(Continued from page 5)

across the state for use of aeronautics fund dollars. Given that such projects are quite costly, the federal/state & local match rate is 90/10%. (Until two years ago, it was 95/5.) State policy calls for a local airport to match the state contribution dollar-for-dollar, so it becomes 90/5/5. Because pilots recognize the need for a state revenue stream, they agreed many years ago to tax themselves to provide the state portion of the match. When the administration and legislature swept the fund, it came as a shock. Unable to organize in a timely fashion to thwart the sweep as it was happening, the aviation industry has been placed in the difficult position of trying to "backfill" the fund. Now that the state's economy has rebounded and dollars appear to be available, they are merely asking us to right a wrong that was committed, so that the dollars can be used for their express intent in the future. One person who testified in favor of the bill pointed out the importance of having suitable airport conditions so that emergency medical aircraft can service all reaches of the state. Another spoke to the importance of being able to ensure safety for all aircraft and their passengers. The bill was killed 6-2, but many of the opponents have told me that they agree with everything supporters of the bill said. There is a companion bill that remains alive on the Senate side. We also testified in favor of that bill. It is being held for subsequent hearing. Hopefully we will have another opportunity to restore some or all dollars that were "borrowed" in the past.
• On the floor, several bills received much debate and came down to close votes. Others were hotly contested but the votes were not quite as close. For those of you tuning in on a daily basis to watch gavel-to-gavel coverage, you probably noticed that the discussions are becoming more spirited. HJR 1002 would put language on the ballot that would extend the length that a legislator could serve in one body to 12 consecutive years. I voted "No," but the joint resolution passed 54-16. In 1992, when term-limits were passed, the matter was brought to the voters through the initiated measure process. Nothing would preclude the public from bringing a similar proposal forward, but it seems self-serving for the legislative body to pass this. HB 1185 has become known as the "come home to hunt bill". This bill would allow residents of South Dakota to sponsor fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren; or brothers-, sisters-, fathers-, mothers-, sons-, or daughters-in-law who live out-of-state to hunt waterfowl with a 10-day special license that would not be subject to the current lottery system, nor the 4,000 nonresident license limit. The idea is that many people who come home to hunt pheasants would also like to hunt waterfowl. It is distinctly different from anything that has been brought before the legislature in the past. I voted for the bill, which passed, 36-32. Finally, one that almost everybody can agree on....HB 1100 would prohibit the use of "red light cam

(Continued on page 7)