February 22, 2019 TOP STORIES

Transcription

1 February 22, 2019 TOP STORIES Senate Majority Fails to Follow Will of Voters, Passes Generic Bias Crimes Bill SPONSORED BY: Reid Health Senate Bill 12 Sentencing and Bias Crimes Authored by Sen. Mike Bohacek (R-Michigan City) and Sen. Ron Alting (R-Lafayette) As amended, says the court may consider bias in imposing a criminal sentence. The Latest: Approved by the Senate Public Policy Committee 9-1 on Monday. On second reading on Tuesday, the list of protected categories was removed via a Senate majority-led amendment by Sen. Aaron Freeman (R-Indianapolis) that passed Then on Thursday, the amended bill passed the full Senate 39-10; the only Republican to vote no was co-author Alting, who said he was keeping a promise he made to his constituents that bias crimes legislation should have a list of protected categories. Chamber Position: Oppose as amended Chamber Action/Commentary: The Chamber is a strong supporter of the state Legislature passing a comprehensive bias/hate crimes bill and has made it a priority. We commend co-authors Mike Bohacek and Ron Alting for their original bill and continued efforts. During the committee testimony on Monday, Chamber President Kevin Brinegar addressed why passing a comprehensive bias crimes bill is so important to the business community. Our member companies are in an intense battle for talent as they struggle to find enough skilled workers, and they believe that it is simply the right thing to do. Consider that for the first time in our country s history that there are more job openings than there are job seekers. Therefore, it is critical to remove any or all strikes against Indiana such as not having a bias crimes statute to assist our employers in filling their own positions, so that they can compete effectively in a global economy.

2 Thus, we are deeply disappointed in the Republican majority for removing the protected categories and for not doing its job in this case to clearly eliminate the unwarranted, but existing, perception by some that Indiana is an unwelcoming state. The current bill will not protect persons of all races, religions and lifestyles. Nearly 75% of Hoosiers support passage of a bias crime law. Republican, Democrat, white, minority, urban, rural, young and old voters all are in strong support. This debate is now about politics within the Statehouse, not among Indiana voters. It is time for legislators to truly represent the wishes of their constituents. Brinegar s statement issued to the media after Thursday s vote by the full Senate: Unfortunately, what passed the Senate does not meet the all-important criteria of a meaningful bias crimes law. The Indiana Chamber and its members will continue to work with all legislators to do just that. We agree with Gov. Holcomb that the current legislation does not even remove Indiana from the list of five states without a bias crimes statute. With more than two full months left in this legislative session, there is still time for the House to properly address this issue and for the Senate to act again this time to pass a comprehensive law. If the General Assembly fails to do so, it will only unnecessarily fuel this controversy. There is no rational reason not to pass a meaningful and comprehensive bias crimes law this year to remove Indiana from the list of five states without one. Our state s reputation is at stake. We must send a strong message of inclusiveness to help ensure our state s future success. We knew it was going to be a tough task to get the majority of Republican senators to embrace the introduced version of the bill and all indications were that the majority of the caucus had to be on board to go forward yet we are nonetheless left frustrated by the turn of events. The Chamber board-adopted bias crimes policy position states that we support a bias crimes statute that is both as inclusive as possible and articulates specific categories of individuals and groups to be protected including race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation and gender identity. We will continue to pursue that goal! We now turn our attention to House members, who have expressed reservations about including a list of protected categories, and encourage the Governor to continue to play an active role in helping drive the desired outcome. Resources: Kevin Brinegar at (317) or kbrinegar@indianachamber.com; Adam H. Berry at (317) or aberry@indianachamber.com Quick Hits: Hopeful Signals on Smoking Age Increase; School Accountability, Data Center Tax Exemption and Death-on-the-Job Penalty All Clear the House Senate Bill 425 (Minimum Age to Purchase Tobacco and E-Liquids), authored by Sen. Randy Head (R- Logansport), did not receive a hearing in the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee before the deadline, but there is still room for optimism. The Chamber priority bill previously passed via the Senate Health Committee would have raised the legal age for smoking tobacco products and e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 years. Senator Travis Holdman (R-Markle), who is chairman of the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee, has indicated that he may amend the 18 to 21 language into the e-liquids tax measure, HB 1444, authored by Rep. Tim Brown (R-Crawfordsville). The Chamber will continue discussions with Sens. Holdman and Head on this issue; we are hopeful SB 425 will find a home in HB 1444.

3 House Bill 1404 (School Accountability), authored by Rep. Tony Cook (R-Cicero), passed the full House this week The Chamber has been advocating publicly and working behind the scenes to make the case for a simpler and more meaningful school accountability system that s understood by parents and is aligned with the needs of Hoosier students and employers. This proposal signals a shift away from test scores as the primary means for determining whether students are prepared for success beyond high school. House Bill 1405 (Taxation of Data Centers), authored by Rep. Ed Soliday (R-Valparaiso), passed the full House on Tuesday The bill provides for a state sales and use tax exemption for the purchase of certain data center equipment that is located in a data center. While data centers are not high-volume employers themselves, they make huge capital investments that entice their customers and affiliated service providers to locate nearby. The very presence of a data center often attracts high technology companies in need of their services. Indiana should be competing for these developments. House Bill 1341 (Occupational Safety and Health), authored by Rep. Martin Carbaugh (R-Fort Wayne), passed the House unanimously The bill attempts to address negligent events by an employer that led to a worker s tragic death in Allen County. It says that an employer who knowingly violates any standard, rule or order that involves an employee fatality shall be assessed a civil penalty of not less than $9,472 for each violation and may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $132,598. Indiana OSHA reported one workplace fatality in 2017 where the employer received a knowing citation; in 2018, there were two such fatalities. Fort Wayne Sens. Liz Brown and Justin Busch are now co-sponsors of the bill. The Chamber is neutral on the measure as written and will be actively involved in any discussions on the Senate side so that the content of the bill remains acceptable. That said, it s still uncertain if the bill will get a committee hearing in the Senate. House Bill 1629 (Various Education Matters), authored by Rep. Bob Behning (R-Indianapolis), cleared the House The bill includes several provisions aligned with Chamber policy priorities, including expansion of state-supported internships and career-technical education programming for high school students and a new high school graduation requirement designed to increase student access to financial aid for further education and workforce training. We believe HB 1629 helps more Hoosier students gain the relevant work experience and skills Indiana employers need and our state s economy demands. Senate Bill 108 (Coverage for Pharmacist Care), authored by Sen. Ron Grooms (R-Jeffersonville), was amended this week and turned into an interim study committee; it then passed the Senate Insurance and Financial Institutions Committee unanimously. Due to the amendment, our position moves from opposed to neutral. The original bill was a mandate on health insurance plans and required a reimbursement rate to be paid to a pharmacist (within their scope of practice) to the same extent that a physician would be paid or another provider. A workable compromise between all parties still seems unlikely, but now there will be more in-depth discussions over the summer and fall. Resources: Mike Ripley at (317) or mripley@indianachamber.com; Jason Bearce at (317) or jbearce@indianachamber.com; Adam H. Berry at (317) or aberry@indianachamber.com

4 Bill Deadline Next Week; Worker s Comp Benefit Increase Amended, Now Expected to Clear Senate Monday is the last day for bills originating in the House to pass the full House. Meanwhile, Tuesday marks the same milestone for Senate bills. Among the most significant still awaiting final action: Senate Bill 565 Department of State Revenue Authored by Sen. Travis Holdman (R-Markle) Contains numerous changes to the administrative procedures governing the operations of the Department of Revenue. While the Chamber supports the bulk of the bill, we strongly oppose the proposals that would unnecessarily restrict the rights of taxpayers. Senator Holdman is working with us to address our concerns with a second reading amendment. Senate Bill 358 Worker s Compensation Authored by Sen. Karen Tallian (D-Portage) As introduced, increased benefits for injuries and disablements by 10% each year for three years, beginning on July 1, The bill was amended to a 2% increase for the next three years. Chamber Position: Oppose The Latest: As mentioned last week, the bill tied 5-5 in the Senate Pensions and Labor Committee, thus was eligible to return for a vote. Committee chairman Phil Boots (R-Crawfordsville) rescheduled a vote for Wednesday afternoon. On the second vote, the bill passed 7-1. The only no was Sen. Chris Garten (R- Charlestown). Senators Chip Perfect (R-Lawrenceburg) and Victoria Spartz (R-Noblesville) previously no votes were not present. And Sen. Blake Doriot (R-Syracuse) switched his original no vote to a yes. Chamber Action/Commentary: Prior to the second vote, the Indiana Chamber met with Sen. Greg Walker (R-Columbus), who was absent during the original vote, and discussed the importance of packaging a worker s comp benefit increase with a benefit for employers. Recent statistics from the Workers Compensation Research Institute regarding medical cost trends were also discussed. It was clear from our conversation that Walker was voting for the bill. Most of the senators believe this is a minimal increase and it would be a waste of political capital to fight the vote on the floor; thus, it is expected to pass the full Senate. The Chamber has already had discussions regarding the bill with Rep. Matt Lehman (R-Berne), who will most likely be the House sponsor. The Chamber will be working to get the bill in better form or kill it outright depending on how the negotiations go. Resources: Bill Waltz at (317) or bwaltz@indianachamber.com; Mike Ripley at (317) or mripley@indianachamber.com

5 IN OTHER NEWS Taxation and Public Finance Return of the Big Box Store Assessment Controversy Senate Bill 623 Property Tax Matters Authored by Sen. Brian Buchanan (R-Lebanon) Provides that a county assessor or township assessor (if any) may request the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) to perform a state conducted assessment of a particular commercial building or structure used for retail purposes. Full details at The Latest: Amended and passed by the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee 13-1; awaits action by the full Senate. Chamber Position: Oppose Chamber Action/Commentary: The Chamber opposes this bill on the basis that it is both premature in attempting to address the issue its substantive measures are not appropriate responses to the underlying issues it attempts to address and because those provisions undermine the integrity and equity of our property tax assessment system in a manner that is certain to raise numerous legal challenges. Ironically, the latter is the very thing it is in part intended to reduce. By dictating a particular method of assessment be applied to a defined group of properties and excluding objective evidence that would typically be considered under generally accepted appraisal principles, this legislation represents a partial return to a structure for determining assessments that was ruled unconstitutional over 20 years ago. The Chamber appreciates the concerns of local officials stemming from appeals of some of these type properties, being referred to as big box stores, but strongly opposes the manner in which this bill attempts to resolve those concerns. The bill overly restricts the rights of taxpayers to obtain a fair assessment of their property and is designed to arrive at an artificially high level of assessment. Senate Bill 623 is very similar to legislation that was passed in 2015 when the big box assessment controversy surfaced in the General Assembly. That 2015 legislation was repealed in 2016 when it was determined to be inherently flawed. Replacement legislation was passed incorporating an appraisal concept known as market segmentation and the DLGF was directed to promulgate rules to govern implementation of that concept. The DLGF rule went into effect January 1, To date, local officials have failed to avail themselves of the potential market segmentation offers. Instead, they have clung to old arguments that have been rejected by the adjudicating bodies; consequently, they lose the appeals. The potential for market segmentation to lead to results that alleviate the local officials concerns, and discourage appeals, is not yet known because the law has simply not been effectively utilized. This circumstance renders the current proposal (to go back to a legally flawed system) simply premature. The Chamber has gone to great lengths to communicate these points, and our testimony emphasized that this legislation does not represent the appropriate way of addressing the problems. If problems persist after some interpretation of market segmentation can be scrutinized, then the Chamber will reconsider our position. But for now, we will continue our efforts to maintain an equitable assessment system one that does not dictate an assessment method for the sole purpose of realizing higher

6 assessments for particular properties. With respect to SB 623, we will turn our attention to the House where we will continue our work to protect the fairness and integrity of Indiana s assessment structure. Resource: Bill Waltz at (317) or bwaltz@indianachamber.com Energy/Environment/Infrastructure Utility Relocation for Road Projects Needs More Work Senate Bill 517 Utility Relocation for Road Projects Authored by Sen. Randy Head (R-Logansport) This bill provides that if a utility hasn t acted to comply, apply for a waiver or appeal within 90 days after receiving an order from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) to relocate utility facilities that will interfere with a planned construction project involving the state highway system, then INDOT can take matters into its own hands. INDOT may relocate, or cause the relocation of, the utility's facilities, or may file a complaint in the appropriate court for an emergency order to compel the utility to relocate the facilities. Full details at Chamber Position: Oppose The Latest: The Senate Utilities Committee heard the bill on Thursday and adopted an amendment that was introduced in the hearing. The amended bill would codify an existing INDOT rule and add up to a $20,000 fine for utilities that fail to relocate their infrastructure in accordance with the law. Two witnesses spoke in favor of the legislation, while nine spoke in opposition. The bill passed out of the committee, 10-0, with the commitment that Sen. Head would continue to work on the bill with the interested groups. The bill is now eligible for further action on the Senate floor. Chamber Action/Commentary: The Indiana Chamber testified in opposition to this bill. The Chamber supports the timely construction and/or repair of roads in Indiana. However, we have concerns that this bill has a very strong potential to interrupt key utility services and drive up costs that will be passed along to the ratepayers. INDOT and county governments should not be relocating utility infrastructure. The utilities have the expertise and are better situated to move their own infrastructure or explore alternative plans. Resource: Greg Ellis at (317) or gellis@indianachamber.com EVENTS/INFORMATION The first edition of the Indiana Chamber 2019 Legislative Agenda is online at This document matches our policy positions (developed by employees from member companies and approved by our board of directors) to specific legislation introduced in the House and Senate. We plan to use votes on the bills those that make it to the House or Senate floor contained in this document in our annual Legislative Vote Analysis. March 12 Chamber Day Dinner (formerly Legislative Dinner) Join top policymakers and business leaders from throughout the state at the premier legislative event of the year, held at the Indiana Roof Ballroom. The keynote will be delivered by Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute and best-selling author. Register to attend at