Same old story from Council-member Anderson

[Mark Kindt]

Here I quote from a recent post from council-member Anderson in another thread on this forum where he criticizes the opinions and analyses of another citizen:

“You consistently report LHA’s assets without indicating liabilities which include a minimum of $90 million in upgrades and repairs needed to make the Hospital and garage safe and competitive. LHA did not have anywhere close to $90 million in pocket and could not have secured long-term financing (performance based bonds) due to operating losses. In addition, per the agreement/contract with the Clinic at the time, LHA could not make any upgrades/repairs in excess of $500,000 without the Clinic’s approval."

Mr. Anderson's argument is both specious and disingenuous.

Despite public documents and miles-of-ink to the contrary, Mr. Anderson continues to stick with the false narrative that the city administration produced with its paid public relations consultants in 2014, 2015, and 2016 to convince voters that Lakewood Hospital was non-viable (despite a major offer from Metro Health System that was kept hidden from other elected officials, including Anderson, and the public.)

Indeed, Metro has just opened two new suburban hospitals in Parma and Cleveland Heights, similar to its ignored proposal for Lakewood Hospital.

Public interest litigation has clearly established that the so-called "operating losses" were an intentional result of a "decanting plan" executed to remove valuable and viable services from Lakewood Hospital and consistent with a plan to open a new hospital in Avon. This decanting plan has now been widely circulated. Mr. Anderson surely knows about it by now.

Documents, some resulting from public interest litigation, also established that the sole member of the Lakewood Hospital Association had a contractual duty to keep the hospital viable and operational with a contractual duty to mitigate losses. In fact, posted elsewhere on this forum are negotiating documents that show this obligation and its estimated value.

The liabilities that Mr. Anderson describes are not reflected on the annual accounting of the Lakewood Hospital Association. The sole member of Lakewood Hospital Association is one of the largest health care systems in the United States and had more than enough financial capacity to maintain the Hospital and it had a contractual duty to do so.

There existed a number of standard financing mechanism available to both the City and LHA to handle relevant upgrades:

1. Hospital revenue bonds;

2. Municipal bonds;

3. Other public entity bonds, typically, the local port authority is active in using its bonding authority for non-port financing.

While I am on the topic of bonds, I remain concerned that the City of Lakewood concealed and/or misrepresented the status of Lakewood Hospital to the bond market even earlier than its documented misrepresentations beginning in January of 2015. As I have written previously and at length, there were potential violations of the federal securities laws in this regard.

The city administration made what I believe to be a cynical decision and made it through a process that was conflict-ridden and violated Ohio law; all in order to transfer tens of millions of dollars to private entities.

This decision came at the expense of lease revenues, employee income tax revenues, an invaluable community hospital, and millions of dollars in charity care.

[Mark Kindt]

Again I quote from a recent post from council-member Anderson in another thread on this forum where he criticizes the opinions and analyses of another citizen:

“You consistently report LHA’s assets without indicating liabilities which include a minimum of $90 million in upgrades and repairs needed to make the Hospital and garage safe and competitive. LHA did not have anywhere close to $90 million in pocket and could not have secured long-term financing (performance based bonds) due to operating losses. In addition, per the agreement/contract with the Clinic at the time, LHA could not make any upgrades/repairs in excess of $500,000 without the Clinic’s approval."

Given that LHA, LHF, the City and CCF had no problem meeting and negotiating a Letter of Intent that led to a contract that liquidated all of the hospitals assets, I would suggest to you that at anytime all of the parties could have addressed the $500K limitation that you note. Another howler!

[Mark Kindt]

The burden rests with council-member Anderson to produce actual LHA or City of Lakewood documents to substantiate his claim that there were $90,000,000 in liabilities related to the garage and the hospital for upgrades and improvements.

I would ask him to provide copies of any capital spending plans (or other internal documents), either from LHA or the City of Lakewood that reflect these liabilities.

To my knowledge, these estimated liabilities are not reflected in the CAFRs of the City of Lakewood or on those annual reports of LHA that were available at one time.

Here, council-member Anderson has us at a severe disadvantage. Let's just say that the body has already been buried and there won't be an autopsy.

The garage has been demolished. The hospital has been closed and emptied of its physical assets.

There is no public access to the records of Lakewood Hospital Association without expensive litigation.

The City of Lakewood deliberately chose to violate the public records access statutes with a "scorched-earth" approach to Mr. Essi' attempts to see transaction documents and is still conducting that fight.

We will never really know, will we.

I simply do not know why council-member Anderson would risk his credibility by a continued defense of the actions of the Lakewood Hospital Association given the dire outcome and losses of those actions.

[Stan Austin]

This is , perhaps, the best summary of the total debacle of the disappearance of Lakewood Hospital. Can Lakewood Refuse Dep't. clean up the mess or is it beyond that department's capabilities?

[Stan Austin]

Perhaps an even larger question--- has there ever in Lakewood's history been a diminution in civic assets? The only other example that comes to mind is East Cleveland.

[Mark Kindt]

The Master Agreement merry-go-round has spun-off and will continue to spin-off tens of millions of dollars to private entities.

We didn't lose our hospital because we couldn't figure-out how to repair the parking garage.

We lost our hospital because the Mayor circumvented routine government processes.

Normal things like appraisals and public notice and public bidding.

Normal things like open and public deliberations.

We lost our hospital because of a lack of political will and the moral courage to save it on the part of our elected municipal leaders.

The 2015 city council members voted consistent with their conflicts-of-interest and the other council-members just wimped-out.

Council-member Anderson knows exactly when he first saw the $100,000,000 ten-year proposal from Metro. He knows that he did not see it in 2014 or before the Letter of Intent was announced in January 2015.

He knows that a major material offer from a truly credible hospital system was kept secret from him and other members of city council.

He knows that this was done to him by the Mayor and a small group of insiders at LHA and LHF.

Yet, it seems to me like he keeps drinking the Kool-Aid at City Hall.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Here, council-member Anderson has us at a severe disadvantage. Let's just say that the body has already been buried and there won't be an autopsy.

and

The City of Lakewood deliberately chose to violate the public records access statutes with a "scorched-earth" approach to Mr. Essi' attempts to see transaction documents and is still conducting that fight.

We will never really know, will we.

Mr. Kindt

I do not mean to cherry pick you statement, but the fact remains. Lakewoodites have a right to know. We have a right to an autopsy. They won, got the hospital closed, the land, and every penny in the hands and control of their friends and the CCF, but we deserve the truth.

We certainly deserve to see the documents, declared public by the courts.

Councilman Bullock ran on Transparency as did others, where is he now on this? Where are the rest?

Councilman Anderson loves to brag he worked for Howard Metzenbaum, and that he is the embodiment of a Metzenbaum Democrat. Time to step up. He always said his biggest fear was an empty hole on Detroit Avenue. Well that has been avoided. Now David, put the people, where your claim your heart is, put the documents where your mouth is. Let's see the documents.

The City will take decades to heal, without an outside group coming in and saying, "Kosher"or "not Kosher." Seems simple to me.

You, the Mayor, the Law Director and other members of council claim, No laws broken, nothing bad going on. Let's get an outside unbiased crew to look at the documents.

Bullock, Litten, Anderson, O'Leary, Marxs(council that was part of the debacle), Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Lakewood Business Alliance, and others group claim they want to heal and move on. Bring the city together, let's get this looked at once and for all, then we can move on together. I left out Pae, Butler, Powers and Summers because I have never heard them even mention trying to heal the community or taking steps to bring the community back together.

.

[Mark Kindt]

Here, council-member Anderson has us at a severe disadvantage. Let's just say that the body has already been buried and there won't be an autopsy.

and

The City of Lakewood deliberately chose to violate the public records access statutes with a "scorched-earth" approach to Mr. Essi' attempts to see transaction documents and is still conducting that fight.

We will never really know, will we.

Mr. Kindt

I do not mean to cherry pick you statement, but the fact remains. Lakewoodites have a right to know. We have a right to an autopsy. They won, got the hospital closed, the land, and every penny in the hands and control of their friends and the CCF, but we deserve the truth.

We certainly deserve to see the documents, declared public by the courts.

Councilman Bullock ran on Transparency as did others, where is he now on this? Where are the rest?

Councilman Anderson loves to brag he worked for Howard Metzenbaum, and that he is the embodiment of a Metzenbaum Democrat. Time to step up. He always said his biggest fear was an empty hole on Detroit Avenue. Well that has been avoided. Now David, put the people, where your claim your heart is, put the documents where your mouth is. Let's see the documents.

The City will take decades to heal, without an outside group coming in and saying, "Kosher"or "not Kosher." Seems simple to me.

You, the Mayor, the Law Director and other members of council claim, No laws broken, nothing bad going on. Let's get an outside unbiased crew to look at the documents.

Bullock, Litten, Anderson, O'Leary, Marxs(council that was part of the debacle), Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Lakewood Business Alliance, and others group claim they want to heal and move on. Bring the city together, let's get this looked at once and for all, then we can move on together. I left out Pae, Butler, Powers and Summers because I have never heard them even mention trying to heal the community or taking steps to bring the community back together.

.

Now, about that empty hole:

Has the former Lakewood Hospital site been appraised?

If not, when will the former Lakewood Hospital site be appraised?

What is the fair market value of the Lakewood Hospital site?

If it is carried on the City's books, what dollar value is listed?

Does the City truly intend to donate for $0 or sell for $1.00 the former Lakewood Hospital site to its recommended developer?

Does the City truly intend to donate for $0 or sell for $1.00 the former Lakewood Hospital site to the business client of the former Mayor (Mr. Fitzgerald)?

How much does the City intend to give its recommended developer for site demolition and site preparation costs?

[Mark Kindt]

Let's take a stab at answering some of these questions:

Now, about that empty hole:

Has the former Lakewood Hospital site been appraised? Probably not.

If not, when will the former Lakewood Hospital site be appraised? Probably never.

What is the fair market value of the Lakewood Hospital site? A figure somewhere between $5M and $20M depending on which public documents you consult.

If it is carried on the City's books, what dollar value is listed? Who knows? Cannot be determined without specialized accounting knowledge.

Does the City truly intend to donate for $0 or sell for $1.00 the former Lakewood Hospital site to its recommended developer? Yes, the Mayor has stated this to the press.

Does the City truly intend to donate for $0 or sell for $1.00 the former Lakewood Hospital site to the business client of the former Mayor (Mr. Fitzgerald)? Yes. The City's recommended developer has partnered with a firm related to Mr. Fitzgerald.

How much does the City intend to give its recommended developer for site demolition and site preparation costs? The City has stated in the press that this amount is between $7M to $10M.

For any reader that disagrees with any statement in any post that I have written on the Deck, I encourage you to offer rebuttal and to produce public documents in support of your rebuttal position.

[Brian Essi]

Here I quote from a recent post from council-member Anderson in another thread on this forum where he criticizes the opinions and analyses of another citizen:

“You consistently report LHA’s assets without indicating liabilities which include a minimum of $90 million in upgrades and repairs needed to make the Hospital and garage safe and competitive. LHA did not have anywhere close to $90 million in pocket and could not have secured long-term financing (performance based bonds) due to operating losses. In addition, per the agreement/contract with the Clinic at the time, LHA could not make any upgrades/repairs in excess of $500,000 without the Clinic’s approval."

Mr. Anderson's argument is both specious and disingenuous.

Despite public documents and miles-of-ink to the contrary, Mr. Anderson continues to stick with the false narrative that the city administration produced with its paid public relations consultants in 2014, 2015, and 2016 to convince voters that Lakewood Hospital was non-viable (despite a major offer from Metro Health System that was kept hidden from other elected officials, including Anderson, and the public.)

Indeed, Metro has just opened two new suburban hospitals in Parma and Cleveland Heights, similar to its ignored proposal for Lakewood Hospital.

Public interest litigation has clearly established that the so-called "operating losses" were an intentional result of a "decanting plan" executed to remove valuable and viable services from Lakewood Hospital and consistent with a plan to open a new hospital in Avon. This decanting plan has now been widely circulated. Mr. Anderson surely knows about it by now.

Documents, some resulting from public interest litigation, also established that the sole member of the Lakewood Hospital Association had a contractual duty to keep the hospital viable and operational with a contractual duty to mitigate losses. In fact, posted elsewhere on this forum are negotiating documents that show this obligation and its estimated value.

The liabilities that Mr. Anderson describes are not reflected on the annual accounting of the Lakewood Hospital Association. The sole member of Lakewood Hospital Association is one of the largest health care systems in the United States and had more than enough financial capacity to maintain the Hospital and it had a contractual duty to do so.

There existed a number of standard financing mechanism available to both the City and LHA to handle relevant upgrades:

1. Hospital revenue bonds;

2. Municipal bonds;

3. Other public entity bonds, typically, the local port authority is active in using its bonding authority for non-port financing.

While I am on the topic of bonds, I remain concerned that the City of Lakewood concealed and/or misrepresented the status of Lakewood Hospital to the bond market even earlier than its documented misrepresentations beginning in January of 2015. As I have written previously and at length, there were potential violations of the federal securities laws in this regard.

The city administration made what I believe to be a cynical decision and made it through a process that was conflict-ridden and violated Ohio law; all in order to transfer tens of millions of dollars to private entities.

This decision came at the expense of lease revenues, employee income tax revenues, an invaluable community hospital, and millions of dollars in charity care.

Mr. Kindt,

To add to your analysis, I will remind readers of the following:

1. In early 2015, LHA was virtually debt free---and if LHA needed to take on debt to do any capital improvements, contractual provisions not only required CCF to agree to taking on debt, but also to match that debt with CCF's own cash that LHA would not need to pay back to CCF at the end of the lease.

2. Contractual Provisions. Section 2.1.1 of the Definitive Agreement (DA) provides in part, "CCF shall assure that Lakewood shall have a cash to debt ratio of 1:1 on a fiscal year basis…if it is determined that [LHA] does not meet such ratio, CCF shall advance sufficient funds to Lakewood to meet such ratio…any advances not repaid to CCF at such time as the [Lease] terminates shall be forgiven by CCF" In Section 1.8.1 of the DA, CCF agreed "Notwithstanding any provisions in this Agreement to the contrary, CCF acknowledges and agrees that no provisions in this Agreement will cause [LHA] to take action or omit to take any action that could cause [LHA] to fail to perform or observe, or otherwise be in default of, any of its obligations under the Lease..." These provisions taken together mean that CCF must provide cash to Lakewood Hospital to match all debt including trade debt, and when they leave in 2026, we have a debt free facility (or at least enough cash to pay all debt) by the terms of the agreement.

3. According to Standard & Poors, CCF was LIABLE for all Hospital Losses.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/posti ... 7&p=160415

The attached report by Standard & Poor's bond rating service demonstrates that CCF's "contract with Lakewood requires CCF to fund any cash shortfall should one
occur: Lakewood's cash to debt must always equal to at least a 1:1 ratio as of the end of its fiscal year."


CCF is liable for losses--under a contract with Lakewood.

Summers, Team Summers and BLers have all made repeated false claims that CCF is not contractually liable for losses that are incurred and that CCF has no contract with Lakewood.

They are wrong--AGAIN!

They have been caught misleading the public--AGAIN!

Who do you believe has more expertise at assessing CCF's financial and legal liability to Lakewood? The prestigious national bond rater S&P and their lawyers? or the self-serving Summers BLers and attorneys like Jay Carson?

From page 9 of the attached Standard & Poor's Report:

"Lakewood Hospital
The affirmed 'A+' long-term rating and revised positive outlook on Lakewood Hospital Association's series 2003 bonds
($10.6 million outstanding as of Dec. 31, 2012, with a final maturity of 2015) reflects our view of its operational
integration into CCHS' management structure, even though it remains outside of the obligated group because it is a
government-owned facility tied to CCHS through a long-term lease. While Lakewood had incurred losses in recent
years on an operating and excess income basis and did not meet its debt service ratio requirement in 2009 and 2010, it
did improve its financial performance in 2011, generating a modest operating loss and a positive bottom line, resulting
in its meeting its debt service ratio requirement with MADS coverage of 1.3x.

Lakewood's 2012 audit is expected to be released later this month. Aside from the comfort CCF derives from the short
remaining maturity on the rated bonds, a contract with Lakewood requires CCF to fund any cash shortfall should one
occur: Lakewood's cash to debt must always equal to at least a 1:1 ratio as of the end of its fiscal year. Should losses
continue or liquidity decline such that either impedes timely payment of remaining debt service, we could lower the
rating. CCHS is actively working with Lakewood to reposition its services in light of demographic and economic
changes occurring in its market.

We consider Lakewood's overall financial profile adequate for the rating because it maintains ample liquidity to
support its debt obligations with $47.0 million of unrestricted cash and investments on hand at Sept. 30, 2012 (fiscal
year-end Dec. 31, 2012) compared with long-term debt of $19.5 million, cash to debt of 241.5%, and 13.8% debt
leverage."

Standard & Poors Proves Summers Wrong.pdf

[Brian Essi]

Here is the S & P Report that proved Summers et al lied.

The lies from City Hall have been repeatedly proven wrong by evidence from National organizations, by City Hall keeps repeating them anyway.

Standard & Poors Proves Summers Wrong.pdf

(388.02 KiB) Downloaded 195 times

[Mark Kindt]

Thank you, Mr. Essi, for this definitive answer. It troubles me that we have to keep going over the same ground time-and-time-again with our municipal leadership to stem continuing misrepresentations about what occurred or what the actual documents state or require.

It is clear from any reading of the SEC Harrisburg Release that public leaders with municipals bonds in the marketplace cannot misrepresent their material financial condition. Somehow, our municipal leadership seems to be oblivious to this federal obligation.

[Mark Kindt]

If I seem entrenched in my position, it is because I am taking the public documents that I have read at their face value.

For example, when LHA insiders circulate an email that advises the recipients that the public relations numbers are "bogus", then I have to rely upon what has been written.

For example, when the Ohio Ethics Commission issues opinions that describe possible misdemeanor violations of law that may have occurred during the development of the Letter of Intent, I have to rely upon the work of that agency.

Same with the report from Standard & Poors.

Each of these are independent documentary sources.

And, when, after protracted litigation, the Court issues orders to the City of Lakewood to produce documents, I can reasonably conclude that the City of Lakewood intended to violate the Ohio public records statute.

Equally, when I learn that the City of Lakewood did not actually conduct a search of its non-email files, I can reasonably conclude that the City did not conduct a competent or complete search for public records also in violation of the statute.

Given this fact and the length of time that the City stalled on its production of records, I can reasonably infer that relevant public records were being concealed improperly in violation of law.

And, this all leads me to the question of "Why?"

It has now been three years since the January 2015 press conference about closing Lakewood Hospital and the City of Lakewood, despite court orders, is still litigating to prevent the further production of public records.

So, I scratch my head, and think "What could they be ......"

[Mark Kindt]

This discussion has jumped to a new thread:

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... =7&t=24550