LEAP spending nears nine figures.

The proposed study on moving a casino, plus a bill to help medical debt fails and more.

From the television studios at WFYI, It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending March 7th, 2025.

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.

This week, reporters with the Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism and the Indiana Capital Chronicle found that spending on the controversial LEAP development district in central Indiana is approaching $1 billion.

The joint investigation found that the Indiana Economic Development Corporation has received close to $700 million in state funds for the LEAP district, and land purchases alone have cost Indiana nearly half $1 billion.

Only Eli Lilly has officially agreed to locate at the site, while Meta announced a tentative agreement late last year.

And controversy has dogged the project since it was announced, particularly over transparency concerns.

Several pieces of legislation were authored to provide more transparency and oversight on the IEDC.

But the bills have largely failed to advance.

House Speaker Todd Houston says he believes the quasi public agency is transparent.

In ten years, if people are going to look around and see the incredible investments being made in the LEAP project whats already been announced or will be announced and realized.

That was a historic opportunity for Indiana.

Lawmakers have advanced to build this session, providing more oversight on large water transfers.

One of the sources of controversy over LEAP Is the LEAP district costs worth it?

It's the first question for our Indiana Weekend Review panel.

Democrat Elise Schrock, Republican Mike O'Brien.

Kayla Dwyer, statehouse reporter for the Indianapolis Star.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Mike O'Brien, is the payoff going to be there for LEAP?

I think so.

I mean, look, this is a new concept, first of all.

So it's been controversial.

It's obviously expensive.

Frankly, there's been so many attacks on it that the expectations at this point are so low.

I mean, like anything gets built there and it's going to look like it's a smash success.

but look, I trust like, you know, obviously Todd Houston's got a closer eye under the, you know, it gets a little bit better view of what's going on behind the scenes.

IEDC has to operate in the dark a little bit when they're negotiating these deals.

So it's not as transparent as transparent as it typically would be, could be as you're negotiating these deals and, you know, but these investments, you know, so I think we'll look back Because sometimes these aren't even state decisions about what they can and can't reveal.

It's like, I mean, there's like federal regulations involved in what you're allowed to sell publicly.

You're in competition with other states, you know, and there's there's leverage there and things you have to consider that you would have to consider with any other kind of like procurement or project.

so, you know, of course, it remains to be seen, but, you know, I'll trust you much.

You know, it's not a bad bet to bet on IEDC and Purdue University.

And like the Eli Lilly, I mean, these as risks go, this is a pretty small one.

Do you think the cost and which is not over.

Although I think spending is not going to be at the same level it has been in the last few years, but the spending is not over.

Is the cost going to be worth it?

I mean, that's yet to be seen.

And I know, Speaker Houston is saying like in ten years, we'll see this.

But if you look back at the last ten years, we were having these same conversations about IEDC and transparency ten years ago.

So this is not a new, conversation surrounding IEDC.

And I given I know there are certain things and ways that they have to operate, but, that is a question that continues to be asked and has been asked since the creation of this, quasi quasi public agency since its existence.

and, in this particular deal, I think, what we're also going to have to look at in the next ten years is like what this does for certain people, in these communities, like farmers, for instance, farmers who what happens when the land surrounding these deals, you know, like possible inflation and what this costs on top of tariffs or the type of, the products they're looking at.

But, I mean, like, this doesn't exist.

Just what they're trying to do doesn't exist.

Just, in the counties where that LEAP district is, they're also looking at other economic factors.

So, you know, looking at that particular sector, I'm wondering how it will be.

It will affect them.

but overall, we'll have to see.

And after all of that is done, how many actual jobs will there be?

You know, because of Meta comes in and does like AI stuff are those human jobs and.

The amount of energy it takes for AI to operate?

You know, we're looking at resources like water, other energy sources, like it's a huge energy suck for AI.

Off with jobs that.

Is just going to not exist.

Like you can exist in Fort Wayne or Cloverdale, or it can exist in Ecuador or China.

Or I think we're just looking at what what the sacrifices.

Whether it's going to be stored somewhere.

I'd rather be Fort Wayne.

Right.

And in this, the reason there's all this attention on this is because usually, you know, if someone wants to build a tech park that's on the businesses, but this is taxpayer money building this out the roads and, and all that.

And, you know, right now it's been what, three, three years but one year for we still only have one finalized tenet.

They've gotten like 8000 acres of land and they're only using like 700 so far.

So, you know, if it doesn't become this massive thing they wanted, what happens to that land or.

Heck, I mean, quite honestly, you could put 3 or 4 more companies in there and still have a ton of land left over.

And so what are you going to do with that long term?

And I understand sometimes the the issues with trying to, you know, you're trying to close a deal, but, you know, something as simple as it took us six months to do that.

And part of the reason is there isn't one single place where all the contracts are.

You have to literally go through the IEDC transparency portal.

That's true, and open every single contract to see if it's related to Lee.

You know, and so I mean, that's an example of how they could be more transparent and not be affecting their competitive advantage.

In terms of you, you talk about the fact that that issues with transparency that IEDC have existed basically since its creation under Mitch Daniels.

And that's true.

We saw a lawmaker literally lose their seat largely because of issues surrounding Leep and transparency problems.

Are you surprised there is the large water transfers bill that I imagine is going to to make it to the governor's desk, but are you surprised the lawmakers really haven't done anything else and don't appear to be doing anything else to try and increase a little bit more transfer?

There is a second bill, IN518, that would require the IEDC to notify local officials when they buy 100 acres or more.

That's true.

There are also some reports in there for any innovation district where they'd have to lay out pretty succinctly, like this is what we're spending on what this is the return.

I think those reports are a great move and I hope they move forward.

That all.

Right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is is all the money for the LEAP district worth it?

A yes or no?

We'll probably ask you that again in ten years.

Last week's question.

Do partisan school boards put up barriers for people hoping to run?

89% of you say yes, 11% say no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll.

Go to philly.org slash.

We're and look for the poll.

Well, Indiana's poorest performing casino in the southeast corner of the state wants to move.

A bill to allow them to relocate to northwestern Indiana.

Or excuse me, northeastern Indiana couldn't get a vote this session.

But lawmakers are advancing a bill to study the idea.

The legislation directs the Gaming Commission to hire an independent research firm to assess the top three regions in the state where a casino could move.

The study would include projected revenue and the impact on the state's other casinos, tourism and the horse racing industry.

Republican Senator Liz Brown criticizes the proposed study as too narrow.

You should have an honest look at the gaming revenue that we receive, whether it's from the horse tracks, whether it's the sports betting, whether it's the on the ground casinos, and at the same time be looking at what we're doing in the charitable gaming space because it's getting broader and broader.

Other lawmakers, like Republican Senator Aaron Freeman, are already planting a flag for the study's outcome.

If the.

Purpose of gaming is revenue, why there is not a casino in downtown Indianapolis defies my understanding.

The Senate approved the Casino Relocation Study measure 33 to 16, advancing it to the House.

Elise.

Let's start.

Here is a casino in downtown Indianapolis a good idea?

Well, I think it's really interesting that Senator Freeman, thinks it is, because when I was doing some research on, key factors for how a metropolitan downtown casino could be successful, one of the three main components, for success would be, good public transit.

And so that seems to be something that, might be helpful.

but in all seriousness, we would need to get a major amount of workers downtown to support that.

in my, you know, in my experience with I, which I have a lot of experience working with, human resources directors, specifically in the hospitality sector.

it's we have to get workers downtown to support this type of, this type of sector industry, which means we need better public transit, which means we need because those childcare infrastructure, those are all bills that I know that Democrats would be glad to see Republicans sign on to, to move something like this forward in hopes of bringing, maybe a downtown casino, to Indianapolis, if that is Senator, Freeman's wish.

But, but these are real things we have to think about when we're thinking about moving huge, pieces of hospitality, into our communities because it is the workers that hold them up.

Because the, the wages for those sorts of jobs generally don't support living in and around downtown.

So they're not necessarily.

So they could, they could.

Yeah.

They could, they could But you know, when the red line, for instance, was coming, to pass, a lot of the folks who were hiring told me, that's great.

But what we really need is the blue time, blue line.

We need to get people from, east and west side of downtown or east to west side of town, downtown.

because that's where the majority of our workers are.

So broke ground.

Yeah.

as someone who works obviously in the gaming world at the state House, a casino for Indianapolis for years felt like zero chance, like pigs will fly before.

Do you feel like it's getting closer to being a potential reality?

I might have 90s ago, but I think Alicia's single and the single greatest act of gaming lobbying I've ever seen just killed the downtown casino and changed their previous position.

so I think it's really hard.

Look, I mean, when you're working on gaming and we've talked about this before, there's a reason the legislature doesn't pick up gaming every year.

And do a comprehensive gaming package.

It's because it's really hard, because there are so many varying interests that have to, like, kind of push together, for, for a package to work.

And so this year, you're looking at a number of things.

You're looking at expansions and charity gaming.

You're looking at maybe an expansion to AI gaming, or the AI lottery, a movement of a casino license.

We did that 19 legislature pass sports, online sports betting, sports betting generally plus online.

Yeah.

Move the failing boats off of Gary the land based casino and and Gary the hardrock moved the casino.

One of those licenses turn out so this is possible I mean this is in the legislature.

They don't I don't think they would love it if they had to do it all over again.

I don't know if they would, but, when you're the third largest gaming state in the country, you've got to you've got to maintain that industry or your policy is just like, let it die in Rising rising sun, or move it into a place that can support it.

And so it's those are the decision points, I dont know if theyll do it or not.

Mike just talked about all of the gaming stuff that they were looking at this year, most of it not moving forward.

Charity gaming is, I think, on them.

The Senate bill passed, so we'll see if the House picks it up.

but to Liz Brown's point, when you're talking about a major gaming expansion like AI gaming, adding the online lottery, moving an entire casino, is it time for.

And I want to make something clear about this proposed study.

We talk all the time about study committees, and we've talked on this show quite a lot about how they're less and less effective at doing anything.

This is like the Gaming Commission has to hire an outside party to do an actual study is something broader than just let's move a casino worth doing in a study like.

This, I feel like it's just punting the decision like one.

Where are we going to gain, from this study other than just more reasons?

Maybe.

Or maybe not.

Like the decision to put it here is also about, you know, do you want to impacts to Shelbyville and Anderson like the, you know, the surrounding casinos?

They're of course probably going to be lobbying against that.

Ultimately, I think the factors that would influence this decision are outside the realm of this particular study.

Niki, to that point, realistically, if you're talking about you want to put a casino near a population center, that's the problem that Rising Sun has is it's it's just kind of not near enough people.

And there are other casinos that are taking away from it.

It's either Fort Wayne or the Indianapolis area because everybody else is covered by an existing casino.

And is it going to be over the racino dead bodies kind of thing?

Yeah, and that's what the study is for.

I mean, I assume what, what we're going to see, and I know Rising Sun had their own study, but obviously you have to get sort of a middle ground is to show like, okay, if you put this in Indy because they're supposed to look at like the top three places, you could put it, you put this in Indy, you drop the ratios by 20% revenue.

But if you gain, you know, 50% revenue over here, you know, they're kind of going to have to put it in an overarching, you know, idea of a whole holistic look at it.

Yeah.

And by the way, the other thing, and I think it's even mentioned in the study, is between now and whenever lawmakers take another serious look at moving that casino, maybe there's another tribal casino in Indiana that changes the math.

Pretty conservative.

We have seasons of gaming changes, and we're in that season.

You know, we're on the front end of it, I think.

But when it all right.

Hoosiers have an estimated $2.2 billion of medical debt in collections, with even more on payment plans and credit cards.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Abigail Ruhman reports a proposal to introduce consumer protections against medical debt collections failed to advance in the Senate.

Among other things, the bill would have placed limits on wage garnishment and leans on a primary residence as a result of medical debt, but only for households that make under 250% of the federal poverty line.

The Senate Health Committee approved the bill unanimously, but in the full Senate, two lawmakers from that committee said the bill went too far and didn't have any limits.

The bill's author, Senator Fady Qaddoura says people have lost their life savings to medical debt.

People did everything right in their lives.

It's not their fault or their sin that they became cancer patients, or that their insurance doesn't cover things.

The Senate did not advance the bill despite support from the chair of the health committee.

Kayla, are you surprised that this one couldn't clear the Senate floor?

You know, we don't see a vote breakdown like this very often.

I think it kind of speaks to the division was within the Republican Party on this bill.

I think it kind of speaks to the tensions within the party right now.

you know, on the one hand, there's a sort of traditional conservative mindset of, paying your own debts, you know, kind of against what are perceived as hand out, you know, bootstraps.

and then in tension with the reality that the Republican Party is increasingly representing more low income, working class folks who would benefit from this bill.

you know, the wage garnishment applying to 250% of the poverty line, which is 65 ish thousand dollars a year.

So, so I think it kind of makes sense that there was some split, opinions on the bill that.

You know, Republicans in the past, you know, particularly it's been focused on student debt, have been largely opposed to forgiving that debt.

Right.

That's not what this bill was about.

It was really just about, you know, guardrails and protections so it doesn't get out of hand.

So it wasn't saying you don't have to pay the bill.

Just saying we're not going to take money out of your paycheck.

And actually surprised that the amount of bills that they pass on third reading, where they say, we're still working on this and we've got to make it better, but let's get it to the second half is most of them.

I was.

Going to say if I had a dollar for every time I heard that expression, I could pay off a bunch of people's medical debt, not.

To mention the bills that they passed that actually don't impact a lot of people and that are largely political statements.

A lot of the trans sports bills, this could have impacted a lot of people.

This could have had a wide impact for a lot of working people.

and the failure to do that failed fails.

Those people.

Yeah, I think I think they could have kept the discussion going and maybe found a middle ground, but they clearly didn't want to do the work.

Well, despite what is actually about it.

Still, it rings like, you know, I think someone on the floor said, oh, are you actually just trying to go to single payer system?

You know, so there's always the tie back to the national politics of it, the.

Jump you would have to make from this bill to a single payer medical system.

Pretty significant.

But, let me let me ask this question too, because I was contrasting it with the student debt forgiveness stuff that we've seen at the federal level.

and so much of the talking points around opposing that is, well, they made the decision to go to school.

They made the decision to take on this debt.

And I think the point that Fady Qorddoura and others made was who made the decision to get sick.

Sure.

It's different for that reason on the student loan example, but my issue was I don't I frankly don't have a problem forgiven.

I know that's not the Republican position.

I'm a problem forgiving student loan loan debt, because I think that system was designed to put them in debt, and it was designed to increase the cost to match whatever the debt was available to them.

Yeah.

And there was no control on costs, but I'm opposed to just fixing the debt.

If you're not gonna also fix the underlying problem that got them there to begin with.

And I think that principle is true here.

Not that we shouldn't do this.

and I think it.

Well, I'm with you.

I mean, it was like, just move it and figure it out.

how many times we had to walk across, like me to walk across the other side of the building, and I'm like, that Bill's a real problem.

And whoever I'm the committee chair I'm talking to in the House on a Senate bill is like, what are you talking about?

It came out 49 to nothing, you know, and I'm like, well, they did that.

So I just moved it on.

But with the commitment that we work on it later, now it's later.

so yeah, I'm with you on that on that point.

But, you know, principally it's like, okay, we'll fix the debt, but also do the other thing you're trying to do is which is, you know, there's a there's a great anecdote that a colleague of mine told me in the office this morning.

He said, I forget a friend or family member who had an MRI and it was, cash, cash pay because the insurance didn't supposedly didn't cover it.

And so it was 800 bucks.

Well, then they ran the claim and insurance did cover it, and the and the new bill was 1800 to the patient because that was just like what the policy said.

And they're like, well, we can't unwind the insurance claims.

So you got to pay 1808 hundred.

Can we solve some of that?

I mean, the legislature has been like, now that guy is sitting on an $1,800 debt, right.

And so there's there's a lot in this.

And the motivation for this bill is a system that is producing bad outcomes and huge cost legislatures trying to try to grapple with that, too.

I heard about a sign on like the student loan for me.

The the, that anecdote, I thought was Representative Ben Small is but his it was his.

No, his anecdote was his anecdote on the think on the floor was he went to get an MRI somewhere.

for some, I think his knee or something like that.

And then two years later, he came back to get an MRI.

Once again, there was a shoulder, same MRI, same technicians, same equipment.

But somebody had bought the the building.

And the cost like quadruple.

He's like, what changed other than the name on the door and that's us.

Yeah.

So they're trying.

To fix that too.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

They did fix that.

No they got to go fix it again.

So mean that that is legislative work.

All right.

Language in the proposed budget bill could put at risk the future of the Indiana Historical Society.

But the Indiana Capital Chronicle reports the governor's office insists it's not trying to force the historical society to give up its downtown Indianapolis building Language in both governor Mike Braun's proposed budget and the version approved by House Republicans appears to terminate the state's contract with the Indiana Historical Society.

The Capital Chronicle reports that while the society owns its building near the state house, it doesn't own the land leasing that from the state for a dollar a year.

In return, the state handles maintenance at the site, the governor's office told the Capital Chronicle.

It means to renegotiate the deal with the historical society, aiming to reduce state costs.

Niki Kelly first, quite frankly, are we buying that the governor's office is just hoping to renegotiate and not outright cancel, that we.

Actually do buy that they want to renegotiate.

There's like $1 million of ongoing costs that they pay for that land.

Yeah, but the problem is, is that the language that their office put in the budget exactly mirrors language in the lease that goes through like 2098, that if you use the exact wording, triggers the cancellation provision, which then becomes an issue of either the historical society has to buy the land or somehow the state gets the building.

I mean, there's nothing in the language that they put in the budget, despite what their intentions are, that says we want to renegotiate.

So they they might truly just want to renegotiate and cut that million dollars and expense.

But that's not what the language does.

Does this feel like a solvable problem in the next, you know, whatever is seven weeks?

Caitlyn probably.

I mean, all they have to do is just you know, tweak a few words, I guess.

But I, I kind of agree with Niki because we've seen other evidence of growing pains with this administration.

I think they're they're getting used to things.

the other day when, Governor Braun signed his executive order about about trans people and, put the, you know, men and women in state code or whatever the wording was.

he kind of, you know, there was a little bit of a back and forth over.

Well, does this apply to licenses and, you know, the X and the license?

And he thought it didn't, but then his office clarified later that it did.

So I think there's he's they're doing a lot right out the gate.

And maybe you're just not fully aware of every thing.

All right.

Finally, iconic actor Gene Hackman passed away sadly, recently.

Of course, one of the two time Oscar winners, many famous roles is coach Norman Dale in Hoosiers, the fictionalized story of Indiana's very real Mylan miracle, at least track.

What is the best movie set in Indiana?

I mean, I think the most popular, right, is A Christmas Story, good old northwest Indiana.

That was going to be my.

In my research, I was writing like Doris Day film on moonlight Bay.

Then you've got the Gary, Indiana song out of music, man.

I don't know, all American.

I was doing the same sort of research.

My my answer is Rudy.

Rudy, that's what he is.

A big one is he's a big number.

I grew up in Notre Dame and.

Rudy is your pick.

O Christmas story all the way.

Yeah, I would actually I love Rudy, but I would I would lean toward Hoosiers.

You lean toward Hoosiers, I right?

I saw pictures once when I, when I moved to Indiana, I was like, I should probably finally see this movie.

I watch it, it was okay.

I saw it when I was in Ohio in high school.

Yeah.

And I remember my friend who played basketball literally leaped up at the end and was laughing with me.

Makes it.

All right.

So you have definitely.

Had an impact on him.

oh.

You know, I what I admit that.

I don't, I don't I didn't check that streaming anywhere.

Somebody should look that way.

Yeah, I'm sure it's not on this weekend.

All right.

That's that's Indiana Week in review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Elise Shrock, Republican Mike O'Brien, Kayla Dwyer of the Indy Star and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Weekend Reviews podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

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.