Taxes

UPDATE II: SD House Bill 1055 needs to be killed

UPDATE II: I emailed the committee members and told them this was a bad idea. The sponsor was the only one to respond after I told them I think this bill was written for Sioux Falls;

Not written for Sioux Falls. 

So I asked WHO it was written for;

Written for all cities.

Well, Mike, that means it was written for Sioux Falls. I find it ironic that city hall recruited a legislator from Ft. Pierre who has a close relationship with our city attorney. I am just speculating here but it just seems odd that they purposely recruited a small town legislator to pass this instead getting some Sioux Falls legislator sponsoring this, it would have had a bad look. And here’s a kicker, two Democratic legislators from SF also say they support this. Baffling that our legislature wants to have a $400 million dollar tax increase on the residents of Sioux Falls. Each penny in Sioux Falls nets $91.5M a year (end 2023 is their latest for this data). So it appears SF really could build it in 5 years if the tax was implemented which would net $457M which is very close to the estimated costs to build a CC. And this bill wasn’t written for SF. They are full of it.

————————–

Or amended to only include smaller towns who may need to build a fire station;

authorize municipalities to impose a new tax to fund capital improvement projects.

This is a 3rd penny tax move so we can borrow $400 Million for a Convention Center. The committee hearing is Thursday morning, I encourage anyone who may be there to speak against this bill, it could cost taxpayers in Sioux Falls $400M.

Advocates,

    Please help oppose HB1050. It would allow cities an extra whole percent sales tax for special projects.

    The problem:  It takes food off tables. That should be enough said.

  • Food insecurity is on the rise in South Dakota. It is already a herculean effort for non-profits to meet the need. Feeding SD saw increases last year in families coming for food, student backpacks with weekend food, school pantries,  and senior boxes.

• Sales tax is harder on lower-income households than on those with upper-incomes. South Dakota has the 6th most regressive tax structure in the nation.

• Sales tax is very regressive, especially where it’s on groceries. Lower-income households pay a bigger portion of income on food. We have the nation’s 4th highest grocery tax.

•  Already, the total(state+city) food tax you pay over a year could buy all your food for over 3 weeks.

• This one percent would be a 50% increase in city sales tax. 

• South Dakota is a low-tax state, but not for the lowest-income group. [https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/ ]

 Other background info: 

  Legislators console themselves by noting that the bill requires a public vote, has a 5-year limit on the special tax, and a 2-year gap before the next one. But is a short-term hunger increase ok?

  Cities are already allowed 2% sales tax. Cities are not allowed to have a different rate on food. States may, but not cities. So there’s no use suggesting that amendment. [Streamline sales tax rules]

   No matter how much we might appreciate the legislators who are on this bill, HB1050 is one of this year’s bills toughest on our low-income neighbors. A legislator’s name on a bill doesn’t mean he/she will continue to support it. Feel free to ask them to vote No on it.

   What I don’t know is whether this would be useful for small towns. But for sure, Sioux Falls city leaders always have expensive projects they would love to fund, even projects that aren’t necessarily accessible to low-income residents.

Please make contacts today(Tue) or tomorrow, because House Taxation meet at 7:45am(6:45am Mt) on Thursday. Please ask these Rep’s to Oppose HB1050: Aaron.Aylward@sdlegislature.govJeff.Bathke@sdlegislature.govJohn.Hughes@sdlegislature.govCurt.Massie@sdlegislature.govWill.Mortenson@sdlegislature.govPeri.Pourier@sdlegislature.govTony.Randolph@sdlegislature.govChristopher.Reder@sdlegislature.govKent.Roe@sdlegislature.govTim.Walburg@sdlegislature.govKeri.Weems@sdlegislature.govMike.Weisgram@sdlegislature.gov,

Thank you for speaking up. Low-income people don’t have lobbyists.

Cathy Brechtelsbauer for the Advocacy Project

“No other tax so directly takes food off tables.”

On sales tax by long-time director of Feeding South Dakota, Matt Gassen

Why are the taxpayers of Sioux Falls giving money to a Religious Organization?

Not sure how long the city has been doing this, but if you look at the December expense report apparently we need to fund religious orgs in town now;

YMCA (YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSN OF SF): $16,416.63, Operating Support

Besides being kind of an odd amount and giving money to a religious organization without the consent of the public or even the city council is NOT a good look. Also, if you check their tax filing from 2020 they are part of a National organization that pulls in millions from donors and grants;

This organization is an independent organization and not affiliated with a larger national or regional group of organizations. Young Mens Christian Association is a 501(c)(3) and as such, is described as a “Charitable or Religous organization or a private foundation” by the IRS.

They even describe themselves as a religious organization. It would be like the taxpayers giving money to the Catholic Diocese. I know we have been giving to them for awhile on different programming but after they f’d up the deal with Sanford on the west side rec center, essentially forcing us to purchase the place because Sanford was loosing money on the facility, they shouldn’t get another penny from us!

The entire expense report is fascinating to read because it provides little detail for massive handouts, like this;

LLOYD COMPANIES: $992,331.40, Various Projects

Closed government at it’s best!

Speaking of that, the salaries finally posted Friday afternoon, AFTER, they were printed in the Dakota Scout and distributed. I have not done a deep dive yet, but if you compare to last year, some folks got some massive raises!

2024 DOC2025 DOC

Legislative Update by Cathy

 Bills are still coming. You’ll see here a number are concerning already. Let’s be speaking up.

A. Sales tax.

            Please. Let’s have no sales tax rate changes until we see what happens with the cost of living under the upcoming tariffs, like in all these bills:

            HB1050, to allow cities to add another whole % tax for special projects. This raises the cost of living (food and other basics), makes SD taxes more regressive (harder on lower-income folks), benefits bigger towns more than smaller ones.

            HB1019, to increase the state’s sales tax from 4.2% to 5.0% (besides city 2%), and use funds to reduce property tax. Several unfairnesses: Most of the benefit goes to high-end homes, where “relief” may not be needed. Higher sales tax disproportionately requires more from lower-income households. Worst, it’s highly reliant on renters (31% of SD households), who would get NO benefit. And, replacing property taxes(school tax) is not a proper use of sales tax. HB1019 moves school tax around with no benefit to the schools. Property tax is a concern, but relief needs a different funding source and some focus on need.

            __Expect a bill to make the .3% sales tax cut permanent. Remember that the revenue the state is foregoing for this cut would have been enough to take the state food tax to 0%. So first, let’s see what tariffs do to the cost of living.

B. Property tax. 

            As listed above, HB1019, to cut prop.taxes using higher sales tax. Property tax payers have real concerns about recent increases. (In Minnehaha Co. statements went out this week. To me the increases seem to have stopped skyrockting. What do others think?) See notes above about this bill’s wrong revenue source.

            SB44, to renew the Sales or Property Tax Refund for Senior Citizens and People with Disabilities and make cost-of-living adjustments. This program helps but needs to reach more people. A higher income cut-off would really help, like at least the same cut off as for SNAP(food stamps).

C. School vouchers

            HB1009(educational empowerment accounts) and HB1020(education savings accounts). Both are first decided by House Education committee. They started on 1009 but did not finish. Of course, new programs should not be started when the state is short of funds. The cost to schools is not only the diversion of these millions from public education, but also schools lose the usual state aid for each student. Object to these Rep’s in House Education: Amber.Arlint@sdlegislature.gov, Heather.Baxter@sdlegislature.gov, Roger.DeGroot@sdlegislature.gov, Josephine.Garcia@sdlegislature.gov, Lana.Greenfield@sdlegislature.gov, Jim.Halverson@sdlegislature.gov, Mellissa.Heermann@sdlegislature.gov, Travis.Ismay@sdlegislature.gov, Phil.Jensen@sdlegislature.gov, Dylan.Jordan@sdlegislature.gov, Logan.Manhart@sdlegislature.gov, Kathy.Rice@sdlegislature.gov, Tesa.Schwans@sdlegislature.gov, Mike.Stevens@sdlegislature.gov, Nicole.Uhre-Balk@sdlegislature.gov,

D. Medicaid

            HJR 5001 to make voters re-vote again on our ballot decision to finally have Medicaid expansion. Legislators want us to let the state drop it, if federal funds for it change.  Legislators are messing with our vote again, even before federal fund changes.

E. Citizen rights

            All these are attacks on our citizen rights to amend our State Constitution.

            HJR 5003 to require 60% to pass. It passed the house and goes to Senators.

            HJR 5004 and SJR 504 to make it harder to get the needed signatures.

UPDATE: Legislature wastes no time trying to increase taxes for a convention center in Sioux Falls

UPDATE: The argument the reps will use who support this is that smaller communities in SD need this tax leverage, for needed infrastructure, which I support 100%, but Sioux Falls doesn’t need this. Some have been suggesting to reps amend the bill so 1st class cities like SF and RC cannot get this kind of tax leverage, I would also make it so the bonds have to be for NEEDED infrastructure in their communities, not play palaces.

As I have been saying, no new convention center will be built without a tax increase. The city cannot borrow $400 million without another revenue source (full doc);

So the Municipal League suckered a retired business owner in Ft. Pierre to carry their water. Hey Mike, ever read your own campaign materials from your website?

To review my credentials, I am a conscientious, common-sense Republican who is respectful of our institutions, values, and the rewards created by investing in our people and relying on free enterprise to create opportunities for the betterment of our society. 

Hey Mike, why not take your own advice and let the private sector build this Convention Center. Seems hypocritical of your ‘values’ supporting a tax increase for essentially a white elephant we don’t need.

You will notice they will try to pass this saying that it is NOT a tax increase but an OPTION for voters. It would need a 60% passage by a citizen vote in the city that wants the increase. So how the city plan to have us vote on this? Will we vote first on a tax increase THEN vote on the CC or will we just put it in one package? I am hoping the Legislature kills this, but stranger things have happened. These taxes will also NOT go away when the CC is paid off. The entertainment tax was supposed to sunset after the CC and Pavilion bonds were paid off, guess what, still throwing money at it. The Municipal League has been lobbying for this for years. Please stop! It infuriates me that my tax dollars fund this lobbyist group and all they do is find ways to tax the living Sh!t out of us. Nobody wants to pay more in taxes for another play palace. They really need their heads examined in Pierre.