School Bond Issue

[Jeff Endress]

Lynn

With regard to the issue of LEEDs certification. A building can be very green, and yet not be a LEEDs certified building. We went through this inquiry with regard to the Library construction. The cost alone, of administering a construction project to obtain the certification is quite significant. There are also some areas in which "points" are awarded towards certification which are if not prohibitively expensive, very costly (the geothermal heat plant requiring a heat sink of 1/2 an acre and some 140 wells comes to mind). The fact of the matter is that sound, ecologically prudent building decisions can be made, many of which are on a LEEDs punch list, whether or not one chooses to jump through the expensive requirements imposed to get a gold star. Just because it doesn't have this Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval has nothing whatever to do with its ecological design characteristics.

The real issue is an examination of the building design to see what environmental components are in place, and not the certification itself. On the Library, as I recall, any governmental aid had so many conditions and strings attached that it was not worth the effort, and that the additional costs of getting only the lowest level LEEDs certification would have raised the construction costs by some 15-20 %. It made much better sense to abandon the quest for a LEEDs gold star and use the monies towards environmentally sensitive construction.

Jeff

[Justine Cooper]

I complain about the taxes here all the time,but the cost of this is so low, compared with the cost of not doing this. Anyone who wants to vote no, vote yes and send me the bill for one or two dollars a month. I will gladly give up a latte and pay for it, not just for my children, but even the "element". Remember, we do not choose our parents, you never know what a good education for any of those children can do. I have seen many escape a bad home life in education, and become something important for the community. I have also seen the opposite, kids from "good" homes waste it all for drugs or something else. And like DL, I have seen many who wasted it and still came back to serve humanity and the community! This is for all the children, and for all the homeowners, isn't it?

[Joe Ott]

I most likely will vote for the bond issue - but I understand the tax revolt in Lakewood.

Still on the fence here.

I'm trying to be opened minded and listen to both sides. There's lots of positive things going on in Lakewood as well as a lot of ugly scary stuff too. And it's great that there are a lot of people working hard to make things better. I appreciate that. But I watch people/punks (like Feagler reference in his article this morning in the PD) walk down the middle of my street heading to the section 8 apartments on Clifton and I really wonder if that's what I want my HARD EARNED money spent on. I dunno...

We received one of those calls a week or two ago asking how we are going to vote - didn't answer. What were the results of those calls/poll? Anybody know? Anybody want to share what they know about that? Maybe somebody already did and I missed it.

The bond issue doesn't need to pass to get the State funding. The schools need to be built to get State funding. The schools can be built using existing resources.

Can anybody comment on what Bill said above? Bill can you elaborate?

Joe
still on the fence

[Jeff Endress]

Bill Call wrote:

The bond issue doesn't need to pass to get the State funding. The schools need to be built to get State funding. The schools can be built using existing resources.

Can anybody comment on what Bill said above? Bill can you elaborate?

The key point here is that in order to get the State funding, the ENTIRE project, phases one, two and three have to be completed. There is no partial payment for partial completion. It's either all or nothing. Bill's contention (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that if the board were to implement the various economies which he discusses frequently (discontinue contract mandated Board payments of pension contributions, changing the contract mandated health care benefits, etc.,) that in his opinion, there would be sufficient moneys freed up to complete the project.
The only sources the Board has are the Bonds (buildings only) or the operating funds (teacher salaries, staff, etc.) There is no other source. If the funds don't come from a bond, they come from operating revenues.

Jeff

[DougHuntingdon]

Mr. Feagler lives in Bay Village, so what does he know about section 8?

As far as the issue at hand, since it is only a couple dollars might as well just do it without thinking.

Doug

[Jay Foran]

A few points...

Jeff has been "spot on" in a number of his comments.

First, if the community does not pass all phases of the building project...then ALL of the available $42 million from the State of Ohio is lost. This equates to 25 cents to every dollar of construction throughout the entire construction project. There is NO pro-rated option. I know because I have asked this question of the OSFC no less than 10 times since 2002.

LEEDS status and a green construction project has been an interest of all parties involved the schools building project. The buildings will be incredibly energy efficient (especially versus current buildings). Many features have been added to manage rainwater, optimize air flow and minimize energy output. One feature will creature added energy consumption versus today's building...and that is air conditioning. It is only greater because that feature is not offered today. The 50 Year Committee and the Design Committee reviewed numerous green building techniques. However, a fully green building process (every possible element applied) would have added about 30% to the total building costs (approximately $30 million).

In terms of managing buildings that will be available at the end of the building effort, no plan is specifically in place. A few reasons... 1) The 50 Year Committee recommended to the Board to not look closely at the options until around 2008. Determining the best use in 2003 for buildings that would not be available until 2011-12 did not seem appropriate. Additionally, assembling a committee to look at these issues before Phase I and II were passed by the community could be an exercise in futility if the issues were not to pass. Said another way, why plan for something that was not going to happen.

Per Lynn's comments, if Issue 4 passes, I think you will see the Board begin to seek community input on how best to utilize these available properties going forward. I could foresee this effort beginning in 2008. My interest in Lakewood's economic development makes me excited by the prospects these sites could offer our community. Moving these prime sites from non-tax producing to tax-producing status is a great opportunity for improving our community's future and prosperity. Lynn, I would love to see you and/or Don involved in this assessment.

Lastly, in regard to current building maintenance. The focus has been on keeping the buildings clean, safe and dry and minimizing cosmetic investments where possible, especially as buildings become prospects for renovation or replacement. Lakewood Schools will maintain (protect) the investment of the taxpayer in the new buildings.

Vote for Issue 4 on May 8th. Better Schools...Stronger Lakewood

I invite everyone to visit the new schools and/or Emerson on Saturdays, April 14 and 21. Tours will begin on the hour at 9 am with the last tour conducted at 1 pm. Visit a new school and an old school and see for yourself.

Phase II is an outstanding educational investment. A net effective increase of $1.02 per month per $100,000 of home valuation will deliver two state of the art elementaries plus significant improvements (science labs, technologies, vocational programming and equipment) at Lakewood High School.

[Bill Call]

The only sources the Board has are the Bonds (buildings only) or the operating funds (teacher salaries, staff, etc.) There is no other source. If the funds don't come from a bond, they come from operating revenues.

Jeff

That's true. However, money is money.

If the Board stops paying the teachers portion of the pension and insists on an employee health plan with a reasonable co-pay and deductible with a meaningful employee contribution the tens of millions of dollars freed up could be used to finish the project without further tax increases.

The voters have very little leverage when it comes to the school board. Perhaps the defeat of this levy will put them on notice that the taxpayers are finally demanding some fiscal responsibility.

One other point. The Lakewood school's are going to see a substantial DECLINE in State funding over the next 10 years. Without immediate action to control costs substantial tax increases will be needed to fund the status quo. Can we afford the status quo?

In addition to the predicted decline in State funding the State pensions are getting ready to dump retired employee health care costs into the lap of the local school boards. One school board treasurer was quoted as saying that that would "force the districts to choose between books and pension costs".

My guess is that they stop buying books.

[Jeff Endress]

Bill

That's true. However, money is money.

If the Board stops paying the teachers portion of the pension and insists on an employee health plan with a reasonable co-pay and deductible with a meaningful employee contribution the tens of millions of dollars freed up could be used to finish the project without further tax increases

I can't argue that the current contracts require expenditures that are significant. They do.

But Bill, your position is an empty analysis. You assume ONLY the positive cash flow which results from the Board taking unilateral action in violation of their collective bargaining agreements. Let's look at the other side of the coin:
Significant legal expenses incurred over this unilateral violation of the collective bargaining agreements;
NLRB findings of various statutory Workplace and Labor statutes;
Fines for violations;
Individual suits by employees for medical expenses incurred which would have been otherwise insured;
Orders for back pay;
Imposition of the double or treble damage penalties.

Undertaking an action, in violation of the collective bargaining agreements would yield some short term savings at a cost that would not only destroy the entire system, but also require public contribution that would make your nightmare scenarios look like chump change.

Jeff

[Joe Ott]

Mr. Feagler lives in Bay Village, so what does he know about section 8?

As far as the issue at hand, since it is only a couple dollars might as well just do it without thinking.

Doug

That was actually the first time I ever read one of his columns. I've never cared for him too much. It was his story and how it sounds very similar to another city I know of... I know it's only a buck or two. I agree. Big whoop. Last time it was "the price of a pizza once a month", this time the cost of a "bottle of water". I hate those analogies. There are a lot of people who think bottled water is a waste of money. But that's not the point. Rumor is once this passes they're going to come at us asking for an operating levy. Then the city is going to increase taxes. Uhg. OMG! Then, the dems will get the White House and taxes will sky rocket. What's next? Tongue-in-cheek - Don't anybody get your shorts in a knot!

Seriously-
Bill, Jeff, and Jay, you are making my head spin. I'm trying to understand the good and bad. But it all sounds bad one way or another. I guess it comes down to trying to pick the lessor of two evils based on what you've learned. That's why I keep asking questions.

So what's plan B if it fails? There's got to be one, right?
Does anybody know about the calls asking how you are voting? I wonder how many people even know it's coming up?


Joe
(who has always supported the schools but is on the fence with this one)

PS - I like bottled water! Ever get the Lipton stuff from Costco? Good stuff when you're thirsty. Well, that or a very cold Bud-Light or a glass of Dewar's with just one small icecube or... listen, ya gotta laugh now in then or else you'll cry

[Bill Call]

Bill, Jeff, and Jay, you are making my head spin. I'm trying to understand the good and bad. But it all sounds bad one way or another. I guess it comes down to trying to pick the lessor of two evils based on what you've learned. That's why I keep asking questions.

Mine to.

At this point I don't know whether to vote for the levy and hope it fails or to vote against it and hope it passes.

The bottom line is that the millions of dollars in anticipated deficits for the Schools and the City should be an issue in the bond campaign and the Mayoral campaign. But it is not.

The looming fiscal crisis seems to be the issue everyone wants to ignore.

[Rick Uldricks]

I know it's only a buck or two. I agree. Big whoop. Last time it was "the price of a pizza once a month", this time the cost of a "bottle of water". I hate those analogies. There are a lot of people who think bottled water is a waste of money. But that's not the point. Rumor is once this passes they're going to come at us asking for an operating levy. Then the city is going to increase taxes.

This is exactly why I am on the fence. The cost is minimal, but it all adds up -- on top of already high taxes.

If taxes keep going up, residents will eventually leave.

[Jeff Endress]

This is an interesting discussion, and as I see it, it boils down to essentially two positions:

1) $1.02 per month on a $100,000 home is a reasonable investment and cost in one of the key elements of the community, its schools versus,
2) There is a need, in this declining economy, to vote against taxes to “send a messageâ€Â￾ that the well is dry and it’s time to draw a line.

I certainly understand the weariness with ongoing, continual requests for MORE MONEY! Sometimes it feels as if we made a well intentioned contribution to a charity that now fills our mailbox with further solicitations and calls every night at dinner. A knee jerk reaction is, perhaps understandable.

But, what I would suggest is an analysis of these personal costs versus the benefits (with apologies to Joe, but you gotta quantify it somehow)

$1.02 a month will get you out to Crocker Park in your SUV. Over two months, it will also get you back.
$1.02 a month will buy a regular hamburger at Mickey Dee’s (to go) with a couple pennies back.
If you save that $1.02 for a year, you could buy a 12 pack of Bud Light (on sale) for New Year’s Eve.
$1.02 will buy enough gas to cut the lawn (once).
If you save for a couple of months, you could get a small coffee at Phoenix
$1.02 a month would give you enough to leave a 10% tip after a couple of Guinnesses at Sullivans
$1.02 will buy 4 cigarettes
Get you a ride on the Circulator

$1.02 a month will also get you 2 fully renovated middle schools and a renovated wing at LHS
$1.02 a month will free up multiple sites in Lakewood for redevelopment.
$1.02 a month gets you 1 step closer to a 43 million dollar payout from the State of Ohio.

In my mind, the personal economic impact of approving the Bond Issue is far outweighed by the benefits to be realized. Or, to put it in reverse, the losses which will be incurred by FAILING to pass this Bond Issue aren’t worth a one way trip to Crocker, or a to go burger at Mickey Dee’s. But, if you have a need to “send a messageâ€Â￾, then so be it. You are certainly entitled to that exercise.

Jeff

[Charyn Compeau]

I have been thinking about this - and at this point based upon what I have seen, heard, and read here and "elsewhere" I do believe that the bond issue is one to vote for.

The operating levy is the one we can (and should) debate - but it really doesnt make sense to not vote from this one from a financial point of view.

The initial investment is low and the returns large.

I dont want my taxes to go up either - but I think the housing values will go up with the school as a selling point (which they will be) and we will certainly benefit from the additional monies from the state.

IMHO - Income tax, operating levies, etc. are another matter entirely and should be addresses separately.

Always,
Charyn
(who has hopped off the fence)

[Ryan Salo]

This information is great. I am supporting this current bond issue, but I haven't seen any rough figures for the 3rd bond that needs to happen. Has that been brought up anywhere?

[Jeff Endress]

Ryan

I don't have any of that information either. I do know that the third bond would finance the demolition of the the high school structures east of the civic auditorium, excluding the nautitorium, the East gym, and perhaps the L-room and that a new classroom wing would be constructed in that footprint. I would imagine, that when the 43 million from the state is factored in, that the actual costs ultimately incurred will be small.

Perhaps Jay can add some knowledgeable input.

Jeff