Indiana Senate committee turns 4 local tax bills into 1, prompting bipartisan pushback
A jam-packed agency bill became even more behemoth and wide-reaching on Tuesday after a Senate committee crammed in dozens of other provisions that largely deal with local taxes.
The move drew a range of questions from Democrats, all of whom voted against the merge. Some Republicans were also hesitant — and a GOP budget leader was opposed altogether.
House Bill 1427, now more than 150 pages in length, was originally focused on Department of Local Government and Finance (DLGF) matters.
Embedded in the underlying legislation was language around DLGF rule-making, as well as administrative policy changes for various local taxes and assessments.
But a massive amendment approved by the Senate tax committee wrapped in all or parts of three other bills: House Bill 1080 and Senate Bill 304, dealing with innkeeper's and food and beverage taxes, and Senate Bill 290, which mostly addresses local property tax levies.
Multiple other new changes and provisions — like for professional sports and convention center developments — were additionally included.
The amended bill advanced 8-5 to the full chamber, despite unfavorable votes from Democrats and top Republican Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Mishawaka.
Sen. Eric Bassler, R-Washington, one of the bill's Senate sponsors, discussed the amendment before the tax committee and expressed concerns, too. Because he is not a member of the committee, the senator did not participate in Tuesday's vote.
'I'm always a little bit leery to have substantive policy changes for the state in agency bills. If the state is going to make a policy change, I'd rather those bills kind of be standalone language,' Bassler said.
'I think that's even more so in this bill, because this is a 117-page amendment to a 79-page bill, and it deals with literally dozens and dozens of dozens of issues,' he continued. 'I think we need to be very careful when we're starting to change state policy in such a complicated bill.'
Democratic Sen. Andrea Hunley, of Indianapolis, raised questions about a child care facility portion of the amendment that would create a partial property tax exemption for employers who provide child care for their employees on company property.
Hunley worried that the tax benefit would do little to increase services for parents, given it only applies to care for children under the age of six. Child care facilities that do not have a formal agreement with a business also would not qualify.
'To me, it's not really solving the child care issue that we have … but it's really about subsidizing businesses to provide a service to their own employees,' Hunley said.
'There's so much in here dealing with taxes that are going to impact our local communities. And that has been a theme this session, in a variety of ways, and in a variety of pieces of legislation,' she added. 'We have to think about — not just these pieces of legislation in isolation — but the myriad of ways that we are impacting locals with these policy changes.'
Mishler further took issue with a section on 'professional sports development areas,' or PSDAs.
Those areas can already capture millions of dollars per year in tax revenue from sports facilities, hotels and other commercial properties fund infrastructure improvements and new sports-related developments.
Under the bill, cities that are located in a county with at least four cities — each with a population of at least 40,000 — would additionally be able to create special sports-related tax districts. Up to $2 million collected each year from the tax area could be invested in city-owned facilities that are used for 'practice or competitive sporting events.'
'The PSDAs in here — those are usually budget discussions, because they reduce revenue,' Mishler said. 'So, I'm a little irritated because I've been working with these groups on the investments that they're bringing in there, and I feel like they just circumvented the system, went around, and just threw it in a bill.'
Bill author Rep. Craig Snow, R-Warsaw, told Mishler in response that he would be 'happy to take anything out of this bill that you would like, because it's kind of unwieldy.'
Mishler, the Senate Republican budget leader, foreshadowed possible changes to that language but did not provide details.
Also in contention was a piece of the amendment that sets criteria for continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), small house health facilities and residential care facilities' to qualify for tax exemptions.
Bartholomew County Assessor Ginny Whipple maintained that CCRCs should not qualify for exemptions 'without going through the normal channels' already in place for properties.
Such senior living communities offer a range of services and care levels, from independent living apartments to assisted living and skilled nursing facilities, all under one roof.
Currently, CCRCs can file for tax exemptions with the local property tax assessment board, whose members 'vet their information and decide, on a local basis, who pays more taxes and who pays less' Whipple explained. She held that CCRC exemptions 'should be a local matter, decided on the merits of each case.'
It's a step too far, in my estimation, for county assessors to take policy decisions as their purview.
– Senate tax committee chairman Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle
'I think each of these CCRCs are unique and individual. One size does not fit all. This bill would give them a free ride, while other folks over 65, paying their fair share, would not have that same advantage,' Whipple emphasized. 'It would increase the taxes for those elders — because any time you carve out a special interest group, then you increase taxes for other taxpayers.'
Committee chairman Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, gave a cold reply.
'I think there are two roles for elected officials: some elected officials are in the administrative, policy-setting role, and others are ministerial. The problem I have with assessors dipping their toe into policy issues — as I see assessors as ministerial functions in counties — yours is merely to execute the law as it's presented to you,' Holdman said. 'We appreciate your position, but you are not a policymaker in the county, according to my rules. … It's a step too far, in my estimation, for county assessors to take policy decisions as their purview.'
Sen. Chris Garten, also on the tax committee, doubled down.
'I feel like we have a lot of assessors who are flippant. … Part of the issue we're seeing is we've got elected assessors statewide — that when taxpayers call them to try to have a pragmatic conversation about property tax assessments — they flippantly respond and say, 'Property taxes aren't our issue. Call your state legislators,' Garten said. 'The majority of assessors … should be focused on the administrative functions of the job, and not policy.'
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
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
When Trump meets Putin, anything could happen
Top Republicans were horrified. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called it a 'disgraceful performance.' Trump's own national security adviser at the time, John Bolton, would later write that 'Putin had to be laughing uproariously at what he had gotten away with in Helsinki.' Trump plans to see Putin on Friday in Alaska for the first time since his return to the White House to discuss the U.S. president's goal of ending the war between Russia and Ukraine. With Putin pressing peace proposals that heavily favor Russia, many analysts and former Trump officials worry that he will once again turn a meeting with Trump to his advantage. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up During Trump's first term, he and Putin met six times in person and had several more phone conversations. (His successor, Joe Biden, met Putin only once, in June 2021, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.) Advertisement Those interactions alarmed many of Trump's senior aides, who watched as the U.S. president disregarded their advice, excluded them from meetings with the Russian leader and proposed impractical ideas that appeared to have been planted by Putin, like creating a U.S.-Russia 'impenetrable Cyber Security unit.' The idea was dropped as soon as Trump got back to Washington. Advertisement The relationship has grown more complicated in Trump's second term. In recent months Trump, eager to fulfill his promises of settling the war between Russia and Ukraine, has grown irritated by Putin's unwillingness to de-escalate the conflict. Putin will land in Alaska determined to rewind Trump's view of the war to February, when he berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a contentious White House meeting for not showing more gratitude for U.S. support, while speaking warmly about Putin. 'Since the blowup between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, Europeans, Ukrainians and Ukraine's supporters inside the administration have cobbled together a policy of helping Ukraine stay in the fight and preventing the lurch by Trump to embrace Russia's view of the conflict,' said Andrew Weiss, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'The real test on Friday will be how much of that policy survives the first in-person contact between Trump and Putin in his second term,' Weiss added. The White House portrays the meeting as an example of Trump's dedication to stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine and defends his unconventional style as a needed break from slow-moving diplomatic customs. But critics worry that the hastily planned conversation will play into the hands of Putin, a former KGB agent known as a master manipulator. 'I think he believes he should reel Trump back in, and believes his KGB skills will do that,' Bolton said in an interview with NewsNation last week. The Russian leader may also benefit from the fact that Trump, in contrast to his first term, has few advisers pushing back against Putin's worldview. For his trip to Helsinki, for instance, Trump was surrounded by such Russia hawks as Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Advertisement Today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is the lone member of Trump's inner circle with a clear record of criticizing Putin. But even Rubio, who also serves as Trump's national security adviser, has softened his tone since joining Trump's Cabinet. The Alaska meeting was set after Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with Putin in Moscow last week. Witkoff, a friend of Trump and a fellow real estate mogul, had no diplomatic experience before joining government. He has been criticized for meeting with Putin without other U.S. officials and for echoing his talking points afterward. To be sure, the Russia hawks around Trump in his first term often had little success. When Trump called Putin after the Russian president was reelected in a March 2018 vote widely seen as illegitimate, Trump's aides placed a clear instruction in his briefing papers: 'DO NOT CONGRATULATE.' Trump did so anyway. Not even a federal investigation into 2016 Russian election interference was enough to restrain Trump. When the two leaders last met in person, on the sidelines of a 2019 Group of 20 gathering in Osaka, Japan, Trump joked with Putin about the subject. 'Don't meddle in the election!' Trump said, with a smirk and a finger wag. Putin grinned in delight. The investigation, and the presence of Putin critics at high levels of his administration, may have led Trump to conduct his conversations with unusual secrecy, however. When the men first sat down together, at a G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, in 2017, Trump was joined only by his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and an interpreter. After the meeting, Trump took the interpreter's notes and ordered him not to disclose what he heard. Advertisement That evening, Trump and Putin had an impromptu conversation, initiated by Trump, at a group dinner. No other Americans were present, and the White House confirmed the meeting only after surprised witnesses spoke to reporters. Asked by reporters what he had told Trump in Hamburg about the 2016 election, Putin replied, 'I got the impression that my answers satisfied him.' For his part, Trump called a New York Times reporter in Hamburg just as he was departing from the summit and said Putin had told him that Russia could not have been involved in the 2016 election because its operations were so sophisticated they never would have been detected. Trump said he was 'very impressed' by that argument, a case he went on to make in public. Analysts said they have low expectations for the sort of breakthrough on Ukraine that Trump is hoping to achieve in Alaska. Putin has shown every sign that he believes he can gain more on the battlefield than in negotiations -- at least on the terms Trump has so far required. Maria Snegovaya, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that in his first term Trump tried to strike major deals with the authoritarian leaders of such nations as China and North Korea, with limited results. 'In general, Trump's history of meetings with strong men from Xi Jinping to Kim Jong Un does not lead to a successful deal that follows,' she said. Advertisement Fiona Hill, who was senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council in the first Trump White House, agreed that any breakthrough appeared unlikely. Putin and his aides have been frustrated at a lack of diplomatic progress with the Trump administration, and Hill said she sees little fresh ground for a deal, even one favorable to Putin. The Russians 'always want something they can take to the bank, an agreement they can hold the U.S. to,' she said. 'They were excited by Witkoff at first, since he's a direct channel to Trump, but they're frustrated there's no structure around it.' While Putin might welcome a leader-to-leader meeting, she said, 'he wants the details to be worked out later. And Trump isn't a details guy.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Hortman special election: Xp Lee wins DFL primary to fill vacant seat
The Brief A primary held on Tuesday helped determine which candidates would face a special election on Sept. 16 to fill the seat left vacant by the death of former Rep. Melissa Hortman. Unofficial results from the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office have determined that former Brooklyn Park City Council member Xp Lee won the DFL primary with 59.15% of the vote. The race included three DFL candidates and one GOP candidate. BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (FOX 9) - A primary ahead of the special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Rep. Melissa Hortman has determined that former Brooklyn Park City Council member Xp Lee could be the north metro district's next representative. House District 34B primary results What we know On Tuesday, Lee won the primary with 59.15%, or 1,186 total votes, according to unofficial results on the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office site. Results will be officially confirmed at a later date. As of 9 p.m. on Tuesday, 100% of precincts representing portions of Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids and Champlin were reporting results. The winner of this DFL primary will likely take on the lone Republican, Ruth Bittner, who's currently a real estate agent. She won 209 votes, and 100% of the GOP endorsement. A special election is currently scheduled for Sept. 16. Seat to replace Rep. Hortman The backstory The race included three DFL candidates and one GOP candidate. Brooklyn Park City Council Member Christian Eriksen, a Democrat, was the first candidate to announce his run for the seat last month. Former Brooklyn Park City Council member Xp Lee, a Democrat, also announced his candidacy in July. Hennepin County Prosecutor Erickson Saye, a Democrat, also announced his campaign this summer. The sole GOP candidate, Ruth Bittner, said in her announcement that "In these times of extreme partisanship, I can think of no more important mission than to restore people's trust in government."
Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
Appeals court allows Arkansas' first-in-the-nation ban on gender transition care for minors to be enforced
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld an Arkansas law prohibiting doctors from providing gender transition medical treatment to minors, reversing a lower court decision that blocked the first-in-the-nation law. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 8-2 on Tuesday to overturn a lower court decision, now allowing the state to enforce the law. The appeals court cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June upholding a similar ban in Tennessee, in which the nation's highest court ruled that the law was constitutional and did not discriminate against transgender people. Referencing the Supreme Court's decision, the appeals court agreed with Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, that the law did not violate transgender minors' equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. "I applaud the court's decision and am pleased that children in Arkansas will be protected from experimental procedures," Griffin said in a statement following the ruling. Arkansas Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders wrote on social media that the ruling "is a win for common sense -- and for our kids." Arkansas became the first U.S. state to ban transgender treatments such as puberty blockers, hormones and surgery for minors in 2021, when the Republican-led legislature passed the ban after they overruled the veto of then-GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson. Four families of transgender children and two doctors challenged the law, arguing the Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act violated parents' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. Writing the majority opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton said parents have never had a right to obtain medical treatment for their children that a state government had banned. The judge also wrote that the lower court's decision, in which U.S. District Judge Jay Moody ruled in 2023 that the law discriminates against transgender people and poses "immediate and irreparable harm" to transgender children, conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in the Tennessee case. The law was also previously blocked from taking effect in 2021. U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, meanwhile, wrote in the dissent that there is a "startling lack of evidence connecting Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming care with its purported goal of protecting children." The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas were among the groups representing the plaintiffs. "This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors, and their families," Holly Dickson, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, said in a statement. "The state had every opportunity and failed at every turn to prove that this law helps children; in fact, this is a dangerous law that harms children," she continued. "The law has already had a profound impact on families across Arkansas who all deserve a fundamental right to do what is best for their children. As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want transgender Arkansans to know they are far from alone and we remain as determined as ever to secure their right to safety, dignity, and equal access to the health care they need." The ruling on Tuesday comes after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously last week that a similar ban in Oklahoma is constitutional, also relying upon the Supreme Court's decision on the Tennessee law.
