Mayor Joe Hogsett's proposal to provide more protections to Indianapolis renters now faces an uncertain future.

Indiana lawmakers added language to a bill Monday that would prevent any city from regulating landlord-tenant relations without approval by the General Assembly, including at least two key items in Hogsett's proposal: requiring landlords to notify renters of their rights and responsibilities, and fining landlords who retaliate against renters for reporting problematic housing.

Senate Bill 340 initially moved through the Indiana Senate as a bill addressing laws about condemned properties. An amendment added at the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, though, would undercut a legislative priority of Hogsett, a Democrat, now in his second term as Indianapolis mayor.

The Hogsett administration saw its proposal as a way to balance the scales against unscrupulous landlords, many out of state, who take advantage of lax government oversight in Indiana to prey on desperate renters.

The committee passed the amendment 8-3 along party lines. The bill now moves to the full House for consideration.

The vote came on the same day that the Democrat-controlled Indianapolis City-County Council was set to vote on Hogsett's plan.

"I am deeply disheartened by this effort to kill local protections for renters in Indianapolis," Hogsett said Monday morning in a written statement. "The vast majority of states have enacted real retaliation protections for tenants, and on the night in which our city is poised to adopt its own regulations at the City-County Council, a watered-down version of real change is being slipped into a bill at the last minute."

Brian Spaulding, a lobbyist representing the Indiana Apartment Association, spoke in favor of the amendment. Differing housing regulations across the state, Spaulding said, can drive up the price of rent because of new administrative costs, such as drafting different leases in every community.

Housing gap:Indianapolis home values in black neighborhoods trail county, study says

"What the first portion of this amendment does is it simply says that these regulations must occur at the state level," Spaulding told lawmakers, "rather than creating a patchwork of regulations resulting in different landlord tenant laws in every community."

The Indiana Builders Association and the Indiana Affordable Housing Council also spoke in favor of the amendment.

Speaking against the amendment was Michael Chapuran, executive director of Family Promise of Greater Indianapolis. The organization runs a day shelter for homeless families and works with a network of 60 congregations to provide long-term housing.

He said he was not concerned with all landlords. Most of the families in his program were kicked out because they did not pay rent, Chapuran said, and he might not want to rent to them himself.

But many of them simply fall victim to bad landlords and lack the power to protect themselves.

"Sometimes it's an actual corporate landlord and owns a lot of units," Chapuran said. "And because the system is so unbalanced at the state level, (renters) don't have a leg to stand on, and many of them won't even show up to court."

Chapuran learned of the House committee hearing at the last minute. In a follow-up interview with IndyStar, Chapuran said he wished he had more time to tell lawmakers about what Indianapolis families must go through when they report a code violation, such as mold that could harm a child's health.

There's the initial health inspection. Then the 30-day period for a landlord to comply. Then there's the follow-up inspection, a court summons and several weeks of waiting.

All told, it typically takes at least four months, Chapuran said, while families may still be living in harmful environments with nowhere else to go.

That's if the landlord doesn't immediately decide to kick out the family, usually for not paying rent on time. Maybe the landlord was willing to accept late rent in the past, Chapuran said, but not when the landlord has to remedy a code violation.

Landlords know they can dodge prosecution if they have an empty unit, Chapuran said.

"I worry about a tenant's ability to equally voice their case in a court of law that is so expensive to operate in," Chapuran told IndyStar. "It means that tenants will have to relocate their kids, the kids will miss school, the parents will probably lose track of mail and lose benefits in the process — all because they reported health and safety issues and wanted a decent place to live."

The last-minute amendment comes after the death of another Senate bill that would have strengthened various protections for landlords.

Indianapolis landlords had previously expressed concern about the city's initiative at a council public safety committee meeting earlier this month. The committee still passed and forwarded the initiative on to the council by a partisan vote of 7-3, with the three present Republicans voting against it.

Hogsett's housing proposal followed an IndyStar series of stories last year that revealed the depths residents endured to live in rental properties in Indianapolis.

Some described desperation that led them to accept problematic homes beneath legal standards. Others were misled or surprised when problems surfaced and were frustrated when landlords either ignored their pleas or could never be found.

In response, the Hogsett administration drafted a new housing policy that aimed to give more power to renters. The plan calls for $250,000 in new spending to provide legal help to tenants while also requiring landlords to notify renters of their rights under Indiana law.

Renters, meanwhile, would be protected against retaliation from landlords for reporting problems at the rental units. Landlords would face fines of $2,500 and $7,500 for violating the anti-retaliation ordinance.

Indiana is one of just eight states without an anti-retaliation law, according to Indiana University research.

Senate Bill 340 would finally enshrine anti-retaliation in state law, but it would handle the matter differently from Hogsett's proposal at the local level.

Whereas Hogsett's proposal placed the burden of proof on landlords, the Senate bill would place that burden on a tenant.

And landlords would not face fines under the Senate bill. Instead, tenants would be given repayment of a single month's rent.

Chapuran said the Senate bill lacks the teeth of Hogsett's proposal. He also said families who find themselves in these desperate situations could never afford to hire an attorney in such a fight.

The Indianapolis City-County Council was still set to vote on Hogsett's plan at Monday night's council meeting. Chapuran said at least 100 people affiliated with Family Promise of Greater Indianapolis planned to attend.

Yet the council members' votes may not ultimately matter should state lawmakers move forward with Senate Bill 340.

That bill next heads to the full House for consideration. The Senate would need to sign off on any changes made in the House before the bill could move to Gov. Eric Holcomb's desk.

Contact IndyStar investigative reporter Ryan Martin at ryan.martin@indystar.com or by phone, Signal or WhatsApp at 317-500-4897. Follow him on Facebook or Twitter: @ryanmartin.

Call IndyStar reporter Amelia Pak-Harvey at 317-444-6175 or email her at apakharvey@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter @AmeliaPakHarvey.