Committee of the Whole Meeting – April 24, 2026
Committee of the Whole Meeting – April 24, 2026
The Committee of the Whole convened on April 24, 2026, at approximately 3:15 PM to discuss two main agenda items: a litigation update and a proposed charter amendment regarding ward redistricting (Ordinance 19-2026). The meeting was open to the public and livestreamed. Members approved the minutes from the March 30, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting and engaged in extended deliberation on the redistricting ordinance before moving into executive session for the litigation update.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the March 30, 2026, Committee of the Whole were approved unanimously (motion by Councilmember [name not specified], seconded, no discussion, all in favor).
Discussion Items
-
Ordinance 19-2026 – Ward Redistricting Charter Amendment: The ordinance, proposed by the Charter Review Commission and introduced by President Kepple, seeks to add a new section 7.2(i) to the Lakewood Charter requiring periodic ward redistricting. The current wards were established by ordinance in 1971, and Ward 4's population is more than 10% higher than the other wards. The proposed amendment originally called for an initial redistricting in 2028 (prior to the 2028 election cycle) and then after each decennial federal census, with the Planning Commission drawing maps that must be nearly equal in population, contiguous and compact, bounded by natural boundaries or street lines. City Council would be required to adopt the Planning Commission's proposal unless it specifically finds the maps do not meet those criteria.
-
Key Deliberations:
- Timing: Councilmembers discussed whether to eliminate the initial 2028 redistricting and rely solely on post-2030 census data. President Kepple moved to strike Section 1 (initial redistricting) and adjust Section 2 accordingly. The motion passed with one abstention (Councilmember Evans) and no opposition.
- Role of Planning Commission vs. City Council: Several members (Vice President Baker, Councilmember Bixenstine, Councilmember Strebig, Councilmember Bullock) expressed concern about delegating final authority to the Planning Commission, a small volunteer body that may not be representative. Director Vargo noted that objective criteria reduce litigation risk, but subjective terms (e.g., socioeconomic diversity) could invite lawsuits. Councilmember Bullock suggested requiring all wards to border Lake Erie on the north and the city's southern boundary to preserve north-south socioeconomic diversity. Others favored keeping City Council accountable for the final decision.
- Incumbent Ward Council Members: Councilmembers Bixenstine and Strebig raised the possibility that an incumbent could be drawn out of their ward, which would be unfair to voters who elected them. No specific protective language was adopted, but the concern was noted.
- Decision Pathway: President Kepple proposed a compromise similar to the Civil Service Commission's salary recommendation process: the Planning Commission would propose a redistricting map, and it would take effect unless City Council votes to amend it (with amendments still required to meet the objective criteria). Councilmembers generally supported this direction.
-
Outcome: The ordinance was held in committee for further refinement. The law department was asked to help draft substitute language reflecting the new compromise. Other charter amendment ordinances were deferred to a future Committee of the Whole meeting.
Key Outcomes
- Approved Amendment: Council voted to eliminate the initial 2028 redistricting, so the process will commence after the 2030 census (motion carried, one abstention).
- Future Action: Council directed staff to prepare a substitute version of Ordinance 19-2026 that incorporates a mechanism where the Planning Commission's redistricting plan takes effect unless City Council affirmatively adopts an alternative (still meeting the same objective criteria).
- Executive Session: The meeting proceeded into executive session to discuss pending and imminent litigation with the law department. The public portion of the meeting concluded at that point.
Meeting Transcript
All right, we'll call committee of the whole to order. Um I think Councilmember Brook won't be joining us, or he'll be late. Late. Okay, yes. Yeah, child has a special event. We have too many high excelling council kids uh these days. They're also getting recognized at school board meetings, so um but it's a good problem to have. All right, so first I will move to approve the minutes of the March 30th committee of the whole. So moved. Motions are made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. And that motion passes. Okay, so we have two um main items on the agenda for tonight. The first is uh we have the litigation update uh about regarding pending litigation, and then we also have um the charter amendment related to redistricting. So uh and we thought probably the litigation update might be about a half an hour, do we think would be sufficient? And and that's with time for questions. Yeah, okay. So maybe what we'll do is um why don't we do the charter first and then we'll just save a half an hour at the end for that. So um so this to refresh everybody's memory, this is ordinance 192026. So this is the one regarding redistricting. I'm establishing a redistricting process for the wards, uh, the four wards. And the charter currently um in law department, correct me if I'm wrong, but when I reviewed the charter, it just says that there shall be four ward council members, but it doesn't say how the wards are drawn, and they're currently drawn by just ordinance. You're correct. Okay. So thank you. All right, so um so the charter review commission recommended that there be a process. I think this is particularly relevant right now given the recent Supreme Court decision um further challenge upsetting the voting rights act, diminishing it in section two, um, and allowing for more gerrymandering and congressional districting, redistricting. So important that uh even though I don't think, as I've said before, anyone currently on council would attempt to do that. Um we want to have things established in charter, uh which is essentially our constitution, so that we're not relying on norms and um people's personal ethics, and it's instead enshrined in law, in my opinion. So um, and that was the charter reviews commission uh opinion as well. So the way this is currently written, um the ordinance, and we we had some uh preliminary discussion about this. Uh the way the Charter Review Commission suggested that we do this is um the adoption of the charter, at least a hundred days prior to the filing date of nominating petitions for the terms beginning in January 28. That they had the planning commission reviewing and making appropriate rediffions, and then again and beginning um after the census in January 2030, um once the Secretary of State um proclaims the population of cities, then the planning commission shall review and make uh appropriate redivisions of the city into four wards, and then it sets out some uh ways in which those should be drawn, some um parameters that they need to be nearly equal in population, composed of contiguous and compact territory bounded by natural boundaries or street lines, and then that city council shall adopt and enact the divisions proposed by the planning commission unless council specifically finds that such redivisions are not contiguous or compact or bounded by natural boundaries or street lines. Um and then those would go into place for the next regular municipal election. So we had some conversation last time. Um it seemed like most folks were in agreement that it's good to have a process. Uh there was just some um folks want to do some thinking about this specific processes laid out and any potential changes that you'd like to see. Vice President Baker. Yes, and I I I think um the the process, and and by the way, we could do this with an ordinance as well, like tomorrow. Um but but I I I think that I I think the wisdom of the charter review commission is is really good here. My concern is a little bit process-wise now, digging back into this is um we would essentially have a war boundary for like two years and then it would re-trigger again to do it again in like two or three years. So the intention for it to be every ten years. So I'm just curious as to my colleagues' opinion on that. Technically, it looks like it would be like next year would be a redistricting year, I guess, uh under this charter's prescriptive language. And then after we got the census data, which typically comes in, I think like at the end of 2030. Then we would do it again for the elections held, and our elections are typically held in odd number of years. So I guess 2031.
openpublica.com