Connect with us

South Dakota

South Dakota committee OKs bill making school opt-out petitions easier

Published

on

South Dakota committee OKs bill making school opt-out petitions easier


play

Eight members of the House Education committee voted Wednesday, Feb. 25, to advance a bill that opponents called an “attack on public education.”

Senate Bill 223, brought by Sen. Sue Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, would give petitioners more time to gather fewer signatures to refer school district opt-outs to a vote. She said it’s a property tax relief bill with reasonable changes to refer opt-outs to the ballot.

Advertisement

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.

Instead of having 20 days to get signatures from 5% of the total number of people registered to vote in the school district, the bill would give petitioners 40 days to collect signatures from either 5% of people who voted in the last school district election, or 50 voters, whichever is greater.

Sioux Falls School District Superintendent Jamie Nold said SB 223 “specifically attacks public schools,” and takes away school boards’ options to balance school district budgets because the state aid districts receive hasn’t met the rate of inflation for the last two years.

“Senate Bill 223 is an attempt to use the Legislature to negatively impact schools that serve all students,” Nold said. “Senate Bill 223 will continually make it harder for public schools to maintain a balanced budget, pay teachers and maintain local control.”

Advertisement

SB 223 previously passed on a 6-3 vote in the Senate State Affairs committee, and a 20-14 vote in the Senate. After the 8-7 vote in the House Education committee, SB 223 will move to the House in the coming days. If it passes there, it will land on Gov. Larry Rhoden’s desk.

‘Maybe, just maybe, there isn’t support to refer this to an election’

Much of the discussion on SB 223 centered on the most recent opt-out passed in the Sioux Falls School District −$2.1 million over 10 years, or $21 million total − and the failure of petition gatherers to get enough signatures to refer it to a vote. They needed 5,490 signatures, and only got 2,302 by the deadline. Peterson called it a “heroic effort.”

One of the proponents, Sioux Falls resident Amy Bruner, said the gathering of petition signatures included 50 volunteers. Peterson noted she was not involved in gathering signatures for the opt-out petition.

If the petition group’s goal was about 5,500 signatures, each of those 50 volunteers would’ve needed to gather 110 signatures over the 20-day period, or five to six signatures each day. The group as a whole needed to gather 275 signatures per day over 20 days.

Advertisement

Opponents argued that the failure of the petition group to gather more signatures from the public, or to find more people interested in gathering signatures, is evidence that people supported their local school board’s decision to opt-out.

“Maybe, just maybe, there isn’t support to refer this to an election,” said Heath Larson, lobbyist for Associated School Boards of South Dakota. “Maybe the people in the local community are supportive of what the local school board is doing, and they trust their local school boards.”

And while much of the discussion did center on the Sioux Falls School District, Nold said property tax issues and opt-outs aren’t a Sioux Falls issue alone. He said the district has the second-lowest levy of the 11 districts in the Sioux Falls metro area and is in the bottom 20% of South Dakota’s school districts in property valuation per student.

Advertisement

Opponents argue SB 223 makes it ‘too easy’ to refer opt-outs

The last school district election in May 2025 saw 2.33% of eligible registered voters − 2,958 of 126,334 − cast ballots in that election; which was one of the lowest turnouts in recent memory.

More people voted in the election than signed the petition to refer the opt-out to a vote.

If SB 223 had been in effect when the board passed the opt-out for fiscal year 2026 in June 2025, only 148 signatures would’ve been needed to refer the opt-out to an election.

Peterson said SB 223 wouldn’t make it “easy,” but “attainable” to refer opt-outs to an election. 

Advertisement

But opponents, including South Dakota Education Association lobbyist Sandra Waltman and Sioux Falls School District lobbyist Sam Nelson, said SB 223 makes it “too easy” to refer opt-outs to elections.

Disagreement on public input, voter fatigue

While the proponents argued that SB 223 is about giving taxpayers a voice in local spending decisions, opponents said there are already opportunities to give input on those decisions.

That includes attending school board meetings, voicing concerns at those meetings during public comment time, contacting school board members and superintendents, voting in school board elections or running for school board.

When the Sioux Falls School District looks to pass an opt-out, it meets with community members and business leaders in its Finance Action Network to vet them in a five-month process before the opt-out is presented publicly to the school board, Nold said.

From there, the school board has three different public meetings to discuss the opt-out, with opportunities for the public to comment and give feedback, an “extensive process” before opt-outs are finalized and ratified, Nold explained.

Advertisement

Holding an opt-out election in an odd-numbered year would cost the district $63,000, Nold said. More elections would create voter fatigue, Waltman said.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

South Dakota

Here’s how much South Dakotans could save on property taxes after accounting for higher sales taxes

Published

on

Here’s how much South Dakotans could save on property taxes after accounting for higher sales taxes


(SOUTH DAKOTA SEARCHLIGHT) – Estimates of homeowner savings abounded recently as South Dakota lawmakers and Gov. Larry Rhoden approved property tax reduction legislation.

It’s been difficult, however, to find two other estimates: 1) the extra money consumers will spend to fund reduced property taxes with higher sales taxes, and 2) the net savings for homeowners after their extra sales tax spending is subtracted from their property tax savings.

South Dakota Searchlight’s effort to answer those questions led to these estimates: The average South Dakota homeowner’s total savings if they receive both forms of property tax relief could be $1,080 annually. Meanwhile, the average South Dakota household could spend $360 more per year if subjected to both sales tax increases. When it’s all said and done, that’s a net yearly savings of about $720 for homeowners.

To learn how Searchlight arrived at those rough estimates, keep reading. But first, a bit about the new laws.

Advertisement

The new laws

One of the new laws allows the statewide sales tax rate to return to 4.5% next year, after a temporary reduction to 4.2% since 2023. The revenue from the increase will be allocated to the school funding formula to reduce the amount of property taxes schools need from local homeowners.

The other new law allows counties to impose their first-ever sales tax at a rate of up to 0.5%. That revenue will go toward credits to reduce the county’s portion of homeowner property taxes.

Estimating property tax savings

To estimate average property tax savings for homeowners, Searchlight asked the state Department of Revenue for the average assessed value of owner-occupied homes in the state. The department did not provide that figure.

But it did provide the total taxable value of all owner-occupied properties for taxes payable this year: $62,211,360,002.

The department also provided the total number of owner-occupied properties in the state: 253,263.

Advertisement

Dividing the total taxable value by the number of owner-occupied properties yields an average value of $245,639.

“However,” the department said, “this number may include both houses and additional structures such as unattached garages.” The department added that the impact of those additional structures on the average valuation is minimal.

The owner-occupied classification, which lowers the levy applied to an owner’s primary residence, can be applied to a single-family dwelling, an attached or unattached garage, and the parcel of land where a home stands. The new property tax reduction law applies specifically to single-family dwellings.

To account for the minimal impact from additional structures, Searchlight rounded up to $250,000 as the average taxable value of homes in the state.

Revenue from the increase in the statewide sales tax rate is expected to reduce property taxes by $1.683 for each $1,000 of a home’s taxable value, according to the state Bureau of Finance and Management. For the average home with a taxable value of $250,000, that’s about $420 of savings.

Advertisement

Homeowners’ savings if their county enacts a 0.5% sales tax to fund property tax credits will vary across the state, because counties have different property tax rates and varying levels of potential sales tax revenue. But the Governor’s Office has estimated that the average savings will be $660. The office arrived at that number by taking the total, estimated new revenue generated if every county implemented the plan, and dividing it by the number of owner-occupied properties, which should approximate the average savings per homeowner.

Thus, the total annual property tax savings for the average homeowner receiving both forms of relief would be $420 plus $660, which adds up to $1,080.

Estimating extra sales tax spending

To arrive at an estimated extra amount of spending for the average South Dakota household (meaning a house or apartment) on higher sales taxes, Searchlight first needed an estimate of the average household’s annual sales-taxable spending.

Searchlight spoke with the Dakota Institute, a nonprofit economic research and analysis organization in Sioux Falls. The institute suggested dividing the total of certain categories of taxable sales (excluding categories that are likely purchases by businesses) by the state’s 382,302 occupied housing units (including apartments), resulting in an estimate of about $82,000 in annual taxable spending per household. However, institute CEO Jared McEntaffer noted many of those purchases were still probably made by businesses and tourists, so the true average is lower.

Gov. Larry Rhoden’s finance commissioner pointed Searchlight to a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report stating that the average U.S. household spent $77,280 in 2023. Sales tax does not apply to some expenses, such as prescription drugs or mortgage payments. After subtracting such categories of spending that are unlikely to be taxed and adjusting for inflation since 2023, Searchlight settled on $45,000 as the estimated average annual sales-taxable spending per South Dakota household.

Advertisement

If that average household is subjected to both of the new sales tax increases, it would be the equivalent of an additional 0.8% tax. On $45,000 of spending, that would be $360 of extra sales taxes annually.

In a household subjected to only the 0.3-percentage-point statewide sales tax increase (without a county sales tax), that would be $135 of extra sales taxes annually.

Estimating net savings, and complications

If the average homeowner saves $1,080 annually on property taxes from both forms of relief and spends $360 annually in extra sales taxes, that homeowner’s annual net savings would be $720.

Homeowners in counties that do not enact a sales tax for property tax relief would receive, on average, the $420 in property tax relief from the statewide sales increase and spend $135 on higher sales taxes, for a net savings of $285.

Those are rough estimates. Actual situations will vary widely across the state. Household spending varies by income. Homes in rural areas are typically valued lower than in urban areas. Counties have different property tax rates, called levies. Some counties may choose to enact a sales tax for property tax relief, and others may not. In counties that do adopt a sales tax, the amount of revenue available for property tax relief will vary. And people who live in counties that do not adopt a sales tax will likely travel and spend money in counties that do.

Advertisement

And, for households that rent rather than own their home, it’s all just a sales tax increase.

South Dakota Searchlight is part ofStates Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

Copyright 2026 KOTA. All rights reserved.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

SD Lottery Mega Millions, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for April 28, 2026

Published

on


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

Here’s a look at April 28, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers from April 28 drawing

14-36-41-47-66, Mega Ball: 15

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from April 28 drawing

11-21-34-39-45, Bonus: 05

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

South Dakota man loses appeal after being convicted of terroristic threats against President Trump

Published

on

South Dakota man loses appeal after being convicted of terroristic threats against President Trump


SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has announced the South Dakota Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of a South Dakota man after an attempted threat of felony terrorism.

“Threats against the President of the United States and public officials are taken seriously,” said Attorney General Jackley. “We will continue to prosecute individuals who seek to harm or intimidate public officials and their families.”

According to court docs, Lucian Celestine first contacted the FBI in September 2019, claiming he was hearing voices instructing him to kill President Trump.

In June 2020, Celestine attempted to purchase a sniper-style rifle through an online marketplace and requested a scope capable of shooting up to 600 yards.

Advertisement

The rifle’s seller was a Brookings Police Officer acting as a private citizen and became concerned about Celestine’s behavior. The officer reported the interaction to the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation.

Police later contacted Celestine as President Trump was due to visit Mount Rushmore for the 2020 Independence Day fireworks celebration. During the encounter, Celestine said he had contacted the FBI and admitted he had recently obtained a rifle.

Officers located a rifle, ammunition, and targets in the truck of his vehicle.

After being taken into custody in Rapid City, Celestine told investigators that the voices in his head instructed him to kill the President. He told police of a plan to go to Mount Rushmore and position himself above the monument.

He was then arrested and indicted for threat of felony terrorism.

Advertisement

Celestine entered a guilty plea in November 2024 for Attempted Threat of Felony Terrorism. In March 2024, the Pennington County Circuit Court sentenced him to two and a half years in the South Dakota Penitentiary with credit for time served.

Celestine later appealed his conviction and sentence, but the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s sentence.

Copyright 2026 Dakota News Now. All rights reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending