(Continued from page 23)

their buck" as possible when it comes to economic development.  One program that has us concerned is SD Wins.
• The SD Wins program was advanced last year through the Governor's Office of Economic Development and was established with a 5 million dollar appropriation from the General Fund. The goal was to recruit 1,000 new workers from outside of SD for hard-to-fill jobs. The cost of the recruitment of each employee is split 50/50 between state government and the company making the hire.   
• In the first year of the three year program, SD Wins has spent $500,000 of tax revenues to recruit and place 55 employees with ten SD companies. In addition, each month SD taxpayers pay the Wisconsin-based recruiting company, Manpower, a $49,000 fee whether or not there is a new employee recruited that month. This year alone, SD taxpayers have spent an estimated $8,000 per job to recruit these workers to our state, not to mention the required match by the private companies making the hire.  If this program is to continue, it is only right to do a cost-benefit analysis and let those results determine its future.
• Education-
• Providing quality schools is often called the very best tool of economic development, especially in bringing growth to our rural communities. When considering whether to locate in any town, large or small, one of the first concerns is the quality of the local school system. One study done by the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis even suggests that providing quality pre-schools has a direct correlation to economic growth in the community.
• Education continues to be the dominant issue of our Session. The number of opt-outs now in effect is alarming and proves that the state continues to push the obligation to fund our public schools to local taxpayers. This school year 66 of our 151 public schools are currently in an opt-out with many more Districts likely to try to passage soon if the state continues to underfund schools.   
• The Governor's Proposed Budget for K-12, brought forth by the Department of Education to Joint Appropriations this week, is a request for a 3.0% increase and would raise the funding formula from $4,491 to $4,625 for an increase of $134 per student. (Inflation was actually 3.2% but the law says 3% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less).  To put the amount in perspective, the 2008-09 per student allocation was $4,642 so the FY14 amount is $17 less per student than five years ago! We can and must do better for our students!  Please continue to share with me your reflections on education cuts and how it has affected your local school.
• Tourism-
• When talking about smart economic development, we should commend Tourism.

(Continued on page 25)