The truth about the school city's debt.

It is amazing to me that some people are so desperate to stop Hammond from investing in a modern high school that they will post false figures in an effort to derail those plans. Take these remarks from Tiger1,for example.

Tiger1 wrote:

Back to the topic. Currently, the SCH is $ 330,848,390 in debt. If the new high school is built, per the previous figures given by the SCH, the total cost for the new high school alone, with interest, will be over 400 MILLION dollars, payable over 25 years. This would put the debt load of the SCH to over 3/4 of a BILLION dollars total.

If you go to the Indiana DOE website, they list the true debt figures,here.The latest debt report that is available shows the school city started out 2007 with 260 million dollars in debt. During the year,
they incurred an additional 40 million in debt and paid back 44 million,ending the year with a liability of 256 million. Of that debt, the school city pays interest on $109 million, with the rest of the debt coming from the state's revolving interest free loan program. One of the things that strikes me is that the school city paid back $44 million dollars in 2007. IMO, the school city has the cash flow to repay their debt obligations and provide the students of Hammond with modern learning facilities.

You're right, the debt service is way too high! We need to cut expenses and pay down some of this outstanding debt before seriously considering any new construction.

One thing that the DLGF found very interesting, and was concerned about, about the plan that was denied was the fact that the bonds were interest only for a number of years (I forget how many, 10 or 20) and then principal would be due. The SCH said, in their own filings, that they were hoping for a county income tax so that they would be able to pay the bonds.
That is exactly the kind of thinking that brought down the mortgage market.
I haven't seen any official documents on the new proposal, but it sounds much more resonable.

Bill B wrote:

One thing that the DLGF found very interesting, and was concerned about, about the plan that was denied was the fact that the bonds were interest only for a number of years (I forget how many, 10 or 20) and then principal would be due. The SCH said, in their own filings, that they were hoping for a county income tax so that they would be able to pay the bonds.
That is exactly the kind of thinking that brought down the mortgage market.
I haven't seen any official documents on the new proposal, but it sounds much more resonable.

The school city is working to come up with a plan that will finish the job that was started when they constructed Edison. I made my post to counter some of the inaccurate numbers that are floating around. I read a story about the couple behind the Snopes website that debunks myths. One of the ways they spot myths is to look for the words "the story can be verified at such and such site", without the author of the story providing a link to verify what they are saying. I posted the numbers I could find regarding the school city's debt, along with the link to where I found them. If you have any other links that are better regarding their debt,I look forward to seeing them.

Either I missed something or forgot it already but how would a county income tax necessarily go to pay for School City debt service?

the biggest issue to me...is that the school city needs to find a way to structure any administrative and other costs saved through consolidation immediately toward paying down any prospective debts or bonds incurred to get that consolidation under way.

it makes no sense to cut operating costs...that are now legislatively state governments responsibility....if that isnt also going to also be reflective in the construction expenses...that are now the sole burden that is the local taxing bodies responsibility.

doing the first paragraph...would result in local tax payers getting full benefit for the money they spend. doing the second paragraph would simply be taking local tax money....to save state tax payers money on over all costs.

its a very tricky deal to work out. but as i said before if the school board decides to go about things in a thoughtfull and specific manner...a plan to go to two high schools and build a new one could work out. but i see no chance of voter approval if all the new plan is going to do is add debt on the local level...and reduce costs at the state level.

as for the current debt load. i agree its not nearly as problematic as some local nimkapoops would have us believe. most households run on debt. and most households can manage it well (although obviously this can be a trap for some) same thing can be said for local taxing bodies. the problems, imo arise when we incurr immediate debt without concern for the debts we know we are going to have to take on down the road as well. this is why i have been so adamant that any plan now has to include what the future of clark high school and the various jr highs will be. now that the school city is finally doing that...as long as they are transparent about this...i have hope that a solution to the city's future jr and senior high building issues can be achieved.

furthermore if the state would simply give local governments the tools based according to thier own needs (such as illinois has had for a number of years on various payment options and referenda for locals citizens to decide whether to build projects with)...all of our future debt issues could be solved almost overnight.

as for the current debt load. i agree its not nearly as problematic as some local nimkapoops would have us believe. most households run on debt. and most households can manage it well (although obviously this can be a trap for some) same thing can be said for local taxing bodies.

See here's the thing. The school budget is far from the only thing on our plates. Unlike a consumer who may have degrees of borrowing for home, car, personal loan, credit card it is an individual's choice right up until the lenders say you're overextended. With public spending you have no choice but to take what the taxing unit gives you to pay. When it comes to schools you have even less choice. If you wanted to quit earning income in order to not owe income tax and just live off of your assets or the public's dime you still pay for school expenses in property taxes or rental fees which have those expenses included.

The problem is everybody gripes about taxes but we have to see that the crushing burden of all accumulated taxation is not from a single source of public "need." Ok say a new school or two would add $50 a month to property tax. Not a big deal if you're making $100k a year I guess. But a HUGE deal if you're at the poverty line because property tax bills do not care how much you earn.

Government must live within the means of the people to pay. And it is highly questionable how some of this money is being spent and why any reduction in some cost seems to almost always quickly get eaten up by some new espoused need.

Now add to that increases in other forms of taxes stealing away yet more of your net earnings needlessly. If you're a smoker you know JUST what I mean.

Sparks;
I think that my reputation is good enough on these boards that I don't have to provide a link to every fact that I post. And I try very hard to clearly differentiate what I know, what I assume and what my opinions are.
As far as I know the documented proposals that SCH sent to the DLGF are not on line, but I may be wrong. Regardless, I no longer have the documents in my possession and am not going to go through the hassle and expense of filing a FOIA and paying for it just to satisfy someone on the message boards.
As far as the information about what was said at the meeting only the people that were there can verify what was said, you'll have to ask Cheryl Musgrave, Chuck McClean, the current head of DLGF (I forget his name), me, Mr. X1 and Mr. X2. If you really want I can ask Mr. X1 and Mr. X2 if they are willing to be identified to substantiate my version; but that would still only be personal experience.
Anyway, the documents are available, I just ain't paying for them again.

Bill B wrote:

Sparks;
I think that my reputation is good enough on these boards that I don't have to provide a link to every fact that I post. And I try very hard to clearly differentiate what I know, what I assume and what my opinions are.
As far as I know the documented proposals that SCH sent to the DLGF are not on line, but I may be wrong. Regardless, I no longer have the documents in my possession and am not going to go through the hassle and expense of filing a FOIA and paying for it just to satisfy someone on the message boards.
As far as the information about what was said at the meeting only the people that were there can verify what was said, you'll have to ask Cheryl Musgrave, Chuck McClean, the current head of DLGF (I forget his name), me, Mr. X1 and Mr. X2. If you really want I can ask Mr. X1 and Mr. X2 if they are willing to be identified to substantiate my version; but that would still only be personal experience.
Anyway, the documents are available, I just ain't paying for them again.

After I wrote that post,it occurred to me that I should have specified that my comments about the links were directed at people like Jim Sheehan and Tiger1 who deliberately use inflated,false figures to derail the School city's plans for a new high school. There is really no point in talking about what happened at the DLGF hearing because it is a dead issue. The school city is working on a plan the taxpayers can afford and that will be voted on in a referendum. Building a new high school is crucial to the city of Hammond. I think that this time around,you will see the civil city and the school city work together to educate the taxpayers about the need for a new school.

There is really no point in talking about what happened at the DLGF hearing because it is a dead issue. The school city is working on a plan the taxpayers can afford and that will be voted on in a referendum.

Well since you brought it up Tiger told you the superintendent was wrong in his belief that the school plan did not require a referendum and could proceed as planned. Good to see you now agree she was right about it after all.

I think that this time around,you will see the civil city and the school city work together to educate the taxpayers about the need for a new school.


That will be interesting. Can't wait for someone to fully explain what state of the art means in terms of what the dollars are buying other than some modest energy savings. I just hope that the savings realized from closing down overcapacity will result in an overall cost reduction and a lot fewer administrators to have to pay for.

Mirage wrote:

There is really no point in talking about what happened at the DLGF hearing because it is a dead issue. The school city is working on a plan the taxpayers can afford and that will be voted on in a referendum.

Well since you brought it up Tiger told you the superintendent was wrong in his belief that the school plan did not require a referendum and could proceed as planned. Good to see you now agree she was right about it after all.

I think that this time around,you will see the civil city and the school city work together to educate the taxpayers about the need for a new school.


That will be interesting. Can't wait for someone to fully explain what state of the art means in terms of what the dollars are buying other than some modest energy savings. I just hope that the savings realized from closing down overcapacity will result in an overall cost reduction and a lot fewer administrators to have to pay for.

Mirage, the mayor wants to give the SCH the Civic Center, and from what I heard, City Hall, IF the new high school plans go through. He wants a new City Hall in downtown, and wants to build a new multipurpose complex on the south end of Wolf Lake. So, we would not only have to finance the cost of a new school, but also a multipurpose complex for the city. It's a double whammy for the taxpayers.

Tiger1 wrote:

Mirage, the mayor wants to give the SCH the Civic Center, and from what I heard, City Hall, IF the new high school plans go through. He wants a new City Hall in downtown, and wants to build a new multipurpose complex on the south end of Wolf Lake. So, we would not only have to finance the cost of a new school, but also a multipurpose complex for the city. It's a double whammy for the taxpayers.

If you look at an aerial view of the existing Hammond High School, City Hall, and the Civic Center, you'll see, there isn't enough room to build a new high school.

LoisLane wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Mirage, the mayor wants to give the SCH the Civic Center, and from what I heard, City Hall, IF the new high school plans go through. He wants a new City Hall in downtown, and wants to build a new multipurpose complex on the south end of Wolf Lake. So, we would not only have to finance the cost of a new school, but also a multipurpose complex for the city. It's a double whammy for the taxpayers.

If you look at an aerial view of the existing Hammond High School, City Hall, and the Civic Center, you'll see, there isn't enough room to build a new high school.

They will demolish all of the houses and businesses to the north of Hammond High. If the original plans are followed, a large section of my neighborhood over here on the other side of Sohl will go, too. We would become sports fields. The original plans in my section were to take all of the houses on the north side of the 400 and 500 blocks of Waltham, and the last 5 houses on the south side of the Waltham 500 block, last 5 houses on the north side of Highland 500 block, and last 5 houses on both sides of my street. All these houses taken are adjacent to Jackson and the bike trail. My house would be missed, but not by much.
The end result is a loss of a lot of tax paying citizens and their properties. Historically, when people are displaced in a community, they do not find another place in the community. They LEAVE.

Tiger1 wrote:

They will demolish all of the houses and businesses to the north of Hammond High. If the original plans are followed, a large section of my neighborhood over here on the other side of Sohl will go, too. We would become sports fields. The original plans in my section were to take all of the houses on the north side of the 400 and 500 blocks of Waltham, and the last 5 houses on the south side of the Waltham 500 block, last 5 houses on the north side of Highland 500 block, and last 5 houses on both sides of my street. All these houses taken are adjacent to Jackson and the bike trail. My house would be missed, but not by much.
The end result is a loss of a lot of tax paying citizens and their properties. Historically, when people are displaced in a community, they do not find another place in the community. They LEAVE.

Wow. I didn't know that.

There was a gentleman at a school board meeting last summer who owned one of the 47 properties in the footprint of the new high school. He wanted to know when the school city was going to buy his home. With all the drugs,gangs and abandoned homes in that area, he knows the only way he will receive a good price is if the school city buys it. I'm sure most of those property owners will welcome offers for their homes.

Tiger1 wrote:

They will demolish all of the houses and businesses to the north of Hammond High. If the original plans are followed, a large section of my neighborhood over here on the other side of Sohl will go, too. We would become sports fields. The original plans in my section were to take all of the houses on the north side of the 400 and 500 blocks of Waltham, and the last 5 houses on the south side of the Waltham 500 block, last 5 houses on the north side of Highland 500 block, and last 5 houses on both sides of my street. All these houses taken are adjacent to Jackson and the bike trail. My house would be missed, but not by much.
The end result is a loss of a lot of tax paying citizens and their properties. Historically, when people are displaced in a community, they do not find another place in the community. They LEAVE.

Then you're talking about the area between Calumet Ave. and Sohl, and Becker St. and Highland. That would be doable, but why homes on Waltham? That part makes no sense.
And I'm sure a "nice" (not vanilla) school could be built for around $85 million. Just have to watch costs for property, and school furnishings, (ie: lights, casework, flooring, and science labs).

Why is it, that Sparks (you may answer yourself, Sparks), is hell-bent on building a new Hammond High, and in the very same, inconvenient location?

I still stand with during this economic times, we should forget all about building until the economy revives.

Until the economy stabilizes, I say forget about building new buildings. Especially if they are not planned "GREEN".

The building doesn't make the kid. The teachers/parents do. You can't bleed anymore money out of a homeowner/worker. There isn't anything left. It would not improve education. That comes from the parents - then working with the teacher to meet the parents' expectation of their children. Buildings don't prove to improve the kids' education.

I honestly wonder why in the heck you are so head-strong about a new high school, Sparks. Really. As if it is a magical wand to wave over the kids' heads and suddenly they will graduate - all of them...I don't get it.

As for homeowners/landlords wanting the city to buy up their properties, why wouldn't they? They wouldn't be able to sell them otherwise. That's not an ideal location for a new Hammond High, anyway.

But realize that the gangs will still be around that school, and also still in it. Demographics.

There are some differences this time.
One (and the biggest) is the fact that SCH has finally admitted that they need to go to 2 high schools.
I think, although I haven't seen the new proposal, that this is a more modest plan.

LoisLane wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

They will demolish all of the houses and businesses to the north of Hammond High. If the original plans are followed, a large section of my neighborhood over here on the other side of Sohl will go, too. We would become sports fields. The original plans in my section were to take all of the houses on the north side of the 400 and 500 blocks of Waltham, and the last 5 houses on the south side of the Waltham 500 block, last 5 houses on the north side of Highland 500 block, and last 5 houses on both sides of my street. All these houses taken are adjacent to Jackson and the bike trail. My house would be missed, but not by much.
The end result is a loss of a lot of tax paying citizens and their properties. Historically, when people are displaced in a community, they do not find another place in the community. They LEAVE.

Then you're talking about the area between Calumet Ave. and Sohl, and Becker St. and Highland. That would be doable, but why homes on Waltham? That part makes no sense.
And I'm sure a "nice" (not vanilla) school could be built for around $85 million. Just have to watch costs for property, and school furnishings, (ie: lights, casework, flooring, and science labs).

The original plans called for taking over 1/2 the homes on Waltham, and some of the homes on Highland and Lewis. My neighborhood was supposed to become sports fields. Altogether, they were supposed to build 7 DIFFERANT sports fields. Their goal was to aquire a total of 95 acres.

The area to be wiped out, is Highland to Carrol or Thornton(no hard decision on this by the SCH), possibly farther north, Calumet to Sohl. When the original plans came out, there were 154 individual properties to be acquired, including the ones in my neighborhood. Since then, the number has gone down because they bought 1 side of Erie Street for the bus parking a few years ago. They also purchased the Knights of Columbus building on Blaine this year. That property was supposed to be a sport field, in their original plans. According to the SCH, they ARE turning it into a sports field/facility. So some of the acquisition for the original plans, has already been accomplished. The KC building was the most expensive single piece of property they had to buy, in their original plans.

UrRight and Bill B, with the current debt load, the economy in the toilet, almost 2,000 homes in Hammond in some stage of foreclosure, and hundreds of empty homes, who in the heck is going to pay the tab for this?

Bill B wrote:

There are some differences this time.
One (and the biggest) is the fact that SCH has finally admitted that they need to go to 2 high schools.
I think, although I haven't seen the new proposal, that this is a more modest plan.

dead on with this comment bill.

also, myself knowing who mr. x 1 and mr x 2 are...i can verify that they agree with bill's accounts of that meeting.

but that was the former plan...not the current one.

and i have always agreed with the school city's premise that the city does need improved high schools (jr highs too btw but thats an arguement for a decade from now). the biggest problems to me have always been the three school plan...the questionable boundries that were penciled for them...and the rediculous amounts of frills that the prososed new school entailed. i also have long disagreed with the proposed location for the school because of the extensive property purchases necessary. personally...id simply put the school where city hall and the park behind it are...and convert the existing property into a park...yeah the immediate homeowner next to the school probably wouldnt like it...but it seems pretty simple in terms of land exchanges..without needing to spend money on more land.

but the fact is...most of the cost of the new school...can be paid for over the time of the bonds for the school...through the consolidation savings gained from going down from 4 to 2 high schools. it would cost virtually nothing in terms of new tax payer dollars. if they can incorporate a whiting option for the northernmost residents in hammond....

well...... thats the magic formula...for getting a lot more public support for this new school.

As to whether this is a more modest plan all I know about the location is it was reported the location would be north of the present location, which had me wondering what was wrong with the current location and if there were a large enough parcel of vacant land or if they intended to purchase businesses and homes and then demolish. The latter does not sound very inexpensive to me.

I can understand using the Career Center and Civic Center properties but have my doubts about the usefulness of City Hall even were it to be the new location for the School City. OTOH with some of the problem children nowadays I suppose that old jail in the basement could be a useful detention tool.

So I am waiting for more information on these plans but I am open to them. However I do not support the past grand plans for numerous new sports fields at the expense of the forced taking of yet more homes. While some may argue that much of that area outta be razed and rebuilt I just do not see the need for all that property being acquired and maintained by the School City. What's next? An Olympic girl's hockey rink? That would be a hoot! I might even pay to see that one. LMAO

sparks wrote:

There was a gentleman at a school board meeting last summer who owned one of the 47 properties in the footprint of the new high school. He wanted to know when the school city was going to buy his home. With all the drugs,gangs and abandoned homes in that area, he knows the only way he will receive a good price is if the school city buys it. I'm sure most of those property owners will welcome offers for their homes.

Sounds like a great place for a school then....

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

There was a gentleman at a school board meeting last summer who owned one of the 47 properties in the footprint of the new high school. He wanted to know when the school city was going to buy his home. With all the drugs,gangs and abandoned homes in that area, he knows the only way he will receive a good price is if the school city buys it. I'm sure most of those property owners will welcome offers for their homes.

Sounds like a great place for a school then....

Hammond does not have enough vacant land anywhere in the city to construct the new high school. Since some property will be bulldozed to make room for the school, you might as well bulldoze the most blighted area of the city. So, you are right,it is a great place for the new school to be constructed.

Are you suggesting that bulldozers will chase out the drugs and gangs?

Robin Banks wrote:

Are you suggesting that bulldozers will chase out the drugs and gangs?

It worked pretty well with River Parks Apts. There hasn't been a police call in over a year now.