Merrillville Police Chief says Senate Bill 1 would lead to officer layoffs
As Senate Bill 1 — a property tax refund bill that would cut more than $1 billion from schools, libraries and local government — hurtles toward the finish line, Merrillville's Police Chief is imploring residents to call their state representatives to stop it before it ruins the town's public safety.
Kosta Nuses said during the April 8 Town Council meeting that he's a proponent of 'power to the people,' but he and the town need residents to 'find common ground' and get the bill stopped. If they don't, the possibility that he will have to lay off people in the police department will no longer be an unheard-of proposition.
'I've been coming here for almost the last three years, attending these council meetings, and I appreciate everybody's passion to get their point across, but at this point I'm urging — no, I'm begging — everyone to fight SB1, because we are going to be in significant trouble if it passes,' Nuses said. 'Merrillville doesn't have a lot of money to begin with, and if they cut what they're proposing to cut, we're going to be in serious trouble.
'This is what I want: All this passion, all this energy, all this — should I say rage — all this that we have here, we need to fight, because the way that it's looking, it's going to affect us in a really bad way.'
Currently, the department has 65 officers, which is 20 fewer than it should have for a town of more than 36,000 residents, Nuses told the Post-Tribune; it also has more than 200 road miles. Of the town's $12 million budget, more than half goes to the police department, he said.
The Council in October approved 4-2-1 — with Councilwomen Shauna Haynes-Edwards, D-2; Leona Chandler-Felton, D-3 voting 'No' and Keesha Hardaway, D-7, abstaining — its 2025 budget with an emergency appeal that would allow it to hire up to 34 more firefighters and up to 25 more police officers. Residents, however, packed the council chambers at that meeting to protest the budget after Town Clerk-Treasurer Eric January posted to social media that from his 'initial calculation the amount of (the town's) spending can increase by 77% as a result of a max levy appeal, which would result in significantly higher tax bills for everyone especially commercial property owners,' the Post-Tribune previously reported.
January owns a financial services business in the former American Legion Post 430 building on Broadway and received town approval to open an event space in it that will serve alcohol if he can get a liquor license.
Meeting attendees emphasized how much they love and appreciate the police and fire departments when they came up to speak during public comment but insisted they can't afford one more expense. The protest, however, was for naught as the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance ultimately denied the appeal — as town leaders expected it would — because it didn't meet the threshold of what the agency requires to grant them.
SB1's latest version, meanwhile, would shift the percentage cap used to determine the maximum levy growth quotient to 0% in 2026, 1% in 2027 and 2% in 2028; and allows a county fiscal body to establish a property tax payment deferral program, where up to $10,000 can be deferred and the deferment becomes a lien on the property. The percentage cap used to determine the maximum levy growth quotient is 4% in 2026, but starting in 2028, the maximum local income tax expenditure rate for all counties will be 2.9%, according to the amended bill, the Post-Tribune reported this week.
The fiscal impact of the amended bill would cut $1.4 billion across the state between 2026 and 2028, including $744 million from schools, $61 million from libraries, $451 million from cities and towns, $403 million from counties and $65 million from townships. Under the amended bill, approximately 93% of homeowners will see, on average, a decrease of $192 in their pay-2026 property tax bill, or $16 a month.
State Representative Jeffrey Thompson, R-Lizton, proposed a six-page amendment, named Amendment 36, on Wednesday to Senate Bill 1 where homeowners will see $1.5 billion of property tax relief over the course of 3 years, which would be accomplished by the amendment shifting the standard deduction credit to 10% or no more than $300, he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
37 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hochul eying NYC Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, Queens BP Donovan Richards for lieutenant governor
NYC Council Speaker Adrienne Adams has her eyes on Albany if her longshot mayoral bid fails, The Post has learned. Adams is on Gov. Hochul's short list for lieutenant governor — and is in the process of using taxpayer money to open a fourth Council office to help bolster her popularity, according to multiple Albany insiders and City Hall sources. 'The governor is looking for someone like Adrienne who could generate votes downstate and align her with political naysayers,' said one insider. Hochul will face off in next year's Democratic primary against her estranged current No. 2, Antonio Delgado. Sources said Queens Borough President Donovan Richards is also being considered as a running mate for the Buffalo-born governor. 5 NYC Council Speaker Adrienne Adams is on Gov. Kathy Hochul's short list for lieutenant governor — and is in the process of using taxpayer money to open a fourth Council office to help bolster her popularity, according to multiple Albany insiders and City Hall sources Andrew Schwartz / Hochul is especially interested in boosting her popularity in Queens, and would be banking on either Adams or Richards to tap into the party's far-left and minority voting bases, which Delgado will also be courting, sources said. Richards is currently her 'No. 1 choice' and Adams '1A' – but that could change especially since Hochul wants to keep state Attorney General Letitia James an ally, and James is Adams' biggest booster in the NYC mayoral race, the insider said. 5 Queens Borough President Donovan Richards (second from left) is also under consideration to become Hochul's running mate in 2026. Gregory P. Mango Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime Democratic consultant, said a Hochul-Adams pairing makes perfect sense because 'having a black woman from southeast Queens' like Adams on the ticket 'would be helpful' for the governor's re-election bid. He also said the speaker will likely soon need another option when her final term on the Council expires at year's end, because she's a huge underdog in the mayoral race heading into the June 24 primary. The news of Hochul's interest in Adams potentially sheds light on why the speaker is planning to open yet another office despite being term-limited 5 The storefront exterior to NYC Council Speaker Adrienne Adams' new office in South Ozone Park has undergone a complete overhaul with nine security cameras and security lighting installed near the main entrance, which is locked by newly installed roll-down metal gates. Leonardo Munoz The new digs are at newly renovated storefront at 122-21 111th Ave in South Ozone Park, less than three miles from her other Queens district office at the Rochdale Village Shopping Center in Jamaica. Adams has yet to announce its grand opening, but she posted a flyer on social media this week noting a mobile unit from the New York Legal Assistance Group would be parked outside the 111th Avenue address from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Tuesday to provide free legal services. The office was shuttered Thursday when a reporter visited, but residents who live nearby said they are well aware the speaker is moving in soon. The storefront's exterior has undergone a complete overhaul with nine security cameras and security lighting installed near the main entrance, which was locked by newly installed roll-down metal gates. 5 Adams (right) in 2023 posing with Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous at her newly renovated City Hall office — which features 'toucan' orange-colored walls. Speaker Adrienne Adams/ Instagram It's unclear how much the renovations cost and what the rental payments are, but the building's landlord Suresh Rassbeharry told The Post he provided some of the upgrades per their lease agreement and Adams 'picked up the other costs' including the security features. Adams is already under fire from critics over a Post report in April exposing how she green-lit hundreds of thousands of dollars in top-to-bottom renovations for her main digs in City Hall, a suite of offices across the street at 250 Broadway in Lower Manhattan, and to move her Jamaica district office. It is unclear what pile of taxpayer cash paid for the previous decorating — or for the new office. 5 Gov. Kathy Hochul is especially interested in boosting her popularity in Queens and would be banking on either Adams or Richards tapping into the party's far-left and minority voting bases, according to insiders. Michael Brochstein/ZUMA / The City Council by law sets its own expense budget, which historically operates like a shell game. Pots of money are moved from one line item to another on a whim after the yearly spending plan is adopted — and many of these revisions are rarely accounted for or updated in public records, according to council members and other City Hall sources. Hochul's campaign, Adams' campaign and Richards declined comment. Councilman Robert Holden (R-Queens) said Adams' latest office splurge is head-scratching. 'The speaker will be out of office in less than six months and she will not be mayor, so it makes no sense for her to open another district office at taxpayer expense — unless she is planning her next move to keep cashing in — but either way, it makes no sense,' he said.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Hamilton Spectator
3 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people , including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use . In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military . Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act . Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
