BDGiant93 Posted December 16, 2025 Posted December 16, 2025 I remember what a novelty that turf seemed like on a high school field. Now, it's the norm in the bigger classes. Weird how times change so fast. I miss the old Ben Davis grass field. They used to maintain it so meticulously. 1 Quote
Muda69 Posted February 19 Posted February 19 Community Schools of Frankfort school boards looks to waste more taxpayer dollars on unneeded athletic upgrades: https://clintoncountydailynews.com/community-schools-of-frankfort-plans-16-million-tax-neutral-bond-for-athletic-upgrades/ Quote Community Schools of Frankfort Superintendent Dr. Matt Rhoda says the district will seek approval for a little over $16 million in new bonding authority to upgrade athletic facilities and the high school swimming pool, while keeping the school tax rate flat for local property owners. Rhoda discussed the plan, along with ongoing construction and looming staff reductions, during a recent appearance on WILO’s “Party Line” program. He said the new bond is possible because older debt has been retired and emphasized that “taxpayers are not gonna see any difference here with this — it’ll be a tax neutral bond.” Balancing facilities, finances, and enrollment The superintendent framed the proposed bond and construction work as part of a broader effort to keep Frankfort’s facilities competitive and attractive to families at a time when enrollment has dropped by about 150 students in the past year, straining the district’s operating budget. At the same time, he acknowledged teacher concerns over planned staff reductions and described his handling of a proposed shift to a Latin honors system as a “leadership failure” in communication. $16 Million Bond Aimed at Athletics and Pool Rhoda said the new bond proposal, which he presented to the school board this week as a notice of public hearing, will receive two preliminary determination hearings so the public can review the plan. “We’re going after a little over a $16 million bond,” he explained. “That bond is because we have paid off other debt… nothing taxpayers are not gonna see any difference here with this — it’ll be a tax neutral bond.” He said the money would be used to: – Renovate and improve the high school swimming pool. – Install synthetic turf on the football, baseball and softball fields. – Update related athletic structures around those facilities. Rhoda said the district is “shooting to have the football field done for by the fall of 2027, so that football season in 2027 will be on a synthetic field.” He stressed that athletic investments are overdue: “We’ve invested money into our buildings and we’re doing that, but it has been a long time since we’ve touched athletic facilities.” Public notices will be posted on the district website and published in the Frankfort Times, with bond hearings planned for March 10 and March 17 school board meetings. ... First of all this notion of a "tax neutral bond" is just dishonest, marketing, baloney. The school corporation finally paid off an old bond so instead of you know, actually trying to reduce the tax burden of the citizens, it opted for a cycle of basically endless debt because for most of these government bureaucrats it is "free money". Disgusting. I don't know what Mr. Rhoda's concept of "long time" is, but it appears to be no more than yesterday. CSF spent millions within the last 10-15 years athletic facilities, a new auxiliary gymnasium being one of them, along with upgrades to Case Arena. As for these proposed athletic upgrades, they supposedly spent a ton of money on high school pool upgrades not more than 10 years ago, and now they need more? Something smells like nasty chlorine..... And everyone here on the GID know my stance on fake surfaces for football and other athletic fields. A total waste of taxpayers dollars, along with inviting even more injuries to children. It looks like 2026 may be the last year I attend a FHS home football game. Watching a moribund program is torture enough, adding shiny fake grass won't make it any better. And it won't make those 150 students who have fled to Central, Prairie, and Rossville return. 1 1 Quote
Sparty Posted February 19 Posted February 19 35 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Community Schools of Frankfort school boards looks to waste more taxpayer dollars on unneeded athletic upgrades: https://clintoncountydailynews.com/community-schools-of-frankfort-plans-16-million-tax-neutral-bond-for-athletic-upgrades/ First of all this notion of a "tax neutral bond" is just dishonest, marketing, baloney. The school corporation finally paid off an old bond so instead of you know, actually trying to reduce the tax burden of the citizens, it opted for a cycle of basically endless debt because for most of these government bureaucrats it is "free money". Disgusting. I don't know what Mr. Rhoda's concept of "long time" is, but it appears to be no more than yesterday. CSF spent millions within the last 10-15 years athletic facilities, a new auxiliary gymnasium being one of them, along with upgrades to Case Arena. As for these proposed athletic upgrades, they supposedly spent a ton of money on high school pool upgrades not more than 10 years ago, and now they need more? Something smells like nasty chlorine..... And everyone here on the GID know my stance on fake surfaces for football and other athletic fields. A total waste of taxpayers dollars, along with inviting even more injuries to children. It looks like 2026 may be the last year I attend a FHS home football game. Watching a moribund program is torture enough, adding shiny fake grass won't make it any better. And it won't make those 150 students who have fled to Central, Prairie, and Rossville return. Beauty of a constitutional republic. Tax payers get a vote/say. Quote
First_Backer_Inside Posted February 19 Posted February 19 41 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Community Schools of Frankfort school boards looks to waste more taxpayer dollars on unneeded athletic upgrades: https://clintoncountydailynews.com/community-schools-of-frankfort-plans-16-million-tax-neutral-bond-for-athletic-upgrades/ First of all this notion of a "tax neutral bond" is just dishonest, marketing, baloney. The school corporation finally paid off an old bond so instead of you know, actually trying to reduce the tax burden of the citizens, it opted for a cycle of basically endless debt because for most of these government bureaucrats it is "free money". Disgusting. I don't know what Mr. Rhoda's concept of "long time" is, but it appears to be no more than yesterday. CSF spent millions within the last 10-15 years athletic facilities, a new auxiliary gymnasium being one of them, along with upgrades to Case Arena. As for these proposed athletic upgrades, they supposedly spent a ton of money on high school pool upgrades not more than 10 years ago, and now they need more? Something smells like nasty chlorine..... And everyone here on the GID know my stance on fake surfaces for football and other athletic fields. A total waste of taxpayers dollars, along with inviting even more injuries to children. It looks like 2026 may be the last year I attend a FHS home football game. Watching a moribund program is torture enough, adding shiny fake grass won't make it any better. And it won't make those 150 students who have fled to Central, Prairie, and Rossville return. Rossville needs to get a football team for you to watch my friend. I applaud you for going to watch Frankfort year in and out Quote
Muda69 Posted February 19 Posted February 19 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Sparty said: Beauty of a constitutional republic. Tax payers get a vote/say. I was never presented with a vote opportunity for this current bond proposal put forward by CSF. I guess $16,000,000 is too small to be of concern for poor taxpayers. Edited February 19 by Muda69 Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 2 hours ago, Muda69 said: Community Schools of Frankfort school boards looks to waste more taxpayer dollars on unneeded athletic upgrades: https://clintoncountydailynews.com/community-schools-of-frankfort-plans-16-million-tax-neutral-bond-for-athletic-upgrades/ First of all this notion of a "tax neutral bond" is just dishonest, marketing, baloney. The school corporation finally paid off an old bond so instead of you know, actually trying to reduce the tax burden of the citizens, it opted for a cycle of basically endless debt because for most of these government bureaucrats it is "free money". Disgusting. I don't know what Mr. Rhoda's concept of "long time" is, but it appears to be no more than yesterday. CSF spent millions within the last 10-15 years athletic facilities, a new auxiliary gymnasium being one of them, along with upgrades to Case Arena. As for these proposed athletic upgrades, they supposedly spent a ton of money on high school pool upgrades not more than 10 years ago, and now they need more? Something smells like nasty chlorine..... And everyone here on the GID know my stance on fake surfaces for football and other athletic fields. A total waste of taxpayers dollars, along with inviting even more injuries to children. It looks like 2026 may be the last year I attend a FHS home football game. Watching a moribund program is torture enough, adding shiny fake grass won't make it any better. And it won't make those 150 students who have fled to Central, Prairie, and Rossville return. Did you go to the Public meeting to voice your concern ? 1 hour ago, Muda69 said: I was never presented with a vote opportunity for this current bond proposal put forward by CSF. I guess $16,000,000 is too small to be of concern for poor taxpayers. but they have to announce monthly board meeting and agenda prior to meeting..... Just saying Quote
Muda69 Posted February 19 Posted February 19 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said: Did you go to the Public meeting to voice your concern ? Yes. And I have contacted the elected school board member who represents the district in which I live. Edited February 19 by Muda69 1 Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 13 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Yes. And I have contacted the elected school board member who represents the district in which I live. I knew a vote was not needed, however, my point is someone who follows many local govt entities, just shocked you missed it on the preview agenda that schools put out there. And there would have been an opportunity even if no vote for your concerned tax paying citizen to use his time that is granted by his freedoms in this country. Quote
Sparty Posted February 19 Posted February 19 1 hour ago, Muda69 said: I was never presented with a vote opportunity for this current bond proposal put forward by CSF. I guess $16,000,000 is too small to be of concern for poor taxpayers. Then I stand corrected. I would’ve presumed they needed to call for a referendum to raise taxes at one point. Quote
Muda69 Posted February 19 Posted February 19 21 minutes ago, Sparty said: Then I stand corrected. I would’ve presumed they needed to call for a referendum to raise taxes at one point. This is a loophole that allows government school corporations to basically nickel-and-dime it's taxpayer base in perpetuity. Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 3 hours ago, Muda69 said: This is a loophole that allows government school corporations to basically nickel-and-dime it's taxpayer base in perpetuity. What if you refinanced an existing bond for tax neutral improvements?? Quote
Muda69 Posted February 19 Posted February 19 7 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said: What if you refinanced an existing bond for tax neutral improvements?? If the refinancing is to obtain a better rate so the bond can be paid off sooner, then sure. If it is so they can spend even more taxpayers dollars on dubious projects under the umbrella of the existing bond, then no. That should be illegal. The existing bond should be 100% PAID OFF first before attempting to issue another. But then again I am not a municipal bond expert. Are you? Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 1 hour ago, Muda69 said: If the refinancing is to obtain a better rate so the bond can be paid off sooner, then sure. If it is so they can spend even more taxpayers dollars on dubious projects under the umbrella of the existing bond, then no. That should be illegal. The existing bond should be 100% PAID OFF first before attempting to issue another. But then again I am not a municipal bond expert. Are you? great conversation...until the last sentence and question as if you think I am trying to do a GOTCHA moment.... But when pressed for specifics, such as I asked you about ballpark range of what you personally have paid for Lucas Oil, you chose to dodge and say 1 Million, so now its not an honest conversation where I am looking to learn from someone who has a staunch viewpoint, but instead now, you want question my question about BOND experts..... so short NO, not an expert, I know what the process is, but disagree on your sentiment that refinancing a BOND that could provide a better situation with a physical building for students and families to utilize that cost nothing to the taxpayers as in the existing bond to keep lets say a local tax rate at 67 cents........But I digress Quote
Muda69 Posted February 19 Posted February 19 17 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said: great conversation...until the last sentence and question as if you think I am trying to do a GOTCHA moment.... But when pressed for specifics, such as I asked you about ballpark range of what you personally have paid for Lucas Oil, you chose to dodge and say 1 Million, so now its not an honest conversation where I am looking to learn from someone who has a staunch viewpoint, but instead now, you want question my question about BOND experts..... Ok. I'll say somewhere between $100 and $1,000,000. Happy now? Can you tell me how much you personally have paid to have Lucas Oil Stadium in the State of Indiana? And how much you are willing to personally pay to have a new Bears stadium built in Hammond? 20 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said: ..... so short NO, not an expert, I know what the process is, but disagree on your sentiment that refinancing a BOND that could provide a better situation with a physical building for students and families to utilize that cost nothing to the taxpayers as in the existing bond to keep lets say a local tax rate at 67 cents........But I digress But it doesn't cost "nothing" to the taxpayers. They keep paying the same amount, where they could have paid less as a result of refinancing. I have refinanced my mortgage to get a better rate, which allows me to save a bit and pay off my mortgage sooner. I don't use the lower rate to buy more house. Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 43 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Ok. I'll say somewhere between $100 and $1,000,000. Happy now? Not about being HAPPY, about having an honest conversation, the fact you do not actually know how much extra money in your lifetime that has come in an increase tax for LUCAS OIL, for me, takes you stance less serious as if you were very serious about your stance, you would actually know instead of the Muda circle answer, again, coming from an honest conversation approach..... Can you tell me how much you personally have paid to have Lucas Oil Stadium in the State of Indiana? And how much you are willing to personally pay to have a new Bears stadium built in Hammond? NO: because, my stance is that the elected officials that chose to build the stadium in conjunction with Colts/etc has far outweighed any minimal tax that has made its way to me when I have visited Marian County or if its reached to me in Lake County. That is the reason why I do not care what the breakdown of that tax for ME PERSONALLY, but I also have not been on these boards trumpeting your cause that you believe in. How much I would be willing to personally pay for extra Lake County tax? YES, the answer is YES, I believe the benefit will outweigh what I believe to be very small to my personal bottom line. (Please save the next Muda line that is coming of being indpendently wealthy to throw away any future money to this tax that you love to tee up) But it doesn't cost "nothing" to the taxpayers. They keep paying the same amount, where they could have paid less as a result of refinancing. I have refinanced my mortgage to get a better rate, which allows me to save a bit and pay off my mortgage sooner. I don't use the lower rate to buy more house. SAME and it was GLORIOUS opportunity that we took advantage of in 2008. What I allowed my family to do was to then have better opportunity to save more for mini me future college and to help fund some tremendous family time in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, amongst other places for instance. Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 51 minutes ago, Muda69 said: But it doesn't cost "nothing" to the taxpayers. They keep paying the same amount, where they could have paid less as a result of refinancing. Probably poor use of words "cost nothing". My stance is if the bond stays local tax rate let's say 65 cents.... and refinance bond to keep it the same 65 cents and that building project is NEEDED for the student community then should be a slam dunk..... but others may think just letting it go and then have the tax rate fall to like 48 cents........ Quote
Muda69 Posted February 19 Posted February 19 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said: Probably poor use of words "cost nothing". My stance is if the bond stays local tax rate let's say 65 cents.... and refinance bond to keep it the same 65 cents and that building project is NEEDED for the student community then should be a slam dunk..... but others may think just letting it go and then have the tax rate fall to like 48 cents........ It is the same bait-and-switch politicians use with property taxes. They say "we won't raise your property tax rate", which is true. But what they don't include is the insane amount of increases the county is making to the assessed valuations of people's homes. My home held pretty much the same assessed value, +/- around $5k, for the first twenty years we lived in it. Over the past 5-7 years the assessed valuation has gone up almost 100 percent, effectively doubling my yearly property taxes. And isn't it interesting these increased valuations occurred at around the same time the school corp was spending $30 million for renovating the high school, the city was spending millions on a new park downtown, a new water park, a new police station, and now a new fire station west of town. And the county was spending millions to build a new annex building on the courthouse square. Yet the city and county politiicans were screaming, "we did all of this without increasing the property tax rate!!!!!" What a scam................... Edited February 19 by Muda69 1 Quote
Daniel_Bragg Posted February 20 Posted February 20 4 hours ago, Muda69 said: It is the same bait-and-switch politicians use with property taxes. They say "we won't raise your property tax rate", which is true. But what they don't include is the insane amount of increases the county is making to the assessed valuations of people's homes. My home held pretty much the same assessed value, +/- around $5k, for the first twenty years we lived in it. Over the past 5-7 years the assessed valuation has gone up almost 100 percent, effectively doubling my yearly property taxes. And isn't it interesting these increased valuations occurred at around the same time the school corp was spending $30 million for renovating the high school, the city was spending millions on a new park downtown, a new water park, a new police station, and now a new fire station west of town. And the county was spending millions to build a new annex building on the courthouse square. Yet the city and county politiicans were screaming, "we did all of this without increasing the property tax rate!!!!!" What a scam................... 1) Difference between tax rate and taxes owed is important when assessing anything that deals with government. 2) Of course you don't get a "vote" on every issue that the School Board handles. You know why? Because we have a representative republic. Not a true democracy. 3) Do you take issue when other government entities, I.e. libraries, use this same "loophole" to make building improvements? Using bonds to make high dollar improvements with minimal impact to the taxpayer is a responsible way to not let buildings become decrepit. All of this being said, as an elected official, I was against renewing a library bond in Sheridan in 2025, because I wasn't satisfied with the scale of work, for the dollar amount of the bond. It still passed, but I only say this to point out that I at least have "some" experience in this issue. Ultimately, if you want to have an actual vote on whether something like this happens in the future, put your name on a ballot, and join the conversation. 1 Quote
Muda69 Posted February 20 Posted February 20 9 hours ago, Daniel_Bragg said: 2) Of course you don't get a "vote" on every issue that the School Board handles. You know why? Because we have a representative republic. Not a true democracy. Agreed. But I believe this > $16 million threshold in order to have a vote is way to high. Should be more like $1 million. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.