A property tax overhaul.

Barrels through the House.

The Senate unveils its 2025 budget.

Plus, a rollback on a diversity, equity and inclusion measure and more from the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending April 11th, 2025.

The Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

House Republicans passed a sweeping overhaul of property taxes Thursday.

They say the system will provide more transparency and provide relief for homeowners after several years of assessed value growth, the most up to date fiscal analysis of the measure reports compared to our current system, local governments will lose out on nearly $1.8 billion over the next three years.

But House Speaker Todd Houston says that's not a cut.

I'm going to.

Push back on everybody.

It says, well, we would have collected x.

What do you think before you say it to cut?

What did you collect.

Last year and what are you collecting this.

Year?

The fiscal analysis shows a mixed bag.

At the county level, 23 counties will see decreased net levies from this year to 2026, but the other 69 will see more money, the most for Marion Lake and Saint Joseph counties.

House Democrats say the bill offers minuet cuts for homeowners and bigger wins for businesses.

Who has the right math?

It's the first question for Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney Republican Mike O'Brien, Oseye Boyd Editor-in-Chief of Mirror Indy.

And Niki Kelley, Editor-in-Chief of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting digital editor Lauren Chapman in for Brandon Smith this week.

OSHA our property taxes decreases to the increases or slashes to local government budgets.

Decreasing increases always makes me giggle a little bit because it's it's a little confusing at first, but I think it depends on who you ask.

at the end of the day, I think taxpayers, if they see decreases come 2026 to 2020, they will not care if it's a decrease of the increase as long as they don't see it increasing.

However, if you start seeing your local property local I'm sorry, income taxes go up or schools referendum.

That's where the big issues are going to come up, because it's like a little game here.

We're going to decrease this but increase it.

So you're happy here.

But if we start paying more over here then it's really going to be a wash. And I think is what 1.2 billion in property taxes decrease.

And I think it's going to within its sets.

Then I think the local local income, it's going to be 1.5 or something.

So it's not quite adding up.

So there is going to be a difference that people will feel feel later.

So then we'll see what happens when that time comes.

Yeah.

Niki Kelly I mean Democrats especially, we're talking about how this is really shifting the burden from property owners and especially older property owners to younger, working Hoosiers who can't afford to buy housing in this market.

Do you really do you buy the argument or what are we seeing.

Could be a shift.

If these local governments do that.

The fact is, is that they have the the capacity now and they haven't used it because it's a tough vote.

And so there are very few, if any at the caps.

Now.

Now it does give cities the ability to do it on their own, which is is a new novel thing.

And so there are some cities who have wanted a local income tax, but they couldn't get their county commissioners on board.

But but those are you know, if everyone does this, yes, your local income tax could go up.

so that's something we're going to have to watch in the next couple of years.

We'll see if they're willing to take the hard votes.

Yeah.

Ann DeLaney, obviously Democrats are calling but I think even yesterday referenced, calling this a scam.

What is your debt?

It's $300 a year for three years.

Okay.

If you own a $500,000 house and you're at the 1% cap, you're paying 5000 in property taxes.

All right, if your next door neighbor owns a combine that's worth 500,000.

He's currently paying 15,000 because he at the 3% cap, he's going to pay nothing under this bill forever.

Not for three years, but forever.

And the same is true with any piece of equipment that's out there.

So manufacturers or people's people or businesses with large amounts of of, equipment and all are going to see a real tax break for this.

Okay.

Well, those expenses are going to have to where that income is going to have to come from someplace.

And it's probably going to come from the income tax.

And remember, almost 40% of Hoosiers are renters.

They get no property tax burden or break under this because they don't directly pay the property tax.

But the potential for their income tax to start or go up is real.

So it's a scam.

It's and it uses none of the state's money, none of the state's money.

And the thing that you're talking about is the business personal property.

Business personal property tax depreciation.

Right.

And where they're taking it away or the 3% it's going to it's going to fade out.

You know they did take that out.

They took that part out.

But it's going to fade down at least.

Yeah.

And we're also talking about caps of $1 million next year.

And then and then and then 2 million after that.

After that.

And that's it.

So if you're a large manufacturing company, this is a Winfield, an absolute windfall for you if you have 5 or $6 million in property tax.

I mean, personal property tax liability right now.

Isn't it the opposite that the how the if you're exceeding that cap, you still pay taxes on it.

Oh is that right?

I am I misunderstood.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Mike O'Brien.

After all that.

After all of that.

I mean, is this the win that Republicans are looking for, especially after some a little bit of back and forth from the governor as to whether or not this was the property tax plan he was looking for.

I think the biggest takeaway from this is going to be the cap, because I think what what prompted this were the big increases, the big spikes.

and so if you can limit that and, and essentially where the Republicans in the legislature landed were, let's not let what happened in 22 happen again.

Let's not turn back the clock.

We're not going to go back to the old level, to the to the levy or whatever, whatever it was 3 or 4 years ago.

Let's make sure that doesn't happen twice.

In the meantime, give a nominal what is a nominal amount of relief at that $300, credit.

What's what, maximum credit.

Yeah.

what was interesting at the state House.

So you have two sets of issues.

You have like, fair Speaker Houston started the NIMBYism issue with the the bans on local development, the Board of Zoning appeals that are, you know, not allowing the data center or the big factory or the solar field or these things that increase your assessed value, which do but which will contribute to the bottom line of local government punitively saying no.

All over the state, this has been an issue for years.

What was interesting in the conversation this week already, we saw in Morgan County, where a data center is being proposed and opposed by by, members of that community.

The commissioners then kind of started indicating it's like, I think we need to pass this.

I think we need this data center.

So these two, these two issues are converging where locals are going to have to look, look at their property tax, their reliance on property taxes and say, well, how do we grow it if we can't, if we can't raise the levy, how do we how do we grow?

We grow by expanding the base.

And you only do that by developing, in ways that the pitchfork crowd that doesn't want the solar commercial solar field, they want the data center and doesn't want the factory and doesn't want, you know, this or that.

They want it.

They want or they just want it somewhere else.

Locals are going to have to look at this and go, no, we need we actually need to grow our economy.

Now, we can't just say no because it it looks funny or I don't or I don't like it.

Yeah.

Time now for fear for viewer feedback.

Each week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question Will lawmakers land on meaningful property tax reform this year?

Answer A yes or B for no.

Last week's question should school board candidates be forced to choose a political label on the ballot?

23% responded with yes and 77% said no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to WFYI.or/IWIR and look for the poll.

The Senate Republican budget proposal, unveiled Thursday differs from its House counterpart in three key ways.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Brandon Smith reports it does not expand school vouchers.

It holds back much more money in reserve, and it lowers the eligibility for Child Care and Development Fund, or CDF vouchers for child care.

Both the governor and House Republicans want to eliminate income limits on the state's private school voucher program, which Senate Republican Budget architect Ryan Mishler says would cost about $170 million.

And it's not, you know, that we don't want to do the vouchers.

It's just how do we pay for them?

Democrats applaud Mishler for not expanding vouchers, but say the decision to lower the income eligibility for CDF in order to help eliminate the existing waitlist is the wrong move.

Democratic Senator Fady Qaddoura says that doesn't really solve the problem.

We will still have families across the state who are struggling.

They don't have enough financial resources to pay for child care.

The Senate Republican budget plan also holds back more than $3 billion in reserve the next two years.

Niki Kelly will universal vouchers end up in the final budget?

I would still probably lean to saying yes.

I think the governor really wants them at the House, really wants them.

And and a lot of members in the Senate still want them.

The forecast that we're going to see on Wednesday will probably be the determining factor on that.

Even if they can eke out a tiny bit more money, they could probably find a way to fund it.

Because it's about $170 million that they're they're budgeting for.

Yeah, I mean, obviously, we know the budget is is the declaration of what Indiana's financial priorities are for the next two years.

what does the Senate version seem to really prioritize?

Not children going to daycare, that's for sure.

I find that interesting that we're going to put more money into vouchers for people who can't already for private school, but yet we don't really care about the beginning of life, education, child care when we say that.

So very important.

And that actually sets you up for later.

So it definitely to me, I'm, I'm a little disappointed in this idea that ccdf should be cut.

So I'm hoping that it does not.

Michael.

Brian again it's the priorities.

What do you make of the Senate budget proposal service.

I mean what was most of the presentation was talking about the growth in Medicaid spending.

it is where he started the conversation because it's it's keeping him up at night.

And it should because it's doubled in the last four years and it's not slowing down.

And they're trying to slow it down.

And in Senate Bill two they're trying to slow down another in this budget, because it threatens to engulf the entire thing.

So if you care about K-12 education, if you care about child care or pre-K or any of these things, you a look at the ballooning Medicaid budget and go, what are we going to do about that first?

and that's where his that's where his focus has been and where I think I think it should be because it does threaten everything else.

And it is so hard to talk about because there's a direct line between the dollar you're spending and the person that's not getting the thing that they either need or want.

and they're and they're at risk and they're the most at risk Hoosiers, the poorest Hoosiers or the sickest Hoosiers.

And but it is a puzzle to try to figure out how to deliver care to them.

And, of course, all the data points to if you start off in quality pre-K and child care and then you, you know, on the back end, you're, you know, you're less likely to be in the corrections system and a juvenile delinquent, all these things.

But we don't budget that way.

We got we need to spend.

We have a need that needs to be funded right this minute.

And I can't think about, well, what if I take this dollar and put it over here and then I won't have that need 25 years from now?

I mean, as an investment.

One thing to flag, though, with SB two, that most of the stuff about the hip overhaul Indiana doesn't actually have to pay for out of its own budget.

It's generated by.

Others.

I don't buy that.

Honestly.

I think that's.

According to the.

Fiscal data.

I don't, I don't I think what I, what I don't buy is the universal math of it, which is, yes, there's a 9010 Medicaid spend here, 90% federal, that 10% is filled with cigaret tax and the hospital assessment fee.

Yeah, I understand that you do flood the system with money and that costs the system a lot of money.

And then and then on the back end, it's like, well, how did we have the highest some of the highest house, you know, hospital health care insurance premiums.

How are they?

How are we among the highest in the country?

It's like, well, we flooded the market, small market with $22 billion a year.

So that could have something to do with it.

So I, I understand, like the budget math and the four corners of that piece of paper, but there is a bigger impact to that.

And that's what they're that's what they're trying to grapple with and the budget and all these other bills.

And I heard a deep desire to.

Continue to tie.

It also ignores the fact that we have a very unhealthy population.

Okay.

And part of what was supposed to happen with the initiative last year was to encourage that by using by putting money into the local health initiatives, by county, by county.

And what do we do?

We cut that.

I mean, I understand they only think for the next month, but they also have to understand what drives the cost of Medicaid.

And, you know, for example, we have Lilly here and Lilly has a drug to to curb obesity.

And if we curb obesity, you lower you lower all kinds of things like diabetes and your strokes and your heart attacks and all of that.

And, you know, maybe we should fund that and make our population healthier.

But I think at what point you got for Republicans, you'll look at that and go, at what point is that not?

My problem is that the taxpayers problem, and I think that's what they struggle with.

We're spending all this money over here and it's taken away from all these things over here.

What do we do about this?

And the only answer.

Government doesn't provide health care, buys it and it buys and it buys in the most expensive, inefficient way possible.

Yeah.

And when we have a less efficient, well, a more efficient and less expensive way, we cut the funding for that doesn't make any sense.

Well, anyway, it doesn't make any sense.

They don't think ahead.

Moving on to our next issue, a House committee scaled back and refocused a controversial measure to eliminate DEA programs in state agencies and educational institutions instead of mandating the closure of programs.

The bill now levies significant fines and outlines unlawful discrimination in education, employment and licensing.

Proponents of the bill say programs that encourage diversity, equity and inclusion have unfairly limited opportunities.

Critics say those programs help attract talent to Indiana's many worker shortages.

Jasmine Davis is a medical student at Indiana University School of Medicine.

I match the merits of places like Harvard.

Yeah, but I chose Indiana.

Because I knew that I could receive the same high quality.

Education.

Here in my state.

But Davis says the scaled back measure still threatens the quality of her education in Indiana, especially compared to other states.

The committee passed the scaled back legislation, and it now goes to the full House.

And Delaney, is this a compromise that Democrats can live with?

I don't think it's a compromise at all.

I think it's an attempt to move us back to the 1960s.

Okay.

I mean, what we're basically saying as a state is that there's no interest in this state and having diversity either in in color or in background or in ethnicity or in, sexual preference.

We're not interested in that.

And we want we want to go back to the way it was.

And we want people that just look like us.

And I don't think that's the kind of message to send out to people when we want to recruit people in high tech industries and college graduates we don't have enough of we want to recruit those people.

And yet we say, but we really you know, we don't think that having diversity has any value.

If you watch television and you watch the ads, they're all diverse.

They're all diverse across the board.

And that's not because they necessarily have that big commitment to the idea, but they think that that is a marketing strategy that works for whatever product they're advancing.

We're advancing the product of Indiana.

We're asking people to come here and locate here and build a life here and raise a family here.

And we don't use the same kind of tactics at polls all over the place.

Obviously, show these advertisers are the way to success.

Michael O'Brien, what do you think of the compromise that was made in the House?

Well, one, I mean, I think the past election showed us that in terms of diversity, it missed hard this way.

You know, it missed hard in favor of diversity, but in favor of like, you know, forcing, you know, your boss walking your office and forcing you to put him on your work email signature.

So the election was the election was a reaction to like, like pushing too far that direction.

And the reaction is we're going to push too far in the other direction against those things.

and hopefully at some point in the world, just figure, you know, figure out how to, you know, be a little nicer to each other and be a little more inclusive.

And I don't know how you legislate those things, but we're missing everywhere, I think, on it.

Figuring out.

Yeah, figuring out how to thread the needle.

Usha, I mean, lawmakers, even when talking about, the amended version of this measure, pointed to basically aligning, this measure with some of the things that we've seen in federal court cases.

Do you think that this threads the needle?

I think they're trying to I think they're really trying to make sure that we are in line with what's happening federally.

I do think, though, what sounds good on paper, these ideas when it comes to reality is very, very difficult to do.

And we're also living in a time where Indiana and Marion County in particular, it's what one out of ten people are born outside of in the country.

So as we become, more of a melting pot, if you will, we're now pushing back on that idea of diversity, equity, inclusion.

So it's very interesting how this is going to play out as we move forward in a country that is growing more and more diverse.

Niki Kelly, do you think that the Senate is is going to, by this amended version?

Yeah, I think it's probably going to be a little more palatable.

I mean, I think what they're trying to say, they're trying to get to a point where it's okay to try to get a big, diverse pool of applicants for things, but they don't want quotas, you know what I mean?

They don't want people squarely.

We need three minorities, three, you know, women to gay people.

You know, they don't want that.

And so that's what I think they're trying to get at.

And I and I do think this was an improvement.

There was an interesting amendment on the floor on Thursday where there are some minority, scholarships that the state funds for former lawmakers, and they want to continue to continue to have them.

But the bill bars using public funds for something like that.

So instead of making it about minorities, they basically said anyone from these five urban, underserved counties could apply.

I mean, by when it becomes reality.

Yeah, they find out it doesn't work the way we thought it could work, because now you're going to offend your people.

An executive order signed by governor Mike Brown Tuesday seeks to upturn more than ten years of economic development programs led by the state.

Brown said in a statement his administration is, quote, starting from scratch on the map.

The order says the current landscape of regional designations creates confusion, duplication and inefficiency.

That landscape was built through two Republican led economic development programs, the Regional Cities Initiative and the readI grant program.

Both asked cities, towns and counties to develop projects that cater to their region's strengths.

The Regional Cities Initiative developed plans for more than 400 projects, and the readI grant program distributed $1 billion in state and federal funding to community led projects.

Braun's executive order directs the Indiana Secretary of Commerce to make new economic development maps, in consultation with local and regional economic development officials, politicians and business representatives.

Mike O'Brien.

Notably, these previous projects were led by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.

Is this Braun keeping some of his promises of his campaign?

Yeah, I think he's well, he's taking his own approach.

I mean, the whole approach was, you know, invest in these communities, have communities come together, and we're going to fund those, you know, award and fund those, you know, projects and and that was Holcomb's approach.

You know, it was it produced a lot of really good, really good outcomes.

I think Braun, you know, he's restructured state government.

You know, he's created, you know, this cabinet system, but it's very centralized and it's very like top down.

It's it's very it's it's top down in in a way that it but but it's a top down in an organized fashion that is organized in these, you know, verticals.

And so I it's been interesting.

The ITC has not been really a part of the conversation in the last like four months, really at all.

I mean, I used to be like the highest profile agency, the biggest piece of the budget, you know, in terms of like discretionary money.

and it's really just not that's not been the case.

I haven't been like hampered.

They haven't.

Have any discretionary.

Money.

That's right.

That's why it's all we started all the ITC last night.

you know, so I think it's just I think it's just Mike Brown's approach.

I think he's, he wants to kind of reorganize in a way that makes sense to him.

And, and he's done that in other.

We've seen examples of that in other places in state government that I my opinion, my my view and, and interacting with the administration have been like really productive and organized.

And I think this is just, you know, his his approach.

I don't think it's to say anything about the previous administrations or I think it's just the new path forward.

Yeah.

Ann DeLaney, Mike Brown's approach.

Are you buying this this restructure?

Well, he certainly has a I mean, he's elected.

He certainly has an opportunity to do the word vision to impose his vision on the state government.

And I think that there was enough negative reaction to the DC based on the Leap project and the lack of planning in advance for that at all, and how much money was wasted in that project that it makes perfect sense for him to try to rein it in by basically chipping away at what they were doing before, and maybe it'll come out with a new set of officials at some point.

Yeah.

Niki Kelly I mean, obviously this was just one of three executive orders that were signed that day.

there was also a financial, transparency issues involved, right?

Yeah.

Fascinating.

The ITC has a foundation that's their staff are all the same.

It's basically a state entity, but it's technically a nonprofit.

And they for years have shielded who gives them their money.

And those, of course, are used to pay for all these big economic development trips.

There are other entities like that that also work aside, say, the development, corporation who's tourism and things like that.

And so basically he's saying, no, you're a state related affiliate and you are going to disclose your donors and what you're doing with your money.

He's even making them go back ten years.

Years of financial.

Documents.

So yeah, it's a good thing.

I appreciate that.

Yeah.

More transparency.

That's what we need.

I appreciate that.

I mean, so I what is your take on, on these this little, suite of, of executive orders.

Well, I think to to and and Mike's point, the governor does have the and I will say vision.

I do think he has a vision and he has I think well, and you may not like his vision, but I think he does have.

A vision to, to create what he thinks are, areas where Indiana could be improve and efficiency.

So in that I respect that and I understand everything will not be the way we like it, but, I do I do appreciate changes where you're asking for government to be more more efficient and more transparent.

I think that's something that taxpayers said they want.

Their constituents said they want it.

And finally, this week, President Donald Trump said maybe this year will be the year he visits the Greatest Spectacle in Racing.

So should Trump take up Roger Penske's open invitation for attendance?

Nicki Kelly what quintessential 500 experience must happen?

What one must happen for Donald Trump?

Yeah, what?

I mean, don't you think he has to, like, kiss the big trophy?

Are there okay?

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

He needs to bend down and.

Kiss the bricks.

Kiss the bricks?

Yeah.

I'll tell you what.

Who's going to help him up?

Oh.

I'll tell you.

I don't care what you think about Donald Trump seeing the motorcade go around.

Daytona was awesome.

Yeah.

Seeing Air Force One fly in and the motorcade around Daytona was awesome.

It'd be ten times better than it was at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

As somebody who grew up on the West Side and still lives on the West Side, I do think being trapped in traffic from the 500, leaving for 4.5 hours is something we.

Could want to do to live on the my thought like, what would this do to the west side of I.

Tried to look up.

I don't think a sitting president has ever come to the Indy 500.

I think.

Pence.

And that is it for Indiana.

We could review this.

We could.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican.

Mike O'Brien, Oseye Boyd of Mirror Indy and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews, podcast and episodes at WFYI.org or on the PBS app.

I'm Lauren Chapman of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time, because a lot can happen in an Indiana week, especially when Brandon is sick.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by Wfyi in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.