Mayor Tom McDermott Jr.

I find it hard to believe that, again, I have to correct reporter Susan Brown for inaccurate reporting. It was only a couple of weeks ago that I informed TheTimes that reporter Brown had submitted 2 front-page stories that indicated that 180 Hammond School-children were without innoculations, only to find that the actual number was 4 students who were without innoculations. Reporter Brown could have easily verified the numbers submitted to her by Councilman Markovich and Hinojosa, like we did after the articles ran. Instead, Brown relied on self-interested politicians for these “facts” Because of her unprofessional reliance on these fictional numbers, The Times newspapers deceived the public with inaccurate reporting on 2 separate occasions.

After my complaint regarding the ficticious numbers, no retraction was made. No story about Markovich and Hinojosa’s imaginary numbers was ever done. I assume had I been the one who lied to a reporter, something more serious would have been done.

This morning’s article “Saving the Trees” was another classic Susan Brown “fictional” article. In that article, she states that Pat Moore, Hammond’s Park Department Administrator, said that it was a “done deal” that the trees would be removed from Riverside Park to make way for the Little Calumet Levee Project. Dave Sukowski, who may lose property from Hammond’s baseball field, blamed Moore for the loss of trees. The article insinuated that the City of Hammond was responsible for the loss of the trees in Riverside Park, and I can guarantee you that tomorrow we will get a barrage of phone calls complaining that we are impacting the environment in this way.

Here is the truth, which Brown could have written if she chose to: the Little Calumet River Levee Project is being run by the the Federal Government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S.A.C.E. placed the stakes that Susan Brown decries. The U.S.A.C.E. is condeming all property along the riverbank to make way for the levee project. Once that project is completed, thousands of Hammond, Highland and Munster residents will be removed from the flood plain.

In fact, the City of Hammond is working with homeowners along the river to try and help them work with the USACE to minimize the taking, and preserve the trees that have grown along the river for close to 100 years. In other words, Pat Moore was right: this is a “done deal” because we have no control over it, whatsoever. However, after reading Brown’s article, you would think that Hammond is the one taking down the trees and taking people’s property.

I guess that is what we have come to expect from Ms. Brown’s articles: biased and poorly researched stories. Maybe Sukowski doesn’t understand that it is not the City of Hammond taking Riverside Park’s trees, and maybe he does. But a reporter should understand the difference, and it is obvious that she doesn’t. Had Susan Brown called the Mayor’s Office, which she didn’t, I could have explained this to her in time to prevent another misleading article. The alternative is that she does know the truth and is obscuring it, which I’m sure you’ll agree is even worse.

However, like the innoculation article, this article will mislead the public about Hammond’s role in the Little Calumet River Levee Project. It is becoming apparent that this type of reporting is becoming the norm for articles written by Susan Brown. I do not believe that this reporter meets the high standards of the NWI Times newspaper.

As many of you know, HB 1001, Indiana’s Property Tax Reform Bill, was signed into law last week in Indianapolis.  This legislation caps property taxes due based on a percentage of a property’s assessed value and use of a property.  The caps are 1% for homesteads, 2% for rental properties, and 3% for business usage.

Any time property taxes are lowered, it is a positive benefit for homeowners and the bill is good news for homeowners.  However, because the cost of the tax caps is below what it actually costs to effectively run government, the caps means all types of government will be cutting costs and services to come within the limits set by the caps.  This includes library districts, sanitary districts, schools, city, township and county governments.  The caps will be phased in starting in the tax year 2009, with their full effect beginning statewide in 2010.

The “gap” Hammond faced under the first draft of HB 1001 was $22 million.  This is the difference between the current cost of effectively providing government services and the amount of property tax revenue that will be received under the caps in 2010.  That “gap” would have been devastating for Hammond, we literally didn’t know how we’d continue to operate and function effectively as a city if that amount were required cut under HB 1001.  However, the final version of HB 1001 that was signed into law shifted some costs, previously covered by local government, to the State.  The result: Hammond’s “gap” dropped from $22 Million to $9 Million.  This number is challenging, but more manageable.

The next question becomes how we will continue to provide high quality city services now that the caps have become law.  Since my administration has taken office, we have looked critically at all areas of city government that can be cut, and we have been successful in our effort to “downsize.”  Obviously, now that the tax caps have become law in HB 1001, we will continue to look for ways to decrease the cost and size of city government. Once this has been accomplished, however, there will still be a gap and the question remains, now what?

 One option that would help Hammond greatly is if the Lake County Council and Commissioners pass the Local Option Income Tax (L.O.I.T.).  The reports that I have seen state that the result will be a $8 - $10 million increase in revenue for Hammond.  The L.O.I.T. works under almost all formulas for Hammond because of our city’s unique characteristics: the highest assessed value, second highest population and highest number of homesteads in Lake County.  Regardless of what funding formula is used, Hammond comes out a winner if the L.O.I.T. is passed because the proceeds from that tax will cover most of the expected shortfall caused by HB 1001.

So, what happens if county government fails to pass the L.O.I.T.?

The only answer to that question is to continue to shrink the cost and size of city government, as we have successfully over the past four years, and to strategically use casino gaming revenue to help fill the gaps created by HB 1001.

Even though my administration and the City Council did well by being the only Lake County government unit to cut its tax rate in 2008, we will have little option but to further cut an already thin budget to get below the caps mandated by HB 1001.  Eventually, we will not be able to cut further without affecting the quality of services provided to residents.  When we reach that point, using Hammond’s casino revenue to make up the difference is the logical and prudent choice to ensure the quality of life we have grown to appreciate continues.

Hammond receives approximately $35 million in casino revenue every year from the Horseshoe casino.  The Horseshoe Casino recently invested $485 million into its new facility in the Hammond Marina.  Thank goodness Hammond had the foresight to invest its money in a public marina.  Thank goodness as well to the residents who participated, and approved, a public referendum to approve casino gaming in Hammond in 1993.  Those two acts made Hammond financially secure for many years, and made it possible to rebuild the infrastructure of a 120 year old city without increasing the tax rates charged to homeowners.

Casino money is currently being used to pay for infrastructure improvements, park improvements and other capital projects across Hammond.  What I am proposing is to use this money for one other important purpose, to fill in the gap left by HB1001, and to get Hammond within the tax caps.  A combination of further budget trimming, and the strategic use of casino gaming revenue, is the answer if the L.O.I.T. is not passed.

Now that the Hammond Health Department has finally been absorbed by the Lake County Health Department, I have had the chance to reflect on the hard work it took to make that become a reality.  After this rough and tumble battle, I have a new appreciation for those elected officials brave enough to attempt to change the system.  Unfortunately, it is much easier for an elected official to be part of the “status quo” than an agent for change. When you have elected officials who have the courage to stand up for good government they should be supported.

The fight over the closure of the Hammond Health Department began in 2004.  In the summer of that year, I introduced an ordinance that proposed the elimination of that department.  My reason for introducing the ordinance was to cut the cost of government by eliminating a redundant department.  My administration was overruled by the Hammond City Council in that attempt 5 – 4.  We tried again in 2005, with the same result.  In 2007, during an election year, we again pressed for what we viewed as a responsible cost-cutting measure.  This time the Hammond City Council agreed with my administration, and voted 5 – 4 to not fund the health department in 2008.  We all thought at this point that the fight was over.  We were wrong.

The fall-out over this election-year tussle included one councilperson losing her position.  Although she faithfully served her constituents and her district for four years, this was all forgotten because the opposing candidate, Kim Poland (R – 4th Dist.) promised to continue funding this redundant department.  Based on this Health Department issue and pie-in-the-sky promises of refund checks, the 4th District voted for a new councilwoman.  This change in the make-up of the Hammond City Council changed the balance of the council as well: now the proponents of the Health Department had one more ally in their misguided fight.
 
This issue hurt me in my own 2007 re-election bid, as well.  The outspoken supporters of the Hammond Health Department marched in front of City Hall, demanded my resignation, and engaged in baseless scare tactics.  They claimed that I, a father of four, didn’t care about the health and safety of Hammond schoolchildren.  They argued that West Nile Virus was going to spread out of control across Hammond, and that our restaurants would become filthy and infested. 

My opponent in the mayor’s race, like the Republican candidate in the 4th District, promised that he would also fund that redundant department.  My opponent campaigned hard on two issues: keeping the Hammond Health Department and getting rid of Mayor Tom McDermott.  While I won my election of 2007, I count it as a hollow victory;  low voter turnout and adamant opposition on the Health Department issue resulted in an election that was too close for comfort.

Then, in the final days of 2007, the Health Department supporters filed for a Temporary Restraining Order against the City of Hammond to force the city to keep the department’s doors open.  In other words, members of the Hammond City Council, led by Councilman Chico Hinojosa, attempted to reverse a decision made by the Hammond City Council only two months earlier (and a budget which Hinojosa himself signed) to eliminate the City Health Department.  The lawsuit was thrown out in a well-reasoned decision by Judge Calvin Hawkins. This alone told me what I already knew–their case had absolutely no merit.

As if this defeat wasn’t enough, the politics were not done.  We still had to endure countless hours of grandstanding by politicians who only wanted to read their names in the newspaper and countless hours of dire warnings on local radio that the health and safety of Hammond residents was in peril.  The local newspaper got into the act: on the editorial page, it congratulated the administration for its tough stance, yet it gave free reign to a reporter whose sole mission seemed to be criticizing the administration.
 
Even the County Commissioner from Hammond played politics with this issue, delaying the opening of a satellite office in Hammond for more than two months, only to reverse her earlier decision by declaring a “Health Emergency in Hammond” in late February.  Is it a coincidence that Commissioner DuPey’s change-of-heart occurred shortly after she changed her mind about running for re-election as a County Commissioner?  While she hemmed and hawed for two months, forwarding questions to the county lawyer, residents in her district of Hammond were left in limbo.

What’s surprising to me is that this issue seemed to know no party boundaries.    The sole Hammond Republican elected last November ran on a platform of keeping a redundant department, (not exactly a typical Republican stance.) Time and again I saw fellow Democrats stand by while I pushed for reform. The Republican governor, on the other hand, reached out to me, a Democratic mayor, in an attempt to accomplish a recommendation of the “Kernan-Shepard Report” on good government recommendations for Indiana.  So while Governor Daniels supported the reform effort, a Republican Councilwoman ignored her own governor’s request for good government.
 
That’s why you didn’t hear any hooting and hollering from the Mayor’s Office on the day the ordinance was passed that finally eliminated the Hammond Health Department.  There had been too many bridges burned for us to celebrate the occasion. 

So where do we stand now? Currently, Hammond has a county health department “satellite office” opened in the exact same spot as the former city health department, (which is what I had promised all along).  The satellite office offers the same services as were offered by the prior, health department, only at a much cheaper cost to Hammond residents.  After all, isn’t it the job of your elected officials to responsibly lower the cost of government? 

I guarantee that I will continually looking at ways to lower the cost of government while still maintaining the high level of service that Hammond has always prided itself in.  I hope that other county and city elected officials do the same.

In an editorial on February 14, 2008, entitled “Resist Temptation to Rely on Casino Money for Operations”, The Times’ editorial staff argued that casino cities, like Hammond, should resist using casino revenue to fund the gap between the HB 1001 Tax Caps and the true cost of city government.   Unfortunately, the Times simply does not understand the cost of city government, the steps we have taken in Hammond to decrease the cost of government and the importance of casino money and its use in the operation of city government.  I strongly disagree with this editorial stance, and appreciate the Times for letting me air my difference of opinion.

In its current format, HB 1001 would impose a $22 million funding gap between the actual costs of running Hammond Civil City government, and the caps that are proposed by Governor Daniels.  This $22 million short-fall would force Hammond to shed roughly 40% of it’s total civil city budget.  In the end, all homeowners in Hammond would have their taxes capped at 1, 2 or 3 percent of their property’s gross assessed value, depending on the property’s use (rental, homeowner occupied or business).

If Hammond sheds 40% of each department’s budget, it would result in lay-offs in Police, Fire, Parks, Streets, Inspections, Environmental, all the way down the line to animal control.  The Hammond Police Department monitors a large, urban city of 83,000 people.  Over the past four years, Chief Miller and his police force have been working hard to fight crime in our city.  How many Hammond residents, if asked, would tell elected officials to lay-off over 75 police officers?  It would not be possible to monitor Hammond streets the way the police force does is HB 1001 becomes law.

I have been the mayor for over 4 years, and I have yet to hear a single person tell me to lay-off a Hammond fireman.  If HB 1001 became law, I would have to consider the lay-off of over 50 firemen.  How can we maintain adequate response times in emergency situations if we must lay-off 40% of our emergency workers?

Hammond’s Street Commissioner, Gary Gleason, works hard to make sure the street department employees clear Hammond streets as quickly as possible after a snow-storm, fill pot holes and pick up leaves every fall.  If HB 1001 became law, he would have to lay-off over 20 of his employees.  That would, without a doubt, impact our ability to maintain Hammond streets.  My Park Administrator, Pat Moore Sr., has a staff of 75 people for 35 parks, 3 buildings and a health club.  If HB 1001 becomes law, Pat is going to have to lay off over 30 people.  How could we keep up with the growth of weeds, grass and cleanliness of the parks with a skeleton crew?  The list simply goes on and on with a city as large as Hammond.  HB 1001 hurts cities much more than towns and hurts urban areas much more than rural ones. 

As your mayor, I want to provide Hammond residents with lower property taxes.  However, instead of cutting fat with a scalpel, HB 1001 cuts bone and muscle with a chain-saw.  If HB 1001 becomes law, city services will suffer, unless we can come up with an alternate source of funding this $22 million funding gap.  I have for the past four years along with the City council cut the city budget.  Hammond was the only city in Lake County last year to see a decrease in its city budget.  We are running a lean ship and we are continuing to look at ways to get leaner.  HB 1001 simply means disaster for cities like Hammond.  So why wouldn’t we consider using casino gaming revenue as the mechanism to bridge that gap?

At this moment, all district councilmen and the mayor use casino gaming revenue to fund capital projects in their district.  Approximately $35 million of this revenue is available per year, and none of that money becomes “revenue” in the Civil City budget.  Casino revenues are held in separate accounts, split according to a formula, and used exclusively for capital projects.  Hammond is a 125 year old city, so it is nice to have extra money available per year to work on capital projects, like road and sewer repairs.

However, if we are forced to plug a $22 million hole, we must make a tough decision.  We have to choose between using casino money, which funds many important projects as well as many non-profit and civic organizations, or cut public safety and other vital city departments.  In a choice as tough as this, I have no choice but to stand by the public safety personnel every time.  Having new streets and sidewalks will mean nothing if we can’t convince people to live on those Hammond streets and sidewalks. 

I think anyone who would suggest lay-offs of the magnitude we are being asked to consider doesn’t know what it’s really like to run a city like Hammond.  If we don’t consider using casino revenue as a funding source to close the gap, we will harm the cities livability.  My sincere hope is that the state legislature finds alternative funding options for cities like Hammond such as the ability to fund property tax relief through home rule taxes on fireworks, cigarettes, gas and other items so that casino revenue can be used as a last not first resort.

First, I want to thank my supporters who showed up on Election Day to cast their ballots in a race many thought was already decided.  Although most Lake County political pundits, including myself, thought the 2007 Mayoral General Election was a predetermined win for my administration, the actual count turned out to be much closer.

To the voters who expressed their disapproval toward my administration, I want to say that I sincerely hope to earn your respect in the next four years.  I promise that I will work hard for you in my upcoming term, as I have for the past four years.  I promise to represent your interests in state and county government, and I promise to try and lower the tax rate in Hammond, while still providing the services that we expect from city government.

Looking back, I realize that the negative effect of my decision to close the Hammond Health Department cannot be understated, especially in an election with close to 9,000 fewer total votes cast.  While I realize the fact that a certain portion of the population will be unhappy with whomever the incumbent happens to be, it is clear that this particular issue touched a nerve in Hammond.  However, I stand by the decision and am proud of the courage the city council showed in approving the closure.

As a city, county, or state, we have to ask ourselves whether or not we want lower property taxes.  Of course, the answer is always a resounding “yes”.  That being so, why is it that the pubic lashes out at the elected official brave enough to suggest those cuts be made?  Instead, shouldn’t that elected official be praised for suggesting something that doesn’t happen in government very often: fiscal cuts?

In punishing elected official who streamline government, we only discourage others from doing the same, and we are right back where we started.  I am certain that had I put off the decision to close the Health Department for another year, my vote total would have been higher.  But, I also would not have been doing my job.  Instead, I chose the difficult path, closing a redundant department during an election year, in the face of hundreds of protesters calling for my job.  Only time will tell whether Lake County can provide to Hammond the excellent health services it provides to the rest of the county.  I believe it can.

To me, the saddest part of Election Day was the fact that 9,000 fewer Hammond residents came out to vote in 2007 as compared to 2003.  Of course, the 2003 mayor’s race in which I was the challenger was more contentiously fought, was more covered by the media, and was generally more exciting than this 2007 match-up.  Still, it’s embarrassing for Hammond that less than 1 in 5 registered voters showed up to vote on Election Day.  Electing a mayor is one of the most important decisions a resident can make.  After all, your vote means statistically more in a local election, as compared to a state-wide or national election.  Plus, the executive of a city has much more direct effect on residents’ lives.

People running for political office often promise that they will “run government like a business.”  What they mean is that they will ignore the politics inherent in their position, and make decisions that are in the best interests of their constituents.  I try to operate by that principle as your mayor.  I am grateful for the opportunity to continue my service to the people of Hammond. Still, I admit that the 2007 general election made me sadder and wiser.  The lessons are ones that I will not soon forget.