By Paul Minnis and Chrissy Alspaugh
editorial@therepublic.com
Details of the property tax restructuring plan Gov. Mitch Daniels presented Tuesday are "open to discussion" before the plan goes to the state Legislature.
Daniels' spokeswoman, Jane Jankowski, said the governor's proposal that significant construction projects be approved in referendums was intended to replace the need for remonstrances, which citizens use today to stop alreadyapproved projects.
But that could change.
She also said a decision had not been made whether to include referendums in regular elections or whether to conduct special referendums apart from elections.
The administration has said it would work with lawmakers on setting a dollar figure that would constitute a "significant" project.
"There's such a wide variation on what people might look at as significant," Jankowski said.
Other parts of Daniels' proposal are clearer.
Tax boards must be created by 2009 in each county, according to a referendum already in effect. As the law stands, those boards would have to approve all capital projects of a certain dollar amount.
Jankowski said the governor's plan would require the tax boards to consider capital projects, too.
Sue Paris, president of Bartholomew County Council, said the local tax board has not yet been created.
Daniels' plan also calls for a 1 percent sales tax hike, which would bring the state's total to 7 percent.
Steve Burt of the Dave Burt automobile dealership said he doubts the increase would have any negative effect on his sales, despite that Kentucky and Ohio have slightly lower sales tax rates.
People have to pay taxes no matter what, he said, and he doubts people will give another percentage point much thought when deciding whether to buy a car.
Bob Hult, general manager of Acra Automotive Group, doubts people would go to a different state. Instead, he thinks they might take a closer look at the kind of vehicles they want and fuel economy.
"The last increase (from 5 to 6 percent) got people thinking a little," Hult said. "I would hope we'll be able to overcome that this time."
Local educators' views
BCSC Board President Pia O'Connor said she's eager to learn more about the proposal and what it means for schools.
"At least somebody has a plan," she said.
But John Quick, Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp. superintendent, said he fears the referendum portion of the proposal, because such a system likely would reduce local control of schools and increase the state's control.
"I don't know that I have enough information for much insight, but this hasn't proved to be a good thing in other states," he said.
Quick said he's also concerned that communication with stakeholders would be more difficult with a referendum vote than a remonstrance, for which multiple public meetings typically are conducted.
Additionally, only a fraction of voters are directly connected to and informed on school issues, he said.
School Board member Jay Howard, also a sociology professor at IUPU-Columbus, agreed and said he personally fears that those most likely to vote are older individuals without children in the schools.
"I'm in favor of the democratic process, but it's difficult, because not every parent is involved and likely to be registered," he said. "The solution might be to motivate younger individuals with kids to vote.
"People with children in schools would need to change their voting habits if they want to protect the educational system."
Howard said historically nonpartisan school boards could risk becoming entangled in partisan debates under a referendum system of partisan voters.
But he said multiple factors and uncertainties limit more than educated guesses about how the proposal ultimately will affect schools.
"I don't think we have enough details to say it's good for schools or it's bad for schools at this point and time."