what should be the reckless use standard or speed standard. Both of those are going to require some effort and aren't going to automatically self-enforce. We probably are going to need a big communications push by the city and a big enforcement push by the city. I don't see a way around that. But I agree with all of those who are trying to be mindful of what's an efficient way to go about this. And so I look forward to more work from my colleagues. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other comments? Councilwoman Hamilton-Steiner.

Thank you, President Kuppel. To piggyback off Councilman Bullock's remarks, once the ordinance is finalized, once we have that, I think there's an opportunity to do some education and some outreach. And we do have some models from another city that has been doing that and has been working directly with their local schools to do some education in the schools on these. So I think that could be the next step once we get the ordinance all laid out and rolling out some education pieces so we can talk about that. But let's first get this ordinance together, and then we can figure out next steps.

Thank you. All right. Any further discussion from council? Council Member Bixenstein.

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT KEPPEL. I, TOO, APPRECIATE THE VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED THIS EVENING, AND I APPRECIATE THE ONGOING DISTINCTION THAT'S BEEN MADE BETWEEN E-BIKES AND E-MOTORS. I KNOW YOU ALLUDED TO THE PARK POLICY, AND I REALIZE THE PARK POLICY IS BOTH DIFFERENT AS WELL AS YOU COULD CERTAINLY MAKE A CASE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEREAS IN PARKS THE PRIMARY USAGE IS RECREATION AND ON sidewalks and streets and shared use paths, the primary usage is more likely to be mobility. But I do think it's still be valuable in the weeks ahead to reflect on the park policy and see what, if anything, we can learn from that as we look to pursue our own legislation.

Thank you. All right. So adding to that, so no further discussion. We have a motion and a second. What were we doing? We were receive and file the communication, but we'll continue to work on the ordinance, and we have the meeting coming up on the 21st to take on the ordinance. So we have a motion and a second to receive and file. All those in favor? Aye.

And that motion passes. Item 5, communication from Council Members Evans, Strebeg, and Bixenstein regarding update on Block Club Program Initiative. Council Member Evans?

Thank you, President Keppel. Dear colleagues, summer is peak season for block-level community building. As the city of Lakewood abounds with neighborhood block parties each weekend, we have taken our initial steps to reimagine our block club program. Since the recent transfer of the block club program management from the administration to council, we have launched our efforts in partnership with volunteer community leaders and the council clerks to seek ways to better assist with thickening social capital and turning neighborhoods into communities. We hosted three focus groups on July 9th, 11th, and 14th aimed at garnering feedback from neighborhood leaders who are already involved in block level community building formally or informally. NEARLY TWO DOZEN COMMUNITY MEMBERS PARTICIPATED IN A FOCUS GROUP. ACROSS THESE THREE GROUPS, RESIDENTS GENERALLY WANTED CITY TO MAKE COMMUNITY-LED BLOCK CLUB ORGANIZING EASIER, MORE ACCESSIBLE, AND SUSTAINABLE. MOST CONSISTENT REQUESTS FOR SUPPORT, SENATOR, ARE AROUND THE FOLLOWING. A SIMPLE START OR WELCOME TOOLKIT FOR NEW AND EXISTING BLOCK ORGANIZERS. A CLEAR CITY WEBPAGE AND DESIGNATED CITY POINT PERSON FOR BLOCK CLUB RESOURCES. better communication between the city and neighborhood connectors, peer-to-peer support and recognition for block organizers, more intentional inclusion of renters, apartment residents, immigrants, and other community members who may not participate in traditional block club structures. Additional themes that emerge across the focus groups participants include, there's a significant existing neighborhood connection activity, opportunity for block club expansion is strong, and there's an interest in expanding the purpose of block clubs well beyond social events. We look forward to leveraging this feedback to help inform next steps as we continue to develop a long-term neighboring and belonging strategy. Let's quickly add a quick thank you to my colleagues on council for all their hard work and a special thank you to the clerk's office who has just really taken on this project with tremendous zeal. So thanks for all your hard work. I'll make a motion to receive and file this communication.

Second. Motion's been made and seconded. I'll just start discussion by saying Council Member Nevins and Council Member Strebeck and Bixenstein, I appreciate you putting together this communication, as we alluded to earlier, with some of the council Priorities, well with anything, we can only have three members of council working at any time on that. So while all of us are interested in block club revitalization and usage, they are sort of our task force working on this and sharing this communication on the public docket is a way that the rest of us can understand it. So we try to be transparent and also inform each other while we also inform the public. Any comments from council members? Council member Hamilton-Steiner.

Thank you, President Keppel. Yeah, I, too, want to just thank all the council members for working on this because, as President Keppel said, we all can't work together on one thing that would be a violation of public laws. But that doesn't mean that we all don't care about similar issues. similar issues and and are looking for towards similar solutions and so i think um the black clubs um and the black groups are um is one way of community building and something that um is is helping to build a more inclusive um neighborhood, a more inclusive Lakewood. And I have enjoyed going to the block parties so far this season. And it's just always a nice time to get out there and talk to the neighbors. And it's a great just casual way just to find out, you know, sort of what are the what are the issues? What are the challenges? You know, what are the concerns? And also to share information with them as well. So I encourage all my council colleagues to hit up what you can and go around. They really do like seeing council members at these events.

Thank you. Council Member Stubick. Thank you. I just want to echo my council colleagues also. And it seemed to me that the meetings that we had with with the community, they're really looking for just some structure and the permission to proceed. Right. So like you can do it, go ahead and do it. And here's kind of our framework, which is where we're at now. But as Councilmember Evans and I often joke, that's another good reason for Black Loaves, because all these other things are so tied together when we talk about communication going both ways. We talk about our neighborhood paramedics. Here's a whole block of people that know everybody on their street, and if there are people having mental health concerns, that's possibly another avenue for us to help folks. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. And the council members? All right. Hearing none, on the motion to receive and file, all those in favor? Aye.

And that motion passes. Item 6, report from Councilmember Hamilton-Steiner regarding July and August meetings of the Animal Safety and Welfare Advisory Board. Councilmember Hamilton-Steiner.

Thank you, President Kuppel. Dear colleagues, LISWAB held monthly meetings on July 15th and August 19th. The July 15th meeting was held in the auditorium at City Hall to accommodate potentially larger public participation. The July 15th meeting operated with normal business of LISWAB conducted. ACO Crumley provided the animal shelter report and addressed concerns regarding processes and procedures for when an animal is brought to the shelter by animal control officers. The rest of the meeting was dedicated to public comment. A resident spoke regarding their concerns about how the intake process for when a cat is taken into the shelter. The resident would like to see a change in the policies and procedures and ensure that there are documented procedures which can be publicly shared and accessible. Another resident discussed an online platform they created which allows for the registration of indoor-outdoor cats with the goal to increase the likelihood of reunification in the event the animals last. Lastly, a resident shared their positive experience of volunteering with the APL from foster to adoption. She expressed gratitude to Lakewood Animal Control for being able to retrieve their cat from a location in their house after multiple attempts of trying to get the cat out themselves had failed. This involved a situation where time was of the essence and Lakewood Animal Control successfully retrieved the cat. At the August 19th meeting, ACO Crumley provided a deep dive into the ShelterPro monthly report he provides to the SWAB. The report details each action taken by the ACOs and the reason, example, abandoned animals, assistance with LPD, barking or howling, so on and so forth. Accounts are provided for intakes and data regarding the intake cases, including reason and transport, and the officer conducting the intake. There's quite a bit of action in regard to wildlife. The SWAB has been developing articles and information for dissemination to the public regarding living in Lakewood with wildlife and what to do and how to handle them. Once animal control is called, the options are limited, including ultimately euthanasia. ACO Crumley shared with the group that there was a hoarding situation with cats that they were called for, and 40 cats had to be put down due to the conditions and sickness. Additionally, a dog had to be euthanized due to a biting incident that occurred. These two instances are a reminder of what animal control officers go through. Ultimately, it is not an easy job, but it is an important component to maintaining health and public safety for us all, and a reminder that a touch of kindness and consideration is appreciated and can go a long way. Thank you. And I move to receive and file that communication.

The motion's been made and seconded. I appreciate keeping us updated about the liquid animal safety welfare advisory board activities. And just note that resource that the resident created It says indoor-outdoor cats, although technically you should actually, according to the codified ordinances, cats should not be indoor-outdoor. So it's for cats who have escaped from their homes because they're not supposed to be outdoors unless they are on a leash, if you're weird like me. Just reporting. Yeah, I'm just sharing. Just for anyone following along at home, just to clarify. All right. I don't want to make the ACO's job any harder by having to enforce it. All right. Any further discussion on the motion to receive and file? All those in favor? Aye. And that motion passes.

Item seven, communication from Public Works Director Gordon regarding Ohio Public Works Commission grant program year 2028. Director Gordon.

Thank you. Dear President Keppel, members of City Council, the Fire Department Water and Wastewater Collection Division and Division of Engineering and Construction are recommending submitting grant and loan applications to the Ohio Public Works Commission for the 2028 Water Main Replacement Project. The 2028 Water Main Replacement Project would entail replacement of existing six-inch diameter lines, four-inch fire hydrants, lead service lines, sewer rehabilitation, and pavement resurfacing at the following four street segments, Park Haven Row, Heard Avenue, Elber Avenue, and Delaware. Please see the attached legislation required to be submitted with the grant and loan applications for these projects. I request the city council approve and pass the attached resolution so that the grant and loan submittal process may proceed. Please let me know if you have any further questions. And just want to stress again, this is a grant we've gone through before. We like to have the resolution with the grant because it makes our grant more, I guess you could say, more credible. So again, thank you.

Thank you. All right. I'm going to first move to receive and file the communication. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. We do have a public comment on either this or on the following ordinance. And I think it's a good question is just to clarify that these grant funds would not affect our active, how this would work, intercede with the active transportation plan or complete streets or anything like that. No. Okay. Great. That was easy. All right. For anyone following along the home, Director Gordon shook his head no. All right. So any further discussion? Council members? Councilman Bullock?

Thank you. I'm happy to support the motion tonight and good work by the administration always pursuing funding. But on the topic of the residence question, Mr. Zielinski is here. I believe this bike boulevard was discussed at Planning Commission recently. I think last week, correct?

Uh, yes. Councilman Bullock. Uh, if I recall, um, it was on Delaware and it was discussed at planning commission and it is currently with city engineer, Mark Pappy, uh, where we are working on the comments that were brought up in there and he will be providing further comment here in the near future to planning committee.

Thank you. So the piece of feedback that I received from a resident was that, uh, in ward three Roosevelt school is, is right on that route or zone. And. making sure that we're getting feedback or we're giving notice to the school district and we're getting feedback from them about the impacts that any change would have or potentially have on the routes both for the vehicles and the people who walk and bike is just to integrate that. I don't know if that's happened or not, but the resident who observed the planning commission, and I unfortunately was not able to attend, didn't see or hear school district input or feedback on that. Maybe we can get that in the future.

Yes, we will certainly discuss with the schools. We'd like to have a plan in place first instead of coming to them and saying, like, okay, you know, what are you looking for? A lot of times we do have a very good working relationship with the schools, specifically Chris Donahoe. He's been great to work with. You know, one of the things that we both like on either side is to come with a plan. Here's our plan. Here's what you can present. Let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

The baseline to start the conversation with, right? Okay, thank you.

Vice President Baker.

Yes. And I did, I wasn't able to attend for childcare issues, but I was able to listen to the planning commission meeting. And by the way, for all of us that worked on complete streets, it was really exciting to hear. And I applaud the planning department put out signs along Delaware. My kid goes to Hayes. So I saw him to come and comment there were Mr. Zielinski came and were probably 10 public comments. some of them in favor of interventions, some of them against them. But that's the public process. That's exciting to see residents having an ability to have a voice in the redesign of their streets. So it's really exciting. As we go further, I intend to meet with the Public Works Department to talk about THE RAISE CROSSWALK ISSUE, RAISE INTERSECTION ISSUE, IT IS CALLED FOR AS A POTENTIAL TREATMENT, BUT IT'S NOT DELINEATED. SO THIS WAS KIND OF AN EARLY DESIGN ISSUE INPUT STAGE, AND THEN, AS I UNDERSTAND, COMPLETE STREETS WILL COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AT A MORE DEVELOPED STAGE. SO I'M CERTAINLY GOING TO TRY TO WORK WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON THAT. BUT IT WAS EXCITING TO SEE THE PROCESS PLAY OUT AND, YOU KNOW, And this also, as it relates to Roosevelt, at least, Councilman Bullock, this project stops before Roosevelt, but it is right on Hayes. And so a lot of the public input was about Hayes and what it means for pickup drop-off, for students interacting with it. For some reason, in front of Hayes, the street is like 70 feet wide, but everywhere else it's 30 feet wide. Yeah, and then like crossings at Olive. So it was really exciting to hear the process that we helped create. start and applaud to the Public Works Department and Planning Department for facilitating this.

Thank you. Yeah, tonight's actually been kind of exciting. We spent over a year working with the administration on Complete Streets and then we passed a case. So I was excited to see that legislation and the feedback from case tonight. So seeing all these things come together. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Gordon, for this. Can you just talk a little bit about the section on Delaware here? And I specifically have a rental house in this section here. It seems like this section, I'm not quite sure what's going on in this neighborhood, but it's under construction every two or three years. I do know that at one point it was to connect the down pipes from the houses to the street because that went through our front yards. But I also thought that the sewers were already taken care of. So I'm interested to hear, I don't know anything about the fire hydrant lines and the lead service lines we've talked about, but the street has been repaved after that, and I want to say it's probably been 10 years, 2017 rehabilitation there, but can you talk a little bit about what happened then and what the difference is now?

Sure. So the work that's being proposed here is water line replacement. So it's completely different than any work that has been done prior. I am aware that this area was resurfaced actually sooner, I want to say within the last year, year and a half, if I recall. when Enbridge was in the area. So we're happy that they're out of there. But this is just our standard water line replacement project. Included within water line replacement project, we do do the lead service lines, both the private and public. We do fire hydrant lines and things of that nature. So this is, again, our standard water line replacement. That's not IWIP, meaning that doesn't consist of sewer work.

um so that's pretty much all i got do you need anything further than that no just just also the comment that that area also serves as the landing ground for every major project in that neighborhood so we get everything that goes on glenberry and atkins and and everybody else around there too well we're hoping this will be the last thank you

Thank you. All right. Any further discussion on the communication? We have a motion to receive and file. All those in favor? Aye.

And that motion passes. Item 8, Resolution 202639, a resolution to take effect immediately authorizing the city engineer to prepare and submit applications to participate in the Ohio Public Works Commission State Capital Improvement and or Local Transportation Improvement Program and execution of all contracts as required. Move to adopt.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion? Again, thanks to the administration and Public Works Department for seeking these funds. All right. Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor?

Aye. And that motion passes. Item 9, communication from Human Service Director Berry, Chief of Police Fisher, and Fire Chief Fairbanks regarding Lakewood Community Care Response Team. Request to present.

Chief Fairbanks, since you're the only one here, how about you?

George Straw. Good evening, President Keppel and members of City Council. We are writing to request the opportunity to present to Council on the Lakewood Community Care Response Team, a joint effort of the Department of Human Services, the Lakewood Police Department, and the Lakewood Fire Department. We respectfully ask that Council refer this matter to the committee of its choosing. Over the past year, our three departments have come together to respond to residents facing crisis situations, mental health needs, housing instability, and the many concerns that do not fall neatly at any one department. Social workers, neighborhood officers, and the fire department's neighborhood paramedics share referrals and follow-up together so that residents are not lost in a handoff between departments. While the program itself has only been operating for the past year, our departments have been doing this work since their inception. The Community Care Response Team is our effort to formalize and institutionalize that work, and we are building the structure to sustain it. We would welcome the chance to walk the committee through the first year of this work and our plans for the program moving forward. We will make ourselves available at the committee's convenience and are happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. We could... And I know we have some council members who've been working on this as well and some good work there. We could send this to Public Safety or Health and Human Services Committee. OK. Health and Human Services? All right. So we will, I'm going to make a motion to refer to Health and Human Services Committee.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion? Councilman Evans.

Thank you, President Keppel. I just want to thank Lakewood Police Department, Lakewood Fire Department, and Human Services for all their efforts in this area. Councilpersons Hamilton, Snyder, and Strebeg and myself had the opportunity to sit down with folks from all three of those departments last week, as it is a council priority to find ways to enhance our response to folks facing mental health issues. We were very encouraged to see what the city is doing. And we're excited to see how we can work together to find resources to kind of plug any gaps in the program where they are and to continue to enhance these amazing services that are so important to our residents. So thank you to everyone involved and thanks for offering to present.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, on the motion to refer to Health and Human Services, all those in favor? Aye. And that motion passes.

Item 10, communication from Fire Chief Fairbanks regarding Public Utilities Commission of Ohio training grant. Chief Fairbanks.

President Keppel and members of City Council, I am pleased to inform you that the Lakewood Fire Department has been awarded a PUCO training and planning grant in the amount of $6,606.25. This reimbursable grant is intended to offset the cost of training up to nine Lakewood Fire Department personnel to the level of confined space rescue technician. These grants will permit us to train our personnel to the National Fire Protection Association standard of the confined space rescue technician level. The Lakewood Fire Department has identified the need to train to this level based on our hazard profile, specifically industries currently operating in Lakewood with processes taking place in confined spaces. This training will enable our personnel to make hasty and effective rescues of civilians working in these spaces. Per Codified Ordinance 111.14, no match required. This letter serves to formally notify Council of our acceptance of the grant for the purpose of training our personnel. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll move to receive and file.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion? Appreciate both the effort for ongoing training, as always, and that it has this money offset. So it's great. Win-win. Any further discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. And that motion passes. Item 11, communication from Planning Commission Chair LaPointe regarding appointment of Kyle Rise to the Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council. Assistant Director Boss?

Thank you, Madam President and members of council. I'll just speak briefly to this. So this is for your information and to receive and file from our chair of the Planning Commission By the Ohio Revised Code, they are authorized to appoint one member of the Planning Commission to our – we are reforming a seven-member housing council for the city. The city had one, maintained one, and is supposed to have one under the county regulations for tax incremental financing and Community Reinvestment Act financing. So we're getting that housing council stood back up again. That just requires the Planning Commission to appoint one of their members, and so they've appointed Mr. Reese to that.

Thank you, and thank you to Mr. Rietz for taking that on. All right, so I will move to receive and file.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye. And that motion passes. Item 12, July and August 2026, finance department vendor report submitted pursuant to liquid codified ordinance 11103.

Move to receive and file.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye. And that motion passes. Item 13, liquor permit regarding Bijou Hospitality, LLC, Amazonia. This is Ward 4.

So our custom is to check in with the ward council member, Council Member Bixenstein.

Thank you, President Keppel. I've communicated with Officer Mazur, and I'm comfortable with this liquor license.

Great.

Thank you. So we will move to file with no objection.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye. And that motion passes. Item 14, liquor permit regarding Care and Petroleum, 16016 Hilliard Road.

And we have this report too, I believe. Director Varga is nodding. So that's word two. Where am I? Councilman Evans?

I see no reason to object.

All right. I'll move to file with no objection. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion?

Madam President. Councilman Bullock. On the previous one, I don't think I'm seeing the full report on the agenda. There's a one-page.

Okay.

I'll check mine. It'll be in your email. Very good. Thank you. Happy to support the current motion.

OK. So we have a motion to file with no objection on the Caron Petroleum Liquor Permit. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. And that motion passes. All right. We're back to item one. Yeah, we'll do the motion.

Item one, communication from President Keppel regarding first energy before committee of the hole and rake case.

Dear colleagues, as our community continues to work together to hold First Energy accountable, I'm pleased to share that the utility company has agreed to my request that they appear before Lakewood City Council's Committee of the Whole. The hearing will take place on September 28th at 6 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to review First Energy's plans to improve infrastructure reliability and communication, specifically regarding the corrective action plans required by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, before both the 2025 and 2026 investigations resulted in PUCO issuing notices of probable noncompliance that concluded that most of the outages were caused by equipment or line failure, and both highlighted First Energy's failure to invest in infrastructure and maintain and implement a comprehensive communication plan. You can read a summary of all the corrective actions that PUCO identified as needed in the timeline for each in my attached letter. I have asked First Energy to arrive prepared to provide status updates and completion dates for each item. Additionally, I have directed them to address how this infrastructure decline occurred, how First Energy will improve communications with residents and public officials, and any related questions from city council or the administration. On August 21st, First Energy replied to Pucco's 2026 PNC, and among other things, asked that instead of paying a $3 million fine for their ongoing failure and neglect, that they spend the money on upgrading the system that they should have already been maintaining. If First Energy can afford to put their name on the Brown Stadium and bribe elected officials at the Statehouse, it can afford to pay a fine for their negligence and fix its infrastructure. This is particularly true because consumers have already paid for upgrades. At our July 28 City Council Committee of the Whole meeting regarding First Energy litigation, we were joined by our partners at the Ohio Consumers Council, OCC. The OCC highlighted that First Energy collected $369.6 million from consumers for grid modernization phase one and is currently collecting $420.1 million for phase two. Yet, in field visits to substations serving Lakewood, PUCO staff identified a, quote, significant amount of infrastructure that seemed, on the whole, older than infrastructure found elsewhere in CEI service territory, end quote. Lakewood residents paid First Energy for upgrades that we clearly did not receive. First Energy owes Lakewood restitution and reliability. To that end, on August 21st, the City of Lakewood filed a motion to intervene in the case currently before the PUCO, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, in which First Energy is seeking to raise rates on consumers. The OCC estimates that the average customer would see an approximate $5 a month increase initially, escalating to a total increase of $15 a month by year three. These rates would be in effect from July 20, 2027 through June 2030. Lakewood residents have already paid enough for upgrades and service that we never received. First Energy customers who share this opinion can help the City push back by submitting a comment on the rate case to the PUCO referencing case number 26-0347-EL-AIR. At our July 28th Committee of the Whole meeting, the Law Department asked for more time to study potential litigation. Now that the City of Lakewood has filed to intervene in the rate case, I expect that Council will hold an executive session in the very near future pursuant to Ohio Revised Code section 121.22 . Um, and that could be actually in the very near future because, uh, what I'm going to suggest, uh, I'll make a motion in a moment is to, after we have finished public comment to enter executive session, uh, for the purposes of consulting with an attorney, uh, regarding pending legal disputes involving the city. So, but before I do that, I want to pause for a moment to hear any other comments from council members or discussion. All right. So I will go ahead and make that motion that I just said, which is following public comment to enter executive session for the purpose of consulting with attorney regarding pending legal disputes before the city.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded.

Oh, yeah. So I'll just, in adding to that motion, include obviously the law department. Mary, you're welcome to join us, of course, and the council staff as well. Director Vargo, is that sufficient?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT, IT IS, AND I HATE TO IMPOSE ON DIRECTOR GORDON, BUT SO MUCH OF PUBLIC WORKS IS INVOLVED WITH FIRST ENERGY AND MAKING SURE THAT THE CITY MUNICIPAL WORKS HAVE SUFFICIENT ENERGY. SO IF YOU CAN INVITE HIM AS WELL, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

SORRY, DIRECTOR GORDON. I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE DIRECTOR GORDON. NO, YOU GET THE SHORT STRAW. ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER? Discussion? Right. And roll call? Yep.

Vice President Baker? Yes. Council Member Bixenstein? Council Member Bullock? Yes. Council Member Evans? Yes. President Keppel? Yes. Council Member Hamilton-Steiner? Yes. Council Member Strebeck? Yes.

All right. So we're going to go ahead and move on to public comment. Following that, we'll exit for executive session as we just discussed. There won't be a whole lot to stick around for because you won't be able to watch it. But I'll go ahead and move on to public comment so you don't have to wait for us while we're back there. All right. So first up is Zach Robach.

Good evening, President Keppel, members of council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Zach Robach. I have two kids in Lakewood schools in first grade and third grade. I was a member of the Elementary Task Force and nominated by my school PTA to be on the Elementary Transition Committee. Down the street tonight, the Lakewood Board of Education is voting on a proposal to restructure our elementary schools that would end neighborhood preschools, repurpose Lincoln Elementary, and redistrict hundreds of families. So why am I here at City Council? Last October, in an observer survey in the run-up to City Council elections, every candidate for council, except one, including many here, responded, first, council members should care about the impact of closing schools and how they are run, and second, that they were in favor of retaining Lakewood's seven public elementary schools. In the spring, council passed a resolution to endorse the school levy, which passed during the May vote. It's clear that council recognizes the interconnectedness of Lakewood schools with the broader success of Lakewood. The plan that was rubber-stamped at the board meeting tonight is not a real plan. It's simply an outcome. Close Lincoln Elementary and neighborhood preschool and open a centralized early learning center. District boundaries have still not been announced. There is no public budget. There is no transportation plan or transportation study, which took up half of council's meeting tonight about safety and transportation. There's no plan for providing aftercare to K-5 elementary students. There's been no data presented on the demand for preschool, which has had no waitlist for the last two years. And overall, there's no meaningful detail on how this would improve educational outcomes. This should matter to the city for at least three reasons. First, the district's plan contradicts the city's emphasis on active transportation and likely adds cost to city and resident budgets. As more residents will drive their children to and from school every morning, rush hour will become more congested, existing walking commutes more dangerous, extra wear and tear on roads, and added pollution to the air. The city will be expected to provide more crossing guards. Families who switch to driving will need to pay more for gas. Not all of these are readily quantified, but they exist. Even the modest savings offered by the district are illusory because they will be picked up by the city or individual residents. Second, the lack of transparency and real community listening will undermine broader trust and credibility in local government. The district ended a year-long community task force because of alleged Sunshine Act violations, then rushed a vote through that was subsequently vacated under a legal settlement. The district does not post meeting materials or minutes publicly and is months behind on records requests. This time around, the district declined to provide the slides that they presented in community meetings. The district's data has also been visibly and objectively misleading. In a mandatory filing with the state of Ohio less than two weeks ago, the district reported a 20% uptick in kindergarten enrollment this year over last year. A 20% enrollment, and that was never discussed in public meetings. In one recent presentation, the district used forecasts from a 2022 enrollment survey that predicted declines instead of using actual enrollment data that showed stability and slight increases. During the levy campaign, the district told voters that the consolidation plan would save 1.5 to 1.9 mills, or $2.6 to $3.5 million. Two weeks ago, the district treasurer acknowledged the best case savings were likely around $600,000, a 75% decrease. Third, Lakewood's elementary walkability is a unique and defining characteristic that makes the city special from virtually every city in the Cleveland metropolitan area and even distinguishes Lakewood from many cities nationwide. My wife and I moved here over 10 years ago to start a family, excited that our kids would one day attend a brand new school being built three blocks from our house. No meaningful data has been presented by the district to evaluate the impact on walkability, but common sense and the limited data provided make clear that walking distances will increase substantially, both for former Lincoln students and for all the preschool students who currently attend neighborhood schools. For new families considering moving to our area of town, elementary walkability is no longer a distinguishing characteristic. In community surveys, board meetings, observer articles, direct conversations, and other channels, the community has spoken out exhaustively against the plan. The board re-approved the plan tonight, but that's not the end of the journey. The plan was first approved almost a year ago, however, shockingly little work has actually been performed. Much of the burden seems likely to occur outside the district's far walls and fall to the city and residents. I'm asking the city to continue to press the district for a collaborative partnership in developing this transition plan, especially around developing a transportation plan, and to consider pausing the decision until an actual plan has been adopted. Finally, I'm asking you to publicly speak out on this issue. I understand council does not control the decision, but a lack of control is not the same as a lack of influence. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Kyle Warren. Did you want to speak? Okay. And Ed, you're signed in too. You're good? Okay. And Jeff left. Yes.

Okay.

And then Ashley, did you want to go again?

Hello, I'm Ashley Drachenberg again, and I want to speak on the First Energy meeting that you're going to have. And I just have to say, as a resident of Lakewood, it makes me really angry to hear that First Energy does not want to pay this pittance of a fine. $3 million is nothing to them, and they want to say that they don't have the money for this. Any person that lives in Northeast Ohio knows that they absolutely have the money. We've all seen our bills going up time and time again. And in fact, to give you a little bit more of like an actual personal experience I had with that, I don't know if you guys know about how that data center in downtown Cleveland got expanded, but it expanded by approximately .75 acres. through what I think is unscrupulous ways that they did it. But anyway, literally the day after they made the movement and got approved to expand their data center, we had someone come to our door and tell us that our electric bill was going to go up. So these rate hikes, they're not to help the infrastructure. It's to subsidize these AI data centers that we're not going to get into that right now. We don't got time. So while our bills are increasing and our reliability in service is decreasing, due to their negligence, we are truly the ones that are struggling, not First Energy. So I find it insulting for them to say that they do not have this money. Secondly, they've already collected the money to do the improvements and are finishing up their collection efforts, $3 million. To that, like, come on, let's be realistic here. Again, I'm so sorry I don't really have the words to say this more eloquently. It just makes me unbelievably angry that they have the gall to say that. If I, so, I don't know. That's just why I have, you know, and honestly, it just, it makes me say, you know, if they don't have the $3 million to pay this fine, are they admitting to embezzling? Like, what's going on there? So, thank you so much.

Thank you. Yeah, they're not saying they don't have it. They're saying they want to spend it on our infrastructure, but they already were supposed to be fixing our infrastructure and they're already getting money for it. Yeah, right. They can afford to do both. All right. So next up is Christopher Ritchie. Left. Okay. And then Matt Herberger. Welcome back.

Good evening. Matt Herberger, 1448 Bunce Road. Gosh, I have all sorts of opinions about what we've discussed tonight, but I came here for something different. I took a look at I'm sorry, for those of you don't know, I'm concerned about the multimodal or shared use path that's been laid down on bunts road currently. I had a chance to go and look at THE PATH NEXT TO LAKEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL. AND TO SAY THAT I WAS DISAPPOINTED OR DISGUSTED WOULD BE AN UNDERSTATEMENT. IT IN NO WAY MATCHES THE PRETTY PICTURES THAT WE PUT TOGETHER THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO SHOW PEOPLE WHAT THAT PATH WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S STILL WORK TO BE DONE. I'M ALREADY LOOKING AT THE GRADING of it. It does not look level to me. It makes me question the capabilities of the contractor that's putting that in. The edging looks DEGRADED ALREADY, AND IN FACT, AS I WALKED ON IT TONIGHT, PIECES OF THE ASPHALT WERE ACTUALLY COMING UP OFF THE PATHWAY. TO EXPECT THAT TO COME DOWN MY STREET RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, I QUESTION the integrity of the project. I question the slope because we all know from Madison down to Clifton, it's probably about a 100-foot drop. That water has to travel downward, down that slope. So it's very concerning, very concerning. I've always been concerned about this, and it seems like my worst fears are being realized. Obviously, this can't be stopped. We tried to, whatever. Every argument we presented was deemed insufficient. But I would hope that at least some of you, all of you, because you're all kind of responsible, walk on that path, look at that path, and see if you would want that path in your front yard. Take a look at it. Because it is... It's not representative of Lakewood. It's not a good job. It is a damn shame. And I don't know how much money is being spent, but I'd like to see, if it's coming down my street next, some improvements. And I'd like to see somebody with the city of Lakewood go and hold these people accountable and look at the work that's being done and sign off on it or not sign off on it. Because quite frankly, I'll bet you half of you haven't even been on that path. I bet you haven't even looked at it. Take a look at it. It's an outrage. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Councilman Bullock.

Thanks, Madam President. Just a couple of quick responses to the residents. Mr. Harbarger will keep working to be responsive to your neighborhood concerns and try to make sure the project's high quality. I have been near and on the path because I'm at the high school football field a bunch. Mr. Robach, you've been very thoughtful in lining up a lot of thoughtful arguments and evidence and support, so thank you for being here tonight. We'll have to keep working with our school partners to address the issues there. And then, ma'am, I'm forgetting your name, but on the first energy point, certainly agree. The response from the utility was that for the good of the consumer, let's not pay a fine. Maybe an alternative, and I'd certainly welcome the law department's thoughts on this, is we could pursue some kind of a financial assistance or restitution fund with the $3 million, which isn't initially allowed for in the law, but perhaps a legal plea bargain of sorts could explore that possibility. The utility may not like the word restitution, but an economic assistance, and certainly that would be a way we could fulfill their intent to express their concern for the consumers who have been put out by the power outages. So we'll see. WELL, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD WORK FROM THE MAYOR AND HER TEAM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP AFTER THIS ONE.

THANK YOU.

MR. PRESIDENT BAKER?

YES, THANK YOU, PRESIDENT KEPPEL, AND THANK YOU, MR. ROEBUCK. THE ONE THING, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THE SCHOOL BOARD IS HAVING THEIR MEETING RIGHT NOW, SO YOU TELL ME THAT THEY VOTED TO REPURPOSE LINCOLN. I'LL TRUST YOU ON THAT. YOU'RE A TRUSTWORTHY PERSON. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH FROM FOLKS ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME. I WON'T SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE THEY ALSO DEEM IT IMPORTANT. NOW THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS MADE A DECISION, OR AT LEAST VOTED A CERTAIN WAY, WHAT I CAN COMMIT TO AS A MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL IS are three things i think are relevant with what you brought up uh one is is you know when we had the safe routes school plan about four or five years ago those locations and the heat maps of where people are walking where they're going is changing that needs to be studied that requires resources number two uh is is crossing guards um i worked with the administration a couple years ago to remove the cap and the code uh on crossing guards it was the only position IN THE CITY THAT HAD A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT IT COULD BE. I DO THINK THE SCHOOL NEEDS TO PARTICIPATE IN EXPANSION OF CROSSING GUARDS IF THEY ARE GOING TO INCREASE WALKING DISTANCE. SO I THINK THERE'S CREATIVE WAYS THAT BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS APPROVED PLAN, THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, MAYOR, COUNCIL, SUPERINTENDENT, SCHOOL BOARD NEED TO WORK TOGETHER And the school needs to participate in hiring crossing guards. Because at least that's the way I'm going into the discussion. And what I have told the school board members that I've talked to that there needs to be some cost sharing there. And third is snow clearing. So right now, I know that the Public Works Department has a loose plan. We talked about during budget priorities about snow clearing around priority routes. If kids are going to be walking further distances, the school, I just got an email. LIQUID BOARD OK'S ELEMENT AND TRANSITION PLAN. SO YOU'RE RIGHT, ZACH, AS ALWAYS. SO SNOW CLEARING. THE SCHOOL NEEDS TO PARTICIPATE IN SNOW CLEARING PLANS WITH THE CITY. AND I THINK THAT ALL OF THIS COULD BE WRAPPED UP IN SOME SORT OF LIKE SAFETY SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT TALKS ABOUT HIRING OF CROSSING GUARDS, THAT TALKS ABOUT SNOW CLEARING, YOU KNOW, PROCURING THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT TO DO IT, PAYING STAFF TO DO IT, CERTAIN PRIORITY ROUTES THAT ARE INFORMED BY THAT PLANNING STUDY. BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND WE NEED TO GET TO BEFORE THIS PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NEXT SCHOOL YEAR OR THE FOLLOWING ONE, BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND AS A KID WHO GREW UP WALKING TO SCHOOL IN LAKEWOOD AND AS A PARENT OF THREE KIDS WHO, WELL, TWO OF WHICH RIGHT NOW WALK TO SCHOOL, THREE OF WHICH WILL, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. SO THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SAY AND SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES IN THE ADMINISTRATION.

Thank you. All right. That's everyone I had signed in for public comment. Did anybody else want a public comment before we move on? All right. With that, we had a motion to enter executive session. We have completed public comment, so we'll be headed back to the conference room. Thanks, folks. Appreciate it.

Sure. I'll just keep this screen up. All right.

I did it before.

Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

I think so.

All right. So we've now exited executive session. I'm going to move to refer the communication to Committee of the Whole. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. And that motion passes. We have no further business. I know you wanted to go through your calendar.

It could be like 10 seconds. Okay. So announcements from council members. Thank you. September 11th through the 13th is Rosh Hashanah. September 16th through the 23rd is Bisexual Awareness Week. September 23rd is the Celebrate Bisexuality Day and Bivisibility Day. And September 20th is Yom Kippur. Thank you. All right. Any other announcements?

No. No further business before council. Without objection, we are adjourned.