On Thursday, October 30, 2008 at the Lake County Government Center, the DLGF held a hearing regarding the petition objection filed by the Team Hammond Taxpayers' Group regarding the 2007 Hammond city budget.
Indiana Code 36-6-6-14.5
Objection by taxpayers; department of local government finance hearing and action; appeal Sec. 14.5. (a) If the legislative body issues a special order under section 14 of this chapter authorizing the executive to borrow money, not less than ten (10) taxpayers in the township who disagree with the special order may file a petition in the office of the county auditor not more than thirty (30) days after notice of the special order is given. The petition must state the taxpayers' objections and the reasons why the taxpayers believe the special order to be unnecessary or unwise.
What does this mean? If taxpayers disagree and object to a special order (in this case the Hammond city budget) not less than ten taxpayers may file a petition asking for a department of local government finance hearing and action.
Why was this action necessary? Because Dale Scopelite and Jim Sheehan, members of Team Hammond, found not only numerous errors but many inequities in the budget itself.
Dale Scopelite presented most of the case calling into question such expenditures such as $2,500 in gaming money spent on a Christmas party and $600,000 for a football field. Pay raises amounting to $10 million since 2005 were also questioned given the city's financial woes and the elimination of the health department and city bus service in June 2009.
Scopelite also targeted gaming money: $35 million is distributed among the mayor and six council districts yet a separate accounting shows $43 million in gaming money. The $8 million difference could be used to towards property tax relief.
Jim Sheehan questioned the city's debt, which is limited by the state to 2% of the city's assessed value (Indiana Constitution). The city's debt should be limited to $46 million yet the city's debt is at $96 million.
Jim Premeske brought up the parity clause for the Hammond Fire Chief and Police Chief and the amount of taxpayer money spent on consultants doing city employees' work.
Team Hammond wants itemized costs relating to property taxes and gaming money. "We have shown the numbers don't add up," Premeske said.
This matter now goes to Cheryl Musgrave, DLGF Commisioner for a ruling.
What will this mean to Hammond taxpayers? If Musgrave rules in favor of Team Hammond's objection, it will result in a lower tax levy for Hammond and ultimately lower property taxes for Hammond homeowners and businesses.