Latest news with #SenateBill191
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers face big votes over property tax growth
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — With five working days left in the main run of the 2025 legislative session, it's coming down to crunch time at the state Capitol to find a way to slow the growth of property taxes on owner-occupied residences in South Dakota. State senators on Thursday afternoon could vote on a plan from Republican Rep. Greg Jamison plan to further restrict spending by local governments. Meanwhile the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon is scheduled to debate a package from Gov. Larry Rhoden and a task force of 10 lawmakers. Senate Bill 216 would cap assessment growth countywide at and limit spending growth, while also expanding financial limits for people aged 65 and older to have assessments frozen on their owner-occupied homes. Then there's also a proposal that the House will take up Monday from Republican Sen. Amber Hulse and Republican Rep. Jack Kolbeck, who want to roll back many owner-occupied assessments to 2021 levels — and do it without causing a tax shift to agriculture or commercial properties. Jamison's approach, House Bill 1235, would reduce the amount of property taxes that a taxing district — including school districts — can collect to 2.5% per year. Currently state law limits the increase to no more than 3%. The House voted 39-31 to send Jamison's plan to the Senate. On Wednesday, it received the endorsement of the Senate Taxation Committee 6-0, despite opposition from lobbyists for the South Dakota Municipal League, the South Dakota Association of County Commissioners and the Associated School Boards of South Dakota. The Rhoden-task force proposal, Senate Bill 216, rolled through the Senate a week ago 30-5 and came out of the House State Affairs Committee on Wednesday night 9-4. One section limits assessment growth on owner-occupied property for the county as a whole to no more than 3% annually for the next five years, with an exception for new construction. Another section of SB 216 caps spending growth to no more than 3% annually but allows for an additional 2% for any new construction or changes in circumstances. It also would give all school districts authority for capital outlay levies. The final sections of SB 216 expand eligibility for people ages 65 and up to qualify for assessment freezes. The current household income limits of $35,000 for single-person households and $45,000 for multi-person households would increase to $55,000 and $65,000. The upper limit for a home's assessed value also would rise to $500,000 from the current $300,000. The Hulse-Kolbeck proposal, Senate Bill 191, proposes to roll back owner-occupied homes to 2021 assessment levels for people who have been living in the same homes since then. Owner-occupied properties that have changed hands or circumstances since then would be assessed at fair-market value. Wendy Semmler, director for the state Property Tax Division in the state Department of Revenue, said the result of SB 191 would be a $16 billion reduction in taxable value of owner-occupied property. Semmler said that tax levies would have to be increased to make up the difference and those higher levies would hit harder on people who didn't own their current residences prior to 2021. SB 191 came out of the Senate 35-0 but barely got out of the House State Affairs Committee 7-6 Wednesday night. In addition to Revenue being against it, opposition also came from South Dakota Retailers, South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry, several county directors of equalization, South Dakota Farm Bureau and every other South Dakota agricultural group, South Dakota Association of County Commissioners, South Dakota Towns and Townships and a company official from a financial services firm that advises many local governments on debt issues, who warned it could endanger state government's AAA bond rating. 'You got four days,' Republican Rep. Spencer Gosch told Hulse. 'You'll have the weekend to work with some of the opponents and maybe pull a rabbit out of the hat.' Republican Rep. Marty Overweg, an agricultural businessman and farmer, voted against both the governor-task force bill and the Hulse-Kolbeck bill because he doesn't trust either one won't push tax burden onto agricultural property. 'I think it's dangerous. I really do think it's dangerous,' Overweg said. 'You want corporate farming in South Dakota, just let taxes go crazy on the property.' On the other hand the committee's chair, Republican Rep. Scott Odenbach, voted for both. 'I hope one of these measures, the best measure for relief, can make it out of the House,' he said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Domestic violence funding easily passes through judiciary panels
Funding domestic violence programs like shelter, legal aid and and counseling serves as a critical strategy for reducing child abuse and neglect, Sen. Linda Trujillo (D-Santa Fe) told the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. (Photo by Austin Fisher / Source NM) Twin proposals to fund domestic violence services in New Mexico have sailed through their initial committees, but await approval to be included in the state budget. Senate Bill 191 would set aside $10 million to the Crime Victims Reparation Commission for community-based domestic violence programs. Its companion bill in the other chamber is House Bill 216. The bills have each passed unanimously through their respective committees dealing with New Mexico's judicial branch; SB191 got through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 31 and HB216 passed the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6. Both await hearings in budget committees. Domestic violence services are not available in all counties, making it necessary for some survivors living in rural areas to travel as much as 90 miles to receive them, according to the Crime Victims Reparation Commission's analysis of SB191. In places where services exist, they're inadequately funded to meet survivors' needs, the Commission wrote. Funding domestic violence programs like shelter, legal aid and and counseling serves as a critical strategy for reducing child abuse and neglect, co-sponsor Linda Trujillo (D-Santa Fe) told the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. Those services give survivors a better chance at escaping dangerous situations and provide a stable and safe environment for their children, she said. Trujillo cited studies showing that children who witness domestic violence develop a higher risk of experiencing abuse themselves and suffering long-term emotional and development harm. 'By investing in these programs, we not only protect survivors but also break the cycles of violence, reducing the number of children entering the welfare system,' she said. 'This is a proactive, cost-effective approach that prioritizes safety, stability and stronger families.' MaryEllen Garcia, CEO of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said the 32 shelter programs she represents are operating at a 'funding deficit' and haven't received a state funding boost in five years, despite a 44.7% increase in shelter nights provided since 2023, and a 53% increase in crisis calls since 2020. 'We are at a critical time — I'm sure you all are aware of what's happening nationally — and we are in jeopardy of receiving massive funding cuts because of the type of work we do,' Garcia said at the Senate Judiciary hearing. 'It's imperative that we secure and lean into our values as a state, ensuring that those who are most vulnerable are receiving services.' House Bill 57, co-sponsored by Rep. Pamelya Herndon (D-Albuquerque) would create a program for attorneys to represent domestic violence survivors, and SB191 could provide the funding for that work, according to the Commission. That legislation awaits a hearing in the House Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Climate
- Yahoo
Poll: Should daylight saving time become permanent? New Mexicans weigh in
NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – Get ready for later sunrises and sunsets: daylight saving time (DST) begins on March 9. Every spring, the debate over the time change seems to reignite. Many people want to keep the jump forward permanently, while others want to stick with standard time year-round. Of course, some people just want the current system to stay. KRQE asked viewers via social media whether the clocks should still be changed twice a year. An overwhelming 71% of viewers want to keep the upcoming jump permanent. Making daylight saving time year-round would mean later sunrises and sunsets, even in the winter. Many people who prefer this option tend to dislike how early the sun sets in the colder months. The earlier sunsets during standard time are also deterrents for some. 'Stay on DST – no one needs sunshine at 4:30 a.m. Having daylight later in the summer and a bit later in the winter is so much better,' one viewer noted. Over 10% of viewers, on the other hand, believe standard time should become the norm. While the sun would set later in the afternoon, the later sunrises could be detrimental to early risers. One viewer wants to 'make standard time permanent; our children should not go to school in the morning in the dark. Even in the winter my child is still home before it is dark but the change to daylight savings time would put my child on the bus in the dark in the morning.' 13% of viewers aren't looking for change; they want to keep the current system exactly how it is. 'Leave it as it is right now!!! It stays lighter as the spring and summer come until summer solstice then starts going back down towards fall and winter,' said one viewer. The remaining 5.5% aren't sure if daylight saving time or standard time is better. Either way, most of them still want the time change to stop. One viewer said they 'don't care what time we end on as long as we can quit jumping around.' Daylight saving time 2025: These states are trying to 'lock the clocks' New Mexico legislators have attempted to stop the time change before. Senate Bill 191 was introduced in 2023, aiming to exempt the state from daylight saving time, but it remains postponed indefinitely. Senate Bill 287, aiming to exempt New Mexico from standard time, was introduced the same year and passed its first committee, but it too is indefinitely postponed. While there isn't currently any legislation in New Mexico surrounding daylight savings, many states are considering making a change. Some states have already adopted one time zone year-round. Since 1968, Arizona (with the exception of the Navajo Nation) has observed Mountain Standard Time when the rest of the country switches to DST. Hawaii also keeps the time the same because of its location so close to the equator, which ensures the state doesn't have much of a difference in how much sun it sees throughout the year. National polls show that the majority of Americans prefer a permanent daylight saving time, although many health experts disagree with this solution. Kroger giving out free boxes for Daylight Savings Time The U.S. has actually attempted to make DST permanent before. In the 1910s, it was enacted as a temporary wartime measure before being repealed after a year. In the midst of World War II, the measure returned, setting off decades of limited guidance on how cities and states should observe their time. Congress passed the Uniform Time Act in 1966, formally standardizing the time change across the U.S. (minus Hawaii and most of Arizona). Then, in 1973, in the throes of an energy crisis, President Nixon signed an emergency daylight saving time bill into law, making DST last the whole year. This change was initially well-liked, but safety concerns soon affected public opinion. In 1974, the U.S. returned to the twice-a-year time change that we are still familiar with today. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
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.
