On Thursday, February 11, 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 1127 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Revise certain provisions concerning road districts.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Jacqueline Sly (R, Dist 33) and Sen Terri Haverly (R, Dist 35) are the prime sponsors.
Deferred from Feb 9 committee meeting. Here is what I said about the bill prior to that meeting:
Another short bill. Here is the entire thing:
Section 1. That § 31-12A-36 be amended to read:
31-12A-36. A contiguous area may be annexed or an area withdrawn from to a road district by:(1) Circulation circulation of an initiating petition for annexation signed by twenty-five percent of the eligible voters in the area to be annexed and twenty-five percent of the eligible voters in the existing district, similar to an initiating petition specified in this chapter; or(2) Circulation of an initiating petition for withdrawal signed by twenty-five percent of the eligible voters in the area to be withdrawn and passage of a resolution therefor by the directors of the road district.
Upon receipt of an initiating petition and passage of a resolution by the directors finding that the petition is valid, the area shall be annexed if a majority of the eligible voters in the area tobe annexed and a majority of the eligible voters in the existing area vote in favor of the annexation in the same manner as prescribed for creation of a new road district or the area shall be withdrawn if a majority of the eligible voters in the withdrawing area vote in favor of withdrawal in the same manner as prescribed for creation of a new road district.
I’ll listen to testimony to see what is driving the bill.
HB 1131 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Direct certain vehicle registration fees to counties with unorganized territory.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Kevin Killer (D, Dist 27) and Sen Troy Heinert (D, Dist 26) are the prime sponsors.
Deferred from Feb 9 committee meeting. Here is what I said about the bill prior to that meeting:
A way to get more money to certain counties. Here is the verbage that would be added to the statute dealing with the $1 fee that normally goes to the DPS:
If a vehicle is registered pursuant to chapter 32-5 or 32-9 in a county with unorganized territory, the one dollar fee shall be retained by the county and expended for purposes of road safety and construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads and bridges in the unorganized portion of the county.
HB 1140 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Revise certain provisions regarding county zoning.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Mark Mickelson (R, Dist 13) and Sen Larry Tidemann (R, Dist 7) are the prime sponsors.
Some of this appears to be cleanup. But testimony will need to be listened to because there are some provisions being added that need to be explained. These include:
All appeals relating to a particular action or property shall be consolidated and heard on an expedited basis.
and
An appeal to the circuit court may only commence upon filing a bond in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars with one or more sureties to be approved by the county auditor, on condition that the appellant shall prosecute the appeal without delay and pay all costs the appellant may be adjudged to pay in the circuit court. The bond shall be executed to the county and may be sued in the name of the county upon breach of any condition in the bond.
It would appear this bill is aimed at making any zoning changes harder to fight.
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 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.
The post House Local Government has 4 bills on Thurs Feb 11 appeared first on SoDakLiberty.
