Senator Al Novstrup (R-3/Aberdeen) finally gets an idea—and, predictably, it’s a tax increase.
But by no means is Senator Novstrup undermining Governor Kristi Noem’s promise that “We Won’t Raise Taxes.” Oh no, Sneaky Al just wants to let you county raise taxes.
Senate Bill 65 would authorize counties to impose a non-ad valorem tax of uo to 0.5% on the sale, use, storage, and consumption of items currently subject to the state’s sales and use taxes. Any such county tax proposal would automatically go to a public vote and would have to receive a majority vote at the polls. Counties could only use this new tax for building or fixing county buildings for a period specified in the tax resolution submitted to voters. Any revenue left from this temporary tax must be applied to maintaining and/or operating the facilities built or fixed by the tax.
The Legislature has stubbornly resisted past efforts to provide cash-strapped counties with access to additional revenue. And Senator Novstrup has not shown great success at pushing tax bills through his own conservative caucus.
SB 65 will be heard first by Senate Local Government, date yet to be set. Senate Local Government is chaired by Senator Phil Jensen (R-33/Rapid City) and vice-chaired by Senator Lynne DiSanto (R-35/Box Elder). Anyone want to lay odds on the chances of those leaders’ willingness to enact a new tax?
That tool Al Novstrup is a taxaholic. He wants 66 new taxes for us to pay, one new tax in each county.
But, question to rocket scientist Al, what do you do for those of us who don’t live in Minnehaha, Brown or Pennington counties???? We don’t want to bankroll their new Novstrup tax with our dollars. If my county doesn’t want to create a new Novstrup tax, why should I be punished by going into Sioux Falls, Aberdeen or Rapid City?
Just say no to Novstrup taxes!
How about this? Don’t go to Sioux Falls, Aberdeen or Rapid? Seems like that would fix paying something.
It’s always struck me as funny how rural and small town South Dakotans shop in larger towns, pay the taxes and refuse to actually tax the income the folks in the larger towns make. Novstrup makes another proposal that would simply help out the larger counties at the expense of the more rural counties.
The real answer is an income tax and revenue sharing.
How would this proposed legislation affect taxes on Amazon orders? Asking for a friend.
Kal Lis! Excellent question.
SB 65 refers to “items taxed under chapters 10-45 and 10-46 within the county.” Your Amazon tax is authorized under Chapter 10-64. But SDCL 10-64-2 says online sales to folks in South Dakota are subject to Chapters 10-45 and 10-52.
So my first-read answer is… YES. Yankton County could charge you 50 cents for your $100 of Amazon loot to help build a new jail.
Donald’s making a key point. Rural counties are in dutch for the same reason rural school districts are in dutch: they don’t have enough people generating enough residential and commercial property value and tax to fully fund public goods and services. That lack of property value probably also aligns with a lack of sales revenues. SB 65 might be better than nothing—and Minnehaha County has trouble funding its priorities, too, so SB 65 would be a big boon for them—but rural counties won’t reap much from a sales tax if their only sales are at the Cenex, the bar, and the dollar store, since all their residents are still heading to Hy-Vee or Kessler’s or Walmart to get their groceries.
Statewide collections and revenue sharing to balance inequality would be the courageous, visionary, and fair way to ensure sufficient services (and safety!) for all South Dakotans.
Counties have sought to tap the sales tax for a long time. I remember bills in the 1990s along these lines, and I’m sure there were attempts before and after that. The Municipal League fights hard against sharing any of the current local sales tax revenue with school districts or counties, and even fights against any attempt of other local governments to impose their own ales tax. Cities fought long and hard to secure that source of money, and they figure they’ve got their brand on it.
Pearson says not to go to Aberdeen, Sioux Falls or Rapid, how exactly does that work for people living in those cities.
Again we have a republican trying to limit the choices where citizens can and can’t live.
You can always come to Colorado. I can’t remember when we voted down a tax increase designated to pay for more nice things for us and our tourist guests. Spend money to make money. It works. You know …. the long game.
I wonder who told Al Nostrap what to do and how?
I’m sure what this bill is mainly for the financial interests, to assure anyone loaning funds to a county for the purposes of constructing or rehabilitating county buildings that the county will have revenue available over the term of the loan to pay back lenders. That’s why the revenue is dedicated.
Lana Greenfield got snippy on Facebook when called out as a supporter of this (ie, you said no new taxes yet this opens a door to new taxes).
She deleted comments.
Mrs. Nelson, thanks for trying to engage our legislators in public conversation. They seem to have a really hard time answering to their employers—i.e., us.
#1: Take screenshots of those online comments and the deleted aftermath.
#2: Come talk to Lana and other other elected leaders Saturday, 10 a.m., NSU student union, for our first crackerbarrel!
Exactly, Roger. Steve is more concerned about quick contrariness than about actual practical policymaking or local economics. Telling some 60,000 people in NE SD/SE ND not to shop in Aberdeen means spending 50% more on 50% fewer groceries at what few local shops are left, or driving a lot further to Watertown, Fargo, or Bismarck (two of which don’t charge any South Dakota taxes).
Al will float this bill so it looks like he did something, then let it die quickly in committee. Ain’t no whippin’ comin’ from that wet noodle.
Counties can easily create more funds to serve their constituents – consolidate. Wyoming gets along fine with one-third the number of counties as has South Dakota. If you want a South Dakota example then follow the consolidation history of the SD Unified Judicial System.
The savings from county consolidation will be substantial – from 25 to 40%, perhaps more in some circumstances.
Yet, the banana republicans are about power, taxing, and not about government efficiency or effectiveness.
John, how many times does Al have to say it: proposals requiring courage, vision, and hard choices are not allowed.