Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects bill that would have required schools to accept cash at events
Summary
House Bill 1017, which would have required school-affiliated events to accept cash payments, failed after extended debate on local control, privacy, merchant-processing fees and third-party vendor implications.
The South Dakota House of Representatives on final vote rejected House Bill 1017 (as amended), a measure that would have required acceptance of cash payments for admission to school-affiliated events.
Representative Sharada, the bill’s sponsor, introduced Amendment 1017e and argued the measure protects accessibility and privacy at school events. She said some families and students lack digital payment options and that "cash is universally accessible," adding that acceptance of cash "ensures everyone in our community has the opportunity to participate fully in the life of school."
Opponents urged deference to local school boards and warned of logistical or contractual complications. Representative De Groot called the proposal an overreach and said local school boards are the appropriate forum for these policies: "We elect school boards to make those decisions," he said. Other speakers highlighted concerns about third-party vendors at state tournaments and contractual provisions at larger venues that operate cashless systems.
Representative Hughes, who has experience in merchant processing and municipal law, argued cashless policies shift swipe fees to families and away from school fundraisers, calling the effect "a tax on families." Several members also urged parents to press local boards before the Legislature intervened.
On a roll call the clerk reported 34 ayes, 32 nays and 2 excused; because the bill failed to receive a majority of members elect, it was declared lost and the sponsor’s intent to reconsider was noted.
The floor debate addressed practical implementation questions, including whether third-party concessionaires would be required to take cash (the sponsor said yes), how many schools had gone cashless (the sponsor cited seven schools in the Sioux Falls area), and whether penalties for noncompliance are in existing statute (the sponsor said penalties are defined elsewhere in law but did not specify the provision on the floor).
