Property tax relief plans loom over final days of SD legislative session
A January 2025 view of the South Dakota State Capitol in Pierre. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
South Dakota lawmakers have four days left to agree on a property tax relief plan.
There are three bills left on the table:
House Bill 1235 from Rep. Greg Jamison, R-Sioux Falls, caps local governments' inflationary property tax collection growth at a lower amount year over year.
Senate Bill 191 from Sen. Amber Hulse, R-Hot Springs, rolls back assessments for some homeowners and caps assessment growth for all of them.
Senate Bill 216 from Gov. Larry Rhoden caps countywide residential assessment growth for five years, caps the amount local governments can increase tax collections based on new construction and growth, exempts some home improvements from affecting assessments, and expands eligibility among disabled and elderly people for relief programs.
Legislative tone shifts from helping counties to blaming their spending
Legislators – including many who campaigned on the issue – must determine which bill or bills will make it to the governor's desk. They went home Thursday evening for a long weekend and will return Monday to Pierre for the final four days of the legislative session, except for a day in late March to consider the governor's vetoes.
'The best measure with the most relief should make it through,' said House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach, R-Spearfish.
Lawmakers are responding to public calls for relief, largely from non-agricultural property owners. Since 2017, property tax payments have gone up 47% for owner-occupied homes and 36% for commercial property, while rising 3% for agricultural property. Ag land taxes have been held in check by a change from market-based to productivity-based assessments.
All three bills are expected to be debated on Monday. Meanwhile, the Legislature passed a resolution Thursday to ensure the body will dig deeper into property tax policies. That bill creates an interim task force to 'identify impactful, substantive measures' to provide significant and lasting tax relief. The task force will include 16 lawmakers, a representative from the Bureau of Finance and Management, and a representative from the Governor's Office.
Senate President Pro Tempore Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, said property tax reform is 'one of the most important priorities' of the legislative session.
'We need to take a look at the whole picture of what's happening,' Karr told lawmakers, 'what forces are driving the property taxes to increase and what some of the mechanisms are that we can look at and consider to provide relief.'
Jamison's House Bill 1235 would reduce local taxing districts' annual inflationary budget growth from a 3% cap to a 2.5% cap. In both cases, the inflation rate becomes the cap if it's lower than either percentage.
The majority of property taxes — 56% — goes toward public school funding. Around 13% goes to cities, 27% goes to counties and the rest goes to various local entities, according to the state Department of Revenue. The state does not receive property taxes, relying instead on sales taxes.
Yvonne Taylor, representing the South Dakota Municipal League, told lawmakers earlier this week that Jamison's legislation is 'much more survivable' for city budgets than the other bills proposed. Counties and schools affected by the legislation, lobbyists said, would face more difficulties to meet obligations without seeking 'opt outs' to generate more taxes. An opt out is a decision by a local governing body to exceed the cap on annual property tax collection growth.
Jamison told lawmakers on the Senate Taxation Committee that the legislation would not provide as much property tax relief 'as you want, or the people that I represent want.'
But it's enough to send a message to local governments, according to Jamison, that they need to reevaluate their budgets and address the burden on homeowners.
'It's a little bit of a punch in the face to all these taxing districts,' Jamison said. 'No special privileges. But it's not a bloody nose, it's just a bruise.'
The committee unanimously agreed to move the legislation to the Senate floor, though some told the lawmaker they didn't believe it would provide enough relief and voted in favor simply to keep the conversation alive. The Senate deferred its debate on the bill to Monday.
The governor's bill would be more like a bloody nose to some of the local governments, Jamison told South Dakota Searchlight. That's because the plan could be particularly problematic for high-growth cities, counties and school districts, such as the Sioux Falls metro and the Black Hills areas, by holding down one of the levers that raises tax revenue.
Rhoden's bill would limit annual growth based on new construction and home improvements to 2% and apply the same limit to school capital outlay funds. Schools use their capital outlay funds for land, buildings and equipment.
School districts with high growth wouldn't be able to take care of their infrastructure needs to accommodate the growing population of students, said Heath Larson, executive director of Associated School Boards of South Dakota, in an interview with South Dakota Searchlight.
Rhoden unveils plan to slow property tax increases for five years
Lobbyists and officials for cities and counties oppose the bill because it would cut high-growth local government revenues by millions of dollars within a few years and would result in reduced services, they testified.
The plan could shift the property tax burden from homeowners onto agricultural and commercial properties in areas of high growth, said State Department of Revenue Secretary Michael Houdyshell. That's if the value of a county's owner-occupied homes exceed the 3% assessment growth cap set by Rhoden's legislation.
But Houdyshell called the proposal the most 'politically possible' of the three options, despite concerns raised. He added that it's 'not perfect policy.'
'This is a feasible path forward that accomplishes a lot of goals we set out to accomplish,' Houdyshell testified. 'It's not an earth-shattering change to the taxes folks are going to pay, but it does provide relief and I think that's the goal the governor is trying to accomplish with this bill.'
If Jamison's and Rhoden's proposals both pass, Jamison equated the limitations to counties to a broken neck. Or 'if not a broken neck, a bent one.'
Rhoden called the analogy a 'gross overstatement,' saying it won't hamstring counties 'in any form, shape or fashion.' He believes the two bills could complement each other if passed, though he didn't support a proposal to merge them into one package.
The House State Affairs Committee endorsed the governor's legislation in a 9-4 vote. The House of Representatives deferred debate on the proposal until Monday.
If a lawmaker can earn a trophy for the most opponents to a bill, Hulse joked during Senate Bill 191's committee hearing Wednesday night, then she's likely to take home that honor this session.
Senate Bill 191 would roll back owner-occupied residential property valuations to 2020 assessments for those who bought a property prior to November of that year. For those who bought a property after that, the valuation would roll back to the assessment at the time of the purchase. In both cases, future annual valuation increases would be capped at 3% until the property is sold, transferred or significantly renovated.
Of the dozen opponents to speak against the bill, the Department of Revenue's Wendy Semmler was the most vehemently opposed.
The rollback would remove $16 billion from the assessment rolls, Semmler said, leading to a $42 million loss in local funding for schools. That $42 million would then be the responsibility of the state to make up. Other opponents stressed it would hurt county budgets and could jeopardize South Dakota's AAA bond rating.
Semmler said proposed changes to the bill wouldn't help.
'My opposition is that Senate Bill 191 is bad policy and amending it at this stage of the game doesn't save it,' Semmler said.
But Hulse believes it's worth attempting to shake up the current property tax system.
'Right now I think our system as it stands is inequitable because you're sitting in your home, you've done nothing to your home, and you're being taxed more,' Hulse said. 'In what other situation do you do nothing and get taxed more?
The bill passed out of House State Affairs with a 7-6 vote and is expected to be debated on the House floor Monday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
7 minutes ago
- CBS News
Planned PBS, NPR cuts would overwhelmingly hit outlets in states Trump won, report finds
The looming federal funding cuts to public television and radio would overwhelmingly gut outlets in states won by President Trump in 2024, according to a new congressional report. Approximately 60% of the hundreds of radio and television stations that could suffer funding cuts are in Trump-won states, according to a congressional report obtained by CBS News from Senate Democrats. The organizations that would be affected include public media outlets in cities as large as Houston and Miami, as well as smaller stations in tiny communities like Douglas, Wyoming, which has a population of 6,000 and hosts the Wyoming State Fair. The widespread cuts to public radio and television are a component of a Republican congressional plan to eliminate $9 billion in funding for programs approved before President Trump's second term began. The proposed rescissions package, which is scheduled for a House vote Thursday, includes $1.1 billion in cuts for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides funding to NPR and PBS. The cuts to public broadcasting are being touted by the Trump administration and Republicans as an effort to slash taxpayer funding for news media outlets they accuse of being "liberal" or politically biased in their content. Advocates for public broadcasting have lambasted the cuts as destructive, needless and harmful to communities that have very limited sources of local broadcast news. They also deny allegations of political bias. The list of hundreds of TV and radio outlets facing funding cuts shows a broad range of impact. Major public television and radio stations in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C., could each lose nearly $1 million in grants in the coming months. An FM community public radio station in Carbondale, Colorado, which touts itself as "Public access radio that connects community members to one another and the world," received $145,000 in federal grant funding last year. At each of the public media outlets, the list shows reductions that are sizable enough to potentially require staffing cuts, programming reductions or news cutbacks that threaten to exacerbate shortages of local news content. CBS News' review of proposed grant cuts shows Alabama, a state with an estimated 215 public media employees, would lose as much as $3 million in funding for its public television outlets in the coming months. In South Dakota, a sparsely populated state that nonetheless receives $3 million in funds for public broadcasting employees, the funding cuts would gut money for at least 20 media outlets, according to the report provided by congressional aides to CBS News. "The path to better public media is achievable only if funding is maintained. Otherwise, a vital lifeline that operates reliable emergency communications, supports early learning, and keeps local communities connected and informed will be cut off with regrettable and lasting consequences," said Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. "Federal funding for the public broadcasting system is irreplaceable," Harrison said. "Public media serves all — families and individuals, in rural and urban communities — free of charge and commercial free." Both PBS and NPR have sued the Trump administration over previous executive orders cutting their funding, with lawyers for both alleging that among other issues, the cuts violate the First Amendment. PBS CEO Paula Kerger previously said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" that while PBS only receives 15% of its funding from the federal government, some of its smaller stations receive up to 50% of their funding from federal sources and said the risks to the smaller stations are "existential" if the funding is cut. NPR CEO Katherine Maher has said roughly 1% of the organization's budget comes directly from federal dollars. Some of the many impacted public radio and TV stations have posted messages protesting the proposed cuts in funding. The social media account of a Baltimore public radio station leader said, "This isn't hypothetical—it's real, it's happening, and it places the future of local, trusted public media at serious risk. Let me be clear: this is not a symbolic move. If approved, this action could irreparably damage the local public media." Rural communities, often referred to as "news deserts" because of the lack of local news organizations, would suffer the brunt of the pain. According to a joint statement by Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, and Rep. Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat, "Rural broadcasters face significant challenges in raising private funds, making them particularly vulnerable if government funding is cut." Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat who is the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement to CBS News, "Trump wants Congress to vote to cut off public radio broadcasts our constituents count on for weather forecasts, emergency alerts, and updates on what's going on in their community—and force layoffs at local TV stations." House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has championed the cuts and sought to rally support ahead of Thursday's vote on the rescissions package. "House Republicans will fulfill our mandate and continue codifying into law a more efficient federal government," Johnson said in a statement. "This is exactly what the American people deserve." In April, the White House released a statement saying taxpayers had funded NPR and PBS "for too long" and said they've "spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'" The White House Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liz Warren Says Crypto Bill Creates a ‘Superhighway' for Trump Corruption
The Senate is set to pass the GENIUS Act early next week, a controversial piece of cryptocurrency legislation that critics say will hand an undue amount of financial power to the tech industry. On its face the bill, which has advanced with bipartisan support, purports to offer a regulatory framework for the expansion of 'stablecoins,' a form of crypto pegged to an existing, recognized asset — in many cases the U.S. dollar. In reality, it could enable corruption, screw over taxpayers, and potentially destabilize the economy. The GENIUS Act would allow banks and private companies to issue stablecoins, essentially their own currencies, with light oversight from regulators. It mandates that issuers of stablecoins hold a reserve of the stable asset backing their cryptocurrency at all times, and that firms abide by certain anti-money laundering laws, as well as U.S. sanctions against foreign entities. It sounds like a step in the right direction, but this piece of legislation is working its way through Congress as sitting President Donald Trump and his family build a cryptocurrency empire that steamrolls anti-corruption laws and ethical norms — one they hope will flourish under the industry-friendly policies and laws created by the administration of the Trump patriarch. One of Trump's priorities has been the normalization of these so-called stablecoins — a type of asset that his family is now hawking. Despite the moniker, stablecoins can be extremely unstable. A 2023 study published by the Bank for International Settlements found that of 60 stablecoins analyzed in their review, all of them had become de-pegged from their underlying asset at least once. The 2022 crypto crash was triggered by the failure of Terraform Lab's Terra/Luna 'algorithmic' stablecoin — the collapse of which saw $45 billion erased in the span of a week. The stablecoin bill comes as the government reorients its approach to crypto. Under the Biden administration, crypto kingpins began to feel the sting of consequences for schemes gone wrong. FTX crypto exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison after carrying out one of the largest financial scams since Enron. Tether, the largest stablecoin in crypto, settled a lawsuit brought against it by New York Attorney General Letitia James in 2021. Changpeng Zhao, the founder of the global crypto exchange Binance, pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2023. Trump pledged a new, friendlier regulatory environment in Washington — and the crypto industry poured many millions into Super PACs to elect allies throughout Congress. Now, the industry has its moment to push through a public smokescreen of barely-there regulation, while continuing to rake in the cash. No one has been more outspoken on the failings of the GENIUS Act than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who told Rolling Stone ahead of key votes that the bill would 'create a superhighway for Donald Trump's corruption.' The Trump family's cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial — which is currently being operated by his sons and Zach Witkoff, the son of Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff — recently launched its own stablecoin, designated USD1, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by treasury bonds. The GENIUS Act would allow major tech companies, banks, and other financial institutions to issue their own stablecoins, and many are poised to buy Treasury bonds so they can back the digital currency with real assets, as is required. According to a report issued last week by ARK Invest, the stablecoin market may become one of the largest holders of U.S. debt in the coming years — potentially tying large swaths of U.S. debt to a dubiously regulated and often unstable asset. (For example, if Tether — the largest stablecoins in the market — was a country, it would be the 18th-largest holder of U.S. debt in the world.) The lines grow even murkier when considering Trump's habit of using his position in the White House to enrich himself, as well as to tip market scales. World Liberty Financial already landed a $2 billion transaction deal to help an Abu Dhabi-state backed company purchase a stake in the Binance crypto exchange using the USD1 stablecoin. 'As soon as the players understand that Trump's intervention is a real possibility, then the stablecoin market is no longer about a careful review of whether there are adequate dollars to back up a particular stablecoin, or whether the stable coin issuer has an AAA rating,' Warren says. 'Instead, the whole game becomes one of trying to engage the president to weigh the end and make one set of coins more valuable, and therefore another set of coins less valuable. It's corruption, but it's also a market manipulation that ultimately drains away any development. … It undermines all the markets at that point.' Warren compares the development of the GENIUS Act to efforts to regulate derivatives and the feverish rise of money market mutual funds in the early 2000s, both of which were major factors in the 2008 financial crisis: 'The derivatives industry came to the Congress and said, 'Regulate us,' and they wrote a sample. They wrote the regulation, and Congress — not knowing much about that world — passed it.' The consequence was, in Warren's view, that lay people believed the industry to be effectively regulated, when in reality investors essentially tailored legislation to their own priorities. 'The risk kept building in the system until in 2008 it blew up the entire economy and required a $700 billion bailout from taxpayers,' Warren says. 'So think about why an industry comes to Congress and says, 'Regulate us.' They want the imprimatur, they want the gold seal of the United States government. … They don't actually want the government to oversee the activities of the industry.' Warren is not alone in her concerns, and has found an unexpected ally in Republican Sen. John Hawley of Missouri. Last week, Hawley described the GENIUS Act as a 'huge giveaway to Big Tech' that would effectively allow private tech companies to create their own currencies that compete with the dollar. 'The U.S. dollar is the reserve currency,' Warren says. 'The United States does not gain from creating a competing electronic currency. Getting more people to hold stable coins rather than dollars during their investment transactions, does not serve us interests, but it injects risk into the U.S.' 'Anyone who thinks that when a financial crash hits [the value of stablecoins] will translate one to one into dollars is fooling themselves,' she adds. The ripple effects can be catastrophic when a stablecoin collapses. Existing stablecoins are already buying up billions in Treasury bonds, and in the event of a run on a coin, or any type of collapse within stablecoin, the issuer would sell off their own holdings — in this case Treasury bonds — to pay back their customers. Economists warn that such a scenario could destabilize the underlying treasury securities market that serves as the foundation of the U.S. economy. As Warren and Hawley point out, the risks of economic destabilization increase significantly if legislation like the GENIUS Act passes. PayPal has already launched its own cryptocurrency, and Apple, Facebook, X, and Airbnb have all explored releasing their own stablecoins for customers to conduct on-platform transactions in crypto. If, for example, Elon Musk 'is controlling a significant portion of cash-light money moving through our economy and X gets in trouble, the federal government will face the possibility of bailing out not just the coin, but the underlying business, because they're so deeply intertwined,' Warren explains. 'There's a reason why there has always been a wall between banking and commerce,' Warren says. 'This GENIUS Act, for the first time, destroys that wall.' Nothing is too big to fail. Seemingly secure, lucrative schemes have left the U.S. and global economy in ruins. In a way, the GENIUS Act has already built in a bailout fund for crypto traders should the bubble pop: your deposits. A provision in the bill mandates that financial institutions issuing the coins prioritize reimbursing stablecoin holders over other checking and savings depositors in the event that the bank or financial institution becomes insolvent. Essentially, as Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin wrote last month, 'Congress is about to put the claims of stablecoin investors ahead of ma and pa's bank deposits.' Because most standard bank deposits are insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the result is that depositors' checking and savings would be used to pay off lost crypto holdings and everyone else can file for an insurance claim. 'Which means,' Warren warns, 'the U.S. taxpayer is right in the crosshairs.' More from Rolling Stone 'No Fat Soldiers': Ft. Bragg Troops Were Carefully Screened for Trump's Stunt Visit Katy Perry Supports Migrants Amid ICE Raids: 'Deep Injustice' Los Angeles ICE Raids Are Driving Immigrants - And Citizens - Underground Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's Medicaid and SNAP red tape will devastate millions of Americans
Extending President Trump's 2017 tax cuts is a centerpiece of what the president calls his 'big, beautiful' spending bill that was passed late last month by House Republicans by a single vote. Now it is the Senate's turn to weigh in, but that chamber's narrow Republican majority needs to take a hard look at the facts before pressing the yay button. Trump's legislation may truly be enormous, but it is far from pretty — it stigmatizes the wrong people, slashes the wrong programs and will hurt far more Americans than it helps. For starters, those tax cuts will disproportionately go to the wealthy while adding trillions to the deficit. Meanwhile, the punitive work requirements and layers of paperwork for Medicaid and SNAP (formerly food stamps) recipients are still visible beneath the flimsy camouflage of reducing welfare fraud. Academic research, including my own, shows that the vast majority of Americans who are working, are disabled or are providing caregiving already meet these requirements for state and federal aid. Even the independent Congressional Budget Office reports that work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP do not accomplish their stated goal of increasing employment. Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid and SNAP, essential programs that have lasting benefits beyond health care and healthy eating. In 2023, nearly 83 million children and adults — 24 percent of Americans — relied on Medicaid. Medicaid supports care from the cradle to the grave: Medicaid pays for more than 4 in 10 births in the U.S., and is the largest funder of long-term care, supporting the long-term services and supports needed by almost 6 million Americans in 2021. In 2023, SNAP provided food assistance to an average of 42 million Americans each month. SNAP is important across the age spectrum, too: Nearly half of all children in the U.S. participate in SNAP before their 20th birthday, and more than 4 million seniors 60 or older receive SNAP. The CBO estimates that if the Senate passes the bill in its current form, nearly 15 million Americans will lose their health coverage by 2034 because of Medicaid work requirements and other cuts. The reconciliation bill includes the largest SNAP cut in history. It will eliminate food benefits for more than 3 million adults (about 1 million adults over 55) and roughly 1 million children each month. Still, that doesn't keep Republicans from continually trying to portray recipients as lazy cheaters who need to lace up their boots and get back to the factory. They've been making the same mistake for years. Arkansas in 2018 and Georgia in 2023 implemented Medicaid work requirements. Those moves merely caused thousands to lose insurance coverage, had no effect on employment and did not protect these states from fraud. In Arkansas, they were halted after one year. The punitive requirements in the House Republicans' bill will not only fail to force millions of people into low-paying jobs, but they will also increase Americans' medical debt, creating a further, unnecessary strain on our economy and health care system. If Republicans really think that work requirements and paperwork reduce fraud, they are wrong. Medicaid fraud, for example, is relatively rare and more often committed by health care providers, not beneficiaries. Further, these work requirements will bury Americans in mounds of paperwork and cost millions to administer. Instead, they should try to limit the sophisticated tax evasion strategies used by the top 1 percent, which are rarely detected but very expensive for the country. If Trump's complaisant members of Congress really wanted to increase employment, expansions in public preschool and child care would be much more effective and economical. It's somewhat ironic that an administration that supposedly is taking a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy is moving to wrap ordinary Americans in red tape. But the reality is the Trump administration seeks to break down barriers for millionaires, while building them up around the rest of us. Taryn Morrissey is a professor and chair of American University's Department of Public Administration and Policy, and associate dean of research at the School of Public Affairs. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.