Higher surcharge leads to higher spending on 911
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — Last July, state government began charging South Dakotans another $9 a year on nearly every telephone line to pay for 911 emergency-call services. The compromise struck between state lawmakers was that the $2 monthly surcharge would return to $1.25 on July 1, 2026.
But that deal didn't last.
This past winter, state lawmakers agreed with a proposal from the Noem administration to do away with the 2026 ending date and let the $2 surcharge stay in place.
Rabies lingers in South Dakota
The Senate voted 33-2 to make the 75-cent per month increase permanent, and the House of Representatives agreed 69-0. On March 11, Noem's successor as governor, Larry Rhoden, signed the legislation into law.
A 75-cent monthly increase doesn't sound like much. But a fiscal note prepared last year by the state Legislative Research Council estimated that the total collected through the $2 surcharge would be roughly $20 million a year — a $7.5 million increase.
So now what becomes of the additional $7.5 million that South Dakotans must pay the government each year for telephone service? On Thursday, the state 911 Coordination Board began deciding some of that.
The board's administrator, Jason Husby, proposed on that the board use some of the additional surcharge to make $80,000 per month available for grants that 911 centers, known as public service answering points or PSAPs, could request for specific projects.
As for the 70% of surcharge revenue that goes back to the 63 counties where it's collected, the 2025 legislation didn't change that. Nonetheless, for the 33 PSAPs throughout South Dakota, the extra surcharge revenue means county and municipal governments can now pay less for PSAPs to operate.
Vote for South Dakota's best beef burger
According to Husby, the old $1.25 surcharge covered 29% of the PSAPs' operational costs. At $2, he said, the surcharge payx an estimated 44 to 45%, while the national average is 66%.
Board member Andrew Boyd of Wall said that the grant approach would be better than increasing the percentage that PSAPs receive.
Husby said the board could direct grants to the board's priorities. As an example, he pointed out that some of the larger cities face a $10 million hit in the years ahead as Motorola phases out a series of consoles.
The board agreed to make $80,000 available each month for grants.
The board also agreed to pay Lumen Technologies, which oversees 911 for state government, another $22,000 per month to add a third technician specifically in western South Dakota who will service the area's 911 centers, known as public service answering points, or PSAPs.
The five-year contract that took effect in 2019 was extended in 2023 to run until June 30, 2029.
Lumen had a service technician based in Belle Fourche, but he retired. For a while, there were two technicians in South Dakota, then three, and now back to two — one stationed at Sioux Falls and one at Huron.
Board member Stephanie Olson of Rapid City said Thursday that it was 'absolutely necessary' to have a service tech on the western side of South Dakota.
Said board member Amy Leon of Yankton, 'Geography wise, it's smart.' She added that having three techs would provide 'depth on the bench' and would be important for times of bad weather.
The board also agreed on Thursday to cover an estimated $13,500 of one-time costs to add a fourth console at the new Clay County PSAP and pay the ongoing $1,064 monthly cost for it.
And Husby told the board that he's assembling a statewide job listing that will be displayed on the state Department of Public Safety website where PSAPs can post job openings.
'Staffing continues to be one of the biggest challenges we have in the state,' he told the board, explaining that the current vacancy rate is down but still roughly 20%. Having a statewide site means job seekers wouldn't have to search through individual county and municipal sites.
Husby said he might eventually ask the board for money to pay a contractor to promote the statewide site. For now, some of DPS staff are brushing up recruiting videos that PSAPS also could use.
'I think it's a good idea,' said the board's chair, Perkins County Sheriff Kelly Serr. 'We have to do what we can as a team to help everybody.'
Here's a quick look at the role of South Dakota's 911 surcharge in funding annual costs of PSAP operations, as summarized from the board's annual reports, 2020-2024.
: 'Statewide 9-1-1 surcharge funds distributed to counties and PSAPs in calendar year 2020 were $9.3 million. 9-1-1 expenditures reported were $28.2 million. Based onthese numbers, approximately 33 percent of the local 9-1-1 costs are covered by the9-1-1 surcharge.'
: 'Statewide 9-1-1 surcharge funds distributed to counties and PSAPs in calendar year 2021 were $9.3 million. 9-1-1 expenditures reported were $29.6 million. Based onthese numbers, approximately 31 percent of the local 9-1-1 costs are covered by the9-1-1 surcharge.'
: 'Statewide 9-1-1 surcharge funds distributed to counties and PSAPs in calendar year 2021 were $9.3 million. 9-1-1 expenditures reported were $30.7 million. Based onthese numbers, approximately 30 percent of the local 9-1-1 costs are covered by the9-1-1 surcharge.'
: 'Statewide 9-1-1 surcharge funds distributed to counties and PSAPs in calendar year 2022 were $9.5 million. 9-1-1 expenditures reported were $32.6 million. Based onthese numbers, approximately 29 percent of the local 9-1-1 costs are covered by the9-1-1 surcharge. This percentage has been trending downward every year by anaverage of approximately 1% due to rising PSAP operational expenditures.'
: 'Statewide 9-1-1 surcharge funds distributed to counties and PSAPs in calendaryear 2023 were just under $9.9 million. Locally the cost to provide 9-1-1 was $34.5million. Total cost, including the state's costs, was $38.8 million. Based on the FCC's2023 annual report, the $1.25 surcharge and all other fees covered 36% of SouthDakota's cost to operate the 9-1-1 system. The national average, according to thesame report, is 66%.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on
CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
What a ‘revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investors
As the Senate weighs President Donald Trump's multi-trillion-dollar spending package, a lesser-known provision tucked into the House-approved bill has pushback from Wall Street. The House measure, known as Section 899, would allow the U.S. to add a new tax of up to 20% on foreigners with U.S. investments, including multinational companies operating in the U.S. Some analysts call the provision a "revenge tax" due to its wording. It would apply to foreign entities if their home country imposes "unfair foreign taxes" against U.S. companies, according to the bill. "Wall Street investors are shocked by [Section] 899 and apparently did not see it coming," James Lucier, Capital Alpha Partners managing director, wrote in a June 5 analysis. More from Personal Finance:The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high. See if you're on trackOn-time debt payments aren't a magic fix for your credit score. Here's whyWith 'above normal' hurricane forecasts, check your home insurance policy If enacted as written, the provision could have "significant implications for the asset management industry," including cross-border income earned by hedge funds, private equity funds and other entities, Ernst & Young wrote on June 2. Passive investment income could be subject to a higher U.S. withholding tax, as high as 50% in some cases, the company noted. Some analysts worry that could impact future investment. The Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry serving individual investors, warned in a May 30 statement that the provision is "written in a manner that could limit foreign investment to the U.S." But with details pending as the Senate assesses the bill, many experts are still weighing the potential impact — including who could be affected. Here's what investors need to know about Section 899. As drafted, Section 899 would allow the U.S. to hike existing levies for countries with "unfair foreign taxes" by 5% per year, capped at 20%. Several kinds of tax fall under "unfair foreign taxes," according to the provision. Those include the undertaxed profits rule, which is associated with part of the global minimum tax negotiated by the Biden administration. The term would also apply to digital services taxes and diverted profits taxes, along with new levies that could arise, according to the bill. The second part of the measure would expand the so-called base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, which aims to prevent corporations from shifting profits abroad to avoid taxes. "Basically, all businesses that are operating in the U.S. from a foreign headquarters will face that," said Daniel Bunn, president and CEO of the Tax Foundation. "It's pretty expansive." The retaliatory measures would apply to most wealthy countries from which the U.S. receives direct foreign investment, which could threaten or harm the U.S. economy, according to Bunn's analysis. Notably, the proposed taxes don't apply to U.S. Treasuries or portfolio interest, according to the bill. Section 899 still needs Senate approval, and it's unclear how the provision could change amid alarm from Wall Street. But the measure has "strong support" from others in the business community, and it's a "strong priority" for Republican House Ways and Means Committee members, Capital Alpha Partners' Lucier wrote. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., first floated the idea in a May 2023 bill, and has been outspoken, along with other Republicans, against the global minimum tax. If enacted as drafted, Section 899 could raise an estimated $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That could help fund other priorities in Trump's mega-bill, and if removed, lawmakers may need to find the revenue elsewhere, Bunn said. However, House Ways and Means Republicans may ultimately want foreign countries to adjust their tax policies before the new tax is imposed. "If these countries withdraw these taxes and decide to behave, we will have achieved our goal," Smith said in a June 4 statement.
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
GOP looks to win over Collins, Murkowski on Trump bill
Senate Republicans are trying to win over Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to back the party's ambitious tax cut plan amid fears they could lose a couple of conservative senators. President Trump has made it a priority to engage with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who all have concerns about the emerging package. But some Republicans worry Johnson and Paul could be particularly tough sells on the legislation, which makes winning over Murkowski and Collins all the more important in a vote where the GOP cannot afford more than three defections. 'It's shortening,' one Senate Republican told The Hill about the party's margins. Paul has long been viewed as highly likely to vote against the eventual bill as it includes a $4 trillion debt ceiling hike. He's made it known that is a red line for him. But it's Johnson who is a more acute problem for leadership. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, Johnson on Wednesday got into an extended back-and-forth with Trump during the Senate Finance Committee's meeting at the White House, with one of the sources going a step further and describing it as 'contentious.' While Republicans think Johnson may still come to back the bill, the exchange only made GOP leaders more unsettled about him. That means they have to make sure Murkowski and Collins, who memorably voted against Trump on various issues in his first term, are in play on the bill. 'It's a very delicate balance,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill. 'Obviously, we have people that have different priorities, different equities that run the gamut in terms of the political spectrum.' 'We're hearing everybody out, finding out what's important to them, and figuring out if there's a way to address that in the context of the bill,' Thune continued. 'But it's a process.' Thune is bearing the brunt of the Collins-Murkowski work, multiple Senate GOP sources said. He's held a number of one-and-one and small group meetings. Both senators have big-ticket items they want to see revised in the bill. Murkowski has made clear her worries about potential Medicaid work requirements, as she believes her state will have trouble implementing them due to its outdated payment systems for the program, and the bill's potential nixing of renewable energy tax credits. The pair have both expressed concerns over what overall reductions could mean for key segments of their states, including tribes for Murkowski and rural individuals and hospitals for Collins. The Maine Republican also cited possible Medicaid beneficiary cuts when she voted against the budget blueprint in early April. The push is only expected to intensify in the coming days as relevant committees unveil their portions of the bill text. 'We're still building things on our side. … Everyone is pulling this gumby in lots of different directions,' Murkowski told reporters on Thursday, explaining that while there are provisions for energy and the Coast Guard that are very positive for her state, more is needed on the Medicaid side. Murkowski also indicated that while she has not gotten the call from Trump just as conservatives did, she also is in touch with other administration figures. Among those is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, whom she talked to briefly after he addressed a Senate GOP luncheon last week. The two are expected to speak early this week to discuss her concerns more in depth. Collins separately is expected to lean on a number of agency heads as she carries out what members have described as a methodical process. 'Susan works extremely hard, [is] very detailed, knows everything, has a lot of history. [There's] different issues in Maine than in a lot of other places and everybody respects that.' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( a member of GOP leadership. There are also political considerations at play, leading some to believe Murkowski will be easier to win. Collins is up for reelection next year in a state that voted for former Vice President Harris. Whether either backs the bill may depend on the impacts of the package on their respective states. Murkowski backed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in large part because the bill opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, which had been among her top priorities in the upper chamber throughout her tenure. 'If it works for Alaska, he's not going to need to pressure me,' Murkowski said when asked if it would be a mistake for Trump to pressure her during this process. 'If it works for Alaska, it works for me and gets my vote.'
