Lakewood City Board of Education Meeting - September 1, 2026
Lakewood City Board of Education Meeting - September 1, 2026
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 PM. The board approved the minutes from the previous meeting. Chairperson provided opening remarks, including a plan for a special virtual meeting to discuss board rules and regulations, and confirmed that members Emily and John are willing to continue their terms beyond December 2026, which will require reappointment by the appointing authorities. The board then received a presentation on the Shared Use Path Code Amendments and the Traffic Calming Program review. Public comments were heard on disability access and school redistricting.
Consent Calendar
- The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Jim (address not stated) raised concerns about the language in the code regarding mobility devices, noting that the term "not a mobility device" is confusing for people with disabilities. He asked for clearer communication that assisted mobility devices are allowed on sidewalks. The board agreed to schedule a future discussion on this topic.
- Caitlin McCrady (Cook Avenue, Ward 2) spoke as a resident and transportation professional. She urged the board to recommend that the city formally request a joint city‑district transportation and safety review before the school district's consolidation plans take effect, warning that the changes would push more children across high‑stress corridors like Clifton, contradicting the Active Transportation Plan's goals.
Discussion Items
-
Shared Use Path Code Amendments (Referral): Dave Voss presented the proposed amendments to the city code, focusing on definitions (e‑bikes, e‑motos, low‑speed micromobility devices) and operational rules for bicycles, e‑bikes, and e‑motos on sidewalks, bikeways, and shared‑use paths. Key points included:
- Adding a definition for "e‑moto" (local definition for vehicles exceeding e‑bike criteria).
- Aligning e‑bike definitions with Ohio Revised Code (three classes).
- Removing the 12 mph speed limit for e‑scooters from the reckless operation section.
- Allowing e‑bikes and low‑speed micromobility devices on sidewalks under the same rules as bicycles.
- Prohibiting e‑motos (and motorized bicycles) from sidewalks, bikeways, and shared‑use paths.
- Adding an age restriction for riding on bikeways/shared‑use paths: under 10 requires an adult.
- Board discussion focused on the minimum age for e‑motos. Some members advocated for 16, others for 18, citing safety and lack of state licensing. The state requires age 16 for class‑3 e‑bikes.
-
Traffic Calming Program Review: Dave Voss presented an overview of the current neighborhood traffic calming program, including:
- The program is resident‑driven: nominations, data collection (three thresholds: average daily traffic ≥600, 85th percentile speed ≥30 mph, ≥5% of traffic >35 mph), resident surveys, block meetings, and two votes (50% support to proceed, 60% for final installation).
- Speed tables are the preferred intervention due to low cost, effectiveness, and ease of repair.
- Challenges include long data‑collection times (44 blocks under study) and re‑nominations.
- Discussion included concerns about speed tables for residents with disabilities (spinal issues), the use of radar signs, and the potential for traffic to divert to adjacent streets after calming measures. Some members suggested lowering the 85th percentile threshold to better reflect the 25 mph speed limit. Councilman Baker noted council is considering whether to codify the program and how to handle streets that are emergency routes.
-
Jeff's Comments on School District Consolidation: Jeff informed the board that the Lakewood City School District Board of Education is moving to approve a plan to consolidate and reconfigure school facilities, resulting in over 800 pre‑K to 5 students being relocated. He highlighted impacts on walking and biking patterns, with many additional children walking over a mile and increased traffic concentration, especially along Lincoln, Lakeland, Summit, and Clifton. He asked the board to consider recommending that the city collaborate with the school district to study these changes against the Active Transportation Plan.
Key Outcomes
- The board unanimously (7‑0, with one member excused) approved adding the state age‑16 requirement for class‑3 e‑bikes to the code.
- On the e‑moto age requirement, the board split: 5 members supported age 16, 2 members supported age 18. The recommendation to council will note the disagreement.
- The board will continue the traffic calming discussion at its next meeting and may provide additional recommendations.
- Jeff's comments on school consolidation were noted; the board did not take a formal vote but expressed interest in further discussion at a future meeting.
- The board agreed to schedule a special virtual meeting to discuss board rules and regulations.
Meeting Transcript
This meeting to order and uh the first item we are going to be doing the minutes approval. Um has everybody had a chance to review the minutes? Are there any changes to the minutes proposed? Comments okay. Anyone motion to approve minutes? Second. Second. All in favor? I think that the minutes are approved. Um I wanted to make some opening remarks as well. Um so uh in regards to time today and uh our discussion, I would like to um we're gonna have some information presented uh by Mr. Voss. And so uh I'd like to limit uh during that time the questions to just questions and not too much deliberation, and then after each uh item we'll come back and have a little bit of deliberation based on the information that we received. Um also wanted to uh just comment about how we reconfigured the room because uh I feel as though we haven't had enough discussion amongst board members between each other. Uh so I want to definitely um pursue more of that happening. Um and in regards to that um I'm planning to call for a special meeting between now and the next meeting, which will be taking place in the evening virtually uh with no other agenda items other than a discussion amongst board members about our rules and regulations, so that we can hear from everybody on uh your feedback about what we have here, how we'd like to do business, how everybody feels about how we've been doing business, uh just to make sure that everybody is happy and getting their voice heard. Um also uh we have two members whose uh terms are coming up for uh renewal if you want to stay with the board. Uh Emily and John are both up for uh their terms uh um in December. So uh we'd like to check with you right now to see if you're interested in continuing. And if you are, we will reach out to your uh your a board member or your committee members who appointed you and uh have you reappointed. Um and if you're not then we can seek another member so that we uh can keep that keep the board going productively. Uh so with that I wanted to ask Emily, are you um are you interested in available to continue after December? I am okay and same John? Yes. Okay. Uh so I would ask uh Mr. Vass to please check in with the city council members and mayor who appointed them uh to have that reappointment. And as far as the uh next item, which is the discussion of the rules and regulations, we'll take brief comments. However, we are again gonna try to create a uh virtual meeting in the evening between now and the next uh regular meeting to have a more extended discussion with that. So if anything has if anybody has anything to say about the rules and regulations at this time, now is your time. Okay. So we'll move on to the next uh item, which is the referrals uh to the board and the shared uh use path code amendments. And um so I'll send it over to Dave. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. So for the members of the board, what I've done uh I sent out uh prior to the meeting just the based on the last couple meetings that we discussed these code amendments, uh all the notes, everything that we worked through last time in terms of the definitions and then what I pulled from the discussion on kind of the I'll say the operating regulations from Chapter 373. And so what I've got in the slides here is a it's basically a summary that I'm gonna walk through. Uh uh I'll try to make it timely. Um I did put some hard copies in front of you, and I've got a couple more in case you want to look at the specific changes that I made. Um projectors are always kind of hard to see. From the definitions chapter, based on discussion from the board, I added so the motorized bicycle definition, which is a moped, didn't really change except it based on board recommendation or discussion, I added it does not include e-bike and a now low speed micromobility device to differentiate that further. Based on what I heard in discussion and kind of the intent, and you can the board can correct me, we can go in a different direction. I added a definition for what I'm calling an e-moto. That is there is no state definition for an electric motorcycle or anything above what is classified as an e-bike. An e-moto is just one of the terms that I've heard multiple times. And so it is a this is a local definition that for basically a vehicle that exceeds the definition of an electric bicycle or a low-speed micromobility device. And so that is something that I definition is in 301, the specific definition, but it's it's something that basically has an engine or a motor that exceeds 750 watts and is not and basically provides assistance uh beyond 28 miles an hour. Um so that's what that's what differentiates it from an e-bike. Um I I think I I intentionally kept the definition in terms of what the device is. You know, it may or may not have pedals, it has handles, like because there's a lot of different versions of those things.
openpublica.com