This is going to be bad for business. HB 1158 concerns small claims, civil actions, and sheriff’s fees. Among other things, it requires the Sheriff to collect a $13 service of process fee “from a party requesting service of a writ, an order, a process, a notice, a tax warrant, or any other paper completed by the sheriff.”

I believe this will apply to the situation, among others, where a writ of body attachment is issued by the court in a civil case, commanding the Sheriff to arrest a defendant who failed to appear in court when ordered. Most commonly, this occurs in the context of a proceeding supplemental where the plaintiff is attempting to collect on an unpaid judgment. The judgment defendant is ordered to appear in court to testify as to his income and assets. If the defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff requests that the court issue a writ of attachment. The court issues a writ to the Sheriff who is commanded to arrest the defendant who fails to appear.

A lot of people fail to appear. If plaintiffs stop requesting writs for people who disobey court orders because the plaintiff does not want to pay for them, that could affect the effective administration of justice (not to mention decrease the rate of collections.)

According to the fiscal impact statement, this will take $13.27 million dollars out of the pockets of civil litigants. Primarily this burden will be borne by creditors who have already been hit once by the debtor, hit again by a steep increase in court filing fees in 2005, and now once again by a “sheriff’s fee” if you actually want to see a court order executed. Once upon a time, Indiana had a system where there were separate fees for many different kinds of services involved in the legal process. But, that was an accounting and administrative nightmare. So, the General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom, raised the filing fee and made it one flat fee that covered everything. Now the filing fee hasn’t gone down any. In fact, it went up dramatically last year. But the legislature is bringing back the nickel and dime fees for additional services.

On the upside, sort of, the legislation specifies that the $10 extra defendant fee does not apply to garnishee defendants. However, it goes on to impose a $10 fee for each garnishee defendant beyond the third one. I’m sure the clerks will love going through the file to count prior garnishees.

Update Thanks to the Indiana Law Blog for the link. I thought some information on the movers and shakers behind this bill would be useful.

The Senate has appointed Senators Bray and Lanane as its conferees on the bill. Senator Bray sponsored the bill in the Senate. Senator Lanane voted against it.

The House has appointed Representatives Richardson and Lawson as conferees and Representatives Thomas and Kuzman as advisors. Representative Richardson authored the bill. Representatives Richardson, Lawson, and Thomas all voted for the bill. Representative Kuzman did not vote.

Hoosiers are too stupid to know when they’re going in the right direction says today’s Indy Star.  O.k., I’m paraphrasing. But what else am I to take from the Star’s urging Daniels to keep going in the same direction despite the fact that only 37% of Hoosiers approve of that direction. The first rule of holes is to stop digging. Contrary to that rule, the Indy Star editorial board urges Gov. Daniels to dig faster.

Adoption of Daylight Saving Time, they assert without evidence, was a necessary change, however, for a state trying to compete in the transportation and logistics sectors. I’ll keep an eye out for a large increase in high paying transportation and logistics jobs for Hoosiers.

Governor Daniels is spending approximately $260,000 on negative TV ads in Southern Indiana districts represented by Democrats who voted “no” on Toll Road privatization.  Obviously Southern Indiana is the place to go for these ads since the Toll Road privatization plan, at its heart, is a matter of taxing Northern Indiana motorists to pay for road projects in the rest of the state. Residents of Southern Indiana are the least likely to travel the Toll Road and, therefore, least likely to care what happens to that piece of Indiana’s transportation infrastructure.

Niki Kelly has an article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette on the ads as well as a discussion of conflicts between House and Senate versions of HB 1008 that need to be resolved before it can be passed. I found the following conflict particularly interesting:

A second provision causing concern is language requiring Daniels to come back to the General Assembly for specific authorization to build the I-69 extension as a toll road.

Southern Indiana lawmakers who support the construction of the road have rejected this concept. They acknowledge a toll road is the only way the road will get done and believe a vote specifically on that subject would turn into a referendum on the popularity of the project.

Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, vowed to vote “no” on any final compromise if the I-69 language isn’t fixed.

“That concerns me because I think again we shouldn’t be talking about whether we build it or not, we should be talking about when we build it and do it as soon as possible,” she said.

To me, this sounds for all the world like an abdication of responsibility by Senator Becker and others who do not want further legislative oversight of a project as significant as an I-69 extension. The article lists several other thorny issues that must be resolved. It will be interesting to see if Governor 37% can keep the wheels from coming off of this one.

By a vote of 37 to 13, the Senate concurred in House Amendments to SB 71 with respect to drainage assessments and stormwater. The bill provides that state and political subdivisions are not exempt from drainage assessments. County treasurers are required to send the state land office an annual list of state property for which drainage assessments are delinquent. The bill also establishes the procedures under which an excluded city or town in Marion county may withdraw from the storm water special taxing district.

From the Fiscal Impact Statement, it sounds like the State is already obligated to pay drainage assessments but possibly is not being fully assessed for all of its obligations. There will be increased administrative costs to the treasurer for preparing the annual list, but that cost will presumably be covered by additional drainage revenues. Properties of political subdivisions, schools, and libraries would not be exempt from drainage assessments and expenses would therefore increase for those entities.

An AP story I saw in the Princeton Daily Clarion reports “Speaker all but nixes chances for local tax options.” Last year, state legislators balanced their budget on the backs of the local governments. For a good many years, the State has limited local government’s ability to structure taxes in such a way as to pay for the services they are required to provide. In return, the State has compensated local government by providing a subsidy to relieve property tax burdens.

In the 2005 budget, the State cut the subsidy. This year, the legislature was looking for ways to increase local government taxing flexibility so the entire burden of the tax increase was not placed on property tax payers. The Senate recently passed a provision that would allow local governments to raise local option income taxes to offset property tax increases for operating costs or reduce property taxes outright.

House Speaker Brian Bosma said Friday that it
was unlikely new tax options for local governments could be worked out
in the final days of this legislative session but that he would make
local spending and revenue-raising reforms a priority next year.

. . .

Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, said the plans
presented by IACT and the governor would allow local governments to
impose alternative taxes and use some of the money for new spending
beyond property tax relief.

He had said he was not interested in
that, and even though the Senate passed a plan, Bosma indicated little
interest in pursuing the issue any further this session.

“I have conveyed my thoughts both to our own
fiscal leaders and to the Senate fiscal leaders that it doesn’t make
sense to address local government taxation until we address local
government spending, and it will be very difficult to do that in the 10
days remaining,” Bosma said.

Any time the problem of property tax increases resulting from the 2005 budget comes up, House Republicans try to blame local government spending. That’s disingenuous and, frankly, a little offensive. And I don’t think it will work. There are an awful lot of Republicans in local government who probably don’t appreciate being thrown over the boat by their legislative brethren.

Local government expenditures have not increased particularly since 2005. The immediate cause of property tax increases will be almost entirely attributable to the property tax subsidy reduction passed by the legislature. But on a more general level, local expenditures increase because, as the saying goes, “shit runs downhill.” (Sorry Mom.) An example I mentioned  yesterday was that of cutting funding for mental hospitals. The state cuts mental health funding so the county jails gets more inmates who are committing crimes because of their mental illnesses. Counties have to pick up the tab. Very often where you see a necessary expenditure cut by the state, you will see the expense pop up in a form the local government has to pay more for as the provider of last resort.  So, it’s simply wrong for legislators  to try to duck the consequences of their budgetary choices by implying that local government is somehow guilty of extravagant spending.

Theodore Kim, writing for the Indy Star, has an article on Senator Meeks’ plan to add I-69 route reconsideration to the Toll Road privatization debate and HB 1008.

He has already started the debate to some extent by language his committee added to HB 1008 that prohibits the “route of a tollway project” from terminating at a 4 lane (or more) road in Perry Township. Apparently he will be introducing an amendment on Second Reading that would alter the proposed route of I-69 between Indianapolis and Bloomington but keep the same route from Bloomington to Evansville.

I’m sure the Governor will be thrilled to have the contentiousness of the I-69 route added to the already heated Toll Road privatization debate.

SB 77 regarding shooting preserves passed Second Reading with a hotly contested amendment introduced by Rep. Wolkins being adopted 47 to 46.

The Engrossed Senate Bill was a simple affair that prohibited establishing shooting preserves within one mile of a state owned game refuge or state public hunting ground — this reduces the radius from its current status at 5 miles. It also allowed the director of the department of natural resources to adopt rules prohibiting duck shooting on a shooting preserve.

Rep. Wolkins’ amendment adds provisions phasing out hunting and harvesting animals in shooting preserves by 2013 and prohibiting releasing an animal in a shooting preserve after 2011. Only persons who have obtained a shooting preserve license and proves that they allowed hunting in 2003, 2004, or 2005 will be allowed to get a license between 2006 and 2013.

Looks like Rep. Heim owes Rep. Wolkins a big “thank you” for making his legislation a lot harder to pass.

According to a story by Nikki Kelly in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, this is an effort by Rep. Wolkins to retaliate against DNR for deciding to shut down “high-fence deer operations.” He says it’s hypocritical for DNR to shut down canned deer hunting without going after pheasant and quail preserves.

I think Rep. Heim does an excellent job of shooting down (sorry) this line of reasoning:

Rep. Steve Heim, R-Culver, said the game preserve industry has a long history in the state, dating back to 1969.

He noted that 20 percent of the birds escape the preserves by flying away – something deer cannot do.

“Deer run into fences,” Heim said. “If a deer can have wings, it might be a fair comparison.”

The article goes on to explain DNR’s position in the matter.

SB 71 concerning drainage assessments and storm water passed Second Reading with an amendment specific to Marion County that passed 48 to 45.

Provides that the
state and political subdivisions are not exempt from drainage
assessments. Provides that the state is not entitled to a refund of a
drainage assessment paid before January 1, 2006. Requires county
treasurers to send annually to the state land office a list of state
property for which drainage assessments are delinquent. Establishes the
procedures for and the conditions under which an excluded city or town
in Marion County may withdraw from the storm water special taxing
district.

SB 54 having to do with handguns, use of deadly force, and one’s duty to retreat passed Second Reading in the House. Among other things, the law specifies that in circumstances where a person is justified in using deadly force, the person does not have a duty to retreat. It also adds protection against unlawful entry of an occupied motor vehicle as a justification for use of deadly force. The bill also permits issuance of a lifetime handgun license.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that SB 111 which would curb availability of junk food at schools looked likely to die on the vine because of Rep. Behning’s, who chairs the House Education Committee, apparent disinterest in the bill. Looks like I was wrong.

According to Mary Beth Schneider, writing for the Indy Star, the bill passed out of committee unanimously today, apparently without amendment from the version passed by the Senate. Well, good. And kudos to Rep. Behning for allowing a hearing on the bill.