Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petition with 125 signatures asks for vote; school attorney’s letter says state law may bar election under current plan
Summary
Petitioners submitted 125 signatures (about 11% of registered voters) asking for an election on the athletic complex; school attorney Rodney Freeman, via a letter read by the superintendent, advised that statutes (SDCL 13‑16‑6.2 and related provisions) may prohibit a board‑initiated election if capital certificates issued will not exceed the 1.5% valuation threshold.
Petitioners delivered a letter with 125 signatures asking the board to allow district voters to decide whether to proceed with the athletic project. The cover letter, read to the board, said petitioners believed the board had already authorized thousands of dollars in pre‑construction work and urged the board to take the petition seriously.
Superintendent Scott read a written response from school attorney Rodney Freeman concluding that SDCL 13‑16‑6.2 (and related provisions) restrict the district’s ability to hold an election in certain circumstances. Scott summarized the attorney’s view that when the amount of capital outlay certificates authorized by the board would not exceed 1.5% of the district’s taxable valuation, state law may prohibit referring that decision to an election. "The statute provides, when read in conjunction with SDCL 13‑16‑6.4, that if the capital outlay certificates authorized by the board do not exceed 1.5% ... election even if [not required] is prohibited by state law," Scott read from the attorney's memo.
Board members said no capital outlay certificates have been issued and that the district may intend to issue certificates for roughly $3.5 million while the full project cost could be higher; the 1.5% threshold was discussed in dollar terms during the meeting as roughly $5.1 million for the current valuation and about $5.4 million in January. Chair and superintendent recommended following their attorney's advice and not holding an election at this time because the district does not yet have a referable certificate amount on the table.
The board accepted the petitions into the record and discussed next steps; no election was scheduled at the meeting.
