South Dakota

Bill to bring every school district opt-out to an election fails in SD

Published

4 weeks ago

February 5, 2026

Bill to bring every school district opt-out to an election fails in SD

Thirty-nine legislators voted against a bill Feb. 4 in the South Dakota House of Representatives that would’ve brought every single school district opt-out to a public vote.

After Senate Bill 85 failed to pass, with 29 lawmakers voting for it and two excused, bill sponsor Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, said he intended the bill to be reconsidered in the coming days, meaning the bill could’ve been heard again Feb. 5.

But by the time the House reconvened that day with SB 85 on the docket, Hughes didn’t choose to move to have the bill reconsidered.

He told the Argus Leader, in emails shortly after the bill was mentioned on the House floor, that it wouldn’t be reconsidered, and it’s most likely the case that the bill will remain dead. But that other bills affecting opt-outs are pending, and amendments could come forward.

Opt-outs allow school districts to raise additional operating funds beyond what they get in their existing tax levy, and in state aid, by “opting out” of those limitations to collect more taxes from property owners in the district.

“Only time will tell how this issue works itself out and whether a mandatory referral requirement will reappear in some other bill,” Hughes told the Argus Leader.

Bill sponsor skeptical of trust in school administrators

Hughes would’ve had an uphill battle to change minds and flip votes, as many of the legislators who spoke in opposition to the bill staunchly defended education, local control and the financial decisions made by superintendents, school boards and school districts.

Those legislators cited the fact that only 14 districts passed opt-outs over the last year, with five of those being referred to an election, and all five passing.

SB 85 is one of 19 recommendations brought by the comprehensive property tax task force that met over the summer. Sen. Sue Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, brought both the bill and the recommendation, both opposed by the Sioux Falls School District (SFSD). Peterson said it was not a “silver bullet,” but part of the solution to solve the property tax problem in the state.

Peterson has also brought SB 223, which would require petitioners to gather only 50 signatures in 40 days to refer an opt-out to an election. The bill has been referred to the Senate State Affairs committee.

Hughes noted Feb. 4 that last year’s resolution to convene the task force was approved by 64 Representatives.

“One thing we have all seen from the floor vote on SB 85, the House in 2025-2026 thus far is talking out of both sides of its mouth on property tax reform and relief, and the voters should take that into consideration in June and November, if this session continues its present course on property taxes, and that we should just ‘trust the school administrations’ in South Dakota,” Hughes said in a statement Feb. 5.

Sioux Falls was a focal point of the bill

In House debate Feb. 4 and in the bill’s prior hearings, it was clear the most recent opt-out passed by the SFSD Board of Education, and the inability of petition circulators to gather enough signatures to bring the proposal to a vote, was a flashpoint that led to the bill’s creation.

That opt-out for $2.1 million over 10 years — or $21 million — needed 5,490 signatures to be referred to voters, but only 2,302 signatures were turned in by the deadline, in 20 days.

One of the most outspoken petitioners, Misty Furness, noted the cost for the district to hold an opt-out election — $63,000 — is far less than $21 million, and said SB 85 is about giving taxpayers a voice.

Peterson said Jan. 22 in the bill’s first hearing in the Senate Education committee that it shouldn’t be the responsibility of voters to gather petition signatures to prevent districts from spending over the limits that have been set for them.

During the Sioux Falls school board’s work session Feb. 4, shortly before the House started debating SB 85, school board president Nan Kelly said the bill wouldn’t solve the property tax issue “in any real meaningful way,” and said opt-outs have historically been used to fill the gap between what’s available in state and local funding, and what’s needed.

District business manager Todd Vik noted the Legislature increased state aid to education at only 1.25% last year and is proposing no increase this year, and said SB 85 will make it “much more difficult to opt out.”

Kelly said the bill sets a “very dangerous precedent” and could lead to similar legislation being proposed for cities and counties.

That’s something SFSD lobbyist Sam Nelson brought up in his testimony against the bill in the House Education committee Feb. 2, arguing that if proponents believed SB 85 was good for schools, it should be good for all local units of government, including the general bill and special appropriations passed by legislators.

Part of the reason opt-outs are in place is that “for years, we have not adequately funded public education, which is your constitutional obligation to do,” Nelson told the House Education committee on Feb. 2.

He noted that people who disagree with opt-outs or other decisions made by school board members have two ways to deal with it: showing up at school board meetings and making public comments, or “one of the greatest referendum tools,” the ballot box.

Rep. Brian Mulder, R-Sioux Falls, said he’d heard from SFSD that only one person made public comments on the budget cycle, and only two people emailed Superintendent Jamie Nold about the budget, noting that people already have the opportunity to influence school board and district decisions.

Districts ‘glibly ignore spending limits,’ proponents argue

In prior committee hearings, SB 85 was endorsed by lobbyists for the Freedom Foundation and Americans for Prosperity.

Legislators who spoke in favor of SB 85 Feb. 4 largely argued that taxpaying voters need to have a say in opt-outs that school boards want to pass, and that part of “local control” is for local school board voters to be part of decisions in their local school districts.

Hughes had argued that a number of school districts across the state “glibly ignore spending limits.”

In his rebuttal, he said his sons shouldn’t have to go to school board meetings and “plow through budgets” that make “all of us gloss over.”

He also said that in December, Nold gave a “wonderful defense for everything he’s doing to continue, according to the status quo,” and said that if legislators don’t pass SB 85, “we ought to just give everybody a trophy and go home.”

Rep. Terri Jorgenson, R-Rapid City, argued SB 85 is not about schools or education funding, but about taxpayers’ consent. She said there are 79 active opt-outs across the state levying $43 million in excess property taxes.

SB 85 takes tools out of education’s toolbox, opponents argued

In prior committee hearings, SB 85 was opposed by lobbyists for the Sioux Falls School District, Rapid City Area Schools, Associated School Boards of South Dakota, School Administrators of South Dakota, South Dakota Education Association, South Dakota United School Association, the Large School Group and the Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce.

Since the petition group in Sioux Falls didn’t gather enough signatures, ASBSD lobbyist Heath Larson said it’s possible local constituents were supportive of the district and trusted what school board members were doing.

Large School Group lobbyist Dianna Miller argued that putting a mandate like SB 85 on schools isn’t “limited government,” and said that the property tax problem shouldn’t be “solved on the backs of school districts” alone, something Rep. Mike Stevens repeated on the House floor.

Reps. Erik Muckey, Jim Halverson, Tim Walburg, William Shorma, Roger DeGroot, Keri Weems, Stevens and Mulder all spoke against the bill on the House floor.

DeGroot said school districts pass opt-outs because “we’re not doing our job here,” referring to legislators’ power to increase education funding in Pierre. He added the lack of a proposed increase in state aid to education this year “makes absolutely no sense to me at all.”

Stevens said all legislators do recently is “take tools out” of education’s toolbox, and that if SB 85 passed, “there’d be no more tools in that toolbox.” He noted districts must publish public notices and hold public hearings when school boards plan to vote on or pass opt-outs.

Walburg said he trusts his superintendent and school board members, and that the state shouldn’t dictate what they can do. He noted that 57% of his property tax bill went to schools, which he said was about $265 twice a year.

Halverson said one of the superintendents in his legislative district had asked him to vote no and respect local control. Weems also said constituents in her district value what their property tax does for education, and that she voted against the bill and in favor of local control.

Source link

Click to comment

South Dakota

SD Lottery Millionaire for Life winning numbers for March 1, 2026

Published

12 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 1, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 1 drawing

10-11-12-35-56, Bonus: 04

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

When are the South Dakota Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Dakota Cash: 9 p.m. CT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Dakota editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

South Dakota

South Dakota High School Students Showcase Culinary Skills – Harrisburg Today

Published

24 hours ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

South Dakota High School Students Showcase Culinary Skills – Harrisburg Today

Published on Mar. 1, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The South Dakota ProStart® Invitational is an annual culinary competition where high school students from across the state showcase their cooking and restaurant management skills. This year, 12 schools will send a total of 60 talented students to Pierre to compete in events like cake decorating, culinary arts, and restaurant management. Winners will receive scholarships and the opportunity to advance to the National ProStart® Invitational in Baltimore, Maryland.

Why it matters

The ProStart® program is an important investment in developing South Dakota’s future culinary and hospitality industry leaders. By providing high school students with hands-on experience and the chance to compete at the state and national levels, the program helps cultivate the next generation of skilled chefs, restaurateurs, and food service professionals.

The details

The South Dakota ProStart® Invitational will take place on March 9-10, 2026 in Pierre. The competition kicks off on Monday, March 9th at 2:00 PM with a cake decorating contest. The more intense culinary arts and restaurant management competitions will be held on Tuesday, March 10th starting at 8:45 AM. Students will be judged on their technical skills, creativity, and business acumen as they compete for scholarships and a spot at the national competition.

The South Dakota ProStart® Invitational will take place on March 9-10, 2026.
The cake decorating competition will be held on Monday, March 9th at 2:00 PM.
The culinary arts and restaurant management competitions will take place on Tuesday, March 10th starting at 8:45 AM.

The players

Nathan Sanderson

Executive Director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, which administers the ProStart® program.

Florence

One of the 12 high schools sending students to compete in the South Dakota ProStart® Invitational.

Harrisburg

One of the 12 high schools sending students to compete in the South Dakota ProStart® Invitational.

Huron

One of the 12 high schools sending students to compete in the South Dakota ProStart® Invitational.

Mitchell CTE

One of the 12 high schools sending students to compete in the South Dakota ProStart® Invitational.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“ProStart® is an excellent way for us to invest in South Dakota’s future industry leaders. Our students are highly skilled and graduate workplace ready.”

— Nathan Sanderson, Executive Director of the South Dakota Retailers Association (b1027.com)

What’s next

The winners of the South Dakota ProStart® Invitational will advance to the National ProStart® Invitational in Baltimore, Maryland, where they will represent the state on a national stage.

The takeaway

The South Dakota ProStart® Invitational is a valuable program that helps cultivate the next generation of culinary and hospitality professionals in the state, providing high school students with hands-on experience, scholarships, and the opportunity to showcase their skills at the national level.

Source link

South Dakota

3 takeaways from South Dakota State basketball’s revenge win over USD

Published

2 days ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

3 takeaways from South Dakota State basketball’s revenge win over USD

BROOKINGS — The South Dakota State women’s basketball team got some payback on its in-state rival, knocking off South Dakota 82-49 in both teams’ final game of the regular season.

Here’s a few reasons the Jackrabbits got their get back.

Meyer with one final home masterpiece

The Senior Day festivities before the game clearly didn’t phase the South Dakota State seniors, especially star forward Brooklyn Meyer. She dominated from the first possession, scoring 12 points on 6-of-7 shooting in the first 10 minutes.

That start helped the Jackrabbits get out to a 27-8 lead through a quarter and basically put this thing on ice before it even got started.

Meyer was able to get post-up opportunities by flashing from the opposite block and spinning in front of the Coyote defenders, catching the ball in the mid-post and choosing to either attack with a post move or face and attack.

The senior also cut from elbow to block well, especially as she became the screener in the pick-and-roll more frequently.

Meyer added eight points in both the second and third quarters, and five in the fourth to close her career at First Bank & Trust Arena with a 33-point effort on 13-for-17 shooting.

Size proves to be an issue

This one encompasses both sides of the ball, as the Coyotes struggled mightily to handle South Dakota State’s size on either end of the floor.

Molly Joyce was the only South Dakota player to consistently find success, but that started way too late. Point guard Angelina Robles was constantly harassed and never got enough free space to work her magic, and the Coyotes eventually turned to contested jumpers as a way to get shots on the rim.

Joyce closed the game with 21 points for South Dakota, and Robles ended with 11.

It was the same defensive model North Dakota State used to great success, but the Jackrabbits kept the ‘Yotes in front for the most part and didn’t allow much deep dribble penetration.

South Dakota State’s length showed itself in a non-traditional way offensively, with the guards able to get their shots off frequently and in rhythm. The South Dakota guards tried to be active and available defensively, but the quick triggers didn’t let them be effective.

Meyer and Brooklyn Felchle also had a size advantage down low that helped a lot, and that showed itself in a more traditional sense. The duo got their shots up over smaller defenders, rebounded hard and disrupted shots in the paint.

Fox continues to ascend

Emilee Fox’s emergence for South Dakota State has come with this current seven-game winning streak. The sophomore has embraced her role as point guard, which coincidentally has increased her scoring output.

Fox ripped off four more 3-pointers, on only seven attempts, and dished out four assists, too.

Fox and Hadley Thul were tonight’s big-time contributors from deep on a night when Maddie Mathiowetz was particularly cold.

The sophomore point guard has added an element to this offense that it had needed in Summit League play, and the Jackrabbits might now be peaking at just the right time.

Source link