House rejects bill to end mandatory freshman/sophomore residency and meal plans at state universities

PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota House of Representatives on Feb. 18 voted down House Bill 11‑93, which sought to prohibit the Board of Regents and institutions under its control from requiring students to live in on‑campus housing or purchase meal plans. The final vote was 28 in favor, 42 opposed.

Representative Jensen, the bill’s sponsor, described HB11‑93 as a “freedom” measure that would allow students to choose where to live. “11‑93 would give freedom to students to choose where they want to live,” Jensen said, arguing that mandatory residency and meal‑plan requirements restrict personal choice and add to student indebtedness.

Supporters said the change would help students who want to live off campus and could reduce some students’ housing costs. Representative Jorgensen and Representative Vendera urged colleagues to consider the students’ perspective and parental choice, and Representative Soy said the measure would treat students as adults.

Opponents warned of broader financial consequences. Representative Stevens said the state’s bonding commitments for campus housing — which he and others described during debate as tens of millions of dollars in outstanding debt — could be jeopardized if a large exodus from residence halls reduced the revenue base that services bonds. “This has significant impact all across the state,” Stevens said, warning of bond‑rating and budgetary consequences. Representative May and others pressed for detailed enrollment and bond‑servicing data, saying the Board of Regents has approximately $236 million in outstanding bonds.

Other opponents argued mandatory on‑campus living supports student retention and community building. Representative Kolbeck recounted his own experience and urged members to preserve campus living as a route to networks and retention. Representative Garcia said students who organized in committee had taken appropriate steps to present their case, but that the pandemic’s effects on youth mental health complicated housing policy.

During committee testimony and the floor debate members discussed several facts and estimates: speakers referenced that around 90–97 percent of exemption requests to live off campus have been granted in practice, that campus food quality and mold complaints had been raised in committee testimony, and that the Board of Regents reported roughly $236 million in outstanding bonds. The sponsor and some supporters characterized the financial‑impact arguments as overstated unless a “mass exodus” of students occurred.

After nearly two hours of debate and numerous floor questions, the clerk reported the vote as ayes 28, nays 42. The bill failed to receive a majority and is therefore lost in this session.