THE FALLOUT FROM PROPOSAL 192: Indianapolis Drivers Face $100 Vehicle Tax While Carmel, Fishers and Other Suburbs Don't

$100.00 owed no matter how old your car is or whether it is even worth a few hudred.

INDIANAPOLIS — Beginning in 2027, where a motorist lives in metropolitan Indianapolis could make a substantial difference in what that driver pays simply to keep a vehicle registered. Live in Indy, 2 cars...pay $200.00 more a year for the same potholes

The Indianapolis City-County Council has overridden Mayor Joe Hogsett's veto of Proposal 192, clearing the way for a flat $100 annual vehicle excise surtax as part of a larger plan designed to generate additional money for deteriorating streets and qualify Indianapolis for additional state road funding.

The council voted 17-7 on August 10 to override Hogsett's veto.

For many Indianapolis residents, particularly families owning two or three vehicles, the practical consequence is easy to understand. A $100 annual surtax can quickly become $200 or $300 in additional household expense.

But drive north into Carmel or Fishers and Proposal 192 doesn't follow you.

Carmel, Fishers, Noblesville and Westfield are in Hamilton County. Zionsville is primarily in Boone County. Greenwood is in Johnson County. Avon, Brownsburg and Plainfield are in Hendricks County.

None is governed by the Indianapolis City-County Council, and none is subject to Indianapolis' new $100 Proposal 192 surtax.

That geographical disparity could become one of the most politically sensitive consequences of the council's decision.

A family living in Indianapolis could own three vehicles and potentially face $300 annually from the flat surtax alone. A similarly situated family several miles north in Carmel or Fishers would owe none of that Indianapolis tax.

That doesn't mean suburban motorists pay no local vehicle taxes or road-related fees of their own. Different counties and municipalities have their own tax structures, and Indiana motorists also pay statewide registration and excise charges.

But Proposal 192 itself belongs to Indianapolis-Marion County.

The distinction becomes even stranger inside Marion County because Indianapolis' consolidated Unigov structure contains municipalities with differing legal status.

Beech Grove, Lawrence, Southport and Speedway historically have been treated as excluded municipalities rather than ordinary parts of the consolidated City of Indianapolis. Beech Grove, for example, declined to participate in the Indianapolis proposal and pursued a substantially smaller vehicle-tax increase of its own.

That means motorists separated by only a few miles — and in some cases motorists who all might casually tell outsiders they live in "Indianapolis" — can face different local vehicle-tax treatment.

Supporters of Proposal 192 argue that Indianapolis has an equally obvious problem: its roads.

Anyone who regularly drives the city's streets understands the complaint. Potholes, deteriorating pavement and deferred maintenance have become persistent political issues. Indianapolis officials have also argued for years that Indiana's road-funding structure disadvantages the consolidated city.

Proposal 192 is intended to change the equation by generating substantial local revenue while allowing Indianapolis to capture additional state transportation funding.

The political problem is that taxpayers don't experience government financing formulas when they open their wallets. They experience the bill.

For an Indianapolis resident driving an older car worth only a few thousand dollars, a flat $100 surtax can be particularly noticeable because the fee isn't determined by whether someone drives a luxury SUV or an aging commuter car. The owner of the old car still needs roads.

But that owner may also be the person least able to absorb another $100 annual expense.

That was among the reasons Hogsett vetoed the measure before the council overrode him.

The debate consequently exposes an uncomfortable contradiction in Indianapolis politics.

City leaders want Indianapolis to compete with Carmel, Fishers, Westfield and other rapidly growing suburbs for residents, employers and investment.

At the same time, every additional tax or fee creates another number prospective residents can put on a spreadsheet when deciding where to live.

Property taxes matter. Schools matter. Public safety matters. Commute times matter.

Housing prices matter, and vehicle taxes matter.

Maybe they should give this money to refund every driver $100.00 for their past car repairs due the Democrat Mayor's pot holes.

Over ten years, that's $3,000 for a three care households before considering any future increases and while it seems like a days pay for many. It is very regressive and hurts the poorest most...typical democrat public policy.

That isn't likely to cause thousands of Indianapolis families to immediately put their homes on the market and move to Carmel.

But taxes work at the margins. A young couple choosing between a condo on the north side of Indianapolis and one several miles farther north may notice the difference. A retiree on a fixed income may notice it. A working family with several teenage drivers certainly may notice it. And businesses evaluating the total cost of locating employees in different parts of Central Indiana may notice it as well. This is what makes Proposal 192 about considerably more than potholes.

Indianapolis isn't competing only against Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus or Nashville for economic development.

It competes every day against its own suburbs.

Carmel has spent decades building an identity around infrastructure, redevelopment, roundabouts, parks and quality of life. Fishers has undergone its own transformation from a suburban town into one of Indiana's largest and fastest-growing communities. Westfield has aggressively developed around Grand Park, while Noblesville continues expanding farther north.

Those communities have infrastructure needs, too.

But their residents won't receive Indianapolis' $100 Proposal 192 bill.

The City-County Council therefore has an enormous responsibility beginning in 2027.

If Indianapolis residents are going to pay substantially more for their vehicles, they should be able to see where the money goes. Not eventually. Not buried inside a government spreadsheet. On their streets.

The council has effectively made a bargain with motorists: Give city government substantially more money and city government will produce substantially better roads.

Taxpayers should remember that bargain.

Indianapolis should publish easily understandable annual figures showing how much Proposal 192 collects, how much additional state money it unlocks, which streets are repaired, how many lane miles are resurfaced and whether road conditions measurably improve.

Otherwise $100 won't be remembered as a road investment.

It will simply be remembered as another tax.

And every Indianapolis motorist sitting at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles in 2027 will have an easy comparison available.

Drive north to Carmel or Fishers, west toward Brownsburg or Plainfield, or south toward Greenwood, and Proposal 192 disappears.

Indianapolis leaders believe the additional money will help the city finally attack a road problem that residents have complained about for years. They may be right.

But after overriding their own Democratic mayor to impose the increase, City-County Council members have assumed responsibility for proving it.

Starting in 2027, Indianapolis motorists will be paying the bill.

They should expect to see the pavement.