12 Comments
User's avatar
SD Farm Girl's avatar

Amy, thank you for bringing attention to this. As was witnessed in Sioux Falls just last week, collecting that many signatures is incredibly difficult even when it is a nonpartisan issue and gets at least some news coverage. 20 days is barely enough time to get the word out to the voters, much less gather signatures.

David Howard's avatar

I very much support this bill! We voters should pay attention on the actions on this bill. As always, we the people.

Ivy David's avatar

People are at a mental and financial breaking point and the excuses of spending is salt on the wounds. The ones wielding the power & have the “credit card” aka/taxpayers $$, preach “get involved & speak up if you want to make a difference.” Well, as a certain SD Senator speaking on behalf of his company said, regarding the astounding 300 people who packed the city council meeting, blew it off saying “only the angry show up.”

Damed if we do, Damned if we don’t.

Another SF Legislator, when asked if we’ll get tax relief (ironically after bragging about getting the $650,000,000 prison) said, “We’re broke! The State is broke.”

Well, then vote for this bill, Legislators.

Call or text the Legislators. Enough is enough. It’s OUR turn.

Vote YES on SB85!

John Cunningham's avatar

We know it’s necessary. The state keeps reneging on its promises.

John Cunningham's avatar

I’m a busy grandpa!

Eat my shorts's avatar

It seems redundant and likely to waste more tax money on more elections. voting for the school board already covers this, if you don’t like it then vote for the people who agree with you.

Ivy David's avatar

When the choice is between one-side and the same side, there’s no choice. And the person that runs against that already has at least a 4% uphill climb & not nearly as much money as lobbyist $$.

Chris J. Larson's avatar

Great points Amy. The current system is stacked against the taxpayers.

Petition drives are currently nearly impossible in 20 days.

Grace Hochstatter's avatar

Thank you Amy for writing this article!

Dan Kippley's avatar

In response to Amy Bruner’s article on SB 85, I believe a few additional details are worth noting. May we assume that the SD Senate believes municipalities and counties do a much better job of budgeting than local school boards, since cities and counties are not included in SB 85? If SB 85 passes, it will be another unfunded mandate on school districts. For instance, the Sioux Falls School District would spend $63,000 on a special election. Almost enough to pay for a teacher. In the last SFSD budgeting cycle, one person attended a school board meeting to express concerns over the budget. The Superintendent received two emails. In last spring’s real estate property assessment reviews in Minnehaha County, 14 homeowners expressed concern over their assessed value. We all realize that since COVID, property values have increased. For many people, their home is their largest asset, so any increase in value is generally a positive outcome. Everyone may agree that real estate property tax reform is needed. But taking it out on our children’s education is not the place to start. We need to invest in our future workforce and leaders. Everyone values local control, so allow the elected school board to do its job. The SD Legislature's job is to fund the schools properly. With the State K-12 support behind the rate of inflation the past two years, SB 85 directly harms our schools and students. With inadequate State funding, school boards will need to opt out to ensure their local districts are properly funded. Please urge your SD House of Representatives to kill SD 85.

Ivy David's avatar

“Adequate”. 🙄 Like spending money on logo wrapping the food truck, for an easy start.

Ken Hawks's avatar

If this bill fails, and I think it will, then there should be a bill introduced to only allow an opt out once every 5 years.