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
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Looking ahead to Missouri special session, Show Me Sports Investment Act
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Missouri General Assembly's special session reconvenes Monday, and it's the House side of the rotunda's turn in Jefferson City. The state Senate passed a trio of bills last week, one providing a plan to fund up to half of stadium projects for the Chiefs or Royals or Cardinals in St. Louis. The Missouri State House will consider the Show Me Sports Investment Act. The stadium funding bill sets the framework for the Royals and the Chiefs to pay back some of the costs for new and renovated venues. Construction bonds would be paid back using tax money generated at the stadiums and would cover up to 50% of the cost to build it. The teams would have to qualify to have access to that money. The stadiums would need to be built for football or baseball, have more than 30,000 seats, and cost at least half a billion dollars. On Sunday, Rudi Keller, the deputy editor of the Missouri Independent, discussed what could happen as the special session continues this week. Kansas City superheroes assemble behind local child battling cancer 'A member of the House budget Committee who will consider the spending bill on Tuesday said there is an assumption the House will pass this, and that's correct. I also talked to the Chair of the House Budget Committee earlier today, and it turns out he's not going to be demanding anything new. So as long as there aren't serious demands that endanger the bill from the House, much as the way demands from Senators resulted in a change to the call, I'm anticipating this will go relatively smoothly this week,' Keller said on 4 The People. The stadium funding bill does not have the words 'Royals' or 'Chiefs' in it, but a big reason for the calling of this special session was to find a way to keep both teams in the state and counter the plans of Kansas lawmakers. Nearly a year ago, the Kansas legislature approved a bill to utilize STAR bonds to cover stadium construction costs. The deadline for that bill is coming up at the end of June. 'If Kansas believes that we could really be in the conversation, you could see some limited extension,' said Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson. 'The way the law is written, it could be extended for up to a year. I don't see that happening.' You can watch the full conversation with Masterson and Keller here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Rand Paul slams Graham's push for Russian sanctions as ‘self-defeating economic warfare'
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) push for Russian sanctions, calling his bill 'self-defeating economic warfare.' Graham's sanctions bill on Russia would impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from any country that buys Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products. The legislation has more than 80 co-sponsors in the Senate, potentially making it veto-proof. But GOP senators are waiting on President Trump to move ahead with the legislation, and Trump said this week he hasn't even looked at it. Trump has also said he doesn't want to undermine the chances of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Paul, in a series of posts on X on Saturday, said the bill would be ineffective and backfire against efforts to achieve peace, as the war between Russia and Ukraine continues in its fourth year. 'The Graham bill would derail President Trump's efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. Self-defeating economic warfare is no way to achieve peace,' Paul said on X. 'This bill won't force China or India to change behavior, but it will impose an effective embargo on ourselves that will hurt American families,' he said. Paul also argued that the bill could hurt U.S. allies and raise gas prices. 'The Graham bill could raise tariffs on allies like Israel and Taiwan to 500 percent and potentially even higher. Why are we punishing our friends while pretending it'll hold Russia accountable? This isn't strategy—it's economic self-sabotage,' he wrote. 'Cutting off Russian oil takes a major source of supply off the market, resulting in higher gas prices. Analysts warned that a U.S. ban on Russian oil could cause prices to hit $160–$200 a barrel. That's $5+ gas at the pump,' he said. Graham, this past week, sought to address some of those concerns by proposing a carveout for his bill to exempt countries that aid in Ukraine's defense. The carveout could help insulate countries in Europe that still import Russian gas and have provided military support for Ukraine, as well as other U.S. partners that have straddled the line between maintaining ties with Moscow and providing assistance to Kyiv. 'A lot of countries still buy Russian oil and gas but less. Some European countries still have relationships with Russia, but they've been very helpful to Ukraine. So I want to carve them out,' Graham told reporters Wednesday. 'I tell China, if you don't want to have a 500 percent tariff, help Ukraine.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now
President Donald Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' has passed in the House and is now awaiting Senate approval. If passed, Trump's signature bill would extend the tax cuts granted by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and add additional tax cuts. While this might be welcome news to many, the bill also includes changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could threaten seniors' access to these programs. Find Out: Read Next: 'The 'one big beautiful bill' passed by the House of Representatives, if it were passed into law today, would cut Medicaid and SNAP by a combined $1 trillion,' said Chris Orestis, president of Retirement Genius. 'In addition, because of the increase to federal debt of as much as $5 trillion, the bill would trigger an automatic reduction in Medicare funding of $500 billion,' he continued. 'This would represent the largest cut to social services and health insurance for the poor, disabled, children and the elderly in U.S. history.' Here's a look at the changes retirees can make now to secure care and avoid benefit disruptions if the bill were to pass. Before changes go into effect, check with your healthcare providers to ensure there won't be any interruption to your care if there are cuts to Medicaid. 'Check with your healthcare provider to see if they might cut back on services or cease accepting Medicaid-funded patients, and contact any nursing home where you or a loved one may reside to find out if they will be reducing the number of patients they can support — or even [if they are] possibly planning to close,' Orestis said. Knowing this ahead of time will allow you to find alternative care providers before it's too late. Learn More: If you are reliant on SNAP, start searching for alternatives that may be able to provide food assistance in the event your benefits are reduced or cut. 'Make sure you know where there are local support services through community or faith-based organizations to replace lost access through SNAP,' Orestis said. Many retirees plan to 'spend down' their savings so that they qualify for Medicaid to pay for their long-term care. However, this may no longer be a viable option. 'If you are considering going onto Medicaid for long-term care and are preparing to engage the 'spend down' process to impoverish yourself and get below the poverty level to qualify, you may want to reconsider that strategy, and instead look to leverage private pay resources to pay for your care,' Orestis said. 'If you are on Medicaid, you will primarily be reliant on nursing homes for your care, and their ability to withstand these cuts will be very challenging and up in the air,' he continued. 'If you are private pay, you are in control and can decide where and when you will receive care, such as at home or an assisted living community not funded by Medicaid.' Strategies to stay private pay for long-term care would include long-term care insurance, annuities, a life insurance settlement, a reverse mortgage or VA benefits. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now