South Dakota

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

Published

2 months 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

USDA to offer distaster assistance to South Dakota agriculture producers impacted by winter storms

Published

11 hours ago

March 26, 2026

Press Room

USDA to offer distaster assistance to South Dakota agriculture producers impacted by winter storms

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture is offering financial and technical assistance to South Dakota farmers and livestock producers who may have been impacted by the recent winter storms.

“I encourage impacted producers to contact their local USDA Service Center to report losses and learn more about program options available to assist in their recovery from crop, land, infrastructure, and livestock losses and damages.” said Richard Fordyce, Production and Conservation Under Secretary.

FSA’s Emergency Conservation Program and Emergency Forest Restoration Program can assist landowners with financial assistance to restore damaged land and conservation structures or forests.

“Our staff will work one-on-one with landowners to make assessments of the damages and develop methods that focus on effective recovery of the land.” said Jessica Michalski, Acting NRCS State Conservationist in South Dakota.

For more information about the disaster assistance program, click here.

Source link

South Dakota

Plaque unveiled at South Dakota Capitol for 100-year-old Medal of Honor recipient

Published

23 hours ago

March 26, 2026

Press Room

Plaque unveiled at South Dakota Capitol for 100-year-old Medal of Honor recipient

South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden, left, and Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen unveil a plaque for retired U.S. Navy Capt. E. Royce Williams in the Hall of Honor at the Capitol in Pierre on March 25, 2026. (Photo by Meghan O’Brien/South Dakota Searchlight)

By:Meghan O’Brien

PIERRE, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) — There’s a new name in the South Dakota Hall of Honor at the state Capitol building.

One-hundred-year-old South Dakota native and retired U.S. Navy Capt. E. Royce Williams was celebrated at a Wednesday ceremony where a plaque honoring him was unveiled, although Williams did not attend.

“In spite of being outnumbered and facing incredible danger, Captain Williams engaged the enemy with courage and skill,” said Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden. “Our state has always had a strong tradition of service, and Captain Williams is the very best of that tradition.”

President Donald Trump awarded Williams the Medal of Honor, the country’s highest military honor, at the State of the Union address earlier this year. The medal honors actions by Williams that had been classified for decades.

“His story was secret for over 50 years, he didn’t even want to tell his wife, but the legend grew and grew,” Trump said during the speech in February. “But tonight, at 100 years old, this brave Navy captain is finally getting the recognition he deserves.”

On Nov. 18, 1952, over Korean coastal waters during the Korean War, then-Lt. Williams, from Wilmot, South Dakota, led three F9F Panthers against seven Soviet MiG-15s. He disabled three enemy jets and damaged a fourth.

The Soviet jets, according to the U.S. Naval Institute, were “superior to the F9F in almost every fashion.” The mission was the only direct overwater combat between U.S. Navy fighters and Soviet fighters during the Cold War.

Williams, one of 11 Medal of Honor recipients from South Dakota, now lives in California. The Hall of Honor at the South Dakota Capitol is located in the hallway that visitors enter immediately after going through security.

Source link

South Dakota

Red Flag Warnings issued for parts of Wyoming, Nebraska, and South Dakota

Published

1 day ago

March 25, 2026

Press Room

Red Flag Warnings issued for parts of Wyoming, Nebraska, and South Dakota

Red Flag Warnings are in effect across parts of the central High Plains and adjacent Rocky Mountain region on March 25, 2026, as meteorological conditions support critical fire weather across portions of Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, and nearby areas.

The National Weather Service (NWS) offices in Cheyenne, Riverton, North Platte, Rapid City, Billings, Missoula, Grand Junction, and Hastings issued multiple coordinated warnings covering numerous fire weather zones, with the most widespread period of concern from late morning through the evening hours. In several areas of Nebraska and Wyoming, warnings extend into March 26.

Sustained west to southwest winds of 25–65 km/h (15–40 mph), with gusts reaching 65–95 km/h (40–60 mph), are forecast across much of the region. The strongest winds are expected in parts of Wyoming and Montana, including mountainous and foothill areas, where gusts may locally reach 95 km/h (60 mph).

Relative humidity values are forecast to drop to between 10–20% during peak heating, with some locations reporting minimum values near 10–12%.

Temperatures are expected to rise well above seasonal averages, with highs reaching the upper 20s to low 30s °C (upper 70s to lower 90s °F) across parts of Nebraska, Wyoming, and surrounding regions. This combination of warm temperatures and dry fuels significantly enhances the potential for ignition and rapid fire spread.

The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) identified a Critical Fire Weather area in its Day 1 Fire Weather Outlook for parts of central and eastern Wyoming into far western Nebraska and extreme southwest South Dakota, citing a strengthening surface pressure gradient and strong mid-level winds contributing to sustained surface winds of approximately 30–40 km/h (20–25 mph) and relative humidity near 15%.

March 25, 2026, Day 1 Fire Weather Outlook affected area. Credit: NWS

The fire weather threat is forecast to shift southward in the coming days. The SPC Day 2 outlook highlights critical fire weather conditions across central New Mexico into the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles and northwest Oklahoma, where low relative humidity and strengthening winds are expected to persist.

Additional hazards include the potential for isolated dry lightning, particularly across portions of western Nebraska and surrounding areas during the late afternoon and evening. Any lightning strikes in dry fuels may act as ignition sources, while associated outflow winds could lead to erratic fire behavior.

Mar 25, 2026 Day 2 Fire Weather Outlook — March 25, 2026, Day 2 Fire Weather Outlook affected area. Credit: NWS

A cold front is forecast to move through the region late on March 25 into early March 26, bringing an abrupt wind shift from westerly to northerly directions with continued gusts of 30–70 km/h (20–45 mph). While cooler temperatures and slightly higher humidity may follow the frontal passage, the wind shift could exacerbate fire behavior in ongoing incidents.

Late March marks the beginning of the peak fire weather season across the central High Plains and adjacent regions, when dormant grasses and dry vegetation are highly receptive to ignition. Combined with frequent strong wind events and low humidity, this seasonal pattern increases the likelihood of fast-moving grassland fires.

Authorities advise against outdoor burning during the warning period, as even small ignition sources may lead to rapidly spreading fires under the prevailing conditions.

References:

¹Mar 25, 2026 Day 2 Fire Weather Outlook – NWS – March 25, 2026

² Mar 25, 2026 Day 1 Fire Weather Outlook – NWS – March 25, 2026

³ Day 3-8 Fire Weather Outlook Issued on Mar 24, 2026 – NWS – March 24, 2026

Source link