Committees advance two bills to support Ellsworth expansion; one diverts contractors' excise tax after amendment

Lawmakers moved two related measures aimed at helping communities and the Ellsworth Air Force Base manage construction and population growth connected to the B‑21 mission to the floor, but after competing testimony from local leaders and the state Bureau of Finance and Management (BFM).

Senators Helene Duhamel and Taffy Howard, the bills' sponsors, described a multi‑billion‑dollar construction buildup at Ellsworth tied to the B‑21 bomber mission and said state support is needed to help nearby communities absorb the impacts. "This is a competitive business. Our main competitor is Texas... It allocates $50,000,000 a year to support the military," Duhamel told the joint appropriations committee, urging the state to remain competitive for future missions.

Scott Langeth, executive director of the South Dakota Ellsworth Development Authority (SADIDA), summarized the authority’s mission and said the B‑21 build‑up will create hundreds of millions in taxable construction and that the authority has used modest past funding to leverage larger outcomes. Langeth told the committee the B‑21 construction is expected to generate roughly $40,000,000 in contractors' excise tax and an additional roughly $40,000,000 in sales tax related to construction activity, and that the state has already received about $9.3 million in contractors' excise tax since the B‑21 build began.

Proponents included local officials and school leaders who said rapid population growth — testimony cited an estimated 1,600 new permanent active‑duty jobs and about 4,064 additional residents tied to the mission — will stress roads, schools and other local services. Douglas School District’s business manager told the committee the district anticipates roughly 1,500 new students related to the mission and has already set aside local impact‑aid funds and federal grant hopes, but said additional state grant dollars would be needed to accelerate construction of new school facilities.

Opponents, principally staff from the Bureau of Finance and Management, urged caution. Steven Kohler and Derek Johnson for BFM argued SB16 would divert ongoing general‑fund tax revenue and set a precedent for other communities to request carve‑outs of the contractors' excise tax. "Passing this bill would result in a loss of ongoing contractors excise funds in the ongoing budget for 2026 and beyond," Johnson said, estimating a potential $30–$40 million reduction to general‑fund receipts over the life of multi‑year projects if the bill set aside excise collections.

Committee action: For SB6, members adopted Amendment 6B (which replaced the requested $15,000,000 one‑time appropriation with a $100 placeholder to preserve consideration) and then approved the bill as amended on a roll call that recorded 17 yeas and one excused. For SB16, committee members adopted Amendment 16D and moved the bill with a due‑pass recommendation; roll call recorded 13 yeas, 4 nays and one excused. Sponsors said the amendments preserved further debate and kept the proposals alive for floor consideration.

Votes at a glance: SB6 — amendment 6B adopted (replace $15,000,000 with $100), due pass as amended: mover Senator Voda; tally 17 yeas, 0 nays, 1 excused. SB16 — amendment 16D adopted; due pass as amended: mover Senator Voda; tally 13 yeas, 4 nays, 1 excused.