[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6622354,"mediaKeyId","2784946-57d5fce0b575b8a0f7db70eefc18dc3e","parentId",2784946,"title","House Bill 15‑23 prompts debate over local units’ ability to invest public funds outside jurisdiction","audioSeconds",3924,"startMs",1384000,"endMs",5308000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784946-57d5fce0b575b8a0f7db70eefc18dc3e&start=1384&end=5308","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784946-57d5fce0b575b8a0f7db70eefc18dc3e/thumbnail_1384000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6622354/Indiana/House-Bill-1523-prompts-debate-over-local-units-ability-to-invest-public-funds-outside-jurisdiction","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622354-c50cdf743aec496683e6297d63a1d7dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159168&Signature=MbnurCNHp2xPdRWiouD~dY2P0~WMKxCdQ47h1l3Ri24XmCgBvS~-QGDn~mGEg5PNQ~dBAgkgZqnlRZbkyOUs9dVzXznYOUtBhRzTUsXh~GO5jlnwlN96mxE~RKAGTS2VplLJ0hGaYhZTPrXSydltZzvaWdNpPJIsGanY0EYw0yJDoWy0OlvOjkJyodsdpz-KLBWje5ayFCzbQe05VaK-TqIDsmDbJ2Jpp8El7r7UTV~aPS5wKcgyt3YGO37jCKrG~lejzxAFeptAkaG3LTHfOObEgkQVbOEHkR56frq2P~qf92y2uijxm3KGSv1hHRaLy1ERXGsRS~jYTeFZ0szKtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Indiana General Assembly","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","Lawmakers heard lengthy testimony and discussion on House Bill 15‑23, legislation that would change where local units of government may place insured public deposits and would retroactively deem certain out‑of‑territory investments lawful.

Representative Pierce, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure would give counties, school corporations and library districts more flexibility to seek higher yields on insured certificates of deposit. Pierce said current law requires local units to invest in institutions with a brick‑and‑mortar presence inside the unit’s geographic boundary and that the bill would allow some units to use institutions located elsewhere in the county or, for counties, in contiguous counties. The bill also contains a provision intended to retroactively protect investments made since 2018 from audit exceptions tied to an earlier change in state law.

Mike Neal, executive director of the Indiana Board for Depositories and a staffer for the treasurer’s office, described the board’s role as insurer of public funds above FDIC coverage. Neal said the state fund stood at about $341,000,000 and the board has bonding capacity of roughly $300,000,000; he also said the board’s policy role is to implement whatever territorial limits the General Assembly establishes.

Testimony showed disagreement over how widespread out‑of‑territory investments had been. Baker Tilly and the Indiana Library Federation testified that the 2018 change produced a common interpretation that some local units could shop statewide and that a number of entities acted on that view; witnesses offered differing estimates of how many units are affected. Mark Schublak (Baker Tilly/Indiana Library Federation) and Scott Bowling (Indiana Association of School Business Officials) said many units acted in good faith under that understanding and urged retroactive protection to avoid audit exceptions.

Opponents and skeptics—including the Indiana Bankers Association and several county and city representatives—said the bill risks moving deposits away from local banks, which use those deposits to fund local loans and services. Dax Denton of the Indiana Bankers Association said current law permits cities and towns an exemption that lets them use banks statewide; other political subdivisions generally must prefer institutions inside their political boundaries unless they have no local brick‑and‑mortar institutions or meet other triggers. Denton asked for clearer statutory triggers governing when units may expand the geographic reach of solicitation for bids.

Witnesses also asked for technical clarifications in the bill text. Panelists requested explicit language limiting the change to certificates of deposit and asked the committee to clarify whether “invest” and “deposit” references apply differently to checking accounts versus term investments. Several speakers urged specifying that contiguous‑county provisions apply to Indiana counties only.

The treasurer’s and bankers’ representatives expressed different positions on the bill’s contingencies and the scope of retroactivity. Representative Pierce said the treasurer’s office had identified about a dozen entities with out‑of‑territory investments but other witnesses estimated a larger number; the sponsor said even a single instance of uninsured out‑of‑territory investment warranted legislative clarification.

Multiple stakeholders said they would continue technical work with the sponsor; committee leaders said they would not move the bill in the current hearing and expected a future amendment to address outstanding drafting and policy issues.

No formal committee vote on the bill occurred during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Insurance and Financial Institutions Meetings Wednesday, Mar. 26 - 9:30am","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 15‑23 would expand when and where local units can place insured certificates of deposit, retroactively protect certain investments made since 2018 from audit exceptions, and allow counties limited geographic expansions; bankers and the treasurer’s office offered differing views on scope and risk.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature IN, Indiana","taxId",77679,"location","Indiana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622360,"Committee amends House Bill 1587, approves measure 8-0 to send to floor",1097,282000,1379000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784946-57d5fce0b575b8a0f7db70eefc18dc3e&start=282&end=1379","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784946-57d5fce0b575b8a0f7db70eefc18dc3e/thumbnail_282000.jpg","/articles/6622360/Indiana/Committee-amends-House-Bill-1587-approves-measure-8-0-to-send-to-floor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622360-c1c98a5180662753c0a32ea0a5b0c001/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159168&Signature=M2DAlhSBXfq96Viqzan0DiUNAytoIg0x~JijC8Ee2jzZEt53v1Ud33Y7SfvF5EN5LKyq5TrCfOd~aJiw~9N7HT9oC7Uk~JsOf7-XVmq7vVuhu5O8HQMNmP485wmxeTJUNAMIV5WkFc24UDyzrVD-hmCEmoRXha7wjBqz7yk8fXg0ts~rmuSMzA50hZPpZvZydU0U2Cvgzb6trABoML2llLKSvSgzZFSe3dOTfW-2wp1LNo603jdWuM3adZbaomVAmeMFTErWRGOGW10jIuqRU1WzeEl-WCIod5~0OR0vAGpH2I98ifQL5tG7RqzHWmZHA2frlwyJhpz-JLy5XXFugQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A committee of the Indiana General Assembly on the bill cycle for House Bill 15‑87 adopted a package of amendments that substantially altered the bill and then voted 8‑0 to advance the amended measure to the full chamber.

The committee, led by Chairman Baldwin, accepted Amendment 10, which Senator Gaskell described as deleting “pages 9 through 12 of the bill, and the last, several lines, about two thirds of page 8,” and taking those provisions out for further stakeholder negotiations. Senator Gaskell said those provisions “weren’t quite ready” and needed another year of work. The committee also adopted Amendment 9, which Senator Gaskell said “is going to repeal the provisions related to mortgage transactions and real estate transactions,” and Amendment 11, which gives additional time for an administrative rule to be promulgated.

Representative Carbaugh, the bill author, summarized the revised bill for the committee. Representative Carbaugh said the bill would authorize mobile integrated health providers to bill and be reimbursed by payors for non‑emergency runs, remove a separate requirement for health insurers to hold a public forum that the sponsor said has been sparsely attended, extend the deadline for the Indiana Public Employers’ Plan (IPEP) to convert to a reciprocal insurance company, and allow managed care organizations and emergency services providers to negotiate reimbursement rates with a fiscal‑safeguard provision enabling the Family and Social Services Administration secretary to void agreements that would adversely affect the Medicaid budget. Carbaugh also said the bill would allow insurers to choose one of two methods to determine employer group size going forward but not switch back and forth between methods.

Elizabeth Berg of the Indiana Land Title Association told the committee the association supported the repeal in Amendment 9 of provisions tied to a foreclosure‑era database (described in testimony as the “R Real database”), saying regulators and task‑force members told them the data in that database “are not used.” Berg asked the committee not to rebuild or maintain a database that state regulators do not use and that would impose unnecessary costs. Marty Wood of the Insurance Institute and other witnesses said they supported parts of the amended bill, and representatives of local programs and advocacy groups, including Ryan Ritchie (City of Crawfordsville), Bill Elliott (AIM), and Amber Marr (AARP Indiana), also testified in favor of the mobile integrated health component.

After testimony and brief committee discussion, a motion to advance the bill was called. The roll call recorded “yes” votes from Senators Randolph, Kodoro, Walker, Gaskell, Schmidt, Freeman, Crasco and Chairman Baldwin; Senator Alting was recorded as excused. The chair announced the result as “8 to 0” and said the bill would move to the floor. Chairman Baldwin later said the bill would be recommitted and that further amendments were possible.

The amendments removed sections that committee members and stakeholders said required more work or broader agreement, and supporters said the remaining provisions were technical changes and policy updates. Committee members asked for clarifications on constitutional language and the practical operation of several statutory thresholds that remain in the bill; Senator Randolph asked whether court‑tested statutory language should be added to protect against challenges to government modifications of contractual terms.

Committee leaders signaled willingness to continue refining language before final floor action. Representative Carbaugh and Senators who sponsored the amendments said they would consult with stakeholders and the House side on final language before the bill proceeds further.

Votes at a glance: The committee advanced the amended House Bill 15‑87 by roll call, 8 ayes, 0 nays; one member was recorded excused. The committee chair said the measure will be recommitted and that additional amendments may follow.","The committee adopted three substantive amendments to House Bill 15‑87, removing several contested sections and delaying one rule deadline, then voted 8‑0 to send the amended bill to the floor. Supporters cited mobile integrated health reimbursement and other technical changes; opponents’ concerns about removed sections will be revisited.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Bill 15‑23 prompts debate over local units’ ability to invest public funds outside jurisdiction

Committee amends House Bill 1587, approves measure 8-0 to send to floor