Governor's office clarifies intentions for Indiana Historical Society building
A lease agreement between the state and the Indiana Historical Society could be in jeopardy under the latest state budget draft. (Niki Kelly/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
Despite language in the proposed state budget that could put the Indiana Historical Society (IHS) headquarters in jeopardy, Gov. Mike Braun's office now maintains the intention is not to force the nonprofit to give up its building.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported last week that provisions in the state's draft spending plan could leave the historical society in a bind.
In Braun's proposed spending plan — and the House-approved version — Republican budget writers penned language that appear to terminate the state's contract with the Indianapolis-based institution.
State's proposed budget could cost Indiana Historical Society its building
The historical society owns the downtown Indianapolis building where its headquarters, museum and archives are housed. It does, not however, own the land on which the building sits.
The contract in question — in tandem with a provision in state code — allows IHS to pay $1 per year to lease that land from the state, and in return, Indiana's Department of Administration (IDOA) handles various operational maintenance costs.
In current form, the state budget would repeal that existing code in Indiana law. Another section cobbled into the budget pulls language directly from the cancellation clause of the IHS contract.
The cancellation provision makes clear that '[i]f the Director of the State Budget Agency makes a written determination that funds are not appropriated or otherwise available to support continuation of this Lease, the Lease shall be canceled.'
Exact wordage appears in the budget: 'The director of the budget agency shall make a written determination that funds are not appropriated or otherwise available to support continuation of the performance of any contract or lease entered into under IC 4-13-12.1-8 (before its repeal).'
According to the contract, in the event of a canceled lease, IHS can either purchase the land or sell its building to the state.
A joint statement said 'The Indiana Historical Society and the Braun Administration are cooperatively working toward an agreeable solution.'
But Braun's office said he does not intend to completely void the agreement, and emphasized that 'this process was always intended to be collaborative.'
His team maintained the repeal would eliminate existing contract requirements and open the door for a new or renegotiated IHS contract. That could ultimately provide fewer maintenance services at the state's expense.
Even so, there is no proposed language in budgets penned by either Braun or House Republicans to explicitly trigger contract renegotiation with IHS.
Indiana's next budget is now in the hands of Senate Republicans. Both chambers have until the end of April to finalize the plan.
The House Republican caucus deferred questions about the IHS budget provisions to the governor's office. Senate Republicans have yet to take up the two-year spending plan.
The 2007 lease agreement between IHS and the state was intended to last until 2098. A second contract signed in April 2009 — meant to last through March 2039 — details an additional agreement around the parking lot located adjacent to the IHS building.
The last state budget, approved in 2023, appropriated close to $1 million per year to maintain the building, its exterior and the surrounding site. A legislative fiscal analysis estimated that repeal of the IHS lease would reduce state expenditures by roughly $2.3 million over the biennium.
One section of the contract says that 'upon the expiration or sooner termination of this lease, (IHS) shall surrender to (the state)' the land in question.
The cancellation provision, however, further states that IHS 'shall have the sole and exclusive option to purchase' the land if the agreement is terminated. In such an instance, the state and IHS must each obtain an appraisal of the land before agreeing on a purchase price.
If IHS did go through with a purchase, it would still have to notify the state before selling the property to a third party, however. The nonprofit would then have to provide the state an opportunity to purchase the land back 'at the same price' paid to the state, adjusted for inflation.
It's not clear in the contract what would happen if a deal can't be reached.
A separate provision in state law also says 'after completion of construction and negotiation of a lease under section 8 of this chapter, the society shall convey title to the building to the state.' Notably, the next state budget does not propose a repeal of that language.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
9 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline
A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners. The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026. In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests. Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. "The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it," Glade tells Reason. "They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It's very unethical." Several other landowners in the state share the Glades' worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland. Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice. "This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow," she said. Gaul said she didn't accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project. The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership. "We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together," she says. The Glades' efforts could soon pay off. In May the state Senate passed House File 639, which would prevent CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain unless the company proves the pipeline meets the definition of public use. The bill would also prevent CO2 pipelines from operating longer than 25 years. The bill is awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is reportedly weighing opinions from pipeline supporters and detractors. If passed, the bill would represent a significant win for the rights of Iowa property owners. It would also be the latest setback for the Summit Carbon Solutions project. After the company launched a blitz of eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law in March preventing carbon dioxide pipelines from receiving eminent domain permission in the state. The post Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline appeared first on
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests
The FBI says it will act on its own to squash the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests. FBI Director Kash Patel issued an ominous threat to the city and its residents late Sunday night, claiming that his agency would intervene in the multiday anti-Trump display without explicit direction. 'Just so we are clear, this FBI needs no one's permission to enforce the constitution,' Patel posted on X. 'My responsibility is to the American people, not political punch lines. LA is under siege by marauding criminals, and we will restore law and order. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.' In a move that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should agree with, California announced it would sue the federal government Monday, arguing that the Trump administration's order to send hundreds of National Guard troops toward Los Angeles, without coordination with the state's governor, was an unconstitutional breach of power. Hours earlier, FBI Public Affairs Assistant Director Ben Williamson shared that Patel had gotten off a call with 'senior leadership' addressing what they referred to as 'riots' in L.A., specifying that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino had 'offered all necessary resources from FBI HQ' to address the situation. Williamson said the pair 'reiterated the position that any perpetrator who attacks or interferes with law enforcement will be aggressively pursued and brought to justice.' Bongino made it plain that one of the agency's primary targets would be individuals suspected of assaulting officers, writing on X that he and Patel had notified all FBI teams to pursue suspected individuals 'long after order is firmly established.' 'We will not forget. Even after you try to,' Bongino posted. But Republicans have so far not been very successful at pinpointing wrongdoing in Los Angeles. Instead, some viral videos circulating in conservative circles of protest-related violence in the city are actually not from the weekend at all, but were instead taken in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests.
