OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Lakewood Case Advisory Board Meeting - June 3, 2026: Rules and Shared Use Path Code Amendments

Boards and CommissionsWednesday, June 3, 2026
BodyLakewood, Ohio
SessionBoards and Commissions
DateWednesday, June 3, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:56:08

Transcript — Verbatim
0:01

All right.

0:02

Well, this is uh the case advisory board meeting, call to order at 6.04 p.m.

0:10

Uh.

0:11

Do we have a roll call?

0:15

Uh Ms.

0:16

Limberg?

0:18

Mr.

0:18

Minerholzer?

0:20

Mr.

0:20

George.

0:22

Uh Mr.

0:22

McCourt?

0:23

Ms.

0:24

Greenberg?

0:24

Here.

0:25

Mr.

0:25

McDermott.

0:26

Here.

0:26

Mr.

0:26

Robinson.

0:28

I do know, uh, Madam Chair, that Councilman Baker is going to be absent tonight, as well as uh Mark Walter from the school district.

0:38

But uh we do have uh Mr.

0:40

Wayner here.

0:43

And in the place of Sergeant Acklin, you go ahead and state your name, Sergeant.

0:47

I'm sorry.

0:48

Sergeant will vote.

0:48

Okay.

0:49

And in the place of Chris Gordon, we have Nick Finati is here for public works.

0:54

So next uh approval of minutes of the Tuesday, February 24th meeting.

1:04

Uh do we have any comments or changes that we need to make to the minutes?

1:10

Uh I have two requested corrections to the 24 meeting minutes.

1:15

Uh the first one is where the meaning where the minutes read discussed the definition of mobility device and recommended and recommended adding non-assisted to the defend definition.

1:26

Um my recollection is that I was pointing out that the existing code already excludes assistive devices used by people with disabilities from the definition from the definition of mobility device rather than recommending additional language.

1:43

And then the second is to clarify the summary of my comments regarding device restrictions.

1:50

Uh the minutes state that I do not recommend prohibiting prohibiting any device, and that restricting e-bikes scooters would not make sense.

2:01

My comments were specifically in reference to mobility devices, such as e-bikes and e-scooters, not any device, which could be interpreted more broadly than I intended.

2:11

Additionally, my comment that restricting e-bikes and e-scooters does not make sense was specifically in reference to the proposal uh to prohibit mobility devices only for individuals 18 and older.

2:25

So I request that the minutes be amended to more accurately reflect those comments before approval.

2:35

Those are the same two that you sent to carry via email.

2:39

Okay.

2:39

Yeah, we typically don't amend the minutes until after the meeting, so I can I can make those amendments if they're so moved and approved by the board.

2:48

Okay, is there any other uh requests or changes to the minutes of February 24th meeting?

2:55

Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes with changes?

3:02

Second?

3:02

I second.

3:03

All in favor?

3:05

Aye.

3:07

Abstain since those absent.

3:09

Yes.

3:09

If you weren't at the meeting, then you would not vote.

3:13

Um okay, and the next uh item for oh, opening remarks.

3:19

Did you have some opening remarks, Dave?

3:21

So I just uh say welcome everyone to our uh third meeting.

3:25

It's really the meeting for the uh second quarter.

3:28

Um two items for consideration tonight.

3:31

Um as we're still kind of getting underway as a board.

3:35

Um the first one we do need to discuss the board rules and regulations.

3:40

Um if you feel comfortable with those moving forward um to get those approved and get them in place.

3:45

The one item that does need to be completed is the meeting time.

3:50

Uh day time, the time frame of the meeting.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Transportation Safety████████████████████████████████32%
Active Transportation████████████████████████24%
Public Safety███████████████15%
Procedural██████████████14%
Public Engagement██████6%
Disability Rights█████5%
Technology and Innovation████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Lakewood Case Advisory Board Meeting - June 3, 2026: Rules and Shared Use Path Code Amendments

The Case Advisory Board held its third meeting (second quarter) on June 3, 2026, at 6:04 p.m. The meeting focused on finalizing board rules and regulations and discussing proposed amendments to the shared use path code, including definitions for mobility devices, e-bikes, and e-motos. Public comment was heard on the code amendments. The board deferred final decisions on both items to the next meeting.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the minutes of the February 24, 2026 meeting with two corrections: (1) clarifying that existing code already excludes assistive devices from the definition of mobility device (not recommending additional language), and (2) specifying that comments about not prohibiting devices were in reference to e-bikes and e-scooters, not all devices. The amendment was approved by voice vote with abstentions from those absent.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Robbie Organ (14513 Bayes): Recommended adopting ORC’s three-class e-bike system to allow class one e-bikes on shared use paths while banning class two/three and e-motos. Opposed weight limits (e.g., 100 lbs) as they would exclude cargo bikes. Supported separating infrastructure definitions (bike lanes vs. paths). Also noted that 10 a.m. Tuesday meetings limit public attendance.
  • Cassie Organ (14513 Bayes): Echoed weight limit concerns, citing her class one cargo bike. Urged not classifying park paths as sidewalks because there is no alternative route. Pointed out that a proposed definition (Section 373.101) would ban adults from operating mobility devices on bikeways, which is confusing.
  • Molnaro (14200 Leroy Avenue): Supported streamlining e-bike use on multi-use paths and emphasized that children should also be subject to rules for safety.

Discussion Items

  • Board Rules & Regulations: Members discussed amendments to the draft rules. Key points: (1) Changing “chairman” to “chairperson” in the charter; (2) Adjusting the 14.5-day agenda deadline to allow flexibility for adding items closer to meetings; (3) Allowing the chair or a majority to set special meetings and subcommittees. The board agreed to have Mr. McCourt submit proposed language and to bring a revised version to the next meeting. The regular meeting time was set to the first Tuesday of each quarter at 10 a.m., with flexibility for holidays.
  • Shared Use Path Code Amendments: Director Boss presented a detailed overview of needed definitions. Topics included:
    • Mobility device vs. low-speed micromobility device: The board leaned toward adopting the ORC low-speed micromobility device definition (with a qualifying statement including but not limited to e-unicycles and e-skateboards), and clarifying that it excludes assisted devices for persons with disabilities (preferring “person with a disability” language).
    • E-bike definitions: Debate centered on whether to adopt ORC’s three-class system (class 1,2,3) or a single blanket definition. Some members argued class 3 should be prohibited on shared use paths due to speed (28 mph), while others favored regulating operator behavior (speed limits) rather than device classes. The board did not reach consensus and will continue discussion.
    • E-moto definition: General support for creating a local definition for devices exceeding 750 watts or 28 mph (e-motorcycles/dirt bikes) to enable enforcement and licensing requirements.
    • Infrastructure definitions: Discussion of “bikeway,” “shared use path,” and “bike lane.” The board considered distinguishing between park paths (narrow, non-delineated) and transportation-oriented shared use paths (10-11 ft wide, delineated). The timeline for new paths (Metro Parks connector, Lake-Clifton, Bunts) extends to 2027, so no immediate urgency.

Key Outcomes

  • Minutes: Approved with corrections.
  • Rules & Regulations: Deferred to next meeting; Mr. McCourt to propose language for special meetings and subcommittees; regular meeting time set to first Tuesday of quarter at 10 a.m.
  • Shared Use Path Code Amendments: Deferred to next meeting. The board will continue to refine definitions for mobility devices, e-bikes, and e-motos, and consider input from public comments. No votes were taken on the amendments.

Meeting Transcript

All right. Well, this is uh the case advisory board meeting, call to order at 6.04 p.m. Uh. Do we have a roll call? Uh Ms. Limberg? Mr. Minerholzer? Mr. George. Uh Mr. McCourt? Ms. Greenberg? Here. Mr. McDermott. Here. Mr. Robinson. I do know, uh, Madam Chair, that Councilman Baker is going to be absent tonight, as well as uh Mark Walter from the school district. But uh we do have uh Mr. Wayner here. And in the place of Sergeant Acklin, you go ahead and state your name, Sergeant. I'm sorry. Sergeant will vote. Okay. And in the place of Chris Gordon, we have Nick Finati is here for public works. So next uh approval of minutes of the Tuesday, February 24th meeting. Uh do we have any comments or changes that we need to make to the minutes? Uh I have two requested corrections to the 24 meeting minutes. Uh the first one is where the meaning where the minutes read discussed the definition of mobility device and recommended and recommended adding non-assisted to the defend definition. Um my recollection is that I was pointing out that the existing code already excludes assistive devices used by people with disabilities from the definition from the definition of mobility device rather than recommending additional language. And then the second is to clarify the summary of my comments regarding device restrictions. Uh the minutes state that I do not recommend prohibiting prohibiting any device, and that restricting e-bikes scooters would not make sense. My comments were specifically in reference to mobility devices, such as e-bikes and e-scooters, not any device, which could be interpreted more broadly than I intended. Additionally, my comment that restricting e-bikes and e-scooters does not make sense was specifically in reference to the proposal uh to prohibit mobility devices only for individuals 18 and older. So I request that the minutes be amended to more accurately reflect those comments before approval. Those are the same two that you sent to carry via email. Okay. Yeah, we typically don't amend the minutes until after the meeting, so I can I can make those amendments if they're so moved and approved by the board. Okay, is there any other uh requests or changes to the minutes of February 24th meeting? Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes with changes? Second? I second. All in favor? Aye. Abstain since those absent. Yes. If you weren't at the meeting, then you would not vote.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com