are Lakewood taxpayers subsidizing Westlake businesses?

The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

Moderator: Jim O'Bryan

Kevin Galvin
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:35 am

are Lakewood taxpayers subsidizing Westlake businesses?

Post by Kevin Galvin »

The following is from Stan Austin's post for budget hearings part 3, in the city council section.....

In the intervening 30 years municipal ice rinks have gradually shifted emphasis from providing recreational skating to participating in a much larger retail market of recreational, team, and competitive figure skating. The rink is subsidized for its operational and capital expenses just like the swimming pools. Requests for immediate repairs were presented. The larger question of the city’s involvement in this activity has to be confronted within the next few years because the facility needs rebuilding.

Since the rink hosts tournaments it attracts visitors to Lakewood from the Eastern United States and Canada.

For an Olympic moment, it will be noted that Winterhurst’s resident coach, Carol Heiss Jenkins (1960 Olympic medal winner) is coaching a skater from the Japanese national team. She hopes to compete in Turin, Italy and Lakewood hopes that her home rink will be associated with her name.

end quote

I have three children who have all skated there over the years. There was/is a discount since we live in Lakewood. I have to wonder just what this discount has cost me. Stan mentions the numerous times Winterhurst is used by people from outside the area. I can verify this as my nephew, a hockey player from Michigan, has played in several tournaments at our ice rink. This is what brings up how we subsidize the businesses in Westlake.

The hockey teams and their families always book a block of hotel rooms in Westlake, along I-90. They drive into Lakewood, watch the games, hop right back onto I-90 and return to their hotels. They then proceed to drop thousands of dollars at the restaurants and bars in the vicinity of the hotels.

I have a couple of questions that I hope Stan can answer. First, how much do the taxpayers of Lakewood pay for operational expenses each year and what type of capital expense for improvements is expected. My other question is whether anyone can think of a Lakewood business that benefits from the out-of-towners visiting Winterhurst.

I only know that I have traveled to several different states for business as well as athletic events. In each case, the group I was with spent our dollars near the hotel we were at or near the place where we played. If we were able to hop right back on the highway, we would do that so that we were back close to the hotel in case we happened to have an adult beverage or two. At no time did any of us stop to think whether or not we were going from one city to another.

Before I step off the soapbox I will add a couple of disjointed thoughts along this line. First, if we are spending tens of thousands of dollars in capital improvements perhaps we could give Winterhurst to the Stan Austin/Jim O'Bryan company with a promise that they give Lakewood residents a break and that Lakewood would be re-imbursed for current value if they sell it. The plus to this is we would no longer have to subsidize the operational costs and we could even collect a few bucks for property tax. If no company would be interested in this then we may want to consider the value of expensive repairs.
Random thought #2 is that if we are to spend six figures or more to make a city facility nice for out-of-towners, why not increase the seating capacity at the LHS football stadium so that we can host more rounds of the state football playoffs. We could throw in an extra locker room and get St. Ignatius to sign an extended lease to play there. Ask a bar owner near the high school how they feel about the Ed's/Ignatius game and you will see their eyes light up. I think a conservative estimate would be $10K is spent in Lakewood on that night alone. (Not counting the money that the LHS boosters make on concessions at the game.)
My final thought is that although an expensive jewel is nice to have, I have to consider whether it is worth the trade off. How many streets could be re-paved or police cars purchased for what we are paying each year. I considered having a limo take my daughter to school every day but then I figured she would rather be able to eat every day and have a roof over her head. :wink:
dl meckes
Posts: 1475
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Lakewood

Post by dl meckes »

I can't believe there were no takers on this good post.

We have often wished for a hotel near Winterhurst and an upgrade of the facility.

This is completely off the wall, but could you imagine if a hotel existed above a new Winterhurst facility?

Cedarfair has Castaway Bay, a combo hotel/indoor water park. Why not one for ice skating with some indoor toboggan runs?

Some group in Dubai is finishing an indoor skiing facility!
“One of they key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”- 45
Michell Slife
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:14 am

Post by Michell Slife »

If we follow this line of thinking, we might as well stop subsidizing Foster Pool and Lakewood Park as well. There are no businesses close to these areas either, and since the majority of people drive or take the bus to get there, they aren't necessarily stopping along the way home either. Winterhurst, Lakewood Park and Foster Pool are Lakewood facilities for Lakewood residents. Stop outside Winterhurst on a Friday or Saturday night and watch how many hundred Lakewood kids come pouring out the doors at the end of an open session. Do you have an alternative place for kids to go that offers them a place to congregate, with supervision, and perhaps the prospect of an hour or two of exercise all at the same time? There are also open sessions during the day for senior citizens and other adults who would like an alternative form of exercise. Many of the figure skaters who come there to train also attend Lakewood schools, and they and their families move to Lakewood during their training to be closer to the rink, which means they are helping to boost the tax base here.

The fact that Winterhurst makes extra money by hosting events that cater to out of towners is a plus for them. If Winterhurst didn't rent itself out to hockey tournaments and the like, imagine how much taxpayers would have to subsidize. For the record, it rents to local school groups, church groups, private parties (i.e. birthday etc.). It is also the home of the Special Olympics, the Lakewood High hockey team (such as it is) and the Winterhurst Hockey Association. All this besides the well known Carol Heiss-Jenkins and Tonia Kwiatkowski and other figure skating instructors.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think of Winterhurst as a Lakewood facility for Lakewood residents first and foremost. I suppose it doesn't bother me any more to subsidize the maintenance and upkeep of the rink than it does to subsidize new pool houses and maintenance at Foster and Madison pools, or skate parks at Lakewood Park.

I totally agree that it would be great to have restaurants, hotels and the like nearby. But who's house is the first to go to accommodate that?
Kevin Galvin
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:35 am

Post by Kevin Galvin »

To Michell Slife;

You made some valid points. A problem in this discussion is that we don't know the level of subsidy we are talking about. I'm hopeful that Stan Austin will be able to provide us with those figures. Considering the current discussion over the need for a tax increase I believe that opinions could vary. Lakewood is at a point where dollar amounts matter.

Would you still be willing to subsidizes Winterhurst if it meant laying off ten polic officers? Should we spend enough on the repairs if it meant not replacing needed ambulances? I would imagine that most people would say no if the cost was that high. On the other hand, if we are talking about 5 or 10 bucks per family each year, I would imagine the answer would be overwhelmingly yes.

Regarding some of your questions: I probably have a better perspective than most people regarding the kids who use Winterhurst for the open skate. Not only did I pick up my all of my kids there on too many nights to count, but I worked security there as an off-duty police officer dozens of times. Believe me when I say that having all of those kids supervised in one place is a great help to our police dept. Let me ask you a question about that. Is it fair for the retired couple who own a home on Hopkins to help pay for my kids to skate? I think I can safely say that the majority of parents would pay the extra dollar or two that it would cost. This is based on hpw the vast number of kids who would pull out a wad of cash as they went to the snack bar while there. I hated to hear "when I was a kid" growing up, but I know that we walked to Lakewood Park to ice skate in the winter. Winterhurst was the once a winter treat. I should point out that Winterhurst was outdoors but they had a wall around the rink and a snack bar.

I'm not sure if you read more into my first post than I intended. I don't know if I'm for or against paying for the repairs. I can't know until we have an idea of the cost. If it costs a million bucks to fix and a million to run each year, I will probably come down on the side of letting the users pay the bills. If we're talking about each home owner spending a couple bucks then I say thanks to all the non-users who helped pay for my kids and I will do the same for others.

Finally, my purpose of mentioning how we are subsidizing Westlake businesses was that I hoped to get a dialog going regarding how our dollars are spent since a discussion is going on regarding whether or not we need an increase,(Which I believe we do BTW) and how we plan to spend it. My tongue in cheek comment regarding the limo for my daughter was meant to illustrate how we need to prioritze much the way we do in our individual households. Most of us had to cut back on something else when we saw the heating bills. It may have been less going into savings, fewer fast food meals, or dropping cable. We all made that decision individually and now we need to do it collectively. I just believe the people in town will make good decisions if they are provided with the needed info.

To DL,
I love the idea of the toboggan runs built into a hotel atop Winterhurst. We have gone to the Cedar Point hotel. It is great. As for the sleds, the worst part of toboganning in MetPark is carrying the darn things up all those steps. Going up in an elevator would be FANTASTIC.

Thanks for the responses.
Michell Slife
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:14 am

Post by Michell Slife »

Kevin,

Let me first apologize for my last post sounding a bit cranky. I was just responding off the top of my head, as I haven't really read up on the issue much.

Obviously, if the choice is between safety forces and Winterhurst, the choice will be for safety. If that is the case. Again, having not read up on the subject I'm not aware that that is what is being asked of us.

As a younger person (30ish) I can make the same argument about paying for the Senior Center as a retired couple does about paying for schools and other programs (like the rink) for kids. I'm not using it, so why should I pay for it, right? However, I also feel that as a community we all have to work together to help each other. I completely understand that a retired couple is most probably on a fixed income and can't afford hundreds of dollars in extra taxes to subsidize the rink, but it's often just as hard for a single young person or a family just starting out to come up with the money as well. I'd like to think that one of the draws that brings young couples with children into the city is it's amenities for kids, like the rink, the pools, the rec department etc. At the same time, I agree that most parents would gladly pay the extra couple of dollars if the fees were increased. But will a couple bucks in extra admission fees really bring in enough money to totally support the rink if the taxpayers pull out? I don't know. Will the four or so tournaments a year pull out of Winterhurst and move to Strongsville or the East Side if Winterhurst's rental fees increase? Again, I don't know. Are we risking losing the whole shebang (a place for kids to go, a facility that brings national and even international recognition to our little 'burb, and perhaps the occasional added revenue dollar from the select few who travel here from afar and decide to check us out while they're here) by not improving the facility? Lots of questions that I fear we won't get a straight answer to.

I completely agree that we need to start a discussion about how our taxes are being spent and perhaps even ways we can increase revenue in the city besides increasing property taxes. I certainly am no expert on financial issues or how to most effectively run a city. However, Winterhurst holds a lot of history for our city and a lot of fond memories for our residents and I'd be really sad to see it go. I hope that just because something is old and in need of updating, we don't just chuck it and move on.

One more thing, you said you remember walking to Lakewood Park as a kid to go skating. As a police officer and a Dad, would you feel comfortable letting your kids walk, on their own, at night, from the far east or west ends of the city to Lakewood Park and then back again to go ice skating? This isn't a slam against the police department or anything, I'm just pointing out that times have changed and while I still feel safe in Lakewood, I'd rather have to power my car with my own blood than let my kid walk from one end of the city to the other at night. (Assuming I ever have kids.) Then again, your limo solution sounds good too.. :wink:




Maybe we can get those guys in Dubai to become corporate sponsors for Winterhurst? We could become a vacation destination! Once we add a hotel on top of the building!
Stan Austin
Contributor
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:02 pm
Contact:

Post by Stan Austin »

Kevin, Michelle, and DL---

I don't have any hard numbers on Winterhurst but I can expand a little on the presentation made by the rink Director to City Council at the budget hearings.

I personally only have a fleeting knowledge of the rink. As a kid my Dad took us to Lakewood Park to learn to skate. If it took then we could go to Winterhurst. I didn't pursue it that much (wrestled instead) but maybe went every 5 years or so as an adult. I do have friends in Geauga County who have a son that has been very active in hockey since he was 3 yrs old. And, I am consequently aware of the tremendous expense for a hockey team (as compared to other sports).

So, it was like learning about a new industry or topic when I heard the presentation.

Basically, the rink is part of a very competitive orbit of ice skating and a larger orbit of overall recreation. It's competitors are of course the nearby rinks--what is offered in terms of price, programs, amenities.
Like any business they are exploring and using advertising. And being a fixed facility they are pursuing billboard ads. So, just like any business they constantly monitor the daily "take" and their customer mix. And, they are always experimenting with events to attract patrons.
On the expense side the rink is over 30 years old and energy costs are high. I would imagine, for instance, that the "Q" Arena being only less than 10 yrs old is much more efficient at maintaining ice.
I think that Kevin has pretty much outlined the basic questions that have to be answered.
From what I understand---ultimately a greater understanding of the marketing environment through a good study will have to be determined along side of a comprehensive engineering study.
And the Mayor , et al, have a lot on their plate right now so attention to Winterhurst might not come for a year or so.
But, its fate ultimately has to be confronted.

Stan Austin
Danielle Masters
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Lakewood, OH

Post by Danielle Masters »

On the personal side, my family loves Winterhurst. Four of my children take lessons on Saturday morning. They then stay for the open skate. My eight year old participates in Trinity Special Olympics, which is also at Winterhurst. He does speed skating on Saturdays and hockey on Mondays. Every time we go we of course have to stop by the snack bar. I tallied up what we spend at Winterhurst in a year and its over $1,000 in lesson fees, that doesn't even include what is spent at the snack bar. We see the same families week after week. I know not everyone that comes to Winterhurst is a Lakewood resident, but many of them are. Winterhurst is a wonderful facility. I just don't want people to think its something that doesn't get used or isn't needed. It is just one of the many puzzle pieces that makes Lakewood a great home.
Charyn Varkonyi

Post by Charyn Varkonyi »

A few random thoughts....

I have to agree that to use the "I dont use it therefor why should I pay for it" theory is poor logic at best. While there are a number of people that may not benefit directly (from using the facility, or having family that works in or uses the facility), there are a number of intangible benefits that Lakewood residents of all ages and varieties benefit from. Some of my thoughts on this would be/are:

1) Having a central place of entertainment for teens/pre-teens ensures that they are able to have social fun that is appropriate. I have read a number of studies that show that 'bored' children are the ones that tend to get up to no good - whether it be vandalism, drugs, etc. I would theorize that there would be increases of these issues should we reduce the number of facilities available to this age group and *that* would end up costing everyone in a variety of ways.

2) It is a selling point of the community and used frequently in real estate advertisement/posts to attract home purchasers to the area. Less features = less attractive community = lower home prices. This is, of course, subjective and I cannot tell you what the $$ is (not a real estate guru) however, it is a real intangible benefit that should be evaluated and considered.

3) There would be a fair amount of additional costs to any Lakewoodite that were to take their children elsewhere for recreational purposes - likely widening further the impact of removing those dollars from Lakewood. For example: Say I spend $100.00 a month on Winterhurst related activities within the city (fees, after skate visits to Malley's, etc.). Say the Winterhust closes and I have to go elsewhere - now my cost is 125 (because i am visiting as non-resident elsewhere). the actual impact to the city is 125 - not 100. Again, this is difficult and subjective - but MUST be evaluated in order to understand the true economic impact of the facility and the economic impact of closing the facility.

4) There is then a cost associated with having the empty space, selling it, cleaning it up, etc. What is the cost of closing?

All is all, Lakewood will need to raise taxes in order to maintain the level of service that we, as Lakewood residents, have come to expect. That should be clear to most people by now - if not, you only need inspect your own checkbook. Every now and then you do *need* to get a raise in order to continue living as you like. The question I see is "how much" do we need to raise it and "how" shall we raise it.

Oh - and to answer the question... No. I dint think that Winterhurst serves as only a subsidy to Westlake businesses for the reasons above (and the others posted in this thread); however, I *do* think you have a very good point in that Lakewood should try to better maximize their benefit from the rink.

Peace,
~Charyn
Post Reply