Jan. 7—MITCHELL — Three fresh District 20 legislators are headed to Pierre in 2025, and they already have their eyes set on the work to be done during the next legislative session.
Incoming legislators Rep. Kaley Nolz, Rep. Jeff Bathke and Sen. Paul Miskimins offered their thoughts Tuesday on that very topic during a public forum, where they discussed a variety of subjects, ranging from prisons to property taxes.
The lawmakers took a number of questions from members of the audience who filled the boardroom at the Mitchell Chamber of Commerce offices in Mitchell. The event was sponsored by the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Mitchell Chamber of Commerce.
An audience question asked whether or not the legislators thought that the budget cuts to the South Dakota Board of Regents suggested by Gov. Kristi Noem in her most recent budget address would eventually be restored.
Bathe said that it was possible, but restoring such cuts would have to maintain the state’s balanced budget.
“You all know we have a balanced budget, so anywhere they bring any money like that back they have to pull it from somewhere on the other side,” Bathke said. “I would add that it’s important to know that the governor’s budget will likely not be the final budget.”
Cuts could include the dual credit program.
South Dakota high school students will pay 50% more to take dual credit courses if legislators adopt the proposal by Noem. Currently, students pay one-third of the cost per credit hour, about $50.84, while the state pays the rest. Noem’s proposal would split the cost in half, with the student and state each paying about $76 per credit hour.
The state would spend around $1 million less on the program annually.
Budget cuts to the board of regents, which come in at about $10 million, also affect maintenance and operational costs and a reduction in salaries. Bathke said appropriations committees in both houses would have a say in the process, particularly one-time funding measures that both bodies get to vote on.
Miskimins agreed that changes could be on the horizon for the proposed budget.
“That’s important for people to know — that the governor’s projected budget is not the final budget and that the appropriations in both bodies have a say in the final budget, especially in the one-time funding measures that both bodies get to vote on,” Miskimins said.
Bathke, who will sit on the house taxation committee, said there were some ideas floating around that could change certain aspects of the property tax formula.
“Some of the representatives right now are working on a bill that I think is a pretty good idea. What they are looking at is owner-occupied only — taking the school portion of your property tax, reducing that to zero, and picking it up on the backside by raising sales tax from 4.2% back up to 5%,” Bathke said. “It’s about $280 million, and it’s an even wash.”
Under the theory, schools would still receive the full amount that they would normally get from property taxes, its source would just be shifted to sales tax, Bathke said. It would be drawn from owner-occupied properties and not ag land or commercial property.
He cited an example for an owner with a $100,000 house — the $2,600 in property tax would be reduced to $1,300.
“It’s a significant drop for people,” Bathke said.
Further comments included discussion on how the value of owner-occupied and ag land are assessed differently, with owner-occupied land assessed at current sale value and ag land assessed based on productivity.
The three were also asked about their stance on carbon pipelines.
Bathke, who has worked for the Davison County Planning and Zoning, said he had not heard much negative feedback from area residents on the carbon pipeline issue and supported it.
“Up until probably a month ago, not one person had stepped foot in my office — actually I’m not sure anyone has yet — have even contacted me against the CO2 pipeline. I contacted nine or 10 landowners that are in Davison County to ask them for their input, because they are the nine or 10 people who are affected. I am not,” Bathke said. “One of them I could not get hold of. Every other one of them said yes, that they wanted the pipeline. So my position isn’t what I want, it’s what the landowners want.”
He also said he would look into setbacks at the local or state level for such pipelines.
Miskimins said he was generally in favor of such pipelines, as long as compensation to landowners is fair and a proper level of safety is maintained. The pipeline is a boost to agriculture economics, and when ag does well, so does the rest of South Dakota, he said.
He believes he would have voted in favor of the pipeline had he been in the legislature last year.
“I think that I would have probably supported the bill as long as it compensated people fairly and it provided safety to the people whose land the pipeline went across,” Miskimins said. “I think that my main concern would have been its positive impact on the economy of South Dakota. Our number one industry is agriculture, and when agriculture suffers, the whole state of South Dakota suffers.”
Nolz lives within a half-mile of the proposed pipeline and would like to remain informed on safety and economic concerns surrounding it.
The carbon pipeline is a relatively new concept in South Dakota, and with that can come apprehension from the public, which is reasonable, she said.
“People just want to be able to find out more,” Nolz said. “I’m a big supporter of agriculture. Obviously, it’s my background. But I believe projects that come to South Dakota should be wanted. They should be of benefit. That landowners should be excited about it without the use of eminent domain. So, I’ve never said I’m absolutely against it. I just need to find out more since it is untested in South Dakota.”
Another question from the audience asked about prison reform, particularly dealing with the high number of inmates in prison due to drug use and addiction.
Bathke, who used to work for the South Dakota Department of Corrections and is a licensed counselor in the state, suggested moving funding from in-prison treatment programs to community-based programs. Keeping inmates off drugs while they’re in prison is easy, Bathke said. It’s keeping them off drugs when they’re not serving time that is the most beneficial.
“In South Dakota it is very, very, very difficult to get drugs inside the prison. One day my boss came in and asked if I could make any changes to the program, what would I do?” Bathke said. “I said ‘get rid of it.’ Get rid of the program inside the prison system and give my $4.5 million a year to the community providers. Where you make the difference is in the community, not in the prison system. And they are strapped for funding.”
Having professional mental health services easily available is another way to stem lengthy prison stays that might be better served by health professionals.
Miskimins worked on developing regional mental health centers when he served a previous stint in the South Dakota House of Representatives and was pleased to see them working.
“I’m pleased that we have a local treatment center for mental health emergencies rather than taking most of the individuals that have mental health needs that don’t need to go to jail. In many instances, they end up staying (in prison) for long periods of time,” Miskimins said. “I’m so pleased to have a better road forward for those with mental health crises.”
As a new incoming member of the legislature, Nolz is interested in looking at cost-saving measures, including renovations, that might help keep the strain off the state budget when it comes to the proposed construction of a new men’s and women’s prison for the state.
“I would add that I believe there was a study done in 2002 on renovating and maybe building at different, smaller locations around the state for new prisons,” Nolz said. “Like a lot of these issues, I’m looking to learn more, and I’m more interested in how we can balance a budget that serves the people.”