Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Indiana House votes down bill to eliminate township boards

By STAN MADDUX

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — Major reform of township government in Indiana has again failed, but a measure to hold townships a bit more accountable financially is advancing at the Statehouse.

Originally, House Bill 1650 would have eliminated all township boards in every county except for Marion County by Jan. 1, 2020. The measure, authored by State Rep. Cindy Ziemke (R-Batesville), passed the House Committee on Government Regulatory Reform 8-3 but died Feb. 12 by a 75-18 vote on the House floor.

“I think that’s a resounding victory. We worked very hard to kill that bill,” said Deb Driskell, president of the Indiana Township Assoc.

State Rep. Jim Pressel (R-Rolling Prairie) feels the measure likely would have passed if not for an amendment fastened to the bill after it was endorsed by the committee. The amendment pushed back the deadline for eliminating township boards by two years and would have sent the measure to a study committee for further review this summer for possible changes.

Pressel said many lawmakers were confused by an amendment that seemed to work the process backwards by assigning a legislative committee to study the matter further, after a date for the measure to take effect was already imposed.

Under the measure, township trustees would have stayed on. Without township boards to present annual budgets to for approval, trustees from townships with tax rates above the state average would have been required to submit their budgets to their respective county councils for a final review, instead.

Trustees in townships with tax rates below the state average, though, could have sidestepped that process and approved their own budgets.

Driskell said township boards are a source of checks and balances closer to the process of local government than a county council already tasked with overseeing its own, much larger budget and other responsibilities. She said the legislation would have opened the door for “hundreds” of trustees to act alone on budgets and other matters, such as approving contracts and policies decided now by township boards.

“It would be irresponsible of the state to leave an official with no accountability for all of those things,” Driskell said.

For well over a decade, there have been reform efforts by state lawmakers alleging township government is outdated, inefficient and wracked with nepotism. Last year, for example, a measure failed that called for townships with a population of 1,200 or fewer people to merge with an adjacent township.

Pressel said township government plays a critical role in areas like poor relief and fire protection, but he sees potential to save money and increase efficiency. He said a more efficient township government structure could improve delivery of services in some of them.

“’I think it's an important discussion to continue to have,” said Pressel, who as vice chair of the committee, made the motion to advance the bill eliminating township boards to the House floor.

Another spoke in the wheel of township reform this year is now before the state Senate after passing out of the House by an 88-9 vote. House Bill 1177 requires townships ending the budget year with a surplus of 150 percent or more of expenditures originally estimated for the year to submit to the state a three-year capital spending plan.

The purpose would be to illustrate the surplus dollars are earmarked for a specific purpose and not simply being hoarded. Townships not submitting a plan would not receive their property tax monies.

Currently, Pressel said there is about $500 million in unspent funds in township coffers statewide. He said the intent of the legislation is to free up any money that might not be serving any real purpose and give it back to property taxpayers in those townships.

“As long you got a goal and it’s a good goal to have, then I don’t think the taxpayers have a problem with it. But if we’re just allowing it to accumulate, I think the taxpayers want to know why,” Pressel said.

Driskell, who supports H.B. 1177, said what’s claimed to be unspent township money is inflated and misunderstood. She explained part of the unspent funds is what townships receive from the state to cover the first six months of expenses for the upcoming year.

The fresh money is counted as surplus funds because it comes in and is on the ledgers prior to the current year’s budget ending on Dec. 31, she said.

Other unexpended funds are for fire protection, since that’s a primary responsibility for townships, and to cover future expenses like a fire truck, which goes up significantly in cost over the years. “It’s not just cash laying around,” she said.

Driskell also said most township board members are paid just $500 a year, an amount well below the $2,000 mark for an individual to be considered a volunteer.

3/13/2019