City finances: hospital & refuse collection

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.

Moderators: Jim DeVito, Dan Alaimo

Brian Essi
Posts: 2409
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:46 am

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby Brian Essi » Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:27 pm

Ms. Pae,

Do you agree that CCF put $10 million of its own money into Lakewood Hospital in 1996 and never put another penny in since?

Do you agree that CCF has never lost a penny at Lakewood even as it is managing Lakewood Hospital in a way that is burning through the LTIP owned by Lakewood?

By Comparison, Metro's proposal offered to invest $10 million per year for the next 10 years, they offered to rebuild programs and services, keep 900 employees, let Lakewood keep 60% of land/buildings of the current LHA i.e. Lakewood's assets and they would have stepped into the balance of the CCF Definitive Agreement until 2026. How could Lakewood be hurt by accepting that offer?


Will you press the City of Lakewood make all financial statements of LHA public from 1996 on? (not all have been made public, but according to LHA, they regularly sent them to the City)


"Does Anyone Know How to Play This Game" Casey Stengel
m buckley
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby m buckley » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:33 pm

Ms. Pae, I've read your post and disappointingly couldn't find a direct answer to any of my questions. Nor did you come anywhere near responding to Bill Call's question.

To review, you stated that "Metro's ability to finance future projects is sketchy at best and that was my biggest concern with their ill-fated proposal to LHA."

In an effort to fully understand your assertion I ask again:

* Are you saying that MetroHealth does not have the capacity to operate Lakewood Hospital and would not be able to follow through on the proposal to LHA.

* Are you suggesting that is why LHA and Mike Summers ignored their proposal?

* And how does this imagined failure compare to The Cleveland Clinics actual failure to make the capital investments it agreed to make in Lakewood Hospital?

It should be noted that Fitch, Standard & Poor's and Moody's have all upgraded MetroHealth's bond outlook to Stable. This rating is indeed related to their ability to repay, not their ability to obtain credit. In response to Standard & Poor's upgrade, MetroHealth CFO Craig Richmond said "our outlook revision by Standard & Poor's is a positive validation of MetroHealth's improved financial performance ... as we continue to plan for a major physical transformation receiving an upgrade at a time when many health systems across the country are struggling, is significant". http://www.metrohealth.org/News/SPUpgradesMetroHealthOutlookToStable?id=1477&showBack=true&PageIndex=0

Articles that discuss Metro's financial resurgence include, but are by no means limited to: Cleveland.com 4/15/15 "MetroHealth Finances Solid in 2014, Growth Continues" (http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2015/04/metrohealths_finances_solid_in.html) and Crain's 4/8/15 "MetroHealth System Continues its Impressive Turnaround", http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150408/FREE/150409869/metrohealth-system-continues-its-impressive-financial-turnaround


" City Council is a 7-member communications army." Colin McEwen December 10, 2015.
Bill Call
Posts: 3215
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby Bill Call » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:35 am

m buckley wrote:Ms. Pae, I've read your post and disappointingly couldn't find a direct answer to any of my questions. Nor did you come anywhere near responding to Bill Call's question.



Here is a quote from the first Metro proposal:

"Metro proposes to acquire the Lakewood Hospital Association Assets (to be defined in the definitive agreement).....Lakewood Hospital becoming a component of Metrohealth.

In the event this proposed structure is determined not to be feasible, Metrohealth is committed to developing a mutually agreeable collaborative arrangement with the City and LHA where it will commit to a long term agreement (INCLUDING POSSIBLY A LONG TERM LEASE) providing for the operation of Lakewood Hospital.

Metrohealth would have needed about 40% of the current space. The rest would have been available for other development including space for a "wellness" center. There would also have been plenty of space for a Family Health Center and space left over for further development.

The Mayor has not said why he refused to respond to the first proposal and why he refused to respond to the second proposal. Why the disinterest? In a short discussion with a supporter of the Mayor he said, "do you want those people in town"?

I suppose its possible that the Mayor and LHA have so poisoned the well that Metro is no longer interested. I suppose that Metro is coming under a lot or political pressure to keep Lakewood Hospital closed. The Clinic needs Lakewood Hospitals customers in Avon.

Can anything be salvaged from this fiasco? Not under this current administration. Maybe not even under the next administration. But it would sure be nice if SOMEONE would defend the interests of the people of Lakewood.


todd vainisi
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:41 am

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby todd vainisi » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:52 am

I'd definitely like to know why the city didn't accept MetroHealth's proposal. My uninformed guess (cause we all need more of those around here) is that it's more about the lease with Cleveland Clinic than what MH offered to do.


Bridget Conant
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby Bridget Conant » Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:43 am

I don't believe the LHA or the Mayor ever adequately answered this question other than vague aspersions that the Metro offer was not credible. Which, of course, is untrue. Actually, compared to the CCF proposal, the Metro one was quite detailed and thorough. On the other hand, what we have from CCF is "assurances" of limited service but no real details, and when questioned, they actually "didn't know" what they would provide in the health center.

In fact, if the mayor and LHA truly wanted to keep a full service hospital in Lakewood, Metro's offer should have made them jump for joy as it would have expanded services and employment. Therefore, absent other evidence to the contrary, I think the only logical conclusion is that THEY WANT LAKEWOOD HOSPITAL TO CLOSE. as to the question of Why, I have no idea.


Brian Essi
Posts: 2409
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:46 am

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby Brian Essi » Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:22 am

1. Summers controlled the LHA handling of the RFP process---There were two RFPs.

2. CCF controlled Summers in many respects--Summers was afraid to stand up to CCF and he never used any leverage with them e.g. Summers never pursued better terms with Metro.

3. CCF told Metro something to the effect that Metro was being used so Metro pulled out.

The law is clear that LHA trustees violated their fiduciary duties and mission to rum a hospital by failing to question Summers' leadership pursue Metro.


"Does Anyone Know How to Play This Game" Casey Stengel
Lori Allen _
Posts: 2550
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:37 pm

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby Lori Allen _ » Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Brian,

I agree with you that Summers ignored Metro's offers. I believe that it was never part of his plan in the first place to answer them. I also do not believe that Summers let CCF control him. I believe that this plan was devised by Summers, Bullock, Madigan and several other members of the LHA and LHF. It appears that there must be something to be gained by the above individuals from CCF for them to concoct a plan like this and try to push it through!


Mark Kindt
Posts: 2179
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby Mark Kindt » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:46 pm

My highest compliments to each citizen who posted in this thread!

You are all way ahead of me!

A very intelligent and analytical crew at work.

And now, thanks to Mr. Essi and his lawyers, the city's own documents have confirmed most of your analysis in this thread.

1. The Metro proposal was studiously ignored;

2. Even LHA's consultant told LHA that the proposal from CCF was of no value;

3. At least one long-time LHA trustee agreed that Metro was the better fit for the city.

Most excellent.


Brian Essi
Posts: 2409
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:46 am

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby Brian Essi » Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:34 pm

Mr. Kindt,

Thank you for reminding us of this post by Ms. Pae that exposed intellectual dishonesty by the entire Administration and 2015 Council:

1. Ms. Pae claimed above that her "biggest fear" was the return of properties to the City.
2. It was an admission that the City owned the hospital assets and they were to be returned at the end of the Lease in 2026
3. Recall that Ms. Pae and City Hall intermittently claimed that the City did not own the hospital.
4. Recall as well that City Hall rushed into an acceleration of return of the "risky" properties to the City (the lease was to run through 2026 and they let the billion dollar tenant guarantor off the hook for 11 years of rent, improvements, income taxes and charity care for the poor).
5. Note below that Pae wrote she would "support anything that prevents" return of the properties, while she proactively promoted the plan that did just that---return the assets she feared being responsible for. Hmmm

Jennifer Pae wrote:
My biggest fear as Finance Director as it relates to the Lakewood Hospital situation is the City having to bring the properties back on its books. There is too much financial risk if that happens, and I will support anything that prevents that from happening.

And if I am personally attacked in any negative manner, I will no longer participate on the Deck.

~ Jenn



So, what is City Hall doing with those "risky" assets now in 2018?

Answer: Giving those assets away for free with a $7M to $10M demolition subsidy at taxpayer expense.

With all the twisted logic and lies, it is no wonder Ms. Pae was concerned about being treated in a "negative manner"?

So what has she done since?

She created the Lakewood "Wizard of Oz" Facebook page where she clicks the heels of her ruby red slippers, closes her eyes and chants "There's no place like home..." whenever some unpleasant truths leak into her Land of OZwood world.


"Does Anyone Know How to Play This Game" Casey Stengel
mjkuhns
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby mjkuhns » Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:24 pm

This is the kind of thing that really challenges most of us, certainly me, to recall. I think there's simply some information that is so unbelievable, a rational mind tends over time toward dismissing it.

Yet here it is:
Jennifer Pae wrote:My biggest fear as Finance Director as it relates to the Lakewood Hospital situation is the City having to bring the properties back on its books. There is too much financial risk if that happens, and I will support anything that prevents that from happening.

In fact I seem to recall multiple sources promoting this argument—"we'll be stuck with an empty building"—but at all events here is the Finance Director of Lakewood declaring explicitly "I will support anything that prevents that."

That really happened.

The record is right here.

Yet suddenly in December 2015, "the City having to bring the properties back on its books" was recast as an exciting opportunity for Lakewood, and (despite the fact that the property's reversion to the city was already the default outcome) a big gain for Lakewood. (I don't recall that the Finance Director publicly (or privately) endorsed efforts to block this result, either. Does anyone?)

This record is an invaluable boon to our community.

Meanwhile it's interesting to compare the swift transition from I will not participate "if I am personally attacked" to I will not participate if interactions are "negative in tone[!]" to not participating, at all, with an NPR story I happened to read this evening:
Mulvaney declined requests for an interview. In an email, his press representative first said the decision to drop the Golden Valley lawsuit was made by "professional career staff" and not Mulvaney.

But several CFPB staffers that NPR spoke to say that's not true. The staffers, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their jobs, say Mulvaney decided to drop the lawsuit even though the entire career enforcement staff wanted to press ahead with it.

After repeated questioning from NPR, Mulvaney's press person acknowledged that Mulvaney was indeed involved in the decision to drop the lawsuit.

It sounds like, on the basis of anonymous sources, NPR relentlessly pushed a CFPB spokesperson about contradictions until he or she acknowledged having made a bad-faith statement. It's difficult to imagine that these interactions did not become both accusatory and negative in tone.

Yet, a public official attempted to mislead the public, then was persuaded to abandon that attempt. Was this inappropriate or divisive?

Will anyone step forward to censure NPR for being negative?


:: matt kuhns ::
Brian Essi
Posts: 2409
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:46 am

Re: City finances: hospital & refuse collection

Postby Brian Essi » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:53 am

mjkuhns wrote:This is the kind of thing that really challenges most of us, certainly me, to recall. I think there's simply some information that is so unbelievable, a rational mind tends over time toward dismissing it.

Yet here it is:
Jennifer Pae wrote:My biggest fear as Finance Director as it relates to the Lakewood Hospital situation is the City having to bring the properties back on its books. There is too much financial risk if that happens, and I will support anything that prevents that from happening.

In fact I seem to recall multiple sources promoting this argument—"we'll be stuck with an empty building"—but at all events here is the Finance Director of Lakewood declaring explicitly "I will support anything that prevents that."

That really happened.

The record is right here.

Yet suddenly in December 2015, "the City having to bring the properties back on its books" was recast as an exciting opportunity for Lakewood, and (despite the fact that the property's reversion to the city was already the default outcome) a big gain for Lakewood. (I don't recall that the Finance Director publicly (or privately) endorsed efforts to block this result, either. Does anyone?)

This record is an invaluable boon to our community.

Meanwhile it's interesting to compare the swift transition from I will not participate "if I am personally attacked" to I will not participate if interactions are "negative in tone[!]" to not participating, at all, with an NPR story I happened to read this evening:
Mulvaney declined requests for an interview. In an email, his press representative first said the decision to drop the Golden Valley lawsuit was made by "professional career staff" and not Mulvaney.

But several CFPB staffers that NPR spoke to say that's not true. The staffers, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their jobs, say Mulvaney decided to drop the lawsuit even though the entire career enforcement staff wanted to press ahead with it.

After repeated questioning from NPR, Mulvaney's press person acknowledged that Mulvaney was indeed involved in the decision to drop the lawsuit.

It sounds like, on the basis of anonymous sources, NPR relentlessly pushed a CFPB spokesperson about contradictions until he or she acknowledged having made a bad-faith statement. It's difficult to imagine that these interactions did not become both accusatory and negative in tone.

Yet, a public official attempted to mislead the public, then was persuaded to abandon that attempt. Was this inappropriate or divisive?

Will anyone step forward to censure NPR for being negative?


Mr. Kuhns,

The facts you point to are real and crystal clear.

The distinction you point to is also striking.

In the case of Mulvaney, the government was backed into a half-hearted admission--sort of--presumably because insiders leaked facts.

In Lakewood, the PR people sent Pae out on a mission that failed miserably because the story was patently false from publicly know information. However, instead of acknowledging even basic facts (or even half-facts) Pae & Co. slithered into their own "bubble of censured fiction" deny the facts and playing "victim" of the local press in the most cowardly pattern exhibited by any group of fake public officials--ever!

Where are the leakers in Lakewood?


"Does Anyone Know How to Play This Game" Casey Stengel

Return to “Lakewood General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests