mincow 01-26-26

1 MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JANUARY 26, 2026 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Present: Councilmembers Baker, Bullock, Bixenstine, Kepple, Strebig, Steiner, Evans Also Present: Mayor Meghan George, Chief of Staff John Storey, Finance Director Mahoney, Law Director Vargo, Jeffrey Rink of Key Bank and Catherine Swartz of Bricker Graydon, Dru Siley and Tom Kuluris of Liberty Development, Council staff Call to Order: 6:04 p.m. Approval of the minutes of the January 20, 2026 Committee of the Whole. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2026 Committee of the Whole. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. Minutes approved. Presentation by Jeffrey Rink & Catherine Swartz ( Bond Counsel) regarding Ord. 33-2025B, Ord. 06-2026, Ord. 07-2026, Ord. 08-2026, Ord. 09-2026, Ord. 10-2026, Ord. 11 -2026, Ord. 12-2026, Ord. 13-2026, Ord. 14-2026 Jeff Rink (Managing Director, Key Bank) introduced himself and Catherine Swartz ( Bond Counsel, Bricker Graydon). He said they are here to discuss the City’ s Finance Plan for 2026 which consists of a number of legislative items around note issuances as well as bonds. He said they will explain why the legislation includes both, and the goals of each tool. He said they will also get into the details of the City’ s capital plan and debt plan. He also talked about the benefit of the City’ s strong credit rating. Mr. Rink explained that his role at Key Bank is to sell the debt that the City ultimately issues, and Ms. Swartz’ s role is to draft the related legislative documents. He then reviewed the City’ s debt profile, referencing pages 5 and 7 of the presentation. He stressed that the City’s overall debt service is coming down every year because older debt falls off the books each year and the City has property tax mileage dedicated to debt service. In response to questions from Councilmember Bullock, Mr. Rink confirmed that debt service refers to principal and interest. Mr. Rink also reiterated that the reason the debt is going down is due to old debt coming off the books or some decrease in an existing bond issue. Ms. Swartz explained that when the City is expecting grants to help fund a project, they keep the project in BANS ( bond anticipation notes) until the grant money is received. Mr. Rink then reviewed the collective total of debt for 2026 ( pg. 9) which he explained adds up to $59,740,000. He said of the $59 million the City has already borrowed, $ 32 million of that was for projects that were completed in 2024 and 2025. He then reviewed the strategy that they typically use to structure the funding between new money and existing borrowing. He said that the proposal tonight is to add $27 million of new money projects which are listed on page 10. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

2 He said that it is up to Council whether it wants to approve the legislation as proposed, but that the analysis demonstrates that the City has the capacity to borrow this amount. In response to questions from Councilmember Bullock, Mr. Rink explained that the bond they are going to talk about is not eligible to be refinanced until September so they have to sell a short- term note for now because they cannot issue the refunding bond at this time. Ms. Swartz also clarified that there is no requirement that you have to complete a capital project before it goes to bond, but that is the practice the City has historically followed. Mr. Rink and Ms. Swartz also confirmed that the highest possible number to go to bond is $32,695,000 but it could come in less, or they could opt to wait if the bond market rates are not favorable come September. Mr. Rink went on to review the 2026 Financing Plan. He explained that the 2016 bond is eligible to be refinanced come September, and if market rates stay favorable the City can expect to save 55,000- $ 60,000 a year over the next ten years of that bond. In response to a question from Vice President Baker, Mr. Rink confirmed that the 2016 bonds are general obligation bonds but that doesn’ t mean some of the projects don’ t have a dedicated revenue source. Ms. Swartz added that prior to 2016 the City did not have the capacity to issue a general obligation bond. Mr. Rink emphasized that the City is able to get the best interest rate by issuing general obligation bonds. In response to questions from Councilmember Bullock, Ms. Swartz explained that legally they could close the 2016 bond on or around September 3rd. Mr. Rink added that because the City is eligible for the tax-exempt bond market, investors will take a lower interest rate, and the municipal bond market is not directly linked to the prime rate. He suggested a better proxy would be the 10-year treasury rate. Ms. Swartz also discussed the various coupon rates of the 2016 bonds. Mr. Rink then reviewed the new projects being proposed for 2026 and the funds where the projects are being paid from (pg.12). Ms. Swartz reviewed the debt limit calculations for the City. She said the bottom line for the direct debt limit calculation is that the City has plenty of capacity. She then discussed the indirect debt limitation calculation which she said is more complicated, but they estimate that number to be $61 million. In response to a request from Vice President Baker, Ms. Swartz reviewed each line of the indirect debt calculation ( pg. 16). There was additional discussion between Vice President Baker and the Bond Counsel around this calculation and the implications. Mr. Rink said that ultimately if the City were to approve the bond legislation as currently proposed, under this calculation the City would still have capacity to borrow another $ 61 million under state law. In response to questions from Councilmember Bullock, Ms. Swartz explained that inside mileage and indirect debt are related but not the same. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

3 In response to a question from President Kepple, Ms. Swartz said that the indirect debt calculation will change every year based on the new money each year. In response to additional questions from President Kepple, Mr. Rink responded that there isn’t really a “ best practice” for debt limits because each City is so different in terms of how they pay for their debt. He said they tailor their recommendations specific to the City and their forecasts. Mr. Rink also explained that you can use property tax funds to pay for water and sewer projects, but you cannot use water and sewer revenues to pay for general improvements. In response to a question from Vice President Baker, Mr. Rink said that Lakewood is unique because it was well planned when the Charter was drafted to dedicate revenue sources towards capital debt, knowing that the community would have to make continual updates to serving a diverse and growing population. Mr. Rink then briefly reviewed the proposed timeline for the 2026 bond series ( pg. 17). Mr. Rink transitioned to the topic of Lakewood’ s credit rating (pgs. 19-20). He stated that Moody’ s has historically rated Lakewood’ s debt. Lakewood’ s current credit rating of Aa2 was reaffirmed by Moody’ s last year. He noted that this is a strong rating that is just above the national average for U.S. cities. Mr. Rink described factors that contribute to Lakewood’ s strong credit rating, such as its healthy economy and revenue growth. He pointed to the good guidance of Lakewood’ s policymakers and administration as significant factors in maintaining the Aa2 credit rating. Mr. Rink also noted the positive growth trend of income tax as a revenue source for Lakewood. Mr. Rink delved further into the topic of Lakewood’ s revenue sources and explained the purpose, amounts and types of millage collected by the city (pgs. 21-23). He pointed out that Debt Service is classified as Inside Millage, while the Current Expense, Sewer, Fire Pension and Police Pension are considered Charter Millage. Mr. Rink spoke about the General Fund, explaining that there has been growth in the property taxes that fund general operations. He referred to an earlier point in the presentation during which he explained that the City’ s principal and interest were going down over time and stated that income is the other side of the equation. He asserted that Lakewood has the funds to complete maintenance projects and spoke about how the bond retirement fund is the source of growing general capital for the City. Mr. Rink stated that both the decrease in debt and the increase in revenue are taken into consideration when evaluating new borrowing for the City in order to ensure the City has the revenue to pay the debt. Vice President Baker and Dir. Mahoney briefly discussed the usage of the Bond Retirement Fund, which is required by the City’ s Charter to be used for debt. Dir. Mahoney added that City also has a $3.5 million millage source for paying sewer debt. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

4 In response to a question from Councilmember Bullock, Dir. Mahoney stated that the debt service is required to go toward paying debt, while the sewer millage can, but does not always, go toward specific sewer- related debt. In response to a follow-up question from Councilmember Bullock, Mr. Rink stated that the total amount paid toward debt in 2026 will be between $ 8.6M and $8.7M. He added that in 2027 that total will drop to $8.3M. Councilmember Bullock pointed out that when including the cost of financing notes, the total debt paid in 2026 would be $9.7M. Councilmember Bullock and Dir. Mahoney discussed the process of transferring cash to pay for small projects rather than using debt. Mr. Rink added that this practice is often financially beneficial. Councilmember Bullock pointed out that as the valuation of Lakewood homes has doubled in the past ten years, the City’ s millage and collections have gone up and residents are feeling the effects of that increase. He advocated careful consideration of how that money is spent, emphasizing the need to be conscientious of the ways that increases in property taxes and property valuations impact residents. In response to a question from President Kepple regarding concerns about potential legislation to repeal property taxes in regard to credit ratings and debt, Dir. Mahoney affirmed that the effect would be devastating. Mr. Rink stated that this effect would be felt by all cities throughout Ohio. He spoke about the dramatic impacts that such legislation would have on communities and school districts and emphasized the importance of educating residents on this important issue. President Kepple acknowledged that it is important to keep this possibility in mind when considering taking on new debt. Dir. Mahoney spoke briefly about the perceptions around property taxes and noted if property taxes were abolished, another tax would always take its place. President Kepple noted that a sales tax would be more regressive than property tax in that scenario. Councilmember Hamilton Steiner acknowledged the sentiment driving those residents who support legislation to abolish property taxes, acknowledging their frustrations and struggles with affordability. She emphasized the need to ensure that taxpayers see the value in the way their taxes are used. She stated that it is Council’ s responsibility to be aware of this as they make decisions about how to spend taxpayers’ money. President Kepple and Dir. Mahoney spoke briefly about the best practices for managing the debt load as it relates to upcoming projects in 2027 and 2028. Ms. Swartz noted that spending projections are always reviewed in the fall for fine tuning. Mr. Rink acknowledged Councilmember Hamilton Steiner’ s point regarding taxpayers’ concerns. He stated that while the City has the money to fund certain projects, that fiscal responsibility is important to keep in mind. He offered his assistance in educating community members on these important issues. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

5 Communication from President Kepple regarding City Hall Space Due Diligence Update ( referred to COW 10/20/25) Communication from President Kepple regarding City Hall Space Considerations Amended Schedule ( referred to COW 01/05/26) At the invitation of President Kepple, Chief of Staff John Storey introduced the Mayor’ s proposal for City Hall facilities. He framed the discussion, noting that the issues of space at City Hall have been contemplated over many decades by a variety of mayors and councilmembers. The Administration’ s goal is to work with Council to develop a project that is both fiscally responsible and that serves Lakewood residents for generations to come. Chief Storey outlined the goals and drivers of the proposal to relocate administrative offices to 1470 Warren Rd. He argued that the location would provide a superior customer service experience for residents by consolidating customer- facing departments and increasing efficiency. He noted that 1470 Warren is a more central location than the existing City Hall and therefore could potentially serve more transit users and pedestrians. Chief Storey noted that providing equitable employee facilities is another important driver of the project, noting that this was one of the first and most important considerations that has shaped this discussion. He emphasized that the City’ s public safety forces and court have specific needs that are not being met by existing facilities. He stated that providing updated facilities and workspace are important for attracting and retaining the City’ s public safety workforce. Chief Storey noted that even the best ideas are unworkable if they don’ t make fiscal sense. He pointed to the presentation by bond counsel as evidence that the project is fiscally responsible. He emphasized the need for action and suggested that Council was “ kicking the can down the road.” Chief Storey briefly addressed the alternative proposal to build an addition onto the existing City Hall, concluding that such an addition would bring massive complications from the Administration’ s point of view. He spoke about the challenges of maintaining daily operations and public safety communications in the midst of a large construction project. He also asserted that moving to Warren would offer quicker relief to the police department. Chief Storey reiterated the challenges faced by court and public safety forces on a daily basis and displayed a chart comparing Lakewood Police Department’ s number of square feet per officer to that of its neighboring communities. He noted that neighboring communities have recently invested in their public safety facilities and that Lakewood is seeking to do the same. Chief Storey concluded by framing the purchase of 1470 Warren as a once in a generation opportunity and re-emphasized the space’ s potential for flexibility, growth, improved customer service, and accessibility in his opinion. He added that moving toward a dual justice center/ City Hall model is aligned with best practices, according to a survey performed by the Administration. Finally, he argued that repurposing one of the City’ s most historic buildings aligns with the City’ s identity and strengths. He expressed conviction that the proposal to purchase 1470 Warren is in the best interests of the City and its residents, in the view of the Administration Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

6 Dru Siley of Liberty Development expressed Liberty Development’ s commitment to the process and thanked Council for considering the proposal. He expressed confidence that Liberty can deliver a high-quality product and offer a transparent process whereby Liberty shares its qualifications and estimates with Council. Mr. Siley set expectations for next week’ s committee meeting whereby Liberty’ s project team will be present to walk through estimates, assumptions, and design. He stated that Liberty will offer suggestions for how the City can protect itself through this deal and that the City will be under no obligation to purchase the building if Liberty fails to deliver what is agreed upon. He pointed to the building next door to 1470 Warren as evidence of Liberty’ s attention to detail, quality, and commitment to historic preservation. Tom Kuluris, CEO of Liberty Development spoke about the project from the perspective of a resident, stating that this project is a top priority for him. He pointed to other projects he has completed in Lakewood and shared his proactive approach to collaboration and problem- solving. Noting that Councilmembers continue to lack specifics on the proposal, President Kepple asked for further information about what will be presented at next week’ s Committee of the Whole. Chief Storey responded that today’ s presentation focused on the justification for the proposal and that the Administration and Liberty will provide additional details at next week’ s meeting. Mr. Siley added that his team will be prepared next week to discuss design, floor plans, workflows and to tie that information into cost details. President Kepple maintained that Council and the Administration are largely on the same page regarding the justification for the project and that both parties agree that City Hall has space constraints that need to be resolved. She identified the next step as having a discussion about the process including the legal implications, bidding, project delivery methods and more. Vice President Baker questioned whether or not the Administration has had a facilities assessment or an appraisal performed and whether there is an architect under contract who can look more closely at the building and its plans. Chief Storey responded that Liberty’ s architects have been looking at the building for awhile. He stated that the project gained momentum following the analysis provided by Weber, Murphy, Fox WMF) and Project Management Consultants ( PMC). Following that analysis and presentation, Liberty approached the City with a proposal to deliver the project for lower than the estimates provided by WMF and PMC. He urged forward momentum on the project so that Liberty does not walk away. Mr. Siley added that Liberty intends to provide many documents to Council including measured drawing, asbestos surveys, environmental assessments and a structural analysis. He noted that his team is comfortable with a variety of project delivery methods and that Liberty is committed to delivering what the City is asking for in a timely, efficient manner. Through discussion it was clarified that Liberty responded to an RFQ put out by the City in summer 2025. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

7 Vice President Baker voiced concerns with what he identified as an imbalance of information between the City and Liberty. He noted the tight timeline for decision- making and the general lack of information that has yet to be provided to Council. He asked to see a draft development agreement, assuming that it is in process. Mayor George responded that Liberty and the Administration are waiting for a signal from Council that it would like to move forward with the plan before crafting a development agreement. Regarding the documents that Liberty committed to sharing, Vice President Baker cautioned that when purchasing any property, the buyer should have assessments, reports, and appraisals performed by their own contracted entities rather than relying on the seller’ s information. He explained that in a project analysis like the one performed by PMC and WMF, unknowns and assumptions are equivalent to dollars and so, it is unsurprising that Liberty feels confident it can deliver a product for less, because they have less unknowns and fewer assumptions. He expressed concern that this will be used as justification to forego a public bidding process and asked for more information to allay these concerns. While he acknowledged that the City needs additional police space, he questioned whether it needs additional general office space that will be provided by the purchase of 1470 Warren. He concluded by stating that he currently does not have enough information to make a vote on this decision and requested that the Administration come prepared with a rubric about what a development agreement would look like. Councilmember Hamilton Steiner questioned the rationale for the purchase of 1470 Warren Rd and how the Administration arrived at its conclusion to purchase the building over other options. She questioned whether this plan would provide the optimal customer service experience and best serve residents, as stated by the Administration. She noted the general lack of public engagement on the issue, observing that residents reach out to her about snow removal, sidewalk conditions, healthcare, and economic insecurity but not about City Hall facilities. Speaking to the issue of employee attraction and retention, Councilmember Hamilton Steiner asked about the City’ s policies on flexible schedules and work-from-home arrangements, noting that flexibility can help with employee retention and free up office space rather than expanding the City’ s footprint. She asked Council and the Mayor’ s team to envision what success looks like at the end of a renovation and/or purchase of a new building before making a decision. Councilmember Strebig expressed appreciation for the conversation and asked for follow-up information that shows the square footage per employee per department now, and what the square footage would be under the proposal to move to Warren Rd. Councilmember Evans expressed concern with how far the process has proceeded with only one option being seriously considered by the Administration. He stated that his priority is to help find additional space for police and that this would not immediately do so. Mayor George responded that if the City purchased Warren Rd. the Planning Dept. staff would immediately vacate to a new location so that the Police could start building into their space. She stated that an addition would prolong the process of finding new space for officers. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

8 She encouraged Councilmembers to send additional questions via email to her and her team. President Kepple articulated several questions about the capital outlay and the spending regarding multiple aspects of the proposed project. These included maintenance of the current City Hall building, a renovation and addition to the proposed Justice Center, renovation of the current Building Department offices, as well as the renovation of the Warren Rd. building. She inquired about how financing would work in the future if the decision were not made by the Feb. 17th meeting, at which the bond legislation is scheduled to be adopted. Mayor George stated that the dollar figure referenced in an earlier email included both the renovations to the current City Hall building as well as the renovations to the Warren Rd. building. Vice President Baker stated that many decision points can affect a budget by 30% up or down. Mr. Siley responded that the delivery model proposed by Liberty would be a fixed price, meaning that Liberty would incur the risk if the cost were miscalculated. He explained that the cost to the City will be incurred upon delivery of the project, and that in the meantime the City would be able to anticipate spending on additional projects. Councilmember Bullock noted that while the presentation listed 130 employees in the Police Department, the recent budget numbers showed only 127, three of whom are in Animal Control and would not be occupying the Police building space. He described his big picture questions, noting that the administration’ s presentation determined the downtown location of the Warren Rd. building to be a priority. He noted that the location would be an asset to business tenants as well, arguing that the rent income there would be higher than renting out the current annex building across from City Hall. Mayor George explained that there is a TIFF and abatement on the property and described the way a TIFF works in regard to building ownership procedures. Councilmember Bullock spoke about how construction challenges will exist at the new site just as they would during a buildout of the current Police administration building. He pointed out that options such as work-from-home policies that could reduce office space needs are only now being considered. He brought up the question of whether a new City Hall is a priority for the public, pointing to urgent issues such as affordability and property tax increases facing residents. He asked whether City Hall operations would be a public priority as opposed to parks, roads and intersections. He acknowledged the acute need to resolve the space issues for Police and Courts but wondered if the City could solve for that one issue rather than pursue a total renovation for a new City Hall. He asked the representatives from Liberty whether they would be able to find another buyer if the City declined to purchase the Warren Rd. property. Mr. Siley stated that Liberty would be able to move on if the City declined to purchase the building. He added that it is easier to renovate an unoccupied building, noting the complexities and challenges of renovating an occupied Police headquarters and spoke about the benefits of moving City Hall departments into the Warren Rd. building to open up space for Police operations in the current City Hall building. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

9 Councilmember Bullock clarified that while inconvenient, it is not impossible to remodel an occupied building. Mr. Kuluris expressed his opinion that a new City Hall would reinvigorate downtown. He stated that their primary purpose is to solve the space problem for the public safety forces and Courts. He described his understanding of the options in front of Council. He spoke about a feasibility study that has not yet been presented to Council that Liberty has used to evaluate the space needs and plans for City Hall. He emphasized that Liberty would deliver a product that will be in accordance with the City’ s needs. He reiterated that the reason for the City to enter into a contract with Liberty to renovate and then purchase Liberty’ s Warren Rd. property is that the space issues for the Police Department need to be solved. He stated that this decision would not prevent Council from solving other issues in Lakewood. He emphasized that the decision before Council is whether this agreement will solve the space problem for Police and Courts. In response to a question from Councilmember Bullock about the timeline for decision- making, Mr. Kuluris stated that while Liberty has been working on this project for a long time, they never stated that they would walk away from the deal if the decision wasn’ t made on a particular timeline. He stated that Liberty does want to know that it is being discussed and that there is progress toward a decision. Councilmember Bullock directed a question to the Administration about the necessity to budget the $16.5M toward the project now while it’s still in the design stage. In response, Mr. Kuluris emphasized that this would be a process completed in the correct manner and planned appropriately. President Kepple clarified the two different aspects of this decision- making process: the delivery model of the project itself, and the legislation to finance the project. Mr. Kuluris reiterated that Liberty understands and is amenable to the time frame for Council’ s decision- making process. Vice President Baker questioned the previously mentioned argument that construction would be too complicated or challenging to complete on an occupied building, thus necessitating the purchase and renovation of the Warren Rd. property. He pointed out that many projects have been completed on occupied buildings with complex operations. He asked about prevailing wage and asked whether Liberty would sell the building to the City and then bid on it. Mr. Siley spoke about the intention for next Monday’ s meeting and acknowledged that there are other options for Council to consider. In answer to Councilmember Baker’ s question about prevailing wage, Mr. Siley stated that the project is priced to be 100% union. Mr. Kuluris reiterated that the problems with the lack of space for Police in their current building will need to be solved, either by this Council or the next, and cannot be avoided. He acknowledged that there is a lot of data that has not yet been shared with Council, but that it will be soon. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

10 President Kepple clarified that Council is very aware of the needs of the Police Department and of their responsibility to City employees and emphasized that Council has stated their dedication to solving that problem. She clarified that it has never been Council’ s intention to pass this problem on to future Councilmembers or to anyone else, and that Council is committed to solving this issue. She noted that the Police Department needs are the source of the timeline urgency and asked about finding possible immediate short- term solutions. She suggested that a possible temporary solution could be reached by finding alternative space for City departments currently occupying office space in the City Hall basement, thus enabling Police to immediately begin using that space. In response to a question from President Kepple, Mayor George stated that she would reach out to legal counsel for their availability to attend a future meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Approved: Sarah Kepple, Chair Committee of the Whole Maureen M. Bach, Clerk of Council 02/02/2026 Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

January 26, 2026 City Council – Finance Committee Presentation City of Lakewood, Ohio KeyBanc Capital Markets Disclosure 2 KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. (“KBCM”) is not recommending an action to you as the municipal entity or obligated person; KBCM is not acting as an advisor to you and does not owe a fiduciary duty pursuant to Section 15B of the Exchange Act to you with respect to the information and material contained in this communication; KBCM is acting for its own interests; you should discuss any information and material contained in this communication with any and all internal or external advisors and experts that you deem appropriate before acting on this information or material; and KBCM seeks to serve as an underwriter on a future transaction and not as a financial advisor or municipal advisor. The information provided is for discussion purposes only in anticipation of being engaged to serve as underwriter. The primary role of an underwriter is to purchase securities with a view to distribution in an arm’ s-length commercial transaction with the issuer. The underwriter has financial and other interests that differ from those of the Issuer. Interest rates used herein are hypothetical and take into consideration conditions in today’ s market and other factual information such as the issuer’s credit rating, geographic location and market sector. Interest rates applied herein are hypothetical, based on current market facts and should not be viewed as rates that KBCM expects to achieve for you should we be selected to act as your underwriter or placement agent. Information about interest rates and terms for SLGs is based on current publicly available information and treasury or agency rates for open- market escrows are based on current market interest rates for these types of credits and should not be seen as costs or rates that KBCMexpects to achieve for you should we be selected to act as your underwriter or placement agent. Disclosure of MSRB Rule G -23 KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. ( KBCM) is providing the information contained in this document for discussion purposes only in anticipation of serving as underwriter or pla cement agent to you. The primary role of KBCM, as an underwriter or placement agent, is to purchase securities, for resale to investors, or place securities with investors, on an agency basis, in an arm’ s -length commercial transaction betw een you and KBCM and that KBCM has financial and other interests that differ from your interests. KBCM is not acting as a municipal advisor, financial advisor or fiduciary to you or any other person or entity. The information provided is not intended to be and should not be construed as “advice” within the meaning of Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. You should consult with your own financial and/or municipal, legal, accounting, tax and other advisors, as applicable, to the extent you deem appropriate. If you would like a municipal advisor in this transaction that has legal fiduciary duties to you, then you are free to engage a municipal advisor to serve in that capacity. Disclosure of Trading Party, Dual Employee Status and Related Matters KeyBanc Capital Markets is a trade name under which the corporate and investment banking products and services of KeyCorp and its subsidiaries, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC, and KeyBank National Association (“KeyBank N.A.”), are marketed. Securities products and services are offered by KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. and by its licensed securities representatives. Banking products and services are offered by KeyBank N.A. A number of our corporate and institutional team members are employed by both KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. and KeyBank N.A. These “ dual employees” are licensed securities representatives of KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., and they are there to better serve your needs, by making available both secu rities and banking products and services. Further, in connection with our effort to deliver a comprehensive array of banking and securities products and services to you in a seamless manner, from time to time KeyBank N.A. and KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. will share with each other certain non -public information that you provide to us. Of course, as always, this information will not be shared or otherwise disclosed outside of the KeyCorp organization without your express permission. Please also be assured that, as with other banks and broker-dealers, KeyBank N.A. and KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. adhere to established internal procedures to safeguard your corporate information from areas within our organization that trade in or advise clients with respect to the purchase and sale of securities. THE OBLIGATIONS OF KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC. ARE NOT OBLIGATION S OF KEYBANK N.A. OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATE BANKS, AND NONE OF KEYCORP’ S BANKS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR GUARANTEE, THE SECURITIES OR SECURITIES -RELATED PRODUCTS OR SERVICES SOLD, OFFERED OR RECOMMENDED BY KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC. OR ITS EMPLOYEES. SECURITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT PRODUCTS SOLD, OFFERED OR RECOMMENDED BY KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., IF ANY, ARE NOT BANK DEPOSITS OR OBLIGATIONS AND ARE NOT INSURED BY THE FDIC. Table of Contents I. Debt Profile II. 2026 Plan of Finance III. Lakewood Credit Rating 3 Debt Profile January 2026 Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

Debt Profile 5Source: City of Lakewood, Ohio Audited Financial Statements, KBCM Original Par $ 36,570,000 $ 5,890,000 Type City of Lakewood, Ohio Various Purpose Improvement & Refunding General Obligation Bonds CityofLakewood, Ohio General Obligation Refunding Bonds Private Placement) Series Series 2016A Series 2017 Enhancement Dated Date 04/05/2016 06/06/2017 Due 1-Dec 1-Dec Year Principal Coupon Principal Coupon Interest Total Principal Coupon Interest Total 2026 1,880,000 5.000% 737,050 2,617,050 330,000 2.500% 8,250 338,250 2027 1,970,000 4.000% 643,050 2,613,050 2028 2,040,000 4.000% 564,250 2,604,250 2029 2, 125, 000 4. 000% 482, 650 2, 607, 650 2030 2,220,000 4.000% 397,650 2,617,650 2031 2,295,000 5.000% 308,850 2,603,850 2032 970,000 3.000% 194,100 1,164,100 2033 1,000,000 3.000% 165,000 1,165,000 2034 455,000 3.125% 575,000 5.000% 135,000 1,165,000 2035 465,000 3.125% 610,000 5.000% 92,031 1,167,031 2036 480, 000 3. 125% 640, 000 5. 000% 47, 000 1, 167, 000 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 Principal Outstanding $ 17, 725, 000 $ 3, 766, 631 $ 21, 491, 631 $ 330, 000 $ 8, 250 $ 338, 250 Call Provisions TheBonds maturing onorafter 12/1/2026 aresubject tooptional redemption inwholeatanytime, orinpart on anydate, on orafter12/1/2026 ataredemption priceof100%. TheBonds arenot subject tooptional redemption prior to maturity. Use of Proceeds TheBonds were issued to (i) currently refund aportion oftheCity's $21.210MM Various PurposeG.O. Bonds, Series 2005, dated 5/26/05; (ii) currently refund a portion oftheCity's $14.320MM SewerSystem Revenue Bonds, Series 2006, dated 8/ 30/ 06; ( iii) currently refund a portion of the City' s $ 10. 285MM Water System Revenue Bonds, Series 2006, dated 8/30/06; and (iv) retire theCity's $17.375MM Various Purpose Improvement Notes issued on 4/ 9/ 15. The Bonds were issued to currently refund the City's Various Purpose GO Bonds, Series 2007 that were originally issued to: ( i) retire the City' s outstanding BANs issued in 2006; (ii) advancerefund certain outstanding bonds issued in2001; and (iii) paytheissuance costs. Debt Profile 6Source: City of Lakewood, Ohio Audited Financial Statements, KBCM Original Par $ 16, 215, 000 $ 27, 475, 000 $ 35, 305, 000 Type City ofLakewood, Ohio Various Purpose Improvement General Obligation Bonds CityofLakewood, Ohio Various Purpose Improvement & Refunding General Obligation Bonds City ofLakewood, Ohio Various Purpose Improvement General Obligation Bonds Series Series2019 Series 2021 Series 2024 Enhancement Dated Date 03/ 27/ 2019 03/ 23/ 2021 03/ 13/ 2024 Due 1-Dec 1-Dec 1-Dec Year Principal Coupon Interest Total Principal Coupon Interest Total Principal Coupon Interest Total 2026 615,000 5.000% 519,213 1,134,213 1,300,000 4.000% 799,500 2,099,500 765,000 5.000% 1,703,500 2,468,500 2027 645,000 5.000% 488,463 1,133,463 1,355,000 5.000% 747,500 2,102,500 805,000 5.000% 1,665,250 2,470,250 2028 675, 000 5. 000% 456, 213 1, 131, 213 1, 425, 000 5. 000% 679, 750 2, 104, 750 845, 000 5. 000% 1, 625, 000 2, 470, 000 2029 710,000 5.000% 422,463 1,132,463 710,000 5.000% 608,500 1,318,500 885,000 5.000% 1,582,750 2,467,750 2030 745,000 5.000% 386,963 1,131,963 745,000 5.000% 573,000 1,318,000 930,000 5.000% 1,538,500 2,468,500 2031 785,000 5.000% 349,713 1,134,713 785,000 5.000% 535,750 1,320,750 980,000 5.000% 1,492,000 2,472,000 2032 820,000 4.000% 310,463 1,130,463 825,000 4.000% 496,500 1,321,500 1,025,000 5.000% 1,443,000 2,468,000 2033 855,000 4.000% 277,663 1,132,663 855,000 2.000% 463,500 1,318,500 1,075,000 5.000% 1,391,750 2,466,750 2034 890,000 4.000% 243,463 1,133,463 875,000 4.000% 446,400 1,321,400 1,130,000 5.000% 1,338,000 2,468,000 2035 925, 000 4. 000% 207, 863 1, 132, 863 910, 000 4. 000% 411, 400 1, 321, 400 1, 190, 000 5. 000% 1, 281, 500 2, 471, 500 2036 960,000 3.250% 170,863 1,130,863 945,000 4.000% 375,000 1,320,000 1,245,000 5.000% 1,222,000 2,467,000 2037 995,000 3.250% 139,663 1,134,663 980,000 2.000% 337,200 1,317,200 1,310,000 5.000% 1,159,750 2,469,750 2038 1,025,000 3.375% 107,325 1,132,325 1,000,000 2.000% 317,600 1,317,600 1,375,000 5.000% 1,094,250 2,469,250 2039 1, 060, 000 3. 375% 72, 731 1, 132, 731 1, 020, 000 2. 000% 297, 600 1, 317, 600 1, 445, 000 5. 000% 1, 025, 500 2, 470, 500 2040 1,095,000 3.375% 36,956 1,131,956 1,040,000 2.000% 277,200 1,317,200 1,515,000 5.000% 953,250 2,468,250 2041 1,060,000 2.000% 256,400 1,316,400 1,590,000 5.000% 877,500 2,467,500 2042 1,085,000 4.000% 235,200 1,320,200 1,670,000 5.000% 798,000 2,468,000 2043 1,130,000 4.000% 191,800 1,321,800 1,755,000 5.000% 714,500 2,469,500 2044 1,175,000 4.000% 146,600 1,321,600 1,845,000 5.000% 626,750 2,471,750 2045 1,220,000 4.000% 99,600 1,319,600 1,935,000 5.000% 534,500 2,469,500 2046 1, 270, 000 4. 000% 50, 800 1, 320, 800 2, 030, 000 5. 000% 437, 750 2, 467, 750 2047 2,135,000 5.000% 336,250 2,471,250 2048 2,240,000 5.000% 229,500 2,469,500 2049 2, 350, 000 5. 000% 117, 500 2, 467, 500 Principal Outstanding $ 12,800,000 $ 4,190,013 $ 16,990,013 $ 21,710,000 $ 8,346,800 $ 30,056,800 $ 34,070,000 $ 25,188,250 $ 59,258,250 Call Provisions TheBonds maturing after 12/1/2029 aresubject tooptional redemption in whole or in part on any date, on or after 12/ 1/ 2029 at a redemption price of 100%. TheBonds maturing after 12/1/2031 aresubject to optional redemption in whole or in part on any date, on or after 12/ 1/ 2031 at a redemption price of 100%. TheBonds maturing after 12/1/2034 aresubject tooptional redemption in whole or in part on any date, on or after 12/ 1/ 2034 at a redemption price of 100%. Useof Proceeds TheBonds wereissued forthepurpose ofretiring $17,662,000oftheCity's 32,287,000Various PurposeIncome TaxRevenue Notes issued on 3/29/18. TheBonds were issued forthepurpose ofretiring $25,405,000oftheCity’s 28,215,000 Various PurposeIncome TaxRevenue Notes, Series 2020 and refunding the outstanding Various Purpose Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2011. TheBonds wereissued forthepurpose ofretiring $37,695,000 oftheCity's Various Purpose Improvement Notes, Series 2023 issued onMarch 15, 2023. TheNotes were issued forthepurpose offinancing various City projects including sewer and water improvements, parks, sidewalks, and other City capital projects. Original Par $ 32,695,000 $ 121,455,000 Type Cityof Lakewood, Ohio Various Purpose Improvement General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes Cityof Lakewood Ohio TotalBond Debt Service Excludes Series 2025 Notes) Series Series 2025 TOTAL Enhancement Dated Date 04/ 10/2025 Due 9-Apr 1-Dec Year Principal Coupon Yield Interest Total Principal Interest Total 2026 32,695, 000 4.000% 3.100% 1,304, 167 33,999, 167 4,890, 000 3,767, 513 8,657, 513 2027 4,775, 000 3,544, 263 8,319, 263 2028 4,985, 000 3,325, 213 8,310, 213 2029 4,430, 000 3,096, 363 7,526, 363 2030 4,640,000 2,830,113 7,470,113 2031 4,845, 000 2,686, 313 7,531, 313 2032 3,640, 000 2,444, 063 6,084, 063 2033 3,785, 000 2,297, 913 6,082, 913 2034 3,925, 000 2,156, 863 6,081, 863 2035 4,100,000 1,992,794 6,092,794 2036 4,270, 000 1,814, 863 6,084, 863 2037 3,285, 000 1,636, 613 4,921, 613 2032 3,400,000 1,519,175 4,919,175 2039 3,525, 000 1,395, 831 4,920, 831 2040 3,650,000 1,267,406 4,917,406 2041 2,650, 000 1,133, 900 3,783, 900 2042 2,755, 000 1,033, 200 3,788, 200 2043 2,885,000 906,300 3,791,300 2044 3,020, 000 773, 350 3,793, 350 2045 3,155, 000 634, 100 3,789, 100 2046 3,300, 000 488, 550 3,788, 550 2047 2,135, 000 336, 250 2,471, 250 2048 2,240,000 229,500 2,469,500 2049 2,350, 000 117, 500 2,467, 500 Principal Outstanding $ 32,695,000 $ 1,304,167 $ 33,999,167 $ 86,635,000 $ 41,427,944 $ 128,062,944 Call Provisions The notes are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. Use of Proceeds The Notes are being issued to: 1) retire the City' sSeries 2024 $ 6.320MM Notes maturing April 19, 2026; and 2) to provide new money for: (i) sewer improvements ($10.00MM), (ii) 2025 watermain construction ($9.325MM), (iii) city facility improvements ($ 4.050MM); ( iv) street improvements ($ 2.2MM); (v) park improvements ($ 500K); (vi) sidewalk improvements ($ 300K). Debt Profile 7Source: City of Lakewood, Ohio Audited Financial Statements, KBCM 2026 Plan of Finance Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

Source: KBCM, City of Lakewood, Ohio Finance Department Summary of Proposed Financing 9 Summary of Proposed2026 Note Issuance City of Lakewood Ohio Transaction Description Various Purpose Improvement Notes, Series 2026 Estimated Par $ 59, 740, 000 Security General Obligation Purpose The Notes are being issued for the purpose of (i) providing new money for: sewer improvements ($ 2,370, 000), ( b) water improvements ($ 850, 000), ( c) city facility & roof improvements 18, 300, 000), sidewalk improvements ($ 500, 000), traffic signal improvements ($125,000), and streetImprovements 4,900, 000); and (ii) retiring the City' s $32, 695, 000 Various Purpose Improvement Notes, Series 2025, maturing on 4/ 9/ 2026. Purposes Included in Series 2026 Note Issue New Money ( see below)$ 27, 045, 000 Retire Series 2025 Various Purpose Improvement Notes $ 32, 695, 000 Total 2026 Financing $ 59, 740, 000 2026 Financing Plan – Note Issue 10Source: KBCM, City of Lakewood, Ohio Finance Department New Money Portion of Series 2026 Note Issue Amount Sewer Improvements $ 2,370, 000 Water Improvements $ 850, 000 Winterhurst Replacements $ 1,800, 000 City Hall $ 16,500, 000 Sidewalk $ 500, 000 Traffic Signal Improvements $ 125, 000 Street Improvements $ 4,900, 000 27,045,000 All Candidates Candidates that Generate Positive Savings Arbitrage Yield 2.928% 2.928% Aggregate Savings $ 613,606 $ 652,925 Average Annual Savings $ 55,782 $ 59,357 2026 Financing Plan – Refunding Bond Issue 11 The City’s Series 2016A Bonds are callable on December 1, 2026. The City would be able to currently refund maturities 2027– 2036 serials and terms) at par. The City could maximize debt service savings by analyzing the callable candidates at each maturity level and only electing to move forward with candidates that generate positive savings. See refunding statistics below, assuming a dated date of the refunding transaction of September 1, 2026 and a call date of the refunded bonds of December 1, 2026. Both a refunding of all outstanding maturities and only those that garner positive savings are illustrated for reference. Source: City of Lakewood, Ohio Audited Financial Statements, KBCM 1Maximum callable debt amount authorized in legislation, final amount to be determined closer to issuance. 2Preliminary scenarios based on market rates as of January 2026. Anticipated Savings Summary2 Original Par $ 36, 570, 000 Type City of Lakewood, Ohio Various Purpose Improvement & Refunding General Obligation Bonds Series Series 2016A Enhancement Dated Date 04/05/2016 Due 1-Dec Year Principal Coupon Principal Coupon Interest Total 2026 1,880, 000 5.000% 737, 050 2,617, 050 2027 1,970, 000 4.000% 643, 050 2,613, 050 2028 2,040, 000 4.000% 564, 250 2,604, 250 2029 2,125, 000 4.000% 482, 650 2,607, 650 2030 2,220, 000 4.000% 397, 650 2,617, 650 2031 2,295, 000 5.000% 308, 850 2,603, 850 2032 970, 000 3.000% 194, 100 1, 164, 100 2033 1,000, 000 3.000% 165, 000 1,165, 000 2034 455, 000 3.125% 575, 000 5.000% 135, 000 1,165, 000 2035 465, 000 3.125% 610, 000 5.000% 92,031 1,167, 031 2036 480, 000 3.125% 640, 000 5.000% 47,000 1,167, 000 Principal Outstanding $ 17, 725, 000 $ 3,766, 631 $ 21, 491, 631 Call Provisions The Bonds maturing on or after 12/ 1/2026 are subject to optional redemption in whole at any time, or in part on any date, on or after 12/1/2026 at a redemption price of 100%. Use of Proceeds The Bonds were issued to (i) currently refund a portion of the City's $21. 210MM Various Purpose G.O. Bonds, Series 2005, dated 5/26/ 05; ( ii) currently refund a portion of the City' s 14.320MM Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series 2006, dated 8/30/ 06; (iii) currently refund a portion of the City's $10.285MM Water System Revenue Bonds, Series 2006, dated 8/30/ 06; and (iv) retire the City's $17. 375MM Various Purpose Improvement Notes issued on 4/9/15. Purposes Included in Series 2026 Refunding Bond Issue Refunding of Series 2016 Bonds $ 15,845,0001 Refunding of a Portion of Series 2026 Notes Series 2024 & 2025 Projects)$ 32,695,000 Total 2026 Refunding Bond Financing $ 48,540,000 Lakewood’s Financial Performance – Revenue Sources 12 City Debt Funded From Non- General Fund Sources 401: Property Tax dedicated millage for debt service 501: Water rate generated revenue 510: Sewer rate generated revenue 511: Sewer rate generated revenue Source: City of Lakewood, Ohio Finance Department Projects Included in Various Purpose Improvement Notes, Series 2026 Project Purpose - New Money Portion Amount Fund Sewer Improvements $ 2,370, 000 510- 511 Water Improvements $ 850,000 501 City Facility, Roof Improvements $ 18, 300, 000 401 Sidewalk $ 500, 000 401 Traffic Signal Improvements $ 125, 000 401 Street Improvements $ 4,900, 000 401 27, 045, 000 Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

Debt Capacity (Direct Debt Limit) 13 Statutory Limitation (133.04, 133.05, Ohio Revised Code) provides that: A limitation on maximum principal outstanding 133.04 & 133.05 The Ohio Revised Codes The net principal amount of both voted and un-voted debt of the Government Entity (that is not exempt debt“) may not exceed a certain percentage of the total value of all property within the respective Governmental Subdivision ( i.e. cities, counties, etc.) as listed and assessed for taxation. Un-Voted Debt: May not exceed 5.5% of total Assessed Valuation Voted & Un-Voted Debt: May not exceed 10.5% of total Assessed Valuation Direct DebtLimit Exceptions Self-Supporting Debt Special Assessment Bonds Revenue Bonds Un-voted G.O. Bonds Payable from Municipal Income Tax Receipts Source: Bricker Graydon City of Lakewood – Capacity Under Direct Debt Limit 14 City of Lakewood Tax Year 2025 Assessed Valuation = $ 1,786,727,540 10.5% Limitation Amount = 10.5% x $1,786, 727, 540 = $ 187, 606, 391 5.5% Limitation Amount = 5.5% x $1,786, 727, 540 = $ 98,270,014 10.5% Limitation 187,606,391.00$ Less: Non-Exempt Debt ( voted & unvoted) 14,140,269.00 Total Additional Debt Capacity Available: 173,466,122.00$ 5.5% Limitation 98,270,014.00$ Less: Non-Exempt Debt ( unvoted) 14,140,269.00 Total Additional Debt Capacity Available: 84,129, 745. 00$ Direct Debt Limit Calculation Source: Bricker Graydon Debt Capacity (Indirect Debt Limit) 15 Constitutional Provision (Article XII) A limitation on maximum principal and interest payable in any one year for overlapping subdivisions such as the County, City, Local Public School District, and other taxing districts. Article XII, Section 2 In order for a governmental subdivision to determine whether it may issue additional un-voted General Obligation securities without exceeding the indirect debt limitation, the subdivision must calculate the number of mills which would need to be levied in order to yield the dollar amount necessary to pay the principal and interest due on all outstanding un- voted General Obligation debt of said subdivision and all overlapping subdivisions in the year in which the aggregate amount of such principal and interest is highest. The Ohio Constitution Limits the maximum aggregate millage that may be levied for all purposes on a single parcel of property by all overlapping taxing subdivisions without a vote of the electors, to 10 mills of assessed valuation. Requires that, in connection with all bonded indebtedness incurred, a provision must be made for the levyof taxes in an amount sufficient to pay annual debt charges on such indebtedness. The combined effect of these two provisions is known as the indirect debt limitation Article XII, Section 11 Source: Bricker Graydon City of Lakewood – Capacity Under Indirect Debt Limit 16Source: Bricker Graydon Highest Debt Service ( 2027) 12,714, 908. 61$ Assessed Value ( TY 2025) 1,786, 727, 540$ Mills Required 7.1163 Assessed Valuation ( TY 2025) 1,786, 727, 540$ City of Lakewood Millage 7.1163 Overlapping Subdivision Millage 0.6348 Mills Available 2.2489 Dollars Generated 4,018,134.00$ Years Assumed 29 Total debt able to issue ( P&I) 116,525,894. 10$ Mills Available 2.2489 Years to maturity for additional bonds 29 Interest rate for additional bonds 6.00% Assessed Valuation 1,786, 727, 540$ Additional Debt Available - Inclusive of 2026 Note Issue ( based on assumptions above) 61,329, 417. 95$ City of Lakewood Millage Calculation Available Unused Millage Calculation Excess Debt Calculation Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

Series 2026 Debt Issuance – Proposed Timeline 17 City Council Meeting – 1st Reading of Note Legislation Finance Committee Meeting City Council Meeting – 2nd Reading of Note Legislation City Council Meeting – 3rd Reading / Adoption of Note Legislation OMAP Credit Rating Received Price Note Issue; Sign Note Purchase Agreement Close Note Issue; Wire Funds 1/ 26/ 26 2/ 17/ 26 4/08/ 26 2/ 2/ 26 3/ 25/ 26 Source: KBCM 1/ 20/ 26 3/11/ 26 Lakewood Credit Rating The City of Lakewood maintains a Aa2 rating from Moody’ s, just above the national median for U.S. Cities of Aa3. Both ratings are strong and allow for full access to thecapital markets inalmost all economicconditionsat alow cost offunds. The City’s credit rating provides an independent evaluation to investors about a government entity’s future ability and willingness to make fully andtimely payments ofprincipal and interest ona debtissue. Moody’sInvestors Service, Standard and Poor’sand FitchRatings are theprimary rating agencies serving the municipal bond market. Listed below are the range of investmentgrade, long-term fixedrate rating categories, and a history ofthe City’s credit ratings. Lakewood’s Credit Rating 19Source: Moody’s “US Citiesand CountiesDebt Rating Methodology,” December 9, 2025. Affirmed inabbreviated update tocredit metrics report. Investment GradeLong-Term Fixed Ratings Moody' s S&P Fitch Aaa AAA AAA Aa1 AA+ AA+ Aa2 AA AA Aa3 AA- AA- A1 A+ A+ A2 A A A3 A- A- Baa1 BBB+ BBB+ Baa2 BBB+ BBB+ Baa3 BBB- BBB- Lakewood Historical Credit Ratings Date Rating 11/21/2025* Aa2 2/20/2024 Aa2 12/15/2022 Aa2 3/4/2021 Aa2 3/27/2019 Aa2 9/5/2018* Aa2 4/5/2016 Aa2 4/1/2014 Aa2 9/26/2012 Aa2 11/10/2010 Aa2 5/8/2007 Aa3 5/10/2005 Aa3 7/23/2004 Aa2 4/19/2003 Aa2 Lakewood has a strong credit positionbolstered by a growing revenue trendand healthy local economy. Listed below are highlights fromMoody’ s most recentfull creditopinionpublished February 20, 2024. Lakewood’s Credit Rating (continued) 20 Finances Lakewood is likely to maintain a strong financial profile given a track record of conservative budgeting and demonstrated commitment to maintaining strong reserves. Management reports that unaudited results for 2023 indicate a 4million surplus, despite a budgeted draw of about the same amount from positive revenue variances and lower than budgeted expenditures. At the end of fiscal 2022 (Dec. 31 year-end), available fund balance was $82.2 million, representing an ample 82% of total annual revenue. What Could Positively Impact the Rating What Could Negatively Impact the Rating Improvement in resident income and full value pre capita to levels on par with higher rated peers Decline in reserves below 30% Decline in long-term liabilities ratio below 300%• Leverage near 500% of revenue Economy & Tax Base Lakewood's local economy is likely to remain stable supported by a solid economic growth trend in the Cleveland metro area and steady tax base appreciation. Tax base growth has increased full value per capita to $77,000 as of the 2023 tax year, which is solid but lags similarly rated peers. Lakewood assesses a 1.5% income tax on wages and salaries earned in the city and on residents working elsewhere who receive a credit of up to 0.5% for taxes paid to another municipality. Debt & Pensions All of the city' s debt is fixed rate. The city does not have any debt-related derivatives. Moody’s considers the City’s unfunded pension liabilities in its rating calculations Source: Moody’s “US Citiesand CountiesDebt Rating Methodology,” December 9, 2025. Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

Municipal Income Tax Collections 1.5% tax on all income earned by non-residents in the City and income earned by residents, with a .50% Credit to residents whose income is earned outside the City. The income taxstructure (both the tax rate and the taxcredit) has not changed since 1981. Lakewood’s Financial Performance – Revenue Sources 21 Municipal Income Tax Collections – 2016- 2025 ( All Governmental Funds) Cash Basis) Top 10 Income Tax Withholders ( 2024) Lakewood Board of Education 5.29% Cleveland Clinic Foundation 4.67% City of Lakewood 3.50% Roundstone Management LTD 1.24% St Edward High School 0.89% First Mutual Holding Company 0.78% Ferry Cap and Set Screw Inc. 0.75% Signature Health Inc. 0.73% Oneill Management Services Inc. 0.66% Advance Energy Tech Inc. 0.63% TOTAL 19. 15% of Total WithholdingEmployer Source: Cityof Lakewood, Ohio Audited Financial Statements; CityofLakewood, Ohio Comprehensive Budget Document 23, 866, 022 $ 23, 436, 422 $ 23, 882, 048 25,407, 039 $ 25, 285, 735 27, 433, 222 31, 257, 539 32, 128, 465 $ 32, 220, 988 34, 006, 321 0 2,500, 000 5,000, 000 7,500, 000 10, 000, 000 12, 500, 000 15, 000, 000 17, 500, 000 20, 000, 000 22, 500, 000 25, 000, 000 27, 500, 000 30, 000, 000 32, 500, 000 35, 000, 000 37, 500, 000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 unaudited) Lakewood’s Financial Performance – Revenue Sources 22 Property Tax Collections The total Lakewood Property tax rate is 17. 4 mills, and was last increased by 0.1 mills for the 2004 collection year. Per City Ordinance, 3.47 mils of property tax are obligated specifically to the repayment of debt service via the Debt Service Fund ( Fund 301). Furthermore, per Section 5.10 of the City Charter, 2 mills of property tax levied is for the purpose of financing the reconstruction, expansion, operation, and maintenance of the wastewater treatment plant, and the capital needs of street infrastructure, sewer lines, municipal buildings, parks and recreation facilities via the Wastewater Treatment Improvement Fund ( Fund 512). Schedule of Levied Property Taxes 3.47 Inside 8.65 Charter 2.00 Charter 1.68 Charter 1.60 Charter 17.40 Purpose Amount Type of Millage Debt Service Current Expense Fire Pension Police Pension Total Mills Levied Sewer/ General Capital Source: Cityof Lakewood, Ohio Audited Financial Statements Property Tax Collections: New Values for the last Triennial update came into effect in Tax Year 2022. New Values for the most recent Sexennial update took effect in Tax Year 2025. General Fund Tax Year Assessed Valuation Property Taxes Homestead and Rollback Total Comments 2025 1,781, 349, 800 13, 458, 716 1,686, 600 15, 145, 316 Sexennial Update 2024 1,370, 002, 340 10,650, 396 1,296,969 11,947, 365 2023 1,362, 095, 590 10, 632, 800 1,286, 508 11, 919, 308 2022 1,363, 408, 570 10, 407, 662 1,291, 746 11, 699, 408 Triennial update 2021 1,091, 693, 100 8,371, 573 1,044, 774 9,416, 347 2020 1,087, 438, 710 8,290, 285 1,045,235 9,335, 520 Lakewood’s Financial Performance – Revenue Sources 23Source: City of Lakewood, Ohio Finance Department Bond Retirement Fund 401 Tax Year Assessed Valuation Property Taxes Homestead and Rollback Total Comments 2025 1,781, 349, 800 5,399, 017 676, 586 6,075, 603 Sexennial Update 2024 1,370, 002, 340 4,272, 472 520, 287 4,792, 759 2023 1,362, 095, 590 4,265, 391 516, 089 4,781, 480 2022 1,363, 408, 570 4,175, 110 518, 192 4,693, 302 Triennial update 2021 1,091, 693, 100 3,358, 345 419, 122 3,777, 467 2020 1,087, 438, 710 3,325, 663 419, 296 3,744, 959 Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

City of Lakewood Lakewood City Hall JJanuary 26, 2026 Decision Factors: Primary Goals Superior Customer Service What is best for the City and its Residents Central Location in the Heart of Downtown ( Corner of Main & Main) Directly served by multiple transit routes ( North/ South & East/ West) Consolidates Customer- Facing Departments Equitable Employee Facilities Planning for Future Needs ( Spatial and Staffing) Meet industry standards for public safety Competitive Employer and Retaining Employees Fiscal Stewardship Current City Hall Build- Out Risks Turns current City Hall into active construction site Public Works garage must maintain ingress / egress at all times To tie into a functioning building that serves as the communication and public safety hub is incredibly complex High Operational Risk to Essential Public Services: Requires major construction within an occupied municipal facility Creates sustained disruption to staff, residents, and daily operations Elevates risk to service continuity, safety, and system reliability Assumes avoidable operational risk for essential services For essential public services, minimizing operational risk is a core responsibility Providing Sufficient Public Safety Facilities POLICE Police Facilities Aligned with Industry Standards Square footage aligned with industry standards Comparable to peer cities and suburban jurisdictions Supports recruitment, retention, and effective operations Corrects longstanding space and functional deficiencies COURTS Court is in dire need of more functional space for various important reasons” Judge Neff, April 8, 2025, letter to City Council Congested lobby / entry creates security risks Lack of adequate office space Need for additional hearing room for magistrates and other court staff Lack of secure parking for magistrates creates safety risks Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

1470 Warren Road: A Generational Opportunity Cost Certainty & Fiscal Responsibility Lower Cost with Verified, Guaranteed Pricing Other estimates were nearly 50% higher Pricing based on actual completed renovation of nearly identical adjacent building Costs can be contractually agreed, reducing escalation risks Customer Service & Public Experience One-Stop Civic Hub for Residents and Businesses Centralized access for residents, taxpayers, and permit- seekers Improved wayfinding, accessibility, and service quality Purpose- designed spaces for modern customer service Reduces resident trips and internal handoffs Supports consistent service standards citywide Consolidated,, Efficientt Municipall Operations Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1

Flexibility & Growth Designed for Long- Term Growth and Adaptability All customer- facing administrative departments under one roof Long- term, flexible solution that will accommodate evolving needs Aligns with best practices: 70% of the 30 largest Ohio cities use a City Hall / Justice Center dual-campus model Equitable & Central Access Centralized, Multimodal Access for a Greater Number of Residents Accessible by multiple modes of transportation: walking, transit, bike lanes, and driving Located on east- west and north- south RTA lines Aligns with Lakewood’ s Active Transportation Plan Builds on walkability being a major factor in resident choice to live in Lakewood Consistent with other Ohio cities: City Hall is located downtown in 70% of the 30 largest cities Historic Preservation & Civic Identity Adaptive Re- Use of a Historic Downtown Asset Activates a vacant, century-old historic building in the downtown core Demonstrates the City’s commitment to historic preservation through action, not just policy alone Aligns municipal investment with adopted preservation and sustainability goals Reinforces downtown as the civic heart of Lakewood The City Hall of Lakewood should reflect the values it ask s other s to uphold COMMENTS BY LIBERTY Docusign Envelope ID: C543C67E- AAAB- 43F3-9033-7734B35456B1