School Board Members Call For Reinvestment in Lakewood

[marklingm]

The following is a letter read by School Board Member Edward Favre at the May 17, 2010 school board meeting regarding the need for the Lakewood City Schools to more actively reinvest in our Community:

May 17, 2010

Mrs. Betsy Shaughnessy, President
Mr. Matthew Markling, Vice President
Mrs. Linda Beebe
Mr. John Kamkutis

Dear Fellow Board Members:

With the passage of our levy, it is the time for this organization, this school district, to take the initiative to help stabilize Lakewood’s future in these unstable and declining times. We have just asked the citizens of Lakewood to reinvest in their schools, and they did. It is now time that their schools more actively reinvest in the community.

Our Lakewood, just like the rest of the world, has changed and is continuing to do so. A wise man I know uses the phrase “The arrows are pointed in the right direction” as a way to describe going down the right path. Unfortunately, all the arrows are not pointed in the right direction for Lakewood. There are those who say the future is not promising for Lakewood. I believe there is a closing window of opportunity. Ignoring it because it is more comfortable or convenient not to act must yield to need and a sense of urgency. Think about the following:

• The 1980 Census showed Lakewood with over 70,000 residents.
• In 1990, the Census counted 62,000 Lakewood residents. The trend was apparent 20 years ago.
• By 2000, the Lakewood Census count had dropped to 56,000. It was crystal clear 10 years ago that by 2010 we would be flirting with 50,000.
• Now, in 2010, we worry whether the Census will keep us above 50,000. When, not if, we drop below 50,000, the City stands to loose approximately $3 million in federal funding. Some cities, such as Cleveland Heights, have already given up on staying over 50,000 mark and, to avoid the loss of funding that population loss brings, have actually asked federal representatives to work to lower the threshold to 45,000, or less. That is not going to happen when growing communities in other parts of the country compete for those dollars.

If Lakewood is fortunate enough to dodge the bullet in 2010, this undeniable trend will surely put Lakewood well below 50,000 by 2020. Unless we do something about it, and NOW! To say that the handwriting is on the wall is an understatement.

This region’s population is not growing, it is shifting. In places like Lakewood, we are working against decades of public policy. Transportation is a prime example. Our state’s highway policies have gutted great neighborhoods, such as the southwest corner of Lakewood, to the detriment of Lakewood, and to the advantage of developers elsewhere. This trend corresponds with our population decline. All Cities that were developed prior to the 1970s have suffered similarly. Look around at the pavement scars that were once great neighborhoods and the people and tax base that they drained elsewhere.

Now, add the mortgage crisis and the toll it takes on places like Lakewood. We have houses that formerly sold for well over $100,000 now selling for $30,000 or $50,000. And as those properties are taxed at their new, lower values, the schools’ revenue will drop. Without a doubt, Lakewood desperately needs people, taxpayers, and home owners.

In 2005, I was involved in a Grow Lakewood Committee, along with Member of City Council and State Representative-elect Nickie Antonio, and current Members of City Council Michael Summers and Brian Powers, among others. We presented a report to a Lakewood Alive forum. Five years ago, before the mortgage crisis, we reported that housing was the economic lynchpin of Lakewood. Part of the report read, “The economics of living in Lakewood are favorable as long as our house values are increasing at a rate greater that housing costs. The moment our house values start decreasing is when Lakewood’s future becomes vulnerable to many negative forces.”

Recently, the City has started tearing down abandoned, non-viable houses and plans to build new, single family houses. That’s a good thing…the more and the sooner the better. Lakewood needs as much of it as we can muster. It is also something this Board must keep in mind when we decide how and when we go about disposing of surplus properties in the future.

The Lakewood City School District is the second largest employer in Lakewood, after Lakewood Hospital. It is the largest employer funded by Lakewood taxpayers, followed by City government. In fact, if you add the School District and City government, the Lakewood taxpayer is the largest employer in Lakewood. After Lakewood Hospital, we are the largest employer of professionals in Lakewood. Our employees tend to be homeowners…a commodity Lakewood sorely needs.

The Lakewood City Schools employs 648 full time employees (FTEs), with a payroll of $40.4 million. 195, or 30%, of our employees live in Lakewood, which unfortunately is a significant drop from years past. (Source: Lakewood Schools Treasurer’s Office.) Based on the current percentage, $28.3 million of our Lakewood taxpayer supported payroll has a zip code other than Lakewood.

In the last few years, we have added to our annual resolution for expeditious transaction of business, “…Section 15: That, the Board encourages employees to reside in the City of Lakewood. The District will collaborate with the City of Lakewood, financial institutions, and other community organizations in developing proactive and positive programs to encourage District employees to make Lakewood their home…” I recommend and request we also make this a Board Policy.

As of today, I am unaware of any implementation of this resolution. I certainly hope every Lakewood City Schools administrator and every employee is aware of this Board resolution. We need to promote it at every opportunity, in every dealing we have. Although we have made lay offs of late and our employment numbers are somewhat smaller, we will always be hiring new administrators, new teachers, and new staff. Lakewood has experienced some population growth with young professionals. That is exactly what new teachers are! In the past, when we would have the new teacher orientation over Christmas break, we made a pitch for Lakewood. We need to that more so now, with everybody we hire.

Turning to City government, the City of Lakewood, the third largest employer in Lakewood and the second largest employer owned by Lakewood citizens. The City employs 443 FTEs, with a payroll of $28.4 million. 142, or 32%, are Lakewood residents. In other words, $19.3 million of Lakewood taxpayer supported payroll calls someplace other that Lakewood home. (Source: Lakewood Finance Dept.)

Keep in mind that the average wage and benefit package of School and City employees is greater than the median family income in Lakewood. This is another obvious reason why we should lure them to live in Lakewood and have an ongoing initiative to do so.

Our initiative to attract our employees to live in Lakewood is consistent with other actions here and elsewhere. For example:

• In Lakewood, this Board has collaborated with the City in Tax Increment Financing agreements to promote economic development. If we were to have it to do over, we should include a provision for our employees to buy at Rockport Square.
• Cleveland has done many initiatives, the most recent to lure a foreign lighting company.
• Fairview Park, a city which has experienced a population loss similar to Lakewood, is looking for ways to mitigate a loss of NASA payroll.
• Avon, one of the cities that has benefited from the loss of cities like Lakewood, has engaged in incentives to build a new ball park.
• Mentor, another city whose growth is directly related to highways, is now working to lure jobs from Erie, PA.

We can see that cities all around us regularly offer incentives to attract businesses with large payrolls. We have the payroll; it is only common sense for us to attract it to stay here.

Here are three areas where we can do something to entice our employees to live in Lakewood. There is no one “silver bullet.” If we are of a mind to do it, there surely are other ideas we can come up with to attract our employees to live in Lakewood.

1. Banks. Financial Institutions hold and handle millions of Lakewood taxpayer school dollars. We need to lever those taxpayer dollars and insist on preferential loan rates for Lakewood employees to buy homes in Lakewood. Again, not in other towns, which would only make the problem I have outline here worse, but only in Lakewood. Every RFP should include that stipulation. A real estate agent friend tells me that if we get a financial institution on board, the realtors will follow.

2. Lakewood Hospital. First, let me say that I am a supporter of the Cleveland Clinic. My primary care physician has been a Clinic doctor, here in Lakewood, for many years. Lakewood Hospital is my preferred hospital. Having said that, I have great concern that the Cleveland Clinic is investing more in Fairview Hospital and a new site in Avon, than in Lakewood Hospital. As this Board is in business for Lakewood’s children, I worry about the downgrading of the Lakewood Emergency and Pediatric Departments. These are a few reasons why the District should partner wherever possible with Lakewood Hospital to steer our employees to Lakewood Hospital. Again, this is just plain good for Lakewood.

3. Our tenants. We regularly rent school buildings to organizations such as the YMCA. When we make these agreements, let’s insist on a break in the rate to our employees at places like the Lakewood YMCA.

Those are just three areas and there are others. How about the Chamber of Commerce? Surely Lakewood businesses would benefit from more, viable customers.

Hopefully, organizations we do business with will want to participate. If they are truly a Lakewood business, it is in their best interest as well. I would hope that any real Lakewood business, with “Lakewood” in its name, would jump at the opportunity. I would also suggest that we, School Board Members, be willing to meet with the Boards, Directors, or CEOs of such businesses and organizations as necessary. However, if a business does not value us enough to want to participate, then let’s look elsewhere for a business that does. Let’s incorporate this idea wherever and whenever we do business. We, this School Board, have clearly set the expectation. We have already put it in a resolution. Now we must make sure it is followed though. And there is no time for us to be timid or for this organization to be indecisive in following this resolution.

One important note, I have used terms such as “lure,” “attract,” “encourage,” and “entice” in describing how to go about bringing our employees to live in our Lakewood. I have intentionally not used the term “require.” Residency requirements are illegal in Ohio so that is not what we are saying. There is absolutely no punitive intent. What I am advocating is what our resolution states, “…proactive and positive programs...” It is actually to all our employees’ best interest for more of them to live in Lakewood because the stronger and more viable the community, the more stable their jobs. The idea of offering incentives for, and encouraging our employees to, live in Lakewood is no different than what many businesses do to encourage employees to buy their product. I know folks who work in the auto industry and they surely do want their employees to buy their cars and offer incentives to do so.

One final word I would now ad to describe what we need to do is “urgent.” After decades of this storm gathering, we are out of time. We, Board Members, have an obligation to Lakewood and cannot hem and haw or flounder. We must have the resolve to turn words into action now.

I request this letter be sent to the City Administration, City Council, the Library Trustees (which makes the Lakewood taxpayer even more so the largest employer in Lakewood), and whoever else we can collaborate with in this regard. Thank you for your attention and I would be glad to try to answer any questions.

Very truly yours,


Edward Favre,
Board Member

[Bill Call]

Keep in mind that the average wage and benefit package of School and City employees is greater than the median family income in Lakewood. This is another obvious reason why we should lure them to live in Lakewood and have an ongoing initiative to do so.

Our initiative to attract our employees to live in Lakewood is consistent with other actions here and elsewhere. For example:

• Avon, one of the cities that has benefited from the loss of cities like Lakewood, has engaged in incentives to build a new ball park.
good for Lakewood.

The idea of offering incentives for, and encouraging our employees to, live in Lakewood is no different than what many businesses do to encourage employees to buy their product.

Overall, a thoughtful and spot on analysis.

School Board and City employees earn substantially more than City residents even without considering benefits. They actually earn substantially more than other professionals.

When you talk about incentives are you talking about bigger raises? Why not this incentive: You live and work in the City you pay 10% of the health insurance premium. You live outside the City you pay 50% of the premium. You have been on the school board a long time, has it ever occurred to you to say NO?

Adding on to the current pay and benefit package to encourage employees to live in the City is the wrong way to approach the problem.

The new stadium in Avon is a burr under my saddle. Avon is seeking retroactive changes in State law to make that stadium tax exempt. That exemption will save the City $750,000 per year.

When is the last time our State representatives worked overtime to get a retroactive change in tax law to benefit Lakewood? How about a resolution from the board and City Council to oppose that retroactive change in tax law unless we get something out of it?

I am glad you realize that $60 million paid in salaries is given to people who live outside the City. You also seem to realize that that is a serious drain on the economy of the City. Then why do you sign on to raise after raise after raise? Have you learned to say NO?

[marklingm]

Bill,

Are your questions and comments directed to Ed Favre or me? I would hate to speak for Ed.

I agree that Ed provides "a thoughtful and spot on analysis," which is why I posted his letter. But Ed is going to have to speak for Ed.

Matt

[Bill Call]

Bill,

Are your questions and comments directed to Ed Favre or me? I would hate to speak for Ed.

The questions are directed to Mr. Favre.

I was tempted to shoot the messenger but decided against it.

[Scott Meeson]

You're going to give me a great deal on what kind of house...and in what neighborhood?

Housing quality: [url] https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0By ... &hl=en/url]

[Kristine Pagsuyoin]

I was at the BOE meeting in which Mr. Favre read his letter. I think that positive incentives to encourage individuals, and especially families, to live in Lakewood is a step in the right direction. I was disappointed to learn at the meeting that some of these ideas have been talked about for over 10 years!

Some of the ideas mentioned in the letter remind me of a time when companies/school saw the value in having their employees work, live, and send their children to the schools. We need to nurture an environment in Lakewood the makes people feel like they have a real investment in their community no matter where they live in our city. We cannot pick and choose who are the "right" citizens to engage. When everyone is connected to community we all do better. Home ownership is not right for everyone. We have recently learned that and are paying for pushing home ownership on to people who couldn't handle it. Over 50% of our citizens rent. We may not be able to change that much. Isn't better to engage and encourage involvement from a diverse group of our citizens instead of trying to push people to the outskirts of our city? Is it out of sight out of mind?

The challenge though is that can or will our BOE understand that encouraging employees to work & live in Lakewood is just a small part of the big picture? How do the ideas listed by Mr. Favre fit into the overall EDUCATIONAL VISION for Lakewood Schools? If we want to build our community then the citizens who live here have to feel like they have a voice in the process and feel confident that the School Board reflects their values in their decisions.

Closing viable schools and disconnecting people from the heart of our city is not attractive to outsiders evaluating Lakewood as a possibility. Families buy homes and if the idea is to increase home ownership then we shouldn't be closing any schools. Not only is it a turn-off to parents, it will also potentially increase our enrollment. Our schools (at 7) are already almost filled to capacity.

I would support positive incentives to keep families in Lakewood. I would not support another faux committee designed to push pre-determined outcomes or ideas. A real study that produces a well thought out plan that enhances our community and that is part of an educational vision for our schools would be the only way these ideas would have a chance to succeed.

Kristine

[marklingm]

I was tempted to shoot the messenger but decided against it.

Bill,

I have no problem with you shooting the messenger. I would rather you shoot me on the Deck. It beats being shot by snipers with silencers.

Matt

[marklingm]

Scott,

That document does appear to be from the "Grow Lakewood Committee," which submitted a "Report to the Mayor and City Council" in July of 2005. That report can be found at: http://www.lkwdpl.org/growlakewood/report092605_files/frame.htm.

I believe that the following individuals were on the Grow Lakewood Committee:

Nickie Antonio
Phyliss Dykes
Ed Favre
Jay Foran
Ken Laino
Cindy Marx
Ralph McGreevy
Brian Powers
Pam Smith
Joe Stewart
Mike Summers
Mark Timieski
Dryck Bennett
Vic Nogalo

Perhaps they can jump in on this issue?

Matt

[Bill Call]

I believe that the following individuals were on the Grow Lakewood Committee:

Perhaps they can jump in on this issue?

Matt

Don't count on it.

I wonder if Cuyahoga Community College will be willing to build/rent a campus in Lakewood to house its medical degree programs?

Those programs could work with Lakewood Hospital and Lakewood High School to train and educate people interested in a job in the medical field. Lakewood Hospital as a teaching hospital seems a plus.

Perhaps Tri-C could use one of our vacant schools. Think of the tens of millions of dollars Tri-C would save in construction costs; rather than build a new campus they could use an existing building. Think of a thousand students studying, working and living in Lakewood.

Cuyahoga Community College is so concerned about the environment that they want to charge students higher parking fees to help subsidize students who take the bus to school.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02 ... stu_1.html
A campus in Lakewood would be easy to reach by existing public transportion.

Of course Tri-C wasn't serious. It was just a press release propaganda ploy. I mean if they really cared about such things why would they spend $50 million to build a new campus in Lorain County? Why would they have a campus in Medina County?

I still think a partnership between Lakewood Hospital, Tri-C and Lakewood schools would be a real plus. Perhaps if we offered to relocate Lakewood Hospital and Lakewood High School to Lorain County Tri-C might be interested.

Students who live in Lakewood could take the bus to Lorain County therby easing the environmental concerns of Tri-C. Their bus fare could be subsidized by a special Lakewood only parking tax.

Riddle: Do Beebe and Shaughnesy represent the schools or the LTA?

[sharon kinsella]

As long as our elected officials decide that they are the only voices that count or that those North of the William Sonoma line count, who the heck is going to want to build their lives here?

Upscale housing isn't profitable here. How many condo sites are abandoned. Single family housing yes, different ways of doing it would be a great idea.

There are so many different things we could do but "they" know better and that's why the population is sinking. You can't keep doing the same old thing and expect different results.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Where does the Federal Gov't get the crazy notion that with fewer students it should cost less to educate them? Thank goodness the Lakewood voters didn't fall for that trap!

But, if Lakewood doesn't want to fall below 50,000 residents then perhaps we need more than just a few eating establishments that every other town has. The School Board should encourage the City to grow Lakewood with the Peninsula. After all they are the biggest benefactors of it. If the School Board is not familiar with the math on the Peninsula, you have to wonder how much they really care to improve their finances by means other than property taxes.

You have to ask what would attract new residents to Lakewood. I believe unique waterfront living would attract people that make way more than the average resident. Maybe, even teachers would want to live in Lakewood!

[Bill Call]

Hi,
The School Board should encourage the City to grow Lakewood with the Peninsula. After all they are the biggest benefactors of it. If the School Board is not familiar with the math on the Peninsula, you have to wonder how much they really care to improve their finances by means other than property taxes.

Don't take the speech too seriously.

It was the opening salvo in Mr. Favre's mayoral campaign. If he believes those things then why hasn't he acted on them? If this is the begining of his mayoral campaign will he act on them if elected?

And, of course, the fewer students you have and the fewer schools you have the more money you need. It's simple math. If elected is that how Mr. Favre will run the City?

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Let me clarify some things on my last post. Getting teachers to live in Lakewood is a good thing. Getting more businesses to move into Lakewood is also a good thing, even when they are chains. Lakewood needs 1,000 things to happen and everyone needs to be working on all them. There is not 1 project that give Lakewood all the revenue it wants. Not even the Peninsula (well maybe 7 or 8 of them would) is a single solution. But using the ways of the past (tax hikes) to finance sustaining benefits and increasing programs is not a way to project Lakewood as a leader.