Sen. Freeman’s bill would require hearings before cities can add nuisance fines to property tax bills

Sen. John Freeman introduced Senate Bill 197 at a State Senate committee hearing to require a hearing before municipalities may place civil nuisance penalties on a property tax bill, citing cases from Indianapolis and Marion County in which owners repairing buildings continued to face recurring fines.

Freeman said the bill is meant to protect property owners who are working to repair blighted properties. "Citizens in Indiana have the right to be innocent until they're proven guilty," he said, arguing that the current process places fines on tax bills without an up‑front review.

The bill grew out of Freeman’s account of two Marion County property owners: Jim Trimble, owner of Wanamaker Feed and Seed, who described a building with a collapsed roof that he said he had spent about $80,000 repairing, and another constituent who buys and renovates low‑value houses. Freeman said one nuisance assessment on Trimble’s property totaled about $1,900, and that penalties continued to be levied every 180 days despite ongoing repairs.

Abby Brands, director of the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services for the city of Indianapolis, told the committee the bill as written would "significantly impact our ability to enforce unsafe building law and hold property owners accountable." Brands said eliminating the city's ability to put civil penalties on tax bills would remove the primary enforcement “teeth” the city uses to prompt compliance, and estimated large administrative and staffing costs if the bill required hearings before penalties took effect.

Brands provided data about current operations: the city reduced penalty frequency to one every 180 days while inspecting every 90 days and, she said, "only 10% of repair cases meet compliance" before penalties are assessed. Since 2022 the city has held 476 hearings at property‑owner request; Brands said those hearings returned reductions or refunds in almost all decided cases and that the city currently contracts one administrative law judge and would need additional staff and judges to handle an estimated 2,000 additional hearings annually if the bill required hearings for all penalties.

Committee members pressed both sides on details such as when fines first appeared on tax bills, how long owners have to begin repairs before penalties accrue, and how the city calculates penalty amounts. Brands said unsafe‑building inspectors open repair cases after complaints or inspections; the office issues a notice of violation, reinspects every 90 days and may assess penalties every 180 days. She said penalties can be paid directly to the department or eventually placed on the tax bill if unpaid, at which point a property owner may seek a refund if they later achieve compliance.

Several senators who questioned Freeman — including Sen. Bajaj, Sen. Taylor and Sen. Jackson — expressed sympathy for property owners making repairs but also concern about preserving local governments’ ability to address unsafe structures and deter neglect. Realtor and redevelopment advocates who testified, including Maggie McShane of the Indiana Association of Realtors, urged the committee to consider narrow lien relief for transactions that would return blighted structures to productive use.

The chair closed discussion by saying the bill had promise but needed further work with interested parties; the committee did not vote and the bill was held for amendment and additional negotiation.

The hearing supplied specific figures and process clarifications for the record: the city’s business unit that funds unsafe‑building enforcement has about $2.8 million in proceeds funding and roughly 80–100 employees in the department overall, with about 15 inspectors handling unsafe‑building field work; inspectors generally attempt to work with owners before penalties are assessed; boarding and demolition orders were noted by Brands as enforcement tools that the city uses when public safety requires them. Brands emphasized the department’s goal is compliance rather than punishment.

The committee did not act on SB197; the chair said he would hold the bill to allow further discussion between the bill sponsor, city staff and other stakeholders.