Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rapid City committee approves resolution opposing Initiated Measure 28, cites legal and fiscal uncertainty
Summary
On Oct. 18 the Legal & Finance Committee approved Resolution 2024‑086, opposing Initiated Measure 28. City Attorney Joel Landeen told the committee the measure could create conflicts with state law, impose major administrative burdens, and substantially reduce municipal sales-tax revenue.
The Rapid City Legal & Finance Committee voted Oct. 18 to approve Resolution 2024‑086, a city statement opposing Initiated Measure 28. City Attorney Joel Landeen presented the resolution at the mayor’s request and summarized legal and practical concerns the South Dakota Municipal League has circulated to cities.
Landeen told the committee that although the initiative’s text says cities would still be able to collect sales tax on certain items, the initiative’s language appears to repeal the state’s authority to collect that tax in some categories, which raises a conflict with existing state law that ties city collection authority to the state’s mechanism. He said the state Attorney General declined to opine in detail on whether cities could still collect these taxes.
‘‘There is a question of whether or not the cities still have legal authority to collect the tax because of the statute, because the initiated measure repeals the state’s ability to collect the tax,’’ Landeen said. He warned that ambiguity could force cities either to contract with the state at new cost or to build their own tax-collection systems and licensing, increasing administrative expenses.
Landeen also flagged the initiative’s undefined phrase ‘‘human consumption’’ (aside from some exceptions), saying this ambiguity makes revenue impacts difficult to estimate. He said municipal estimates from the municipal league and finance staff were conservative but still suggested potential multi‑million‑dollar effects. Landeen summarized that a substantial budget shortfall (millions of dollars) could force cuts to services, staff positions and planned projects.
A motion to approve the resolution (mover: Beiberdorf; second: Maher) carried with an ‘‘Aye’’ vote. The resolution expresses the city’s opposition to the current form of Initiative Measure 28 and documents concerns; it does not bind subsequent council action or preclude future legislative or judicial developments.
The committee’s vote was advisory and procedural: next steps on the municipal response would follow as the city determines whether to adopt the resolution formally at the full council and whether to pursue additional actions.
