Goode bill would tweak $1 law; plus, IPS exemption on the table
As charter schools in Indiana will soon bring in local property tax dollars for the first time, there are rumblings of conversations beginning regarding the future of the state’s so-called “$1 law” that allows charter schools first to purchase vacant traditional school buildings for $1.
Sen. Greg Goode (R) of Terre Haute, in the 2026 legislative session, offers a new option for the law in SB 77: grant local units of government a one-year window to explore alternative uses for those closed school facilities before they are placed on the $1 list.
And in Marion County, home to most of the state’s charter schools, it appears Indianapolis Public Schools are set to earn an exemption from the law with a bill to be carried by the House Committee on Education chair.
Sen. Goode, who states he’s long been “puzzled” by the $1 law, frames SB 77 as a pragmatic response to shifting demographics, aging infrastructure, and growing non-education community needs, particularly in smaller and mid-sized counties. He explains to your favorite education newsletter that his thinking is rooted in years of work on regional economic development efforts and firsthand exposure to school buildings that may no longer serve their original purpose but remain valuable public assets.
The senator stresses that he believes property taxpayers, not school corporations or charter operators, are the ultimate owners of these buildings when school districts decide to vacate. “Property taxpayers are the ones who are the owners, if you will, of these assets,” Goode asserts, adding that school corporations act as custodians rather than proprietors. From that perspective, he argues the state should not rush buildings into the $1 process without first allowing local governments to consider reuse options that could address pressing community needs.
Those needs, Sen. Goode believes, extend well beyond education. He points to veterans housing, services for an aging population, mental health care, public health, and early childhood education as potential uses for former school buildings that local government could shepherd. The former Indiana State University administrator describes closed school facilities as assets that could be repurposed rather than discarded.
Under SB 77, if a school corporation decides to close a building, local or county governments with populations of 150,000 or less could have up to one calendar year to assess whether they want to purchase and reuse it.
The local units would purchase the building at its regular sale value, rather than $1, like charter schools. Sen. Goode intentionally avoided placing restrictions on how those governments might use the buildings, saying he does not want the state dictating local decisions.
“I didn’t want to put parameters on there, because our communities … have different kinds of demographic needs that need to be addressed,” he details, adding that local officials are “accountable to the voters, accountable to the taxpayers.”
While Goode acknowledges that he is “not the biggest fan of the dollar law,” he was explicit that SB 77 is not an attempt to dismantle it – particularly in urban counties where charter school growth is already underway.
“That was not my intention,” he clarifies, stressing that the bill is meant to “open up the portfolio of opportunities for other priorities for communities” rather than weigh in on the merits of charter schools themselves. Sen. Goode affirms he is a school choice advocate, but he also believes school districts should have more flexibility to decide who they want to sell vacant school buildings to.
He recognizes as well that sometimes traditional public schools may be more hesitant to sell a vacant school building and instead find ways to continue to use it, out of some fear of a charter school potentially moving into the community. Goode wants to provide more options for schools from the start.
“I just want to kind of open up the portfolio of opportunities for other priorities for communities, and at the same time, you know, if their school superintendents and school boards who are wrestling with, you know what to do with aging facilities … maybe this would give them another set of ideas to think about, and that that may give them some greater comfort to make the tough decisions that need to be made,” Sen. Goode divulges.
Important to note: the Vigo County School Corporation in Sen. Goode’s district just this year approved a massive school consolidation plan, where the district plans to close four elementary schools and consolidate two high schools. The old high school buildings are set to be repurposed into middle schools, but plans for the future of the four elementary schools to be closed are not set, meaning the district could sell those buildings if there is no other use found.
Since its inception more than a decade ago, lawmakers largely responsible for crafting the state’s education legislation haven’t exhibited much of an appetite to change or repeal the state’s $1 law statewide (though House Committee on Education Chair Bob Behning (R) of Indianapolis did almost move forward a repeal to turn it into a pilot program in 2023). So, Sen. Goode’s bill may have an uphill climb, especially in a short session. That does not mean conversations aren’t being considered by both House and Senate education chairs about the law’s future with the inception of SEA 1-2025, which will allow charter schools to collect property tax dollars fully in 2028.
Senate Committee on Education and Career Development Chair Jeff Raatz (R) of Richmond is interested in the conversation of SB 77, though he could not commit to giving the bill a hearing and moving it forward this session. “I’m still investigating that, working with the House and some other stakeholders in this thing to try and determine exactly how and when we transition,” Sen. Raatz tells us.
As far as the $1 law in general, Sen. Raatz implies that conversations are being had about its future, within the context of SEA 1. If all charter schools are able to collect property tax dollars, how necessary is the law?
“Theoretically, the answer is yes, someplace down, in the near future, if everybody’s going to participate, then it very well may not be needed, but I don’t think we’re quite there yet,” Sen. Raatz states. “We may hang out, we may do it. I’m not exactly sure yet, but as I said, we’re in the middle of having some in depth conversations about it.”
Even less enthusiastically, Chair Behning, who has been central to past charter school legislation, including the $1 law, responds cautiously to the Goode proposal when speaking with us. Rep. Behning describes himself as “noncommittal,” and argues that if buildings are no longer needed by traditional public schools, charter schools should still be prioritized. “They were designed for education,” Behning affirms. “A charter school should be given first choice.”
Behning’s comments give a peek into the tension underlying the $1 law debate, and the likely discussion ahead with SB 77 and future proposals. While Sen. Goode views closed schools as flexible economic-development tools, Chair Behning continues to see them primarily through an education lens.
At the same time, Rep. Behning acknowledges that changes to the broader system may be inevitable as charter schools gain access to property tax dollars. “As property tax dollars are shared, I think that definitely is something that’s got to be on the table,” he tells us.
As we mentioned, IPS could also soon be exempt from the law altogether, as the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance asked for an exemption in its recommendations it sent to legislators this week. Rep. Behning is on board with that idea, but, again, he is still hesitant to repeal it statewide. The Indianapolis lawmaker intends to carry the bill to adopt much of ILEA’s recommendations . . . including exempting IPS from the $1 law.
Behning also points out how quickly buildings can move through the process, implying that SB 77 may not be necessary for local governments to purchase the buildings anyway. “It is relatively easy,” he explains, referring to the requirement that a building only appear on the $1 availability list to charters for 90 days before it can be claimed. He also pushed back on the idea that the system lacks safeguards, pointing out that charter schools must be authorized and meet statutory requirements before acquiring property.
Goode, for his part, is realistic about SB 77’s prospects in a short legislative session and views the bill as the opening move in a longer debate. “This could be a multi-year effort,” he predicts, adding that he expects the legislation to evolve through feedback and hearings, if granted. He is “cautiously optimistic” of earning at least one hearing in the Senate education committee this session.
Stay tuned as January approaches. Check back in our next issue for our full rundown of what you should expect for the (very) short legislative session.