Courtesy of Sen. Corey Brown, here are two documents that the Legislature will be working next week. The legislation will need to be amended onto another carcass.
The proposed legislation:
800_Building_SD_Fund_-_Feb._27
The briefing paper:
Building_South_Dakotajmjrevised022713
UPDATE: The concept of the English-language training assistance for schools comes from a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim White, R-Huron. The local-infrastructure concept comes from a bill sponsored by Sen. Shantel Krebs, R-Renner. The concept of assistance for local economic development training comes from a bill sponsored by Rep. Dick Werner, R-Huron. The concept of dedicating a stream of revenue to a specific fund isn’t new; state government already does that with video lottery and some other sources of revenue for the property-tax reduction fund that essentially is state aid to K-12. But the concept of rooting out the unclaimed property funds can be traced, we’re told, to Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg, although a variety of legislators including House Democratic leader Bernie Hunhoff of Yankton long argued too much money generally was being put into reserves rather than being put to use. The idea of spending state money on housing development responds to complaints we’ve heard about the need for more rental housing in communities as far-ranging as Aberdeen to Sioux Falls to Rapid City. The inclusion of data centers comes from legislation sponsored by House Republican leader David Lust of Rapid City. The sales-tax refunds proposed in the new bill are a combination of the old Rounds-era refund approach that was disbanded effective Dec. 31, 2012, and the large-project grants approach by Gov. Dennis Daugaard that voters rejected in November. The proposal would again put discretionary power with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development and the state Board of Economic Development on who gets a refund and how much of the sales taxes would be refunded. That was a sticking point with the large-project grants. The proposal also blocks refunds to pipelines, so the TransCanada refund won’t be repeated on the second pipeline proposed to come through South Dakota. We’re probably leaving out some people, but those are the principal players that come to mind in reading through the long bill today. Putting all of these concepts together, and with Democratic leaders aboard, makes less likely that this measure will be a target for a referendum drive. South Dakota Democratic Party chairman Ben Nesselhuf personally led the petition drive against the large-projects approach.
Because the bill contains an emergency clause, a two-thirds majority will be necessary in each of the House and the Senate.
#1 by Pierrely Conservative on March 1, 2013 - 4:37 pm
Business-Incentive Plan??
Large-Project Fund?
Last Hour Major Bill?
This is a fishy bill that comes at the last minute on a hog-housed bill, this is not how our legislature should pass laws. This bill just smells of Large-Project Fund, worded to sounded differently and with a nice bow on it.
This bill scream referendum not lead by a politician, but a grass roots movement. I will personally see to referring this bill if it passes. The people of SD voted down something very similar to this during the last election and now our State Legislature and Gov. are ignoring the wishes of South Dakotans.