A jam-packed agency bill became even more behemoth and wide-reaching on Tuesday after a Senate committee crammed in dozens of other provisions that largely deal with local taxes.
The move drew a range of questions from Democrats, all of whom voted against the merge. Some Republicans were also hesitant — and a GOP budget leader was opposed altogether.
House Bill 1427, now more than 150 pages in length, was originally focused on Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) matters.
Embedded in the underlying legislation was language around DLGF rule-making, as well as administrative policy changes for various local taxes and assessments.
But a massive amendment approved by the Senate tax committee wrapped in all or parts of three other bills: House Bill 1080 and Senate Bill 304, dealing with innkeeper’s and food and beverage taxes, and Senate Bill 290, which mostly addresses local property tax levies.
Multiple other new changes and provisions — like for professional sports and convention center developments — were additionally included.
The amended bill advanced 8-5 to the full chamber, despite unfavorable votes from Democrats and top Republican Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Mishawaka.
Sen. Eric Bassler, R-Washington, one of the bill’s Senate sponsors, discussed the amendment before the tax committee and expressed concerns, too. Because he is not a member of the committee, the senator did not participate in Tuesday’s vote.
“I’m always a little bit leery to have substantive policy changes for the state in agency bills. If the state is going to make a policy change, I’d rather those bills kind of be standalone language,” Bassler said.
“I think that’s even more so in this bill, because this is a 117-page amendment to a 79-page bill, and it deals with literally dozens and dozens of dozens of issues,” he continued. “I think we need to be very careful when we’re starting to change state policy in such a complicated bill.”
‘Substantial’ amendment prompts questions
Democratic Sen. Andrea Hunley, of Indianapolis, raised questions about a child care facility portion of the amendment that would create a partial property tax exemption for employers who provide child care for their employees on company property.
Hunley worried that the tax benefit would do little to increase services for parents, given it only applies to care for children under the age of six. Child care facilities that do not have a formal agreement with a business also would not qualify.
“To me, it’s not really solving the child care issue that we have … but it’s really about subsidizing businesses to provide a service to their own employees,” Hunley said.
“There’s so much in here dealing with taxes that are going to impact our local communities. And that has been a theme this session, in a variety of ways, and in a variety of pieces of legislation,” she added. “We have to think about — not just these pieces of legislation in isolation — but the myriad of ways that we are impacting locals with these policy changes.”
Mishler further took issue with a section on “professional sports development areas,” or PSDAs.
Those areas can already capture millions of dollars per year in tax revenue from sports facilities, hotels and other commercial properties fund infrastructure improvements and new sports-related developments.
Under the bill, cities that are located in a county with at least four cities — each with a population of at least 40,000 — would additionally be able to create special sports-related tax districts. Up to $2 million collected each year from the tax area could be invested in city-owned facilities that are used for “practice or competitive sporting events.”
“The PSDAs in here — those are usually budget discussions, because they reduce revenue,” Mishler said. “So, I’m a little irritated because I’ve been working with these groups on the investments that they’re bringing in there, and I feel like they just circumvented the system, went around, and just threw it in a bill.”
Bill author Rep. Craig Snow, R-Warsaw, told Mishler in response that he would be “happy to take anything out of this bill that you would like, because it’s kind of unwieldy.”
Mishler, the Senate Republican budget leader, foreshadowed possible changes to that language but did not provide details.
Contention around retirement community exemptions
Also in contention was a piece of the amendment that sets criteria for continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), small house health facilities and residential care facilities” to qualify for tax exemptions.
Bartholomew County Assessor Ginny Whipple maintained that CCRCs should not qualify for exemptions “without going through the normal channels” already in place for properties.
Such senior living communities offer a range of services and care levels, from independent living apartments to assisted living and skilled nursing facilities, all under one roof.
Currently, CCRCs can file for tax exemptions with the local property tax assessment board, whose members “vet their information and decide, on a local basis, who pays more taxes and who pays less” Whipple explained. She held that CCRC exemptions “should be a local matter, decided on the merits of each case.”
“I think each of these CCRCs are unique and individual. One size does not fit all. This bill would give them a free ride, while other folks over 65, paying their fair share, would not have that same advantage,” Whipple emphasized. “It would increase the taxes for those elders — because any time you carve out a special interest group, then you increase taxes for other taxpayers.”
Committee chairman Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, gave a cold reply.
“I think there are two roles for elected officials: some elected officials are in the administrative, policy-setting role, and others are ministerial. The problem I have with assessors dipping their toe into policy issues — as I see assessors as ministerial functions in counties — yours is merely to execute the law as it’s presented to you,” Holdman said. “We appreciate your position, but you are not a policymaker in the county, according to my rules. … It’s a step too far, in my estimation, for county assessors to take policy decisions as their purview.”
Sen. Chris Garten, also on the tax committee, doubled down.
“I feel like we have a lot of assessors who are flippant. … Part of the issue we’re seeing is we’ve got elected assessors statewide — that when taxpayers call them to try to have a pragmatic conversation about property tax assessments — they flippantly respond and say, ‘Property taxes aren’t our issue. Call your state legislators,” Garten said. “The majority of assessors … should be focused on the administrative functions of the job, and not policy.”