|
Legislative Update
March 13, 2009
The 39th Legislative Day has come and gone, leaving only the 40th day, “Veto Day”, before the Session wraps up for 2009. Overall, SDCA had a successful Session and we’ve included a wrap-up of the issues we worked on below.
Ag Land Assessments:
Our highest priority issue for the 2009 Session was to ensure completion of the work to transition from a market-based approach to a productivity model for ag land assessments. SB 3, passed the final legislative hurdle on Monday when it passed the House on a vote of 54-16. This bill is designed to ensure that the ag land tax burden is not shifted to owner-occupied or commercial property, and to minimize any shift between cropland and pasture land. It also extends and smoothes out the transition process. SB 3 is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature. SDCA supported – bill passed.
SB 4 was substantially amended (“hoghoused”) by the House Taxation committee and passed by the House by a vote of 13-0 with two excused. As amended, SB 4 will provide for the continuation of the Ag Land Assessment Implementation and Advisory Task Force that was formed by last year’s legislation. It also clarifies the duties and responsibilities of the Advisory Task Force. SDCA supported – bill passed.
SB 149 deals with adjustments to a school district general fund levy. This bill was introduced to alleviate fears the business community had regarding a potential long-term shift of the tax burden to homeowners and business owners if ag land valuations flatline under the productivity model. SB149 would make adjustments to a school general fund reflect the changes in value in each category of property. It also passed out of committee on Thursday by a vote of 12-1 with two members excused. SDCA neutral – bill passed.
Additional bills were introduced in the House and Senate that would have repealed the productivity methodology and resumed the market-based approach for ag land assessments. These bills would also remove the “150% rule” which has helped insulate ag land valuations from rapid escalations over the last several years. Fortunately for ag landowners those bills failed to gain traction among legislators and were moved to the 41st Legislative Day, effectively killing them as there are only 40 days in the Session. SDCA opposed – bills defeated.
Animal Welfare:
HB 1146 proposed to implement a new definition for animal torture and make animal torture a Class 6 felony. To be clear - SDCA doesn’t condone animal torture. However, we joined many other livestock groups in opposing HB 1146, which was defeated by a wide margin by the House Judiciary Committee. Our primary reason for opposing HB 1146 was concern about how normal livestock production practices, such as castration and de-horning, might be interpreted under the proposed definition of torture. We believe the state’s existing statutes are appropriate to address the minimal problems with animal abuse in SD.
Additional concerns arose because HB 1146 was similar to language proposed last summer by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) - the same group responsible for banning horse slaughter in the United States. HSUS has publicly stated their goal is to end animal agriculture in the U.S. and SDCA resisted the passage of HB 1146 in hopes it would discourage this activist group from trying to establish state laws that would be detrimental to the livestock industry. SDCA opposed – bill defeated.
Animal ID:
SDCA policy supports a voluntary animal identification system, except in the case of breeding stock where we support mandatory identification. Once again SDCA joined numerous livestock groups in opposition to HB 1224 which would prohibit state participation in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). This is the third consecutive year we dealt with this issue at the state legislature, which is an unfortunate distraction since the debate about mandatory animal identification should be taking place in Washington, DC rather than in Pierre.
As in past years, SDCA opposed HB 1224 due to its prohibitions which would disallow the SD Animal Industry Board’s (AIB) ability to participate in federal disease management and surveillance programs. If the AIB is unable to participate in federal programs, such as brucellosis and TB, they would no longer be able to certify our free status for brucellosis and TB and SD producers would no longer be able to transport livestock across state lines without the added expense and delay of disease testing. In addition, the bill is unnecessary since current state law protects SD livestock producers from unwarranted state mandates in SDCL 40-3-27 which states, “Any identification program implemented shall be for the sole purpose of maintaining animal health and ensuring the safety of the food supply.” SDCA opposed – bill defeated.
Brand Board:
SB 105 requires the Brand Board to report annually to the House and Senate Ag Committees as well as the Government Operations and Audit Committee (GOAC). The bill also requires Senate approval of Brand Board appointments and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. SDCA neutral – bill passed.
SB 188, which proposed to set 3 districts for the appointment of brand board members, was defeated as the result of a deal the bill’s sponsors struck with the Governor’s office. This is the same bill the Governor vetoed in 2007 and it was killed by the House Ag Committee in return for the Governor’s agreement to sign SB 105. SDCA opposed this bill for the same reasons we opposed it in 2007 – we believe the present method of appointment has served the board well since the 1930’s. As stated in our testimony opposing SB 188, it is the passion, understanding and commitment to the livestock industry that is relevant for service on the brand board, not necessarily a person’s address. SDCA opposed – bill defeated.
HB 1107 was a bill to change the state Brand Board from a five-member board appointed by the Governor to a seven-member board elected by brand-owning livestock producers. Proponents said the program should be controlled by those who use and pay for the program. They also suggested that this measure would remove politics from the Brand Board, it would create transparency and accountability, and it could address concerns over a perceived conflict of interest in how “holds” on livestock are being handled. Legislators raised questions about the costs of running an election, the constitutionality of how the voting process was designed, and how an election process would address the conflict of interest concerns that were expressed. SDCA testified in opposition to the bill based on increased costs that would ultimately be paid for by livestock producers. SDCA opposed – bill defeated.
The Brand Board also introduced a number of bills to address a variety of issues related to brand registrations and inspections. HB 1061 proposed to revise certain brand inspection provisions regarding a shipper's permit and was defeated by the House Ag Committee. SDCA neutral – bill defeated.
HB 1062 will increase the maximum reward from $1000 to $5000 to persons providing information leading to a livestock theft conviction where the livestock are branded with a registered brand. HB 1062 was passed and signed by the Governor. SDCA supported – bill passed.
HB 1063 revises brand registration provisions concerning out-of-state brands. It adds to present statute that cattle purchased at a licensed livestock auction market in the ownership inspection area may be branded with the owner's out-of-state brand if the cattle are branded at the market, are purchased for export from the state within two calendar days of purchase, and an authorization form is obtained from the board prior to branding the cattle. HB 1063 passed and was signed by the Governor. SDCA supported – bill passed.
HB 1064 proposed to revise certain brand inspection provisions regarding authorized bills of sale. It was designed to facilitate private treaty bull sales by allowing the sale of up to five head of livestock utilizing an authorized bill of sale rather than a brand inspection, under certain circumstances. HB 1064 was defeated by the House Ag Committee. SDCA neutral – bill passed.
Finally, HB 1065 would have alleviated the costs associated with mandatory equine brand inspections by allowing for voluntary inspections of horses and mules. It would also have increased the per-head inspection fee for equines. HB 1065 was defeated by the House Ag Committee. SDCA supported – bill defeated.
Animal Damage Control:
HB 1120 would have transferred the Animal Damage Control (ADC) program from the Department of Game, Fish & Parks (GF&P) to the Department of Agriculture. Although several west river land owners testified in favor of the proposal, there were concerns the transfer would jeopardize funding for the program. The GF&P matches county investments in animal damage control programs on a 2:1 basis using funds derived from the sale of hunting licenses – this amounts to an annual contribution of approximately $636,000 from the GF&P. A cooperative agreement between GF&P and the US Fish & Wildlife Service prohibits the diversion of GF&P funds to purposes other than wildlife management. The concern was the ADC transfer from GF&P to the Ag Department would be considered a diversion of funds, so the SD Ag Department and Ag Unity opposed the bill due to questions about how the program would be funded under the supervision of the Ag Department. Ag Unity, a coalition of 23 ag groups including SDCA, will continue to work on this issue to ensure any ADC program is appropriately funded and meets the needs of livestock producers to ensure animal damages are mitigated. SDCA opposed – bill defeated.
Budget:
Extension Funding – Most agencies within state government were asked to cut programs, services and FTE’s to help meet the state’s budget. Agriculture was very concerned with the Board of Regents’ proposal to achieve a $5.5 million decrease, $1 million of which was targeted to come out of the Cooperative Extension Service (CES). This would have amounted to a 12% cut for CES while the rest of the Regent system was poised for a 1-1.5% percent cut – an unfair cut which represented the third time in recent years that cuts have been proposed to CES. The proposed cut would have eliminated a minimum of 18 FTE’s and, due to multi-disciplined positions, could mean more personnel. SDCA opposed this proposal and the Joint Appropriations committee restored $800,000.00 of the proposed $1 million CES funding cuts. SDCA opposed cuts – funding restored.
Sales Tax Exemptions – SDCA, along with all the ag organizations and other non-profits, closely watched SB 43 , which initially proposed to repeal the sales and use tax exemptions for amateur sports officials and rodeo services. The Department of Revenue quickly brought forward an amendment that would have also removed the sales tax exemption for membership fees and services for business, professional, civic and social organizations. After numerous hearings, the Senate Taxation Committee finally defeated the amended bill. SDCA opposed – bill defeated.
SB 44, which would have repealed the tax exemption on the sale of and the feed for ostriches, emus, rheas, elk, deer and mink was promptly defeated but the Senate Taxation Committee early in the Session. SDCA opposed the measure due to concerns it would set a precedent for removing sales tax exemptions for the sale of other livestock and livestock feed. SDCA opposed – bill defeated.
County Comprehensive Plans:
Brought by anti-livestock development elements in northeastern South Dakota, SB 115 dealt with initiatives to modify county comprehensive plans. Current law allows 30% of the landowners to petition the county commission to modify a county plan. SB115 would have changed the requirement to 30% of the landowners “registered to vote” in that district. Many livestock groups joined the county commissioners’ organizations in opposing this measure for a couple of reasons. First, by making it easier to modify a comprehensive plan it could be used to restrict livestock operations in a county. It also disenfranchises tax-paying landowners in one county who may live and vote in a different county. Changes in language between the House and Senate version resulted in the appointment of a conference committee to work-out the differences. The language approved by the conference committee changed present law by decreasing the 30% of land owners registered to vote to 20% and excluded charitable, benevolent, or religious societies that own any agricultural land in the county from being included in the definition of a landowner. SDCA opposed – bill passed with amendments.
Bill Tally:
|
Bills
|
# of Bills
|
# Passed
|
# Defeated
|
|
SDCA Actively Supported
|
6
|
5
|
1
|
|
SDCA Actively Opposed
|
9
|
0
|
9
|
· Visit the LRC website at http://legis.state.sd.us/index.aspx to find more information regarding bills, committees, agendas and to listen to live or archived committee and chamber sessions.
· SDCA members are encouraged to contact Jodie at the SDCA office at 605.945.2333 or executive@sdcattlemen.org if you have any questions regarding SDCA’s legislative issues.
|