fbpx

Rural Lobbyist: 2016 Session in Review

Posted on: March 18, 2016   |   Category: News Releases

March 18, 2016 – By #South Dakota Farmer Union

 Excitement was certainly not lacking during the 2016 Legislative Session as a number of bills caught the attention of many South Dakotans. Below you will find a list of issues that held Farmers Union’s attention throughout this year’s session. Revenue Redistribution

  • SB 2- An Act to revise the distribution of the revenue from the alcoholic beverage fund.

Senate bill 2 redistributes the revenue in the alcoholic beverage fund. Currently, the state receives 75% of the revenue collected related to the alcoholic beverage fund and the municipalities receive 25%. SB 2 revised the distribution by cutting the state share by 25% and allocating that 25% to counties. South Dakota Farmers Union stood successfully in favor of SB 2 as the bill was passed by both houses and has been signed by the Governor.

  • HB 1137- An Act to revise the distribution of registration fees from noncommercial gross weight vehicles.

House bill 1137 redistributes the revenue collected from license plate fees of noncommerical gross weight vehicles, a.k.a. farm trucks. Under HB 1137 townships will now receive 23% of the funds collected that will be placed in a special highway fund. South Dakota Farmers Union lobbied successfully in favor of HB 1137 earning its passage in the House and Senate, and since has been signed by the Governor. Balanced Tax Structure

  • SJR 2- Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election a new section to Article XI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to the imposition of a corporate income tax and dedication of the revenue therefrom.

Senate Joint Resolution 2 is somewhat of an annual attempt by Senator Bernie Hunhoff and supporters like South Dakota Farmers Union to rebalance the lopsided tax structure we have in South Dakota. If it had passed, SJR 2 would have allowed voters to voice their opinion on whether we need a corporate income tax in South Dakota. Had the voters been given the opportunity to vote, and had they approved the corporate income tax, the legislature would have had the leeway to set the rules and regulations. Unfortunately members of the Senate Taxation Committee killed any movement on SJR 2 by sending it to the 41st day by a vote of 5-2. Coyote Hunting

  • SB 58- An Act to revise certain restrictions for the use of night-vision equipment for hunting under certain conditions.

Senate bill 58 was an interesting bill to follow throughout the legislative process. It was certainly a bill of compromise. SB 58 attempts to address the concerns surrounding the growing coyote population in South Dakota. The bill met firm opposition in its early stages as it allowed parties of four (without landowner presence) to use night vision technology and spotlighting to hunt coyotes with a bullet diameter of up to .225 inches. Yet through four separate amendments, the bill ultimately garnered support and passage in both the House and Senate. The final form of SB 58 allowed parties of 2 (with landowner presence) to use night vision technology (no spotlighting) to hunt with bullets up to .225 inches in diameter. The bill has since been delivered to the Governor and awaits his signature. Country of Origin Labeling

  • HB 1228- An Act to accommodate legislation relating to a mandatory state of origin meat labeling program.

House bill 1228 was an attempt to restore the consumer’s right to know where there food comes from. The bill would have required that all beef products, including ground beef, sold in South Dakota bear a “country of origin label”. However, this bill gave retailers the ability to place a “country of origin unknown” label on the product if they did not have access to that information. While some expected the bill to fall on deaf ears, HB 1228 received a lively discussion in the House Ag and Natural Resources Committee where committee members expressed their desire to know where their food comes from. Unfortunately HB 1228 was moved to the 41st day on the slimmest of margins(7-6), but with such a close vote there is still hope for COOL going forward.

  • HCR 1016- Expressing and encouraging support for the continued use of country-of-origin labels on meat products sold to consumers.

In terms of tangible policy, HCR 1016 was a paper tiger. Yet, it spoke volumes to the support COOL has here in South Dakota. The best explanation of HCR 1016 is found in the its “be it resolved statement”. It reads : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Ninety-First Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the Legislature will continue to support consumers’ right to know where their food comes from and support the use of country-of-origin labels. HCR 1016 was passed 49-17 in the House and concurred by a vote of 20-15 in the Senate. Ag Land Taxation

  • HB 1007- An Act to make an appropriation to revise and update the data and methods used to determine the agricultural land production capacity and to declare an emergency.

House bill 1007 is an appropriation bill that contracts with South Dakota State University for a sum of $175,000. The purpose of the contract is to conduct research concerning the methods used to determine ag land production capacity and to update the soil tables in each county. The bill garnered somewhat unanimous support in throughout the ag community, including South Dakota Farmers Union. Proponents believe it the research findings will provide the evidence needed to pursue “actual use taxation.” HB 1007 has passed both houses and has been signed by the Governor.

  • SB 4- An Act to provide for the assessment of certain agricultural land as noncropland.

Senate bill 4 was a bill commonly referred to as the “actual use” bill. This bill is nearly identical to Senate bill 4 of last year as well. The legislation attempts to change the way ag land is taxed. The current model represents what people refer to as the highest and best use. Essentially, this means that the land is taxed based on its maximum potential for productivity. A switch like the one proposed in SB 4 would require land be taxed based on its actual use. Unfortunately, proponents like South Dakota Farmers Union did not have an opportunity to testify in support of the legislation as it was tabled at the request of the sponsor. Senator Jim Peterson requested that the bill be tabled for purpose of analyzing the research data that will be gathered through House Bill 1007. Conservation/Water Quality

  • SB 136- An Act to permit certain cropland along lakes, rivers, and streams to be assessed as noncropland.

No bill, in my eyes, represents a win-win scenario better than Senate bill 136. This bill incentivizes the use of buffers within 50 feet of lakes, ponds, and streams. The incentive comes in the form of taxing assessments. Land within that 50 foot buffer, planted in perennial vegetation, will be classified as noncropland for the purposes of taxation. South Dakota Farmers Union was a strong proponent of this legislation because it rewards producers for doing the right thing. We believe this approach is a great way of proactively protecting this state’s water supply. If water problems were ever to get worse because these buffer strips were not in place, the state would need to generate more revenue to clean up its water supply. SB 136 looks to prevent that problem and is revenue neutral, requiring no tax increase. The bill moved through both houses swiftly with unanimous support by members of the senate and both ag committees. The bill is currently awaiting an advisory opinion from the South Dakota Supreme Court to ensure it does not violate the state constitution. Barring any conflict, SB 136 should expect a signature from the Governor.Zoning/Permitting Process

  • HB 1140- An Act to revise certain provisions regarding county zoning.

House bill 1140 was presented as a bill to encourage ag development in South Dakota. While South Dakota Farmers Union strongly believes and advocates for such development, we felt HB 1140 did not serve that purpose. It’s goal was to make the permitting process easier for CAFO development. However, it attempts to achieve that end at the expense of the rights of the local landowner. Initially the legislation included a $250 bond requirement for anyone who wanted to appeal. This “pay to play” requirement caused a swell of opposition that ultimately led to the removal of that language. Unfortunately other sections of the bill were left intact. SDFU’s biggest concern, after the amendment, was the consolidation of all appeals. HB 1140 consolidates all appeals of all persons and on all grounds into one singular appeal. While SDFU certainly agrees there is a need for better efficiency in the permitting process, it cannot be done at the expense of the landowner. Family farmers build the trust within their local communities and HB 1140 in its current form threatens that trust. SDFU believes compromises to satisfy both sides still exist and will continue to pursue those compromises. HB 1140 ultimately passed both houses and has been signed by the Governor. Teacher Pay Teacher pay was one issue that grabbed the spotlight during the 2016 session. Organizations of all kinds weighed in on the best way to fund a teacher salary increase. Ultimately, the plan that garnered the most support was the Governor’s cent sales tax proposal. SDFU remained neutral throughout the controversial debate as members took a clear position at the 2015 State Convention. In a special order of business passed by the membership, South Dakota Farmers Union would support a sales tax increase only if it included an exemption for non-prepared/grocery food products. This in itself was a step away from traditional Farmers Union policy as it had been previously established that SDFU did not support a sales tax increase of any kind. SDFU believes strongly in adequate teacher pay, yet felt HB 1182 did not meet the SDFU criteria. SDFU was also concerned with the inclusion of an increase in the farm machinery tax. With down markets, both producers and their implement dealers have been impacted. Unfortunately that addition of the cent gives producers another reason to hold off on purchasing equipment. Like with HB 1140, there are paths forward with the language in HB 1182 and we hope to find a compromise that does not take away from the increase in teacher salaries. All bills included in the Governor’s proposal have been passed by both houses and have received his signature. Medicaid Expansion Medicaid expansion was an issue that generated a lot of buzz before the session began. South Dakota Farmers Union signed on through a letter of support. The Governor’s proposal unfortunately lost steam throughout the 2016 session and amid the teacher pay debate. In the last weeks of session the Governor announced that Medicaid expansion would not be included in his budget request, despite the federal government taking the steps it had to take to make the expansion possible. However, Governor Daugaard has stated that he has not given up on his efforts for Medicaid expansion and could call for a special session to address this issue later in the year. South Dakota Farmers Union continues to support Medicaid expansion for the additional coverage of 50,000 South Dakotans at no additional cost.

Last Modified: 03/18/2016 7:49:55 pm MDT