School Board Members Call For Reinvestment in Lakewood
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:50 am
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:
Board Member Edward Favre wrote: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
