On Thursday, February 18, at 10:00 am the SD House Local Government committee will take on 4 bills. This is compiled using the agenda at the time of composing this post. Agendas can and do change!
One way to listen to these meetings live is via the audio links on the Schedule page of the LRC website. While there you can also view the status board for the meetings as they are going on.
HB 1149 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Provide authority to establish a special purpose district for recreational purposes.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Timothy Johns (R, Dist 31) and Sen Jim Bradford (D, Dist 27) are the prime sponsors.
This was deferred from the Feb 9 meeting. Here is what I said prior to that meeting:
This is a long 23 section Act. Here is what section 1 of the act says:
If any person requests to form, organize, equip, and maintain a recreational district, the petition sponsor shall present a petition to the county auditor of each county in which the area is situated. A recreational district may be created for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or management of a recreational facility. The board of county commissioners in each county where a district would be situated may also initiate formation of a district by resolution.
I’m interesting to hear more about this and what is driving it. But as of now I could see opposing this bill. It would mean more taxes, albeit local taxes:
Section 14. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:The board of directors shall make an annual estimate of the expense for carrying out the program for the district and certify the estimate of tax dollars needed to the county auditor.The tax levy may not exceed one dollar per thousand dollars of taxable valuation of the property within the district. The tax shall be collected as other taxes are collected in the county.
Yes, these new recreational districts would be funded via a property tax increase.
HB 1194 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Revise the authority of state’s attorneys to take action regarding certain local open government violations.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Patrick Kirschman (D, Dist 15) and Sen Jim Peterson (D, Dist 4) are the prime sponsors.
This was deferred from the Feb 16 meeting. Here is what I said prior to that meeting:
This bill would amend § 1-25-6, which is titled: Duty of state’s attorney on receipt of complaint alleging chapter violation.
This would be added to the bottom of that statute:
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit a state’s attorney’s jurisdiction solely to a violation of this chapter. A state’s attorney may also take action against a violation of a municipal or local ordinance similar to this chapter.
This another bill to listen to testimony on. Has this particular law been used to tie the hand of a state’s attorney? Or has a state’s attorney used this chapter to avoid going after someone?
HB 1195 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Revise certain provisions regarding ballots used in municipal referendum elections.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Patrick Kirschman (D, Dist 15) and Sen Jim Peterson (D, Dist 4) are the prime sponsors.
This was deferred from the Feb 16 meeting. Here is what I said prior to that meeting:
Here is the entire bill:
Section 1. That § 9-20-13 be amended to read:
9-20-13. The auditor or clerk shall have ballots printed for the vote upon such the referred ordinance or resolution and cause the same to be distributed distribute the ballots as other official ballots are distributed.Such The ballots shall conform as near as may be to the law governing the submission of questions by the Legislature, except that the statement required to be printed on the ballots shall be prepared by the city attorney, or if there be is no city attorney, by an attorney at law employed by the governing body for that purpose. The explanations for a yes or a no vote shall be short, concise, and as balanced as possible.All questions to be voted upon at the same election may be submitted upon the same ballot.
Has there been a problem with ballot referrals for ordinances or resolutions getting proper explanations? Another testimony to listen in on.
HB 1196 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Create a deadline for the preparation of statements for municipal referendum ballots.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Patrick Kirschman (D, Dist 15) and Sen Jim Peterson (D, Dist 4) are the prime sponsors.
This was deferred from the Feb 16 meeting. Here is what I said prior to that meeting:
Here is the entire bill:
Section 1. That § 9-20-13 be amended to read:
9-20-13. The auditor or clerk shall have ballots printed for the vote upon such the referred ordinance or resolution and cause the same to be distributed distribute the ballots as other official ballots are distributed.Such The ballots shall conform as near as may be to the law governing the submission of questions by the Legislature, except that the statement required to be printed on the ballots shall be prepared by the city attorney, or if there be no city attorney, by an attorney at law employed by the governing body for that purpose. The statement shall be prepared and provided to the party submitting the measure no less than forty-five days before the ballot is printed.All questions to be voted upon at the same election may be submitted upon the same ballot.
This actually modifies the same statute as HB 1195 would. In this case though it would ensure the statement about the referred ordinance or resolution be supplied in time to make the ballot.
The post House Local Government has 4 bills on Thurs Feb 18, recreational tax districts appeared first on SoDakLiberty.
