• Eight of the nine weeks of session are now behind us. While many important issues have already been settled, some of the most high profile matters remain in-play, not the least of which are HB 1040, which will amend last year's general (funding) bill, and SB 187 (this year's general bill). The appropriations committee will be determining revenue estimates this week, after which we will begin to put the final touches on these two bills. Clearly, the priorities are funding for education and taking care of those who cannot care for themselves.

From state employees to schools, from nursing homes to adjustment training centers, and from those who protect the public from predators to those who fund the entire operation...the taxpayers, everybody has an interest in the deliberations that will take place this week. I will attempt to provide a more in-depth discussion on the fiscal issues next week after the dust settles.
• Last week, the House heard SB 98, which would allow Deadwood to increase the tax rate on hotel rooms. This may seem to be a relatively small issue because of the dollars involved, but the way the bill is written, it establishes a dangerous precedent. Currently in South Dakota, a municipality may levy a $2/room/night tax on lodging facilities. Before I proceed, I might also add that last year, the legislature increased the "tourism tax" on a permanent basis, thus increasing the dollars available to spend on marketing for our tourism industry and local convention and visitors bureaus. Now, we have Deadwood stepping up to the trough and saying they should have a special carve-out so they can charge a higher "occupational tax" for purposes of marketing their town/attractions. If SB 98 becomes law, our law would change to read that the tax rate is two dollars, "except in the case of a municipality that is authorized by chapter 42-7B to allow legal games of chance, such tax may not exceed three dollars per occupied room per night." Yes, that is correct...we are now being asked to allow an exception to our tax code because a town offers gambling! Obviously, other jurisdictions will come forth in the future to seek to impose a higher tax rate. It will be interesting to see if we might grant said exemption to "a municipality that has the only Corn Palace in the world" or "a municipality that is home to Falls Park" or "a municipality that is home to the State Capitol". In my opinion, this is a bad bill. It eked through the Senate (18-16) and the House (39-31) due to rulings that this tax increases did not require a 2/3 vote. It is heading for the Governor's desk, where I am hoping it is stamped with a big red VETO! If this truly is a good idea, it should extend to all jurisdictions equally, instead of attempting this

(Continued on page 9)