Truth
It's looking more and more like Gov. Daniels' "Major Moves" road construction financing proposal isn't going through the state Senate's express lane, either.
If anything was apparent following a ponderous 2 1/2-hour hearing Thursday before the Senate Appropriations Committee, it's that the wrangling over the governor's controversial plan is far from over.
While the public testimony covered little new ground, some senators seem prepared to put their own stamp on the legislation.
State Sen. Robert Meeks, R-LaGrange, said flatly after the hearing that a provision creating a regional development authority in Elkhart, LaGrange and Steuben counties would be removed. Meeks called the idea the "wrong way to go."
Meeks demurred on revealing his own ideas until next Thursday, when the committee will meet again to consider amendments to the House version of the bill.
State Sen. Joe Zakas, R-Granger, has two amendments up his sleeve that he believes will be well received, at least in northern Indiana.
Zakas said he will propose setting aside a portion of the $3.85 billion Indiana would receive from leasing the Indiana Toll Road into a "next generation trust fund." The objective of the trust fund would be to assure that the state in 30 years will have $1 billion for road maintenance funding. The senator believes the state would have to set aside $280 million from the lease deal to accomplish that goal.
"People have been concerned about the length of the lease," Zakas said. Many critics of the governor's plan to raise money to meet all current road construction needs worry that the state will nothing to show from the deal after the 10-year window of the plan runs out.
Zakas said the trust fund would be structured so that state officials could not touch the money for 30 years, period.
Secondly, Zakas will revive his idea to give all Hoosiers a tax credit of up to $300 for tolls paid on the toll road. The same measure offered by Zakas passed the Senate earlier this session but only after another legislator changed it to a 50 percent tax credit up to $300. That change meant a state resident would have to spend $600 in tolls to get the full tax credit. Zakas' idea allows residents to receive the credit for the first $300 they spend on tolls.
Other amendments are likely to be in the works, so the version that makes it to the Senate floor may not resemble what the House passed Feb. 1 by a narrow 52-47 margin.
Let's not forget -- this is all happening against the background of the debate about whether it's even advisable to lease the toll road.
Two provisions in the House version of the bill will not survive in the Senate -- the regional development authority backed by State Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Lakeville, and State Rep. Tim Neese's proposal to freeze tolls for residents in the toll road corridor.
Walorski was circumspect about the fate of her RDA proposal. "We'll deal with it when we see what (senators) do. One way or another, the House will have to agree (with changes made by the Senate)," she said.
Political pressure from central and southern Indiana is the likely culprit of Meeks' opposition on the RDA, said Walorski.
In any event, the RDA as proposed by Walorski was deeply flawed for the fact that it excluded St. Joseph County. Its removal in the Senate was predictable. We're eager to see what ideas Meeks and other senators have.
Walorski is prepared to continue the fight to secure as much benefit for the region as possible. She said, "There's probably better ideas than RDAs. This is an evolving process. My entire point with the RDA is (to) secure the local communities (and) ... push as much money into the local communities. As long as we get there ... I think that's what we're trying to accomplish."
Another idea Walorski said she has shared with Meeks is to create trust funds for each of the seven counties in the toll road corridor. Whether that idea makes it into an amendment in the Senate remains to be seen, but Zakas' two proposals seem to make a lot of sense and could do much to sway skeptics in northern Indiana.
When and if the Senate acts on "Major Moves," the differences with the House version will have to be worked out in a conference committee, beginning another chapter in this heated debate. Stay tuned.