Concerns about election integrity, constitutionality and ballot length were among those raised at a public hearing Wednesday in Indianapolis, where voters and election officials weighed in on potential changes to Indiana’s voting system.

The meeting — the second in a series hosted by Secretary of State Diego Morales — was intended to give Hoosiers a chance to comment on proposals to shift municipal elections to even-numbered years and to expand the use of vote centers statewide.

They are required under House Enrolled Act 1633, passed by state legislators earlier this year directing the secretary of state’s office to study the scheduling of local elections and whether the state should require all counties to use vote centers.

Wednesday’s Indianapolis session followed a first hearing in Muncie last month. Three more are scheduled before the end of the year. The next is scheduled on Sept. 19 in Jeffersonville.

The office will provide the General Assembly with recommendations by Nov. 1, ahead of the next legislative session.

“We’re here to listen,” Morales said in opening remarks. “I want Hoosiers to have confidence that their voices are heard.”

The Republican secretary of state declined to take a stance on the proposals, however.

“I’m going to take all this feedback, compile the information and work with lawmakers. At the end of the day, the General Assembly will make the decision,” Morales told reporters after the meeting. “Nothing is set in stone. We want to make sure Indiana elections are secure, accessible and transparent.”

Data highlights municipal election turnout

Data presented by staff from the secretary of state’s office showed lighter voter participation in municipal elections than in state and federal races.

The presentations won’t be posted online until after all public meetings have concluded, though.

In 2023, for example, turnout in Indiana’s municipal elections was about 27% statewide, according to data cited in Wednesday’s presentation. That compared with roughly 42% voter participation in the 2022 midterm elections and 61% in the 2020 presidential election.

The presentation additionally highlighted that of Indiana’s 4.7 million registered voters, fewer than 1.3 million cast ballots in the 2023 municipal elections.

In some cities, turnout dipped below 15%, while a handful of smaller towns saw participation above 50%. By contrast, presidential election years regularly draw more than 3 million voters statewide.

Officials also pointed to the spread of vote centers as a cost-saving and efficiency measure.

Roughly two-thirds of Indiana’s 92 counties have now adopted the model, which allows voters to cast a ballot at any location within their county instead of an assigned precinct. Counties that switched reported average election cost savings of 10% to 15% compared with the precinct system, and wait times for voters on Election Day fell by about one-third, according to Morales’ office.

There are fewer voting locations in a voter center county but a voter can choose where they vote depending on what is convenient to their home, work or other errands.

Mixed reactions on vote centers, shifting municipal races

Even so, the vote center model drew mixed reactions.

Several who attended Wednesday’s meeting pointed to increased convenience for voters who might not be able to get to a precinct polling place.

“Reducing the places you can go is not good for voters, because in Franklin Township … I had to wait in line for three hours,” said Cecilia Poynter, of Indianapolis. “If you work for a company like I did, where they can mandate you to work 12 hours a day, six days a week, you cannot make it to the polls. … For those of us that work long hours — whether it’s early voting or regular on voting day — poll centers are great.”

“But we need more (locations),” she added. “More for early voting, as well as on Election Day.”

Indiana Democratic Party Chair Karen Tallian, who attended the meeting and spoke during the public comment period, also emphasized that reducing the number of voting locations can also disadvantage Hoosiers in small towns if hours aren’t extended.

“Doing vote centers is sort of like closing lanes on the tollway. You’re going to use the same number of people and force them into smaller numbers of areas,” she said. “So, in order to accommodate that, you either have to do early voting for more days, or you need to increase the number of hours.”

Tallian noted, too, that Indiana communities with populations of 35,000 or less can already choose to hold municipal elections in even-numbered years. Ogden Dunes, her hometown in northwest Indiana, has already made the switch to even-numbered years “because it was cheaper for us.”

She urged the state to leave the choice about voting locations to local officials.

“We do not need a statutory change in order to do that. Small towns are already able to do that if they wish,” Tallian continued. “But we do not support in any way forcing larger towns and municipalities to do this during an even-numbered year.”

Questions were additionally raised about whether moving municipal elections into even-numbered years would boost turnout or simply bury local races beneath higher-profile contests.

Jennifer Lewis with the Vigo County Clerk’s Office pointed to possible ballot fatigue.

“One of my concerns is the size of the ballot. The ballot we had last year was already very large. If we added municipal races, it would have been at least two pages,” she said. “The confusion for voters who live outside the city would only get worse if municipal elections were added to the same ballot.”

While the ballot proofing process “is already very strict,” Lewis worried that adding more races “would make it even harder to ensure everything is perfect.”

“I feel like there’s more room for error when ballots get longer and more complicated,” she said.

Some additionally raised constitutional concerns about shifting election dates.

They noted that the Indiana Constitution repeatedly references precincts and sets requirements for how elections are to be conducted — and that local control and traditional precinct voting are constitutionally protected.

“Definitions matter,” said Ann Ihms, an elected precinct official from Howard County. “I’m an engineer, so the fact that it’s not stated constitutionally that this is appropriate, that should have been a no brainer, from the beginning, not to allow non-precinct voting.”

Morales said after the meeting, though, that the issue over constitutionality ultimately rests with lawmakers.

“I’m not an attorney,” he said. “That’s something the legislature and legal experts will have to determine. My job is to facilitate the process, gather feedback and present the information. The General Assembly will decide what is constitutional and what is not.”

* * *

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

You can read the original version of the story here.

The post Hoosiers voice concerns over potential election law changes at Indianapolis hearing appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

Although Indiana has formally joined the list of states calling for an Article V Convention to amend the U.S. Constitution, the debate is intensifying over what could happen if such an unprecedented meeting is held.

During this year’s legislative session, two pieces of legislation related to a constitutional convention passed through the General Assembly. One resolution, SJR 21, calls for a constitutional convention to set a limit on the number of terms an individual may serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The other, Senate Enrolled Act 450, outlines the parameters for who can serve as delegates to a constitutional convention and requires the state legislature to limit what kinds of amendments they can vote on. 

* * *
What do people think about term limits?
Check out the poll results by clicking here.

* * *

Sen. Andy Zay, R-Huntington, who co-authored SJR 21 with his colleague, Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said that now is the time to have this conversation about term limits, since he thinks many federal lawmakers have chosen to age or die in office because they see it as a lifelong commitment.  

“It’s an interesting time, our country’s been around for over 200 years now, and, you know, there are certain things like this that we need to revisit,” Zay said. “The exciting thing is that the states do have a voice in this process.”   

However, critics warn that such a convention could result in the delegates drastically rewriting the U.S. Constitution. Common Cause sent out a national alert June 3, saying the movement for a national convention had signed on 28 states and was just six states from reaching the threshold of 34 needed to activate Article V of the Constitution.  

The nonprofit asserted the convention would have “no guardrails on what they could do — no limits, no oversight.”  

Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause Indiana, said the organization supports legislation for reasonable term limits for federal and state legislators, but “the mechanism by which this resolution sought to get term limits is just not the right vehicle.”   

“We oppose an Article V Convention generally, because it’s dangerous; there just aren’t any guardrails on the process,” Vaughn said. “It could easily be hijacked by interests from either the far far right or far far left. Every constitutional right and liberty we have could be placed at risk.”   

Confusion over hows and whys of a convention

The confusion about what would happen if a convention were held also extends to how one can be called.   

Currently, multiple efforts are seeking a constitutional convention, and the language under Article V leaves a lot up to interpretation, but it does clearly say that “two thirds of the several states,” which is equivalent to 34, must call for a convention to propose amendments. Otherwise, amendments can only be added to the Constitution if they pass through Congress.  

Article V does not establish that the calls must be for the same issue for a convention to be held. There’s also no universally accepted count, at present, of how many states have already passed resolutions in favor of a constitutional convention, with some claiming that as many as 28 have and others saying it’s more in the range of 15-20.   

Zay said although the likelihood of an Article V Convention is in his opinion very low, he’s grateful the legislature was able to get SEA 450 passed as well, because, he said, no one wants a “runaway convention” and the intent is to only address term limits.  

“We don’t want to open it up to discuss any topical issue, and so that kind of gave us the control as a state to rein in any delegates for that convention, should there be one, that would act inappropriately anytime during the course of preparing for the convention, or the actual convention itself,” Zay said. “The likelihood of the convention, of course, many know is very low. But nonetheless, if it would happen, we want to be prepared for that.”  

Gerard Magliocca, an Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor and author of five books on constitutional law, said that concerns about a “runaway convention” are valid, because Article V of the Constitution is very short and avoids laying out express rules for what happens when one is called.    

“Congress can tell the convention how to do things, but then what happens if the convention meets and they say, ‘Yeah, well, we’re not going to do it that way. We’re going to do it our own way.’ Can Congress really control them? Because they’re their own entity, a Constitutional Convention, not under Congress.”   

According to Magliocca, problems could arise if a constitutional convention is called because there are no clear laws or precedents about how a constitutional convention would work. One view is that Congress would need to pass a law setting the rules for the convention, including how delegates are chosen, how many delegates each state gets, when it starts, etc. Another view is that it should be up to each state to decide how to send delegates, and the convention itself, sets its own rules once it convenes. But that could create major problems — for example, if states send very different numbers of delegates, it could affect fairness in representation as well as decision-making, so some kind of uniform rule might be necessary.    

Magliocca also suggested that because the Founding Fathers didn’t include clear guidelines for how future conventions would work, it’s likely they wanted to keep the process vague to prevent it from happening too easily or too often.     

Magliocca said it seems that the idea was, if the need for change was great enough, people would find a way to make it happen. He pointed out that what worked then wouldn’t necessarily work today — such as how the 1787 Constitutional Convention was held in secret, similar to the conclave of cardinals to decide on a new pope. Magliocca also said that would be much harder to do and be societally unacceptable now, adding that any new convention would require reimagining the process to align with modern expectations and norms. 

 Why Article V passed this year 

This year marks a turning point in the Indiana General Assembly’s push for congressional term limits. The state legislature previously tried to introduce similar resolutions in 2018, 2021, 2022 and 2023, but they did not receive committee votes. In 2024, a House-filed version passed, but it did not receive consideration from the Senate.   

When asked what made this year’s resolution successful, Zay jokingly suggested it was because he authored it, but he then added that he feels like “more people are beginning to see the light.”  

“I think it’s time has come where there’s very specific and intentional momentum behind it, and we just want, I think there’s many of us that just want Washington to have that conversation and look at some options of what term limits might look like,” Zay said.    

One difference this legislative session was the presence of Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith.   

He served as the Indiana chair for U.S. Term Limits, a D.C.-based organization advocating for term limits at all levels of government, from November 2021 through December 2024. He resigned his position shortly before he took office as the state’s second-highest-ranking elected official in January 2025.   

When Beckwith was tapped to become the state chair of that organization back in November 2021, he said in a statement, “Now more than ever before, the need for term limits is crystal clear. Polls show that the one issue Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are united about is the need for congressional term limits.  

“Serving in Congress has become for many, a lucrative lifelong job rather than a public service,” Beckwith concluded. “Term limits will help end the era of career politicians and ensures that Congress works better for all Americans.”  

Beckwith’s office did not respond to multiple emails asking for comment about the Article V resolution, SJR 21.   

Zay downplayed any suggestion that undue effort helped get Article V across the finish line this time around. He said there wasn’t any stronger lobbying than usual, adding “I just really believe that the issue — its day — had come. So, it was time, I think it was time to do something.”  

However, the senator also implied that there may have been some influence from Beckwith. 

“I believe the lieutenant governor had some influence based on his relationships with some of my colleagues,” Zay said. 

Vaughn, of Common Cause Indiana, had other ideas, suggesting that this year the resolution’s success was the result of an organized lobbying effort and political influence from state leaders like Beckwith, who also serves as president of the Indiana Senate in his role as lieutenant governor.  

“Our lieutenant governor has been active in this U.S. Term Limits organization, so him assuming office, and interacting with this group, I think had significant impact,” Vaughn said. 

In December 2024, Beckwith stepped aside after becoming the lieutenant governor-elect to announce that Mike Speedy, a former state representative and Gov. Mike Braun’s appointee for Indiana secretary of business affairs, would become the new state chair.   

Speedy said, in a news release, “I am very honored to be serving as the Indiana State Chair for U.S. Term Limits and succeed our new Lt. Governor Micah Beckwith who has been a tireless advocate for congressional term limits. Now more than ever before, the need for term limits is crystal clear. Polls show that this is the one issue where all Hoosiers, regardless of political affiliation, stand united.”   

In an April 3 post to USTL’s X account, the lieutenant governor is seen smiling as he signs the resolution and sends it to the Capitol. The caption reads, “Today our Indiana term limits resolution SJR21 was signed by Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith and is officially on its way to Washington D.C. ‘It was an honor to sign the Term Limits resolution this morning! I appreciate you all and the work you’re doing for our nation!’” 

Concerns about a convention continue

Sen. J.D Ford, D-Indianapolis, throughout the legislative session expressed his discomfort with requesting a constitutional convention and proposed several amendments to the resolution.  

“When I initially saw this, you know, I was like, ‘Oh, this is a Trojan horse,’ because they’re taking a very popular issue of term limits and connecting it to calling for a Convention of States, which is for me, highly problematic,” Ford said.   

Several GOP lawmakers appear to have shared Ford’s discomfort. About 19 Republicans voted against SJR 21 and eight voted against SEA 450. However, eight Democratic representatives voted for SJR 21 and four Democratic representatives voted for HEA 450.  

Zay, when advocating for the joint resolution during the General Assembly back in January, attempted to temper the opposition’s fears by asserting that an actual convention would probably not take place, because Congress would be pressured into taking action on its own as more states add their names to the Article V Convention list.     

“History has shown any time that this begins to gain traction that the federal legislators act and take care of the issue,” Zay said in a Senate hearing discussing the resolution. “This isn’t a dark horse. This isn’t the end of our democracy.”   

Zay might not be too far off in his theory. Congress currently has active legislation pending toward establishing term limits: South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman has introduced a resolution proposing a term limits amendment for Congress and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another Republican, introduced the legislation in his chamber. Congress must act on these proposals before 2026, or it will be another failed attempt. 

Norman introduced this resolution in each of the last three Congresses, and he was joined two of those years by former Rep. Trey Hollingsworth, R-Indiana, who championed this effort throughout his time in office.  

In an interview with The Indiana Citizen, Ford questioned Zay’s perspective on the resolution forcing Congress to act, asking if there was “a crystal ball.”   

“I don’t believe we should be putting pieces of legislation on the Indiana Senate floor, taking up precious agenda space, to have someone back up why they’re doing it by saying, ‘Well, this isn’t actually going to happen.’  

“I struggle with that, and I think that you know that all pieces of legislation that come through the General Assembly, we’ve got to think about how it impacts not just our constituents, but all Hoosiers,” Ford said. “And to put (out) pieces of legislation and defend it or explain it by saying ‘This isn’t really, actually going to happen, it’s going to be moot,’ I think is the wrong approach. And I think we need to treat it as if it could happen. … Delegates could get in there and write amendments that revoke any of our most cherished rights.” 

Sydney Byerly is a political reporter who grew up in New Albany, Indiana. Before joining The Citizen, Sydney reported news for TheStatehouseFile.com and most recently managed and edited The Corydon Democrat & Clarion News in southern Indiana. She earned her bachelor’s in journalism at Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism (‘Sco Griz!).   

Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.      

The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org. 

You can find the original story by The Indiana Citizen here.

The post Lt. Gov. Beckwith, others praise state’s call for Article V convention on term limits appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

Whitney Downard
Indiana Capital Chronicle

Lawmakers introduced yet another plan for property taxes this week, pitching a proposal to save homeowners $1.1 billion over three years.

In comparison, homeowners would have seen nearly $1.3 billion in relief in 2026 alone under Gov. Mike Braun’s previous proposal.

In the atypical Friday afternoon press conference, Rep. Jeff Thompson said that 93-94% of homeowners would see lower property tax bills than they would with no action. But the majority of homeowners would pay less in 2026 than they did in 2025.

“We have two main goals in crafting this bill: deliver immediate relief to homeowners and reform the system to prevent the dramatic spikes in property taxes that we’ve seen in recent years,” said House Speaker Todd Huston. “Our amendment accomplishes both.”

The amendment to Senate Bill 1, set to be introduced on Monday, isn’t yet publicly available. Once adopted by a committee, the Legislative Services Agency will release an estimated fiscal note.

According to the two Republican leaders, all homestead property tax bills will get a 7.5% credit in perpetuity, up to $200, based on a calculation performed after accounting for property tax caps. Fixed-income seniors will see an additional $150 credit while disabled veterans will get an additional $250 credit.

“Now, every single veteran and every single senior will get a benefit if they qualify,” said Thompson, R-Lizton.

But one of the biggest benefits for the average homeowner, Huston said, would be improved transparency for taxpayers, who would be able to assess their bills on a Property Tax Transparency Portal.

“When we do a rate-based and non-levy-based system … I think the normal Hoosier homeowner can understand what their bill looks like. It’s not some algebraic equation,” said Huston, R-Fishers.

The plan for property taxes joins a handful of other efforts, including one from Gov. Mike Braun, Senate Republicans, a House Democrat and a previous Thompson pitch. Each proposal has varying impacts to homeowners and local units of government, which rely on revenue from property taxes to fund public safety, infrastructure and schools.

For instance, Braun’s plan would save homeowners the most money on their property taxes going forward but be a heavy hit to the budgets of school corporations, counties, cities and towns. Alternatively, plans that reduce that revenue loss have a small, nearly negligible impact on homeowner property taxes.

It’s not yet clear what the total estimated impact of those credits will be to local governments. Thompson, the chief budget architect in the House, said most units will still see additional revenue but smaller increases than they would without Senate Bill 1.

“They’re still going to be gaining dollars. If I recall, it’s about a 5.6% gain (under) current law. This will roughly cut that down to a little over 3%,” Thompson said. “So they’re still adding more dollars, just not as many new dollars.”

But Huston cautioned that some units, depending on their circumstances, could see losses simply because of the “complexity of the system,” pointing to local referendums and debt.

Similarly, homeowner tax bills vary significantly depending on a home’s value, the local tax rate and other factors.

“You could have the same home in the same county  — and built in the same year — and you’d have two wildly different property taxes,” Huston said. “… I wish I could stand up here and give you all the bare-bone specifics. I’d love to know what my property tax bill is going to look like in ‘26.”

The proposed amendment would also “rein in” locally held debt, though it’s not yet clear how the General Assembly would accomplish that. House Republicans reported that the state’s 2,000-plus local units of government hold a combined $53.4 billion in debt.

Such calculations will impact local schools, which would get a double-whammy revenue hit with the incorporation of Senate Bill 518 into the plan for property taxes. The current version would require schools to split their revenue with certain charter schools.

Under the new language for sharing property taxes, which isn’t yet available, Huston said changes for schools wouldn’t kick in until 2028 and would be phased in over four years.

Thompson also alluded to changes in the state’s personal business property tax, including a “very, very slow, gradual phase down” for purchases made after Jan. 1, 2025.

It’s uncertain whether the plan will be enough for the Hoosiers calling for relief. Last month, hundreds rallied to push lawmakers to adopt a plan closer to Braun’s proposal, pointing to tax jumps in recent years during the economic fallout of COVID-19.

Democratic Rep. Greg Porter said that big business would still be the winners in a Friday press release, criticizing the plan for not addressing home assessments that increase faster than business assessments.

“With roughly $1.1 billion saved over three years and about 1.9 million homesteads, each homeowner will save an average of close to $575 from 2026 to 2028,” Porter said in a statement. “… With an average property tax bill ranging from $1500 to $3000, a yearly credit of only $200 will fail to make a difference.”

He also denounced the lack of relief for renters as well as an increased reliance on local income taxes for municipalities to backfill losses.

“Our schools will lose money, especially with Senate Bill 518 rolled into the plan diverting property tax dollars to charter schools so the state can pay even less. This plan encourages local governments to raise their local income tax rate, so you’ll get more money in your right pocket but have to pay more out of your left,” Porter continued.

Braun threatened to veto earlier versions of the proposal, citing the need for homeowner relief. Still, Huston seemed comfortable with the current package.

“We feel very good about the trajectory that we’re on and we will continue to work with our partners on this and figure out where the best place to land the plane is,” said Huston.

* * *

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

You can read the original version of the story here.

The post House Republican plan for property taxes to save homeowners $1.1B appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

A House measure seeking to reduce the financial strain on construction contractors made additional headway in the legislature Wednesday and now heads to the Senate floor.

Key elements of House Bill 1033 would establish a uniform, maximum amount of retainage for certain state and local public works projects.

Retainage is the portion of payment withheld from a contractor or subcontractor until a construction project reaches substantial or full completion.

Under current state law, one retainage option requires no less than 6% and no more than 10% of an agreed-upon contract price for a public works project to be withheld until the work is halfway done. A second option in code permits no less than 3% and no more than 5% of the contract price to be retained from final payment until work is “substantially complete.”

Indiana law does not currently regulate retention for private construction projects.

The latest version of the bill, authored by Republican Rep. Jim Pressel, would eliminate the minimum retainage requirement for publicly funded projects and lower the maximum withholding percentages by 4% for both retainage options:

• From 10% to 6% of completed work until the project is half-done.
• From 5% to 3% of completed work until the project is substantially complete.

The Senate Pensions and Labor Committee unanimously approved the plan Wednesday. The House previously voted 84-1 in favor of the bill.

The goal, Pressel said, is to lower the dollars withheld and help improve cash flow for construction companies while work is underway — especially for contractors whose work is finished months, even years, before the overall project is completed.

“The best example I can give is the first guy in — that’s going to be the excavator. Next guy in is the foundation guy, or the concrete guy, that does the footings and the walls. And then the structure goes up from there,” Pressel, of Rolling Prairie, explained. “If I’m the excavator, or one of the first guys, current law allows up to about 10% of my final payment to be withheld. So, I have to wait for those dollars until the job is substantially completed. The policy question is, is that the right amount that should be withheld from that contract?”

Fewer dollars withheld

Retainage, common practice for construction contracts, is typically included in construction agreements to ensure contractors complete the job according to specifications — and serves as a financial motivator to get work finished.

It also provides public agencies with leverage for resolving disputes that might arise over incomplete or defective work.

But Pressel, along with a handful of Hoosier business representatives, noted that overly burdensome retainage can strain cash flow for contractors who often spend their own money to pay for the work between periodic payments.  

“Contractors making 50% on a project is pure myth. It doesn’t happen. Some of the small operators typically work on a 3% net margin, and in some instances, they could have that amount withheld for maybe a year. If it’s a large project, it could be two years,” Pressel said.

“What this is doing is resetting the maximum amount so that the subcontractor and contractor really are not financing the entire project as it goes along.”

House Bill 1033 specifically applies to state and local public works projects exceeding $200,000, such as for government buildings, schools, utilities and other municipal infrastructure. Excluded, however, are projects related to highways, roads, streets, alleys, bridges and related structures.

“If I’m that excavator, if I’m that foundation guy, and I performed my service — it’s been inspected, and I no longer have anything to do with the project — good policy would dictate that you should be paid 100%, right?” Pressel said. “Why are you being held up with what could potentially be all of your profit? And if you have multiple jobs going on … $50,000 sitting in retainage on this job, and $50,000 on this job, and $50,000 on that job, I may never see my potential profit until I retire.”

Contractors in support

An initial draft applied retainage limits to both public and private construction projects, but an amendment adopted in the House limited the bill’s scope to just state and local public works projects.

Dax Denton, chief policy officer for the Indiana Bankers Association, said the narrowed language “strikes a good balance.”

“Everybody knows that, if you’ve been around construction, or, heck, if you just talk to friends in construction, where prices have gone, right?” German continued. “Well, 10% of $100,000 is less than 10% of a million dollars, and as prices have gone up, the retainage has has been at that high level of 10%, and that’s just costing and requiring these guys to have more money held back.”

Steve Kovecsi with Ryan Fireprotection, a Noblesville-based company that provides commercial fire sprinklers and other fire protection services, said current retainage rates can make contractors “feel like we’re also a bank, because we’re covering the payer.”

He told the Senate committee last month that Ryan Fireprotection had $5.9 million worth of retainage sitting on its books, still unpaid. Two-thirds of those dollars are owed on projects that are at least 95% complete — but most are already 100% done, Kovecsi said. On average, the company’s work is completed for 359 days before withheld payment is received.

“We hear things like, ‘We have to wait for the grass to grow. We’re waiting for the painters to come in. We have to wait for the tile guys to come in and finish tiling,'” Kovecsi said. All the while, “we still cannot get our money.”

* * *

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

You can read the original version of the story here.

The post Bill to reduce dollars withheld from construction contractors sails through committee appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

A third property tax plan introduced on Wednesday would further protect local units of government from cuts to property tax bills, a change that would provide little tangible relief to the average homeowner.

Rep. Jeff Thompson, the leading Republican lawmaker on property taxes and the state budget, pitched a long-term vision for the state’s property tax system that would overhaul how the taxes are calculated. In particular, certain deductions for homesteads would be phased out and then replaced; business personal property tax floors would fall and the authorization of local income taxes would shift.

“If we keep what we’ve got we’ve got to expect the same result,” said Thompson, R-Lizton.

But while Thompson’s plan tackled many of the factors and simplified the overall process, direct relief for taxpayers would be small and instead focused on decreasing projected increases.

Thompson’s proposal joins competing visions from Gov. Mike Braun, who made property tax relief part of his campaign platform, and Senate Republicans.

Each version of the property tax plan has grown in complexity and length. Braun’s version was 46 pages compared to the Senate’s 91 pages.

Thompson’s plan is longer than both alternatives combined, clocking in at 228 pages.

But Thompson seemed confident that Wednesday’s version wouldn’t be the final property tax plan, saying the bill “sets the stage” for future action.

“We’re working on language to deal with both property tax rate and (local income tax) distribution right now,” Thompson said. “… I suspect you’re going to see some language to deal with that, because I’m quite aware of what’s going on and that’s not the way to operate.”

Thompson, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, indicated that his committee would introduce another property tax plan in the coming weeks.

Comparing the three property tax proposals

Critics slammed Braun’s campaign proposal last year for its heavy toll on local units of government, especially counties, cities, towns and schools. Large portions of local budgets go to public services, such as fire protection, law enforcement and infrastructure.

Story continues below visualization.

Under Braun’s plan, counties could expect to lose $211 million in the 2026 calendar year, while cities and towns would get $263 million less, followed by larger losses in 2027 and 2028.

Combined, those entities would see smaller reductions than schools, which account for 46%, or $536 million, of the total $1.15 billion local units of government would lose under Braun’s plan.

In contrast, the Senate property tax plan would only cut $239 million from local units of government, with one-quarter of that, or $61 million, coming from school corporations.

Budgets for counties would be smaller by $60 million while cities and towns would lose $50 million.

Thompson’s version has the smallest loss for schools at just $4 million. Initially, local units of government would see some small growth, with $79 million more available — mostly due to growth in “Other Real” property taxes. Cities and towns would see an additional $15 million in 2026 while counties would lose nearly $6 million under the House proposal.

But Braun’s plan is also the only one that would meaningfully impact the average homeowner’s property tax bill.

Story continues below visualization.

Homesteaders would collectively see their bills drop by nearly $1.3 billion in 2026, compared to $91 million under the Senate plan and $147 million in the possible House proposal. Braun would also keep property taxes low through an annual cap on how much bills can grow. Under the Senate version, property tax bills for homeowners would also fall further in 2027 and 2028.

The House property tax plan, on the other hand, would increase homestead property taxes slightly in 2027 and 2028, but fall thereafter.

That increase, Thompson said in committee, comes because his version of the bill would repeal property tax credits.

Committee discussion and feedback

Some of the committee’s concern stemmed from concerns about the shifting tax burden, or when a cut on one property class — like homeowners — places a heavier burden on another group — such as businesses.

“You can only push it onto other taxing groups in so much as the (constitutional cap) allows you to do that. Then you’re going to try and backfill it with (local income taxes),” said Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn. “And I think I need to see some sort of fiscal, a very specific fiscal for different units, so you can tell what’s going to happen to them and how they’re going to fix that.”

This shift toward taxing homeowners was also a concern for members of the public.

“We are concerned that the property tax portions of this bill amounts to a narrowing of the tax base, which will keep rates high,” said Ryan Hoff, representing the Association of Indiana Counties. “We do not believe that local income tax should be relied upon as a replacement to fund revenue losses stemming from business tax cuts.”

A proposed phase-out on business personal property tax will have a disproportionate impact on small communities that rely largely on one large employer. If that company’s taxes fall, it could reduce the budget of that local government unit.

Hoff continued to say that such areas might have small or low-income resident populations, diminishing its ability to recoup revenue through income or homeowner property taxes.

David Ober, the Indiana Chamber’s vice president of taxation and public finance, acknowledged that changes to the business personal property tax rate were “a bit of a double edged sword.”

“Reducing the net assessed value is going to increase the rate, which then is paid by all other taxpayers. And so real property will feel an increase,” said Ober. “… but if you eliminate that 30% floor, it’s not like it goes down to zero. A lot of that will still sit in assessed value. It’s just going to be at a lower floor.”

At least one Democrat pointed to the legislature as the impetus behind rising property taxes, saying the General Assembly had failed to properly fund schools. Schools then used referendums or bonds to pay for rising utility, infrastructure and transportation costs, she said.

“I think it’s incumbent on us as a legislature to look at the fact that we have money and a surplus, but we’re forcing communities to take these referendums out and to rely on the referendums, and they will wonder why the property tax bills are so high for individuals,” said Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis.

Pryor went on to say that “schools are going to be in dire straits if we don’t do something.”

Another committee member pushed for the state “to get out of the property tax game entirely” by 2030, saying alternative revenue sources could be used instead.

“I don’t think anybody in our right minds would look at the taxing structure that we have today… (and) hit the reset button to rewrite it the exact same way,” said Rep. J.D. Prescott, R-Union City. “It’s such a complicated mess. It would be great to simplify the system come up with a more fair and balanced tax structure.”

* * *

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

You can read the original version of the story here.

The post Leading House Republican introduces his own property tax plan appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

SYRACUSE — Uncertainty about state property tax reform by the General Assembly has led Wawasee School Corporation to pause plans to construct a new activity center.

Superintendent Dr. Steve Troyer and the Wawasee Community School Board announced a temporary pause on the student activity center project "To ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars."

This decision, announced in a news release, comes as state lawmakers consider property tax reform, which could create financial uncertainty for public school districts across Indiana, the news release said.

Plans for the activity center began two years ago and two public hearings on the issue were heald earlier this year.

The entire project, which includes other upgrades and the repaving of a parking lot, was expected to cost about $31 million.

Officials pointed to two bills that could significantly impact the district’s operations and debt service fund. 

Given these uncertainties, "WCSC has determined that it is prudent to delay further action on the project until the full impact of legislative changes is understood," the release states.

Moving forward with so many financial unknowns would be irresponsible, the statement said.

The post Wawasee pauses $31M project as lawmakers debate property tax reform appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

A push to legalize online lottery and casino games won’t move forward this legislative session, House Speaker Todd Huston confirmed Thursday.

House Bill 1432 passed easily out of the House Public Policy Committee earlier this year but didn’t get a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, which would’ve taken a closer look at the financial aspects of the proposal.

Huston called it a complex bill with a “lot of different moving parts.” He continued, “And I think, you know, just trying to find something there was some consensus on, felt like it was a pretty tough spot to be.”

The legislation would have allowed Indiana’s licensed casinos to offer interactive electronic gaming alongside the Hoosier Lottery. Supporters said Hoosiers are already gambling online so it makes sense to regulate and tax it.

Rep. Ethan Manning, R-Logansport, authored the bill and estimated that the digital lottery and casino games, coupled with sports wagering tax hikes, could bring the state of Indiana more than $300 million annually in new revenue.

Huston complimented Manning on his stewardship but said the bill would impact members of the gaming industry differently. At least one casino opposed the move.

“There’s all sorts of moving parts about how it impacts certain communities, what it does to the overall gaming environment in Indiana. I think all those things just make it complex to work through,” Huston said.

Some were concerned that online options would cannibalize in-person gaming or lottery sales.

The legislation also would have established a new program for responsible gambling and gambling addiction — with new fines on casinos to fund it. Where Indiana’s past efforts have focused heavily on awareness campaigns, the new program could’ve also funded treatment and research.

The Hoosier Lottery, a quasi-public organization, backed online lottery legalization. Indiana would have joined 14 other states with digital lottery games, including Kentucky, Illinois and Michigan.

The lottery said it was needed to grow revenue and player base into the future.

* * *

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

You can read the original version of the story here.

The post iGaming proposal for lottery and casinos dead for the session appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

Less than three months after Hoosier regulators busted a northern Indiana charity casino, lawmakers added anti-fraud measures to legislation loosening spending rules for charity gambling revenue.

Charitable, civic, veteran and other groups can earn money off bingo, raffles, and more. But some have gone too far. The Indiana Gaming Commission in December accused a Fort Wayne charity casino, run by an Elks Lodge, of racketeering and seized more than $100,000, WANE reported.

“We’re just putting in some safety nets, if you will, to make sure that some of these charitable events like bingo, up north, doesn’t turn into full-time casinos with profits like a full-time casino,” Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, told his Public Policy Committee on Wednesday.

The substantial amendment, Alting said, is from the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission.

It begins by renaming popular “casino game nights” to “card, dice and roulette games events.” And starting next year, a single location wouldn’t be able to host bingo or such “games events” more than three days a week — no matter how many charities with gambling licenses are using the location.

A group conducting bingo and other games events — and that rakes in at least $1 million close to their license’s expiration — would have to get an independent financial audit done.

And people operating festivals, bingo and other games events would have to wear “legible identification card(s)” on their clothes. It has to have a first name, last name and the name of the charity group licensed to put on the event.

Alting’s committee accepted the changes without discussion.

The amendment comes just a week after the Senate voted to legalize electronic pull tabs for charity gambling — despite skepticism. Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, alleged that “figurehead” charities are running multiple gambling organizations to operate more days of the week than is allowed, and Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, complained that groups are holding on to the money raised instead of spending it on charitable purposes.

The underlying proposal, Alting’s Senate Bill 108, expands uses for charity gambling revenue.

Current law indicates groups can use the money “only for (their) lawful purposes,” including repairs, maintenance and improvements for property they own. The legislation recasts the restrictions to “any lawful purpose” and nixes the list.

Alting said he’d spoken with veteran service organizations struggling to use their revenue.

The committee advanced the bill on a unanimous, 9-0 vote. It next heads to the Senate chamber.

* * *

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

You can read the original version of the story here.

The post Panel seeks to block charities from operating like true casinos appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

INDIANAPOLIS — In response to widespread pushback from Hoosier educators, state officials have issued new guidance — with more “flexibility” — on a new literacy licensure requirement that was adopted by the General Assembly earlier this year.

But questions persist for many teachers, and some remain opposed to the new professional development mandate altogether.

Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner said in a letter to teachers on Friday that their input has prompted the state’s education department to adjust and add training options. Some educators have additionally been exempted from the licensure requirements, as long as they aren’t teaching literacy to students past fifth grade.

“I’m grateful for the collective effort to balance the urgent need to overcome Indiana’s literacy crisis with our shared desire to increase flexibility for educators,” Jenner said in her weekly education newsletter.

The Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA) applauded Jenner for “acknowledging the extensive requirements of the new literacy endorsement” and said the updated guidance “is a testament to the importance of educator advocacy.”

The state’s largest teachers union — along with dozens of its members — spent more than four hours before the State Board of Education earlier this month, criticizing the “unfair” and “overwhelming” 80-hour training. Many pleaded for more options to be made available for teachers to complete the professional development course — or that it be removed as a requirement altogether.

Jenner and other state education officials have repeatedly maintained that the requirement cannot be nixed altogether, given that it’s a statutory requirement from lawmakers.

“The adjustments to these requirements reflect the voices and concerns of educators across Indiana,” ISTA president Keith Gambill said in a statement, adding that the union “will continue to advocate for further changes and increased flexibility.”

What’s required of teachers

The training requirement requires all Pre-K to Grade 6 and special education teachers to complete 80 hours of professional development on science of reading concepts and pass a written exam. Teachers won’t be able to renew their license without doing so.

State lawmakers approved the literacy training requirement during the 2024 legislative session as part of an effort to reverse lagging literacy scores among Hoosier students.

Indiana’s reading scores have been on the decline for more than a decade. According to data from the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), in 2023, one in five Hoosier third graders lacked foundational reading skills.

Under the law, teachers renewing their licenses after July 1, 2027 must have earned an “Early Literacy Endorsement.” They can do so through Keys to Literacy, a free third-party professional development program, through 2025. Teachers are eligible for a $1,200 stipend for the 80-hour Keys to Literacy training, and the state is covering the cost of the PRAXIS exam.

New teachers will need the endorsement next summer if they are receiving their license for the first time.

Teachers emphasized to state officials that many of the free training courses are already full, however, leaving only a few other options for which teachers must pay for out of pocket.

Jenner said earlier this month that 12,000 teachers signed up for the Keys to Literacy training in three weeks. Following rounds of earlier concerns, IDOE announced May 8 that the state is adding cohorts.

Additional sessions were added for spring and summer, increasing the total number of cohorts from 12 to 64 — each with approximately 200 educators. More cohorts are also open for both Fall 2024 and Spring 2025 “in response to the early demand,” according to IDOE.

Still, some teachers said they’re concerned funding will run out before they complete the course.

IDOE officials said the Keys to Literacy training — and the adjoining stipend — will be available to any educator who completes the literacy endorsement through June 2025. The $1,200 is part of Indiana’s investment of more than $170 million into literacy, supported in part by grants from the Lilly Endowment.

Jenner said she and other officials will “absolutely continue to advocate for sustained funding for free teacher literacy training” when the General Assembly convenes in January to build the 2025-2027 budget.

Jenner’s Friday update included other changes meant to help teachers access the training, too.

The IDOE will allow the full 80 hours of required professional development to be completed asynchronously starting July 1. Efforts are also underway to expand the list of approved training options, and teachers who have already registered but wish to instead participate in the new option will be able to do so, Jenner said.

Additionally, teachers with a PK-6 “parent license” who do not currently teach PK-5 literacy will no longer be required to earn the early literacy endorsement, which ISTA representatives said will offer “significant relief to educators focused on other content areas.”

An educator who holds a PK-6 parent license but teaches in a content area that does not involve literacy instruction for PK-5 students will not be required to earn the early literacy endorsement, according to IDOE. If the educator teaches PK-5 literacy later on, they would still be required to earn endorsement in order to renew their license, though.

Jenner also acknowledged concerns about the PRAXIS exam and said IDOE is committed to “exploring other potential ways to provide a consistent, quality measure that ensures we are best implementing science of reading practices.”

What comes next?

Despite the updates, numerous Hoosier teachers said it’s unclear whether they must still complete the professional development training.

Lori Weaver, in Evansville, holds Pre-K-3 and K-12 special education licenses but currently teaches in a high school setting. Weaver said she wants to keep her credentials — but because she doesn’t teach literacy to younger students — she doesn’t feel she should have to complete the new endorsement.

“It’s relieving to see they’re listening and trying to make changes … because I don’t think (all teachers) should have to be wrapped up in this if it’s not relevant to what we’re directly responsible for teaching our students,” Weaver said. “But I still don’t have a guarantee that I don’t have to do (the training), so that stress is still there.”

In an example outlined in IDOE’s new guidance, an educator who currently teaches high school math — or another content area that is not literacy — and who does not plan to teach PK-5 literacy in the future, “will not be required to add the early literacy endorsement.”

To be exempt, IDOE officials said a “written assurance form” will be shared prior to July 1, 2027, when the early literacy endorsement requirement begins. The form will require a signature by district and school administrators confirming that the teacher is not currently teaching PK-5 literacy “and does not plan to do so in the future.”

“There are too few details about what that form will look like and what kinds of hoops I might have to jump through to get it approved,” said Haley Singer, a middle school special education teacher in Indianapolis.

Meanwhile, a growing number of Indiana teachers who’ve already signed up said they’re dropping the Keys to Literacy course as a protest of the training requirement. Others said they’re set to register and, for now, refuse to do so.

A half-dozen teachers who spoke to the Indiana Capital Chronicle — some of whom were not comfortable speaking publicly out of fear of retribution from school or district administrators — said they viewed the literacy endorsement as an “attack” on the state’s already qualified, but overworked, teachers.

They said, too, that the possibility of a $1,200 stipend does little to compensate educators for their personal time used for the training course.

“It’s the summer. I should be with my kids, my family — not with my nose in my computer being re-taught the science of reading, which is not new to me or many other educators,” said Kyle Peterson, who teaches at an elementary school in northeast Indiana. “We already have so much other professional development we’re required to complete … on top of all the education and coursework we had to pass just to get our license in the first place. … Yes, there is a literacy problem in Indiana. But why are we only pointing the finger at teachers?”

* * *

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

You can read the original version of the story here.

The post State updates new literacy training mandate following criticism from teachers appeared first on News Now Warsaw.

INDIANAPOLIS — With the re-emergence of xylazine as a street drug that is doing quite a bit of harm to Hoosiers, lawmakers are working to get ahead of the situation by establishing a criminal code on how to prosecute cases revolving around it.

In the case of a bill doing just that, which passed the House and is now being discussed in the Senate, lawmakers are hoping to lay the groundwork for offenders using and dealing the drugs to be prosecuted.

Initially, the bill had bipartisan support as it would punish Hoosiers for simple possession of xylazine. That would result in a Class A misdemeanor, but if you are caught with it a second time after having been convicted it would make the second offense a Level 6 felony, which means prison time.

On Monday, state senators discussed an amendment brought forth by State Sen. Aaron Freeman (R-Indianapolis), which would punish the dealers of xylazine even more harshly.

Democrats seem to have been on board with the bill up to this point. State Sen. Rodney Pol (D-Chesterton), who in the grand scheme of things has been supportive of the bill, spoke against Freeman's amendment.

His concerns had to do with people busted for possession of xylazine who may otherwise not know they are in possession of it.

"A user could be guilty of possession without even knowing they are in possession of xylizine," Pol said to Freeman.

"You've just made a compelling case for every young person to never use drugs because you don't know what's in them," Freeman retorted.

Pol feels that the system of prosecuting people for possession of drugs is fundamentally flawed.

"The issue is is our criminal justice system, and the way our laws are written, it's like 'if you get caught with this, you are getting this'," Pol said. "That's not how things work today."

Freeman explained a few times that his amendment targets dealers, and that the overall bill, which Pol voted in favor of in committee, targets those in possession of it.

State Senate minority leader Greg Taylor took issue with the amendment asking why it wasn't brought up in committee. He feels Republicans are trying to skirt the rules of due process by trying to enhance the bill without following proper protocol.

The amendment ended up passing on a party-line vote in the bill's second reading. Since that amendment passed the bill has to go back to the House for approval in its new form.

The post State legislation targets emergence of street drug, xylazine appeared first on News Now Warsaw.