Defunding libraries?: Bill language added with no public hearing has requirements with dire consequences

Republic file photo.
The front circulation desk at the Bartholomew County Library is shown.

Bartholomew County Public Library officials are expressing concern about a new state law they say imposes unique budget restrictions on public libraries that could open the door for local governments to dramatically cut — or even eliminate — their funding.

The concerns stem from last-minute language added to House Bill 1406 that requires libraries to seek binding budget approval from their fiscal bodies or accept uniquely low budget growth limits. The language also eliminates a previous cap that prevented fiscal bodies from cutting a library’s budget by more than 10% in a given year — meaning, at least in theory, that a fiscal body could now defund a library entirely.

Gov. Mike Braun signed the bill into law on Thursday. State lawmakers representing parts of Bartholomew County — Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus; Rep. Ryan Lauer, R-Columbus; Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour; and Rep. Jennifer Meltzer, R-Shelbyville — all voted in favor of the bill.

Locally, library officials said they are concerned about the impact that the bill could have on the library funding, especially after the passage of Senate Enrolled Act 1 last year, which cuts the amount of property taxes available to taxing units, including libraries. The Bartholomew County Public Library’s fiscal body is the Bartholomew County Council.

Initial analyses found that SEA 1 is expected to reduce funding for the Bartholomew County Public Library by an estimated $750,000 over three years. The library saw a $100,000 decline in property tax revenue last year. Its current operating budget is around $5.86 million.

“With this new legislation, (HB) 1406, and then compounded with the SEA 1 … it’s just, it is a lot for the library. It’s really going to hit us hard,” said Bartholomew County Public Library Assistant Director Vanessa Martin, who is also the Indiana Library Federation’s Advocacy co-chair. “We’re always looking at our resources and services that we offer. But compounded with all of these things coming into play, we’re concerned about what our budget is going to look like for the future.”

What the law does

The new provisions revolve around the state’s maximum levy growth quotient, or MLGQ — a figure set annually by the state that caps how much local government units can increase their property tax levies compared to the previous year. The current MLGQ is 4%.

Under the new law, any library seeking a budget increase that would result in its property tax levy going up by more than half of the MLGQ must submit its proposed budget and property tax levy to its fiscal body for approval before Sept. 2 of each year.

Missing that deadline would carry steep consequences. A library’s property tax levy would automatically be set to 49% of the previous year’s levy — a far steeper penalty than the 80% that applies to other local government units.

Under the previous rules, the library director would propose a budget and work with the library board to ensure it is correctly allocated, officials said. The board would then hold two separate public meetings — one for a public hearing on the proposed budget and another to adopt the budget. The county council would generally not be involved in approving the budget.

Now, the county council is required to get involved unless the library decides to adopt a budget that is less than half of the MLGQ.

Singling out libraries?

Supporters of the new law say it strengthens accountability for taxpayer‑funded institutions, noting that library boards are appointed rather than elected.

Critics counter that the legislation singles out libraries for restrictions that other local government units with appointed boards are not subject to. They also argue that the language was inserted into the bill without being heard in committee or holding a public hearing.

Locally, the Bartholomew County Public Library accounted for 2.5% of the county’s overall property tax levy in 2026, according to the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance.

Lauer, who voted in favor of the bill, said the new law adds accountability and oversight to the library budget process.

“All that means is that the county council can have some input into that budget if it’s increasing over a certain amount,” Lauer said. “It doesn’t mean they have to take any action. It doesn’t mean they have to approve or deny it, but it does give some new accountability to the taxpayers. …It gives more oversight through the county council on how our tax dollars are spent. …This will give the county council a little more skin in the game to work with our libraries across the state.”

“Our libraries (in Bartholomew County) are run well,” Lauer added. “I don’t think that this would be an issue for Bartholomew County. There are certainly other places across the state probably where some of this language came from. People in other parts of the state are frustrated with their libraries.”

Library oversight

The Bartholomew County Public Library is governed by a seven-member volunteer board that sets policy, oversees finances and hires a library director to handle library operations, according to the library’s website. Board members serve four-year terms and are limited to four consecutive terms. All members must live within the library district.

While the board members are not chosen by voters, they are appointed by four different bodies of elected officials.

The Bartholomew County Commissioners, Bartholomew County Council and Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp. School Board each appoint two members, while the Flat Rock-Hawcreek School Corp. School Board appoints one member. 

Additionally, the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance ensures that library budgets and tax levies comply with state law, and the Indiana State Board of Accounts conducts financial audits of public libraries.

Library officials said they believe public libraries already have enough oversight and that there is a process for elected bodies to appoint or remove board members.

”We’re really disappointed with this legislation,” Martin said. “We worked really hard this session to make connections with our with the legislators at the state level, and we just, hoped for a better outcome. And then some of the language that got snuck in at the very end was it was just so disappointing because it had not been heard in committee. It had not had a public hearing, and it kind of came out of the blue.”