House Republicans to release property tax plan
House Republicans will release the details of their property tax reform plan Monday, which leaders say will save the average Hoosiers hundreds of dollars annually.
Why it matters: Property tax relief was one of the top priorities for lawmakers this legislative session after several years of skyrocketing home values drove up property tax bills statewide.
State of play: Lawmakers have struggled to strike a balance between providing meaningful relief for homeowners without decimating the cities, counties, schools and other local units of government that depend on property taxes to fund services.
House Speaker Todd Huston told reporters on Friday that the plan his caucus will release this morning as an amendment to Senate Bill 1 will save homeowners more than $1 billion in property taxes over the next three years.
Zoom in: Full details weren't shared Friday, but Huston said the majority of Hoosiers will see their property tax bill go down next year.
The proposal includes a 7.5% property tax credit for up to $200 on all homestead property tax bills beginning in 2026.
It provides additional credits of $150 for fixed-income seniors and up to $250 for disabled veterans.
It also phases in an increased property tax deduction for homeowners over the next five years and moves the state to a rate-based system that Huston said will be more transparent than our current levy-based one.
Yes, but: Huston admits it's still complicated.
"It's really hard," he said, when asked how much relief the bill would provide to the average homeowner. "I think it's hundreds of dollars, but I would hate to be super precise, because at the end of the day ... it's going to matter where you live."
The fine print: It's also unclear what the impact on local governments will be. Huston said a fiscal impact statement should be available later Monday.
He said the amendment will include a mandate that traditional public schools begin sharing some property tax dollars with charter schools in 2028.
That language was originally in Senate Bill 518.
What they're saying: Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, said he believes his caucus will accept the House's version of the bill. It's less clear how Gov. Mike Braun, who criticized the Senate's earlier plan for not doing enough for homeowners, will feel.
"We're hopeful he'll see real value in where we're at, but we all have a position we have to stake out," Bray said.
Here's what else we're watching at the Statehouse this week:
🤑 Senate spending plan
The Senate has to release its two-year spending proposal by Thursday, the deadline to get House bills out of Senate committees.
What we're watching: How the Senate's plan differs from what the House released in February — and if it includes a cigarette tax increase.
Reality check: This will not be the final budget bill.
Lawmakers are waiting on the final revenue forecast, due out next week, for a better picture of how much they'll have to spend over the next two years.
We're hearing the forecast will call for an even tighter budget than lawmakers were originally expecting.
👀 IPS oversight bill coming back
Senate Bill 373 is on the House Education Committee agenda for Wednesday morning for amendments.
The latest: Among the amendments lawmakers will consider is an updated version of the "Indianapolis Local Education Alliance."
This version of the board, which would be tasked with examining the facilities and transportation services among all public schools within the IPS boundaries, has a different makeup than what was proposed two weeks ago.
There are no gubernatorial appointees to the board in the latest version; there is one person from pro-charter school group The Mind Trust.
🟢 Partisan school boards up for passage
The Senate is set to concur on Senate Bill 287, which would make Indiana's school board races partisan.
The House-passed version does not go as far as the original, which called for school board candidates to follow the same primary process as candidates for other offices, but Sen. Gary Byrne, R-Byrneville, has filed to accept the changes.
The latest version directs candidates to indicate their party on the general election ballot and gives an option for an independent choice or no party affiliation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
38 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.
A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? Advertisement A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Advertisement Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Advertisement Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. Advertisement
Politico
42 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats eyeing a presidential bid scramble to un-woke themselves
Ambitious Democrats with an eye on a presidential run are in the middle of a slow-motion Sister Souljah moment. Searching for a path out of the political wilderness, potential 2028 candidates, especially those hailing from blue states, are attempting to ratchet back a leftward lurch on social issues some in the party say cost them the November election. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who is Black, vetoed a bill that took steps toward reparations passed by his state legislature. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called it 'unfair' to allow transgender athletes to participate in female college and youth sports. And Rahm Emmanuel has urged his party to veer back to the center. 'Stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom,' said former Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emmanuel, the two-term Chicago mayor who said he is open to a 2028 presidential campaign. 'If one child is trying to figure out their pronoun, I accept that, but the rest of the class doesn't know what a pronoun is and can't even define it,' Each of these candidates are, either deliberately or tacitly, countering a perceived weakness in their own political record or party writ large—Emmanuel, for example, has called the Democratic Party 'weak and woke'; Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) has said the party needs more 'alpha energy'; others like Newsom are perhaps acknowledging a more socially liberal bent in the past. On diversity, equity, and inclusion, some in the party are also sending a signal they're no longer kowtowing to their left flank. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg removed his pronouns from his social media bio months ago, and questioned how the party has communicated about it. 'Is it caring for people's different experiences and making sure no one is mistreated because of them, which I will always fight for?' he said in a forum at the University of Chicago earlier this year. 'Or is it making people sit through a training that looks like something out of 'Portlandia,' which I have also experienced,' Buttigieg said. Buttigieg added, 'And it is how Trump Republicans are made.' Moderate Democrats are having a moment and there is a cadre of consultants and strategists ready to support them. Ground zero for the party's great un-awokening was this week's WelcomeFest, the moderate Democrats' Coachella. There, hundreds of centrist elected officials, candidates and operatives gathered to commiserate over their 2024 losses and their party's penchant for purity tests. Panels on Wednesday featured Slotkin, Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), described as 'legends of the moderate community,' and included a presentation by center-left data guru David Shor, who has urged Democrats to shed toxic positions like 'defund the police.' Adam Frisch, the former congressional candidate and director of electoral programs at Welcome PAC, said his party is 'out of touch culturally with a lot of people.' 'I think a lot of people are realizing, whether you're running for the House, the Senate, or the presidential, we better start getting on track with what I call the pro-normal party coalition,' Frisch said. 'You need to focus on normal stuff, and normal stuff is economic opportunity and prosperity, not necessarily micro-social issues.' Then there is Newsom, the liberal former mayor of San Francisco, who has also distanced himself from so-called woke terminology and stances. The governor claimed earlier this year that he had never used the word 'Latinx,' despite having repeatedly employed it just years earlier and once decrying Republicans who've sought to ban the gender-neutral term for Latinos. Newsom made the claim on his podcast episode with conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk — one of several MAGA personalities the governor has hosted on the platform in recent months. 'I just didn't even know where it came from. What are we talking about?' Newsom told Kirk. The governor, who gained national notoriety in 2004 for defying state law and issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco, has also pivoted on some LGBTQ+ issues. Newsom broke with Democrats this spring when he said, in the same podcast episode with Kirk, that he opposes allowing transgender women and girls to participate in female college and youth sports. 'I think it's an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it's deeply unfair,' Newsom said, a comment that was panned by many of his longtime LGBTQ+ supporters and progressive allies. Newsom for months has also muted his tone on immigration issues, avoiding using the word 'sanctuary' to describe a state law that limits police cooperation with federal immigration authorities even as he defends the legality of the policy. The governor is proposing steep cuts to a free health care program for undocumented immigrants, which comes as California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. In recent days, however, he joined a chorus of California Democrats criticizing Trump administration immigration efforts in his state. Moore, who recently trekked to South Carolina, vetoed legislation that would launch a study of reparations for the descendants of slaves from the Democratic-controlled legislature. Moore urged Democrats not get bogged down by bureaucratic malaise and pointed to the Republican Party as the reason why. 'Donald Trump doesn't need a study to dismantle democracy. Donald Trump doesn't need a study to use the Constitution like it's a suggestion box,' he told a packed dinner of party power players. 'Donald Trump doesn't need a white paper to start arbitrary trade wars that will raise the cost of virtually everything in our lives,' Moore said. There are some notable exceptions to the party's border pivot to the center. Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota haven't shied away from social issues. Beshear, who has vetoed several anti-LGBTQ+ bills, including during his own reelection year, attacked Newsom for inviting conservative provocateurs Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk onto his podcast. He also drew a distinction with Newsom on transgender athletes playing in youth sports, arguing that 'our different leagues have more than the ability to make' sports 'fair,' he told reporters in March. 'Surely, we can see some humanity and some different perspectives in this overall debate's that going on right now,' Beshear added. The Kentucky governor said his stance is rooted in faith — 'all children are children of God,' he often says. Walz called it 'a mistake' to abandon transgender people. 'We need to tell people your cost of eggs, your health care being denied, your homeowner's insurance, your lack of getting warning on tornadoes coming has nothing to do with someone's gender,' he told The Independent last month. Pritzker, too, recently said that it's 'vile and inhumane to go after the smallest minority and attack them.' This spring, Pritzker declared March 31 as Illinois' Transgender Day of Visibility. 'Walz, [Sen. Chris] Murphy, Pritzker, Beshear — they're not going around talking about it all the time, but they're also not running away from their values,' said one adviser to a potential 2028 candidate granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. 'They're in the both-and lane.' The party's reckoning with social issues is far from over. In 2021, then-Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro vocally opposed a GOP bill that aimed to ban trans athletes from participating in women's school sports, calling it 'cruel' and 'designed to discriminate against transgender youth who just want to play sports like their peers.' This year, as the state's Republican-controlled Senate has passed a similar bill with the support of a handful of Democrats, Shapiro has remained mum on the legislation. It's not likely to come up for a vote in the state's Democratic-held House, so he may be able to punt — at least a while. As Emmanuel sees it, his party has a long way to go to over-correct for what he paints as the excesses of the last few years. 'The core crux over the years of President [Joe] Biden's tenure is the party on a whole set of cultural issues looked like they were off on a set of tangential issues,' Emmanuel said. Dasha Burns, Dustin Gardner, Holly Otterbein, and Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.
Politico
42 minutes ago
- Politico
‘Trump movement' turns on Cornyn, poll finds
MAGA loyalists have put Sen. John Cornyn's reelection campaign in a Texas-size hole. An early May poll commissioned by the American Opportunity Alliance, a major conservative funding group linked to megadonor Paul Singer, shows the Texas Republican down 17 points in a head-to-head primary matchup with state attorney general Ken Paxton. Below the top-line of Paxton's 52-percent-to-35-percent advantage, the poll found a clear divide between those voters who were defined as 'Trump Movement' voters and those who were 'Traditional Republicans.' In the former category, which made up of 58 percent of the electorate, Paxton had a 45-point lead. Among the latter, who made up only 35 percent of voters, Cornyn had a 27-point lead. The findings reflect a increasingly prominent divide among Republican primary voters in Texas where an insurgent hard-right faction has been steadily gaining ground in recent years while ousting more traditional GOP elected officials. Paxton, who has faced federal investigation and impeachment, has long been a darling of right-wingers in Texas, while Cornyn — first elected to the Senate in 2002 — is considered a pillar of the establishment GOP. In a speculative three-way race with GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is exploring a bid, the margin barely narrowed with the Cornyn trailing Paxton, 43 percent to 27 percent, with Hunt receiving 14 percent. There was some good news for the incumbent in the poll. Despite trailing Paxton significantly, he is still viewed favorably by the Republican primary electorate in the Lone Star State — just not as favorably as the state attorney general. The poll, conducted from April 29 through May 1 among 800 Republican primary voters, is among a series of public and private surveys all showing Cornyn significantly trailing Paxton. They have sparked increasing concern from national Republican operatives about a potentially ugly and costly primary, as well as the possible elevation of a scandal-plagued candidate who might be at risk in a general election. The American Opportunity Alliance's interest in the race is notable; it's one of the key donor consortiums in Republican politics and its members including Singer and Chuck Schwab are some of the biggest funders on the right.
