Full Document
1 MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 9, 2026 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Present: Evans, Kepple, Baker, Bullock, Strebig, Hamilton Steiner, Bixenstine Also present: Mayor George, Planning Director Byington, Finance Director Mahoney, Law Director Vargo, Assistant Planning Director Baas, members of the public and Council staff. Call to order: 6:02 p.m. Approval of the minutes of the February 2, 2026 Committee of the Whole. Motion by Councilmember Kepple, seconded by Councilmember Baker to approve the minutes of the February 2, 2026 Committee of the Whole without the necessity of a reading. All members voted in favor. Minutes approved. 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) Communication from Mayor George regarding presenting the Administration’ s case for relocating to downtown Lakewood: 1470 Warren Road. At the invitation of President Kepple, Assistant Planning Director Baas delivered a presentation regarding the analysis of alternatives for the City Hall facilities discussion. He provided context and stated that he has not been directly involved in the project up to this point but has stepped in to provide an objective high-level analysis of the various plans, studies and proposals that have been performed to date. He added that he believes some of the calculations done by the City’ s hired consultants were misleading and did not differentiate between functional and non- functional space, so he adjusted for that in his analysis. He established and reviewed the two priorities and evaluation criteria of the analysis: Priority 1: Provide Police and Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs. Priority 2: Consolidate/ improve functionality of administrative space ( while achieving priority 1) He reviewed the limitations and assumptions of the analysis and the data points used to establish the following minimum ( functional) spaced requirements: Police: 30,000 sq/ft Court: 6,650 sq/ft (not including lobby space) Administration: 19,6000 sq/ft (not including Council Office/Auditorium space) Docusign Envelope ID: D975CBDB- D3A7-498E-801B-C2444F7F344C 2 He then reviewed the proposed solutions: Status Quo Option 1: Stay in place with a small addition (~ 1,000 sq/ft), retain Annex Option 2: Stay in place with a large front addition (~ 5,400 sq/ft), retain Annex Option 3: Relocate Administrative offices, divest Annex o Former Board of Education Building ( Warren Rd) o Community Health Center ( Belle Ave) He added that an Option 2a has been discussed, which would be to stay in place and add a larger front addition while also divesting the Annex, but that has not been further developed for this analysis. Mr. Baas went on to review a chart that compared each option against the first priority ( to provide Police & Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs). He advised eliminating the Status Quo Option and Option 1 because neither will provide the minimum space requirements that were established for this analysis. He then focused the analysis on comparing Option 2 and Option 3 against the second priority consolidate/ improve functionality of administrative departments). He reviewed a chart that compared objective measures of each option as well as the potential for future growth. He highlighted that Option 2 offers very little potential for future growth and still requires multiple points of public service options. He highlighted that Option 3 offers significant potential for growth and would allow for a single point of public service access. He also spoke about how with Option 3 the Council Office and Auditorium could stay in place or relocate to the new building. Mr. Baas then addressed the topic of parking, reviewing a slide that compared the estimated parking spots and type of spots ( on-site vs area) for each option. He stressed that the current City Hall has much more on-site parking, but that many of those spots are taken by Public Works vehicles and Police vehicles. He estimated that there are currently 200 employees that drive to City Hall on a regular basis and if City Hall was moved to Warren Rd, 69 of those employees would be moved to the new site. He then reviewed the anticipated design and build timeline for Option 2 and 3. He said that ultimately both options are complex in terms of phasing and trying to maintain service delivery. In closing, he reviewed a slide that summarized the findings of the analysis. Based off all the factors examined, he said the analysis points to Option 3(relocate Administrative offices, divest Annex) as having more advantages over Option 2 (stay in place with a large front addition 5,400 sq/ft), retain Annex) and suggested the findings are in alignment with the direction the City has been heading since this discussion began a few years back. Vice President Baker thanked Assistant Director Baas for the presentation and provided some commentary. He said he needs more time to process the data, but he is not convinced the City would have the need for an extra 18,000 sq/ft of office space in the near future, given our limited Docusign Envelope ID: D975CBDB- D3A7-498E-801B-C2444F7F344C 3 potential to increase our tax base. He also suggested there were necessary limitations to the analysis due to the fact there is not a design plan for the front addition. In response to a question from President Kepple, Planning Director Byington responded that the third floor is currently occupied by the Cleveland Clinic and there is interest in the second floor, but it is currently vacant. President Kepple echoed commentary from Vice President Baker, suggesting the Community Health Center could serve as a flex space while working on a long- term solution. Councilmember Hamilton Steiner reiterated that if the current auditorium space were to be converted it could potentially disenfranchise voters since three precincts currently vote there. President Kepple added that there is no design for a front addition yet, so there could be a solution that assures there is a space in City Hall large enough for voting, even if it is not the existing auditorium. Councilmember Bullock thanked everyone for their work and shared his thoughts on the matter. He suggested the analysis of “Option 2” was too literal and that it was meant to be a conceptual midpoint between the status quo and a major addition of space, and that it could be further developed to overcome some of the perceived shortfalls. He said he is leaning towards making the current campus work and leaving the downtown space for commercial use. He also pushed back on the urgency of the matter and suggested that if the City had to make the current building work for 5 more years there would be no drastic impact on services. In response to a question from Councilmember Bixenstine, Assistant Planning Director Baas responded that if City Hall were to relocate to downtown then a traffic impact study on the area would likely be warranted. He added that there have been discussions with neighboring properties about the potential for shared parking. In response to a question from President Kepple, Assistant Planning Director Baas clarified the anticipated timelines around design and construction for the large addition versus moving City Hall downtown. President Kepple shared that she spoke with the Mayor after the last Committee of the Whole meeting and it was determined that Council could push the vote on the related package of debt legislation to the March 2nd meeting. She reminded everyone that she had originally proposed a vote on the debt legislation this evening. However, at this time it seems that Council has too many remaining questions about the City Hall facilities plan to do that. She encouraged Councilmembers to continue to send questions to the Mayor’ s Office and suggested scheduling an additional Committee of the Whole meeting before the March 2nd General Meeting. Councilmember Bullock said he supported the chance for more analysis, and he questioned whether there could be a phased option where the City begins to work on the Police Department’ s needs while developing a comprehensive plan for the lower priority needs. Docusign Envelope ID: D975CBDB- D3A7-498E-801B-C2444F7F344C 4 In response to a question from President Kepple, Planning Director Byington responded that the only design they have for the Police Department space is the basic plan that Weber Murphy Fox provided as part of the initial Space Study. Committee of the Whole adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Approved: 2/23/26 Sarah Kepple, Chair Committee of the Whole Maureen M. Bach, Clerk of Council Docusign Envelope ID: D975CBDB- D3A7-498E-801B-C2444F7F344C City of Lakewood City Hall Analysis of Alternatives Department of Planning and Development David Baas Assistant Director Agenda Review) Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Review) Limitations and Assumptions Review) Alternatives Analysis of Alternatives ( vs. Priorities) Note: This is intended to be a summary/ high- level analysis. Estimates contained within are derived from the space study, existing fit plans/ proposals, and other references ( when cited). Space requirements are for functional space” – which does not include hallways or restrooms. Review) Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Priority 1: Provide Police & Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs. Women’s Locker Room Relocate/ improve Dispatch space Increase/improve Training, Office/Public Reporting space(s) Increase capacity of Men’s Locker Room Expanded Lobby and additional Magistrate/Hearing Room space (Court) Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative space. Departmental location( s) and functional space available ( now/ future). Points of (and accessibility, design for) public service access. Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost (estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Limitations ( Constraints/ Restraints) C) Provide sufficient space for Police and Court. C) Renovate current City Hall building and any new location. R) Interrupt ( even temporary) public service delivery. R) Exceed available funding. Key Assumptions Police, Court, and IT (main) remain in current location. Council Offices and Auditorium are in the same building. Public Works Service Elements – ( Streets, Public Property, Fleet, etc.) remain in same building. Minimum ( Functional) Space Requirements ( NEXT SLIDE): Police: 30, 000ft2 Court: 6,650ft2 (DOES NOT INCLUDE LOBBY SPACE) Administration: 19, 600ft2 (DOES NOT INCLUDE COUNCIL OFFICE/ AUDITORIUM) Review) Limitations and Assumptions Docusign Envelope ID: D975CBDB- D3A7-498E-801B-C2444F7F344C Assumption - Minimum ( Functional) Space Requirements: Police Department. International Association of Chiefs of Police ( IACP) guidelines and CALEA ( Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) standards focus on functional requirements, safety, and operational efficiency. Standard industry planning, often used to meet CALEA' s requirement for adequate, safe facilities, generally suggest: General Administration: 150– 250 square feet per person. Officers: 300–500+ square feet per sworn officer. LPD (~ 126 total personnel) – within main building: 20 General Administration ( @150ft2) = 3,000 ft2 106 Sworn Officers ( @300ft2) = 31, 800 ft2 Based on space study…for planning purposes – establish a minimum goal of 30,000ft2 Court Space study informs options to increase laydown from ~ 6,300 ( current) to a minimum goal of ~ 6,650 ft2 Expand lobby/ seating area ( not included in space goal) requires relocation of Council office. Administration Space study provides options that shift laydown from ~ 20,100 ft2 ( current) to between ~ 18,300 and 21,100 ft2 For planning purposes – establish a minimum goal of 19,600ft2 Review) Limitations and Assumptions Alternatives: Status Quo Option 1 ( Stay in Place w/Small Side Addition (~ 1,000ft2 footprint), retain Annex) Option 2 (Stay in Place w/Large Front Addition (~5,400ft2 footprint), retain Annex) Option 3 (Relocate Admin, divest Annex) Warren Road ( BOE Building) Belle Ave ( CHC) Not Developed Option 2a (Stay in Place w/Larger Front Addition, divest Annex) Review) Alternatives Priority 1: Provide Police & Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs. Police: Minimum goal of 30,000 ft2 Court: Minimum goal of 6,650 ft2 Expand lobby/ seating area ( not included in space goal) requires relocation of Council office. Analysis ( Priority 1): Status Quo and Option 1 do not provide sufficient space for Police/ Court Alternatives vs. Priority 1 St. Quo Option 1 Option 2 CH ( BSE + 3D) ANNEX CH ( BSE + 2D) + ANNEX CH ( 2D) + ANNEX CH ( 2D) + WR CH ( 2D) + CHC Police CH 15, 742 18, 172 31, 860 CH 30, 625 30, 625 Courts CH 6, 364 6, 437 6, 664 CH 6, 664 6, 664 Administrative Departments 20, 173 21, 158 19, 487 18, 308 18, 308 CH 16,626 17,611 15,940 1,836 1,836 ANNEX 3,547 3,547 3,547 NEW BUILDING 16,472 16,472 TOTAL 42,279 45,767 58,011 55,597 55,597 Footprint ( Estimate) SAME Building NEW Building Option 3 20 173 21 158 St. Quo Option 1 CH ( BSE + 3D) ANNEX CH ( BSE + 2D) + ANNEX 15, 742 18, 172 6, 364 6, 437 Option 2 CH ( 2D) + ANNEX CH ( 2D) + WR CH ( 2D) + CHC 31, 860 CH 30, 625 30, 625 6, 664 CH 6, 664 6, 664 19 487 18 308 18 308 gNEW BuildingNEW Building Option 3 Alternatives vs. Priority 2 Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative space. Departmental location(s) and functional space available (now/future). Points of (and accessibility, design for) public service access. Parking (Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost (estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Docusign Envelope ID: D975CBDB- D3A7-498E-801B-C2444F7F344C St. Quo Option 2 CH ( BSE + 3D) ANNEX CH ( 2D) + ANNEX CH ( 2D) + WR CH ( 2D) + CHC Police 15, 742 CH 31, 860 CH 30, 625 30, 625 Courts 6, 364 CH 6, 664 CH 6, 664 6, 664 Administrative Departments 20, 173 19, 487 18, 308 18, 308 CH 16, 626 15, 940 1, 836 1, 836 ANNEX 3, 547 3, 547 NEW BUILDING 16, 472 16, 472 TOTAL 42, 279 58, 011 55, 597 55, 597 Points of Public Service 2 2 1 1 Dept. Meeting Spaces 5 4 7 UNK Common Meeting Spaces 1 2 2 UNK Restrooms ( M- F- GN) 3-3- 1 2- 2-1 2- 2-2 2- 2-0 NEW BUILDING SPACE 3, 547 0 33, 647 17, 202 FLEX/ FUTURE GROWTH 0 0 17, 175 730 Footprint ( Estimate) SAME Building NEW Building Option 3 Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available now/ future). Points of (and accessibility, design for) public service access. Option 2 Administrative space just under goal (19,600ft2) with low potential for growth/adaptation without taking away from Police. Retains annex ( 2 points of service). Continued access through shared lobby with Court. Less Dept. meeting spaces; Restrooms split between CH & Annex. Council Office/ Auditorium (co-located; 2d Floor). Option 3 Current fit plan falls under goal but can be adjusted to meet goal and allow for growth & future adaptation at one location (BOE). Allows divestment of annex; consolidates to a single point of service. Accessible through new lobby w/ focused reception. More common/ meeting spaces. Multiple restrooms in same building. Council Office/ Auditorium could stay in place or relocate to new building Only BOE, not CHC). Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Alternatives vs. Priority 2 Spaces On- Site 271 38 23 Employee Spaces ( Marked) 67 TBD TBD Visitor Spaces ( Marked) 22 22 22 Police Spaces ( Marked) 49 0 0 Open Spaces 133 16 1 Municipal ( w/ in 500') 0 50 269 Municipal ( w/ in 1000') 0 103 97 Total Spaces ( Area) 271 191 389 Police Vehicles 60 0 0 Public Works Vehicles 25 0 0 Open Spaces ( Estimated) 186 191 389 Administrative Employees ~ 74 69 69 PW/ Service ( Shift)~ 35 0 0 Police ( Admin + Shift)~ 55 0 0 Council ~ 2 TBD TBD Court ~ 34 0 0 Total Daily Employees ~ 200 69 69 Avg. Daily Visitors ( Admin) 33 33 33 Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available now/ future). Points of (and design for) public service access. Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Option 2 Marked visitor spots split (CH and Annex), shared with Court. Significant on- site parking – but also experiences high demand across all organizations. Option 3 Can provide same number of marked visitor spaces (not shared). Relocates 69 employees away from high demand CH site to central location with multiple municipal/ shared parking options. TBD: If Council Office/Auditorium relocates to new building. Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Alternatives vs. Priority 2 B C A Estimated Delivery Time 24 Months Design 8 Months Same Same Build 16 Months Less Less Option 2 Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available now/ future). Points of (and design for) public service access. Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Option 2 24-month delivery time for significant addition. Complexity: Higher potential for variables ( new construction). Complexity: priorities may require temporary location shift (Admin) Sustainability/ Vision: New construction ( addition) Option 3 Concurrent renovation to existing building( s) – estimated less time. Complexity: priorities may require temporary location shift ( Admin) Sustainability/ Vision: Adaptive Reuse of historic structure, centralize location of administrative services. Alternatives vs. Priority 2 ( Summary) Analysis of Alternatives Priority/ Option Status Status Quo Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3 BOE) Option 3 Option 3 CHC) Priority 1: Provide Police & Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs. Police: Minimum goal of 30, 000 ft2 X X ~ 31, 860 ft2 ~ 30,625 to 35, 116 ft2*~ 30, 625 ft2 Court: Minimum goal of 6, 650 ft2 + Expanded Lobby X X ~ 6, 664 ft2 + Expanded Lobby Priority 2: ( While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available ( now/ future). No space for growth/ flex Space for growth/ flex X Points of ( and accessibility, design for) public service access. Retains Annex Consolidation Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Demand vs. Capacity Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Complexity with achieving priorities via location shifts, renovation effort( s) Sustainability, Community Vision New Construction Adaptive Reuse, Central location if Council/ Auditorium relocates to new building Docusign Envelope ID: D975CBDB- D3A7-498E-801B-C2444F7F344C City of Lakewood City Hall Analysis of Alternatives Department of Planning and Development David Baas Assistant Director Docusign Envelope ID: D975CBDB- D3A7-498E-801B-C2444F7F344C