Senate Bill 1, a Chamber priority aimed at addressing declining reading proficiency rates, passed the full House this week on a 68-28 vote with debate on the House floor mirroring the themes that dominated lawmaker deliberations in the Senate. Most of the language in SB 1 has been greeted with broad bipartisan support in both chambers, including earlier identification of student reading deficiencies in the early grades, more proactive summer school and tutoring support for at-risk students, and an emphasis on evidence-based instructional strategies grounded in valid “science of reading” research. The acrimony surrounding SB 1 in this session has centered on whether students who can’t read by the end of third grade should be held back or “retained.” Democrat lawmakers and a handful of Republicans have balked at the retention language, arguing that it should be removed altogether or delayed until reading reforms adopted last session have more time to take effect. The Chamber and other SB 1 advocates contend that reading policies that combine proactive intervention with selective retention is preferable to social promotion practices that advance students to the next grade level regardless of skill level.
Now that SB 1 has passed the House and the Senate has concurred on the House-amended version, the retention debate has been settled (at least for this session) and the bill is headed to the Governor’s desk.
We spoke to the media this week about several bills, including House Bill 1160. The bill expands the third-party lawsuit lending statute to commercial litigants. Critically, HB 1160 precludes any foreign person (including foreign entities) from lending money to plaintiffs to pursue litigation against companies in Indiana, and it prohibits plaintiffs from sharing with a lender any proprietary information received during the course of litigation.
The bill was amended Thursday, adding provisions on disclosure but not altering the bill in a substantive way.
An amended version of House Bill 1120, sponsored by Sen. Travis Holdman (R-Markle), received unanimous approval from the Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee this week. Committee members approved an amendment that removed most of the existing provisions of the bill and assigned the deleted topics to the State and Local Tax Review Task Force (SALTR) for further study.
The removed provisions include (1) an extension of the cap on school operating referenda levy growth, (2) an extension of threshold amounts for determining whether a project is a controlled project, (3) changes to eligibility for communities to seek an excess levy appeal and (4) a prohibition of redevelopment commissions from removing a parcel from an economic development district or TIF district and subsequently adding the same parcel back to lower the base assessed value.
The Chamber supports several of these removed provisions, specifically the extension of the cap on school operating referenda, which is estimated to save taxpayers approximately $60 million. One provision added to the bill is an extension of the cap on the maximum levy growth quotient. The Chamber supports this provision to temporarily slow the growth of local government spending while the SALTR and fiscal leaders determine what is the appropriate growth rate for local government budgets. These changes expose a wide gap that will have to be bridged in the final weeks of the legislative session.
Another bill that was heavily amended this week is Senate Bill 256, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Thompson (R-Lizton). The Ways and Means Committee accepted four amendments, which vary widely in subject matter. One amendment, offered by Rep. Peggy Mayfield (R-Martinsville), provides a sales tax exemption for feminine hygiene products. The SALTR heard testimony in early January in support of the exemption. At the time, Sen. Shelli Yoder (D-Bloomington) was leading the charge in favor of exempting these products from sales tax.
An amendment to prohibit a county or municipality from entering into a sister city or cooperative agreement with an entity located in a foreign adversary was also accepted. The proposal, offered by Rep. Ben Smaltz (R-Auburn), is seemingly in response to a letter from U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN-03) encouraging the city of Carmel to reassess its participation in a sister city agreement with a Chinese municipality.
Perhaps the most impactful change to SB 256 was a 62-page amendment offered by Ways and Means Chairman Thompson. The amendment removes various provisions related to the gaming commission that were part of the introduced version of the bill and adds a multitude of other provisions. The amendment also includes language that would increase the capitalization rate used to determine the base assessment rate for agricultural land. This change would provide tax relief to farmers that is estimated at $46.5 million in 2026 and $51.6 million in 2027. This relief would decrease assessed value across the state and shift the cost of local government to other property classes. Homeowners and commercial property owners are estimated to receive the largest share of the burden shift.
It remains to be seen whether these changes will be enacted by the Legislature, but this sets the stage for large negotiations between fiscal leaders in the House and Senate as we enter the final two weeks of the session.
House Bill 1399, authored by Rep. Shane Lindauer (R-Jasper), is intended to clarify the existing Indiana definition of PFAS chemistries. The Chamber-supported bill requires the Environmental Rules Board to use the definition in certain rules concerning industrial processes and research and development.
There has been confusion over the complex chemical makeup of a class of chemistries that has been lumped into the broad term, "PFAS." The definition currently in Indiana code is based on the more hazardous soluble firefighter foam that degrades and can accumulate/permeate water, soil, and cells.
However, non-soluble PFAS is an important product that is safer and used in various industries and products including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, metals, automotive applications, batteries, food packaging, and more. There is no commercially viable alternative chemistry currently available to replace it. In addition, it would take a significant amount of regulatory work and time to get such a replacement approved for use in most products.
The bill passed the House Environmental Affairs Committee 7-5 and the full House by a vote of 64-30. However, it was heard in the Senate Environmental Affairs Committee on February 19 but was not voted on. The bill was then scheduled for an amendment and vote only on Monday, but Chairman Sen. Rick Niemeyer (R-Lowell) announced that he did not see a reason to move the bill forward and did not take a vote.
House Bill 1003, authored by Rep. Greg Steuerwald (R-Avon), eliminates the Office of Environmental Adjudication and transfers proceedings to the Office of Administrative Law Proceedings (OALP) while keeping the requirements of expertise in environmental and administrative law. It also makes OALP the ultimate authority in any administrative proceeding under its jurisdiction with certain exceptions and specifies when a state agency may be required to pay reasonable attorney's fees for judicial review proceedings, among other measures.
Initially, the Chamber opposed the bill in the House. After working closely with Rep. Steuerwald, Rep. Chris Jeter (R-Fishers), and other stakeholders to get the bill changed, we supported the bill with concerns, as we would prefer it allow deference to the agency interpretations if the court determines they are warranted.
The bill went bad when it was amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. The amendment requires a court to decide all questions of fact without deference to any previous factual finding made by the agency. This now equates to a de novo review – or a new trial – when the trial court would have to make new determinations as to facts and laws applied. Frankly, there is no point in having an administrative review if you have to start over at the trial court in a second appeal. This would be both costly and time-consuming for the regulated community considering that many appeals are initiated by third parties. The amendment passed over opposition or concerns expressed by the Chamber, Indiana State Bar Association, Indiana Manufacturers Association, Indiana Judges Association, Indiana Pork Producers Association, Indiana Dairy Producers, Indiana Corn Growers Association, Indiana Soybean Alliance, Indiana Farm Bureau, Indiana State Poultry Association and even Rep. Steuerwald himself.
The bill passed out of the committee 8-3 and is now eligible for further action on the Senate floor.
Thank you for joining our weekly Chamber e-blast. You will now be able to stay up-to-date on all things happen around the Chamber.
© 2025 LaGrange County Chamber of Commerce. All Rights Reserved. Powered By Chamber Nation. | Member Services by Pippily.Ai