Senate backs growth caps on property assessments
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — The South Dakota Senate is taking action to slow rising assessments on owner-occupied single-family properties.
Senators on Tuesday approved rolling owner-occupied assessments back to 2020 levels and capping their annual growth at 3%. The 35-0 vote brought tears to the eyes of Republican Sen. Amber Hulse, prime sponsor of Senate Bill 191.
A bit later, the vote was 30-5 for an amended Senate Bill 216, a product from Gov. Larry Rhoden and a task force of 10 legislators. It calls for capping growth of a county's total owner-occupied assessments at 3% annually for taxes payable in 2027 through 2031.
SB 216 also sets a 2% annual growth cap on tax revenue payable, and increases eligibility for property assessment freezes to $55,000 for single-member households and $65,000 for multi-member households.
The two bills now move to the House of Representatives for further action.
'We need short-term relief and long-term reform,' said Republican Sen. Sue Peterson, who was on the task force.
So was Republican Sen. Taffy Howard, who said South Dakota's average property-tax rate was 1.28% while nationally it was 0.91%. 'So we're well above the national average,' she said.
Howard said the two bills 'complement each other very nicely.'
'I think we have some very good ideas here,' she said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. Advertisement The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. Advertisement In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. Advertisement These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Congress introduces college sports bill proposing national rules
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA immigration protests
The 2,000 Guard members authorized Monday are an addition to the 2,100 Guard troops the president previously mobilized for the protests Sunday morning. Trump also deployed 700 Marines to help them Monday. Trump, a Republican, said in a post on his social media site that the city would have been 'completely obliterated' if he had not sent Guard members. Advertisement This appears to be the first time in decades that a state's National Guard was activated without a request from its governor. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Here are some things to know about the lawsuit, the protests and the guard's deployment: State sues the president over troops California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit over the use of National Guard troops following the first deployment, telling reporters Monday that Trump had 'trampled' the state's sovereignty. 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California National Guard troops,' Bonta said. He sought a court order declaring Trump's use of the Guard unlawful and asking for a restraining order to halt the deployment. Bonta has said the lawsuit became necessary once Trump escalated the number of troops, leading to growing unrest. Advertisement California Governor Gavin Newsom Trump and his border czar, Tom Holman, traded taunts with Newsom about the possibility of arresting the governor if he interfered with federal immigration enforcement efforts. 'I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great,' Trump said. Newsom responded in a post on X: 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' Newsom has called the presence of troops on the streets of Los Angeles both 'illegal and immoral.' On the social platform X, Newsom called the decision to deploy the additional National Guard troops reckless and 'disrespectful to our troops.' 'This isn't about public safety. It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego,' said Newsom, a Democrat. In a post Monday evening, Newsome called the deployment of Marines 'a blatant abuse of power' and said officials would sue to stop it. 'U.S. Marines serve a valuable purpose for this country — defending democracy. They are not political pawns,' Newsom wrote on X. 'The Courts and Congress must act. Checks and balances are crumbling.' What's the mood in Los Angeles? A large crowd gathered Monday in a park across from Los Angeles City Hall to protest the arrest of prominent labor leader David Huerta, whose arrest Friday while protesting immigration raids became a rallying cry for people angry over the administration's crackdown. Huerta was later released on $50,000 bond. Monday's demonstrations were less raucous than Sunday's, with thousands peacefully attending the rally at City Hall and hundreds protesting outside a federal complex that includes a detention center where some immigrants are being held. The protests have been driven by anger over Trump's stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws that critics say are breaking apart migrant families. Advertisement Demonstrations were also taking place in other cities, including inside Trump Tower in Manhattan, and more than a dozen were planned in all. In Los Angeles, the smell of fire hung in the air and ash piles littered Los Angeles Street with the charred remnants of cars set afire during protests. Police cars blocked streets, and workers swept up debris. Crews painted over graffiti that covered downtown buildings. An Australian television journalist was hit in the leg by a nonlethal round Sunday while reporting live, while a British photographer remained hospitalized Monday after undergoing surgery for a similar strike to the thigh Saturday in Paramount. The Los Angeles Police Department confirmed in a news release on Monday that it used tear gas and more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less than lethal' munitions on protesters over the weekend. Police arrested 29 people Saturday night 'for failure to disperse' and made 21 more arrests on Sunday on charges ranging from attempted murder with a Molotov cocktail and assault on a police officer to looting. Five officers had minor injuries, police said. Perla Rios, an indigenous community leader in Los Angeles, stood outside of Ambiance Apparel on Monday, where US Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on Friday set off days of tense protests. Rios urged legal representation and due process for immigrants who were detained by federal agents. The weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the area climbed above 100, federal authorities said. Many more were arrested while protesting. 'What our families are experiencing is simply a nightmare,' Rios said. Behind her, relatives of the detained of workers held up signs saying, 'Immigrants make America Great' and 'We want justice,' next to photos of their loved ones. Advertisement What are officials in California and Washington saying? Newsom, in a post on X, warned that Trump could activate the National Guard in other states unless he is challenged. 'This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted. He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard,' Newsom wrote. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, speaking on CNN, said she was concerned that more federal immigration raids will spark 'pandemonium.' She said protesters are prepared to respond quickly if they see ICE in action. 'It's just a recipe for pandemonium that is completely unnecessary,' said Bass, a Democrat. ICE officials, in a statement, said they are working to enforce immigration laws and remove immigrants with criminal convictions. They also said they stand ready to arrest protesters who break the law. Holman called Newsom 'late to the game' in responding to the demonstrations. Trump, speaking to reporters in Washington, called Newsom 'grossly incompetent.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Utah senator looks to resuscitate Nevada-Utah federal lands sale proposal
Organizations from around the country signed a letter on Monday urging U.S. senators not to include a controversial proposal to sell thousands of acres of federal land in Congress' budget bill. The letter comes in the wake of reports that Utah Sen. Mike Lee is considering reviving an amendment to the bill originally proposed by Republican U.S. Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada and Celeste Maloy of Utah that would dispose of nearly 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah, and about 450,000 acres in Nevada. Lee, when asked by a Politico reporter last week if he intended to reintroduce the disposal, responded, 'I gotta go vote, but yes.' Lee's office did not respond to a request for comment on Monday, and it's unclear whether Utah's senior GOP senator is considering bringing back an exact copy of the amendment, or something different. Amodei outrages NV congressional colleagues with 'dead of night' federal land sales amendment But more than 100 organizations and nonprofits around the country are sounding the alarm, telling Senate leaders to 'heed how dramatically unpopular this idea is and reject any misguided attempt to get public lands sales back in this bill.' 'Decisions about the future of public lands should remain in public hands. Leaders in the House and Senate, extractive industry, and private developers are using the reconciliation process to sell off federal lands to pay for billionaire tax cuts. But such moves are deeply unpopular. Polling has repeatedly shown that the public — especially westerners — strongly believes in keeping public lands in public hands and, across partisan lines, rejects any efforts that would lead to the sale of these shared and cherished lands,' reads the letter, signed by Utah groups like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Conserve Southwest Utah, Save Our Canyons, Great Basin Water Network and Back Country Horsemen of Utah. The letter is addressed to Lee, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich, the committee's ranking member, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. The House amendment backed by Amodei and Maloy was dropped from the budget bill after it received pushback from all sides of the aisle. That includes Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, who previously said selling public lands is a line he would not cross and rallied support from a bipartisan group of lawmakers to strip the proposal from the bill. 'The public had no opportunity to participate in the process of identifying these parcels, let alone time to understand the long-term effect of selling off these public lands,' the letter reads. This story was originally published in Utah News Dispatch.
