Home > 2015 SD Legislative Session > Bills on the SD House floor for Tues Feb 17

Bills on the SD House floor for Tues Feb 17

February 17, 2015
SD House floor. Photo by Ken Santema 02/11/15.

SD House floor. Photo by Ken Santema 02/11/15.

Here are the bills on the SD House floor for Tuesday, February 17, which begins at 2:00 PM central.


HB 1139 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise certain procedures for competitive sealed bids by public purchasing agencies.

HB 1235 – SoDakLiberty PostsUpdate the valuation manual related to the valuation of assets, liabilities, and reserves.

SB 85 – SoDakLiberty PostsRepeal certain requirements regarding the handlebar height on motorcycles.


HJR 1002 – SoDakLiberty PostsMaking a formal application to the President of the United States, that the President grant a presidential pardon to Peter L. Larson.

* Deferred from last Tuesday!

This passed out of State Affairs with no opposition. There are some who believe the charges against Larson were politically motivated. If that is indeed true I would say this is a good resolution.

HB 1105 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for an affidavit creating a rebuttable presumption that a person is not an employee for purposes of workers’ compensation and to provide a penalty therefor.

* Deferred from last Wednesday!

This bill was removed from the consent calendar. It was amended in House Commerce and passed that committee 10-1.

HB 1194 – SoDakLiberty PostsSet a minimum size for a sign about zoning changes or conditional use permits.

* Deferred from last Thursday!

This bill passed House Local Government 10-3 after an amendment. Here is what I said about the bill before, and stick with it:

This makes sure the landowner uses a sign at least “twenty-four inches wide and eighteen inches tall with bold lettering to inform the public about the petition and hearing”. Really? This is necessary to put in state law……..

HB 1030 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Provide certain restrictions regarding the passing of a bicycle.

* Deferred from last Thursday!

This bill has actually had quite a bit of attention in House Transportation. This week the bill was amended. Now the bill says that if a car is on a road that is 35 mph or less, then the car has to give at least three feet of space when passing a bike. If the posted speed is greater than 35 mph, then the car must give at least six feet of space when passing a bike. I find it ironic this law actually leaves less rooms for bikes, but sometimes people think a new law needs to be passed to raise attention to a cause.

HJR 1003 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election an amendment to Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to the authority of the Board of Regents.

* Deferred from last Thursday!

This resolution would put the four votechs directly under the control of the legislature, if it passes on the ballot. I still haven’t researched enough to determine if this is a good idea, or if it is one that will work on the ballot.

HB 1161 – SoDakLiberty PostsLimit certain rule making authority of the South Dakota High School Activities Association.

* Deferred from last Thursday!

This bill would overturn the transgender policy that the SDHSAA recently set. Personally I think the legislature should look at other areas of the HSAA that have more imminent needs for oversight.

HB 1118 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for oversight of postsecondary technical institutes.

This bill was hoghoused in House State Affairs and passed that committee 12-0. I have yet to research this bill, but I don’t see any red flags when reading the hoghoused bill.

HB 1215 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for an optional enhanced permit to carry a concealed pistol.

This was amended in House State Affairs. Part of the amendment provide that half of the hundred-dollar fee for this permit goes to the local sheriffs department and the other half goes to the Secretary of States office.

HB 1067 – SoDakLiberty PostsEstablish maximum reproduction costs for medical records.

This was amended in House Judiciary. The amendment allows more to be charged per page. Originally the bill would have limited the cost to $10 for the first ten pages, and $0.25 each additional page. Now as amended it would be $0.32 each additional page. The bill passed House Judiciary 9-4 after being amended.

HB 1082 – SoDakLiberty PostsAllow a law enforcement officer to issue a citation without a notary.

This bill was gutted. The new version of the bill appears to do the same thing, but it modifies current code instead of adding new code. This bill modernizes the citation process and takes into account law enforcement now utilizes technology in regards to citations. After being amended it passed House Judiciary 13-0.

HB 1229 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise provisions related to the release of medical waste.

This bill passed House Health and Human Services 12-0. This bill removes the exemption for “household waste including medical waste generated at a private residence”.

HB 1147 – SoDakLiberty PostsIncrease the amounts of the annual awards given to recipients of the South Dakota opportunity scholarship.

This bill was originally assigned to House Education. It was voted 14-1 to refer it to House Appropriations. Rep Dan Kaiser (R, Dist 3) was the dissenting vote to refer it to appropriations. The bill passed House Appropriations 9-0. Here is what I had to say about the bill prior to its House Ed hearing:

The SD Office of the Governor asked for this bill. This would add three hundred dollars for years one, two, and three students. Six hundred is added for fourth year students, or only three hundred if they did their previous years outside SD. This bill would also change the total amount of scholarship money from $5,000 to $6,500.

I think scholarships are great. But even this little bit of money could probably be better used in other areas.

HB 1186 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise an appropriation made to the Science and Technology Authority.

The bill passed House Appropriations 9-0. Here is the language being added to the act that provides the agreement with owners of the former Homestake Mine:

Up to two million five hundred thousand dollars of the indemnification fund may be used to provide initial capital and pay expenses for a captive insurance company upon the terms and conditions to be set forth in the agreement between the owners of the former Homestake Mine and the authority. If released in writing by the owners of the former Homestake Mine, up to seven million five hundred thousand dollars of the indemnification fund may be used by the authority for the purpose of a project, as defined in subdivision 1-16H-3(3), at the former Homestake Mine in Lead, South Dakota.

HJR 1005 – SoDakLiberty PostsDesignating Oglala Lakota County as the new name of Shannon County.

This bill passed House State Affairs 12-0. I don’t foresee any opposition to this bill. The voters of Shannon County already decided they wanted to change the name to Oglala Lakota County. This is just a formality.


SB 77 – SoDakLiberty PostsAllow nursing mothers to breastfeed in certain locations.

* This was removed from the consent calendar last week.
* Deferred from last Thursday!

This is a bill I like. It allows freedom for something natural and necessary.

SB 16 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise certain provisions safeguarding law enforcement radio communications.

* This was removed from the consent calendar last week.
* Deferred from last Thursday!

I really don’t get this bill. It revises a section of code that is quickly becoming irrelevant. Analog radios are almost done being used in the law enforcement world. Scanners are almost obsolete. In addition I don’t see the point of giving more charges to throw at someone accused of a crime.

SB 40 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise certain provisions regarding the federal motor carrier regulations.

* This was removed from the consent calendar last week.
* Deferred from last Thursday!

This bill passed Senate Transportation, the Senate floor, and House transportation with no opposition. This bill updates the Adoption of Federal Regulations (§ 49-28A-3) to the Hazardous Material Transport Safety portion of SD code (§ 49-28A). It updates the federal regulations referenced from 2014 to 2015. It also changes the age limit in this section from 16 to 18.

SB 43 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise certain provisions regarding lease purchase agreement payments and to ratify certain lease purchase agreements with the Health and Educational Facilities Authority.

* Deferred again last Thursday!

This bill passed Senate Ed and the Senate floor with no opposition. It then had quite a substantial amendment in House Appropriations; where it then passed 9-0. This bill appears to be clarifying the lease payments made by the legislature for education buildings.

SB 75 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise the effective period of the travel permit for certain livestock used for rodeo purposes and to declare an emergency.

* Deferred again last Thursday!

This bill was amended to add an emergency clause in Senate Ag, it passed 9-0. It then went on to pass the Senate floor 33-0. Finally, it went though House Ag 12-0. This bill changes the permit from being good for a calendar year to being good for twelve months from the date of endorsement.

SB 76 – SoDakLiberty Posts Extend the length of time a local livestock ownership inspection certificate is valid for transportation.

* Deferred again last Thursday!

This bill passed the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources committee 7-2 and went on pass the Senate floor 27-6. In House Ag is passed 11-1. This changes the certificate from being good for the day it is issued to being good for twenty-four hours after the inspection. I know some current ranchers do not like this bill because they believe it would theoretically make theft of cattle harder to prevent.

SB 93 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Impose a gross receipts tax on the rental of certain motorcycles in lieu of the excise tax on motor vehicles.

This bill passed Senate Tax and the Senate floor with no opposition. It passed House Tax 13-1. Rep Nancy Rasmussen (R, Dist 17) was the dissenting vote. I still haven’t listened to the testimony on this bill to find out why this bill is or isn’t good.

SB 45 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise certain provisions relating to the sale of unpasteurized raw milk.

This bill was amended in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources committee and passed with a vote of 7-2. It passed the Senate floor 30-4. Then in House Ag is passed with no opposition. I was quite apprehensive about this bill before the Senate Ag hearing. Since that time I have listened to the committee hearing and studied the bill. There are some portions of the bill I think are maybe a little strict, but overall I think this is a great step forward compared to where the Dept of Ag was at two years ago. At this time I hope the bill is passed so the raw milk (and now raw cream) producers in SD can move forward.

SB 41 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise certain provisions pertaining to commercial driver licensing.

This bill passed Senate Transportation 6-0, the Senate floor 30-4, finally House Transportation. I still haven’t listened to testimony on this bill. It changes quite a bit of code.

SB 94 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Establish a license fee for electric-powered motorcycles.

This bill passed Senate Transportation, the Senate Floor, and House Transportation with no opposition.

  1. February 22, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    I have listened to the House Transportation Committee sessions on HB 1030, and thus have heard some representatives’ arguments that the bill would give bicycle users less space. However, after looking into the laws determining the current space one must give when passing a bicycle user, I found those arguments are not as conclusive as the representatives sounded in their assertions. On what basis do you say HB 1030 leaves less room for bicycles?

    • February 22, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      It goes to § 32-26-6, which is the current SD law for lane changing. Currently within this section of law a bicycle is included as a vehicle. § 32-26-6 makes it a class 2 misdemeanor to pass a vehicle and still be partially within the lane of the vehicle being passed. That means under current law if a car is only three feet away from the bike being passed it would likely be illegal, because that car is not fully in the other lane. By creating this new law, bikes are no longer treated as any other vehicle in SD law.

      I do understand what the proponents of 1030 are trying to do. But I honestly feel it would be better to continue to treat bikes as a vehicle and just bring attention to current lane changing law.

      Some other concerns of this change would include other vehicles that are like bikes, but not included in the definition of a bicycle. Is an electric or gas powered moped included? There are smaller electric motor bikes that are almost a hybrid between a moped and motorcycle. They are slow moving and similar in size to a bike. Would they require only three feet of space? Or more likely will they be treated as a vehicle and require the whole lane.

  2. February 23, 2015 at 1:48 am

    Thank you for your answer, Ken.

    32-26-6 is the law representatives cited as providing bicycle users a full lane. However, in using that argument, they appear ignorant of subtlety found in 32-20B-5 which states:

    “Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. However, a person operating a bicycle may move from the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway to overtake and pass another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, to prepare for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or roadway or to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.”

    The last sentence in that law implies a bicycle and automobile may within a non-substandard width lane legally travel side by side, and that counteracts the notion automobile users must provide bicycle users a full lane while passing. Additionally, people allege 32-26-6 provides bicycle users a full lane by mandating automobiles stay entirely within a single lane, but that would only mandate a full lane for roads with no shoulders. On shouldered roads, an automobile could stay entirely in one lane while passing a bicycle user with only inches between the two.

    No matter what current law actually provides, however, I still wonder how genuine are concerns that the proposed amendment would weaken those provisions. I ride my bicycle nearly every day for transportation and entertainment, as I have for years. Countless times have automobiles passed me within my lane, and countless times have I witnessed automobiles and other bicycles passing within a single lane. Never, though, have I seen nor heard of any citation related to 32-26-6’s alleged provision for bicycle users’ space, just as I had before this legislative session never heard anyone mention anything about a law providing bicycle users a full lane.

    So if 32-26-6 provides bicycle users a full lane, then I can only speculate that our police force never knew or else never cared, and a majority of automobile users I have encountered never knew or never cared. I tend to trust our police officers’ knowledge and intentions more than that, though. Thus I grant that we might find increased safety just by drawing attention to current lane changing law while remaining skeptical. But even so, I would prefer the amendment, because for efficiency’s sake I don’t want people going all the way into the other lane on a busy road if safety does not require that.

    As for your wish that we continue treating bicycles as vehicles, the amendment would not remove the bicycle’s status as a vehicle. It would still be a vehicle, though it would receive different treatment than other vehicles. And if you are against treating bicycles differently than other vehicles, please consider current law already does, and that other vehicles also receive specialized treatment under current law.

    To my knowledge, the amendment would not cover electric or gas-powered mopeds, because they are mopeds and thus are not bicycles. On most (if not all) city roads, they can match the maximum speed limit, so would not need anything like HB 1030. However, maybe we would be wise to have a similar law for protecting moped users on higher speed roads, but mopeds are not required to travel as practicably to the road’s right side in the way bicycles are, so maybe something like HB 1030 is not needed for keeping moped users safe.

    If by “smaller electric motor bikes” you refer to bicycles with electronic assistance, I imagine HB 1030 would cover them, because they are still bicycles. But if you were referring to electric motorcycles, of which I know nothing, I assume the amendment would not cover them, thinking they have much higher acceleration and top speed and aren’t required to operate as practicably as possible to the road’s right edge.

    • February 23, 2015 at 8:44 am

      Thank-you for the reply! Between you and someone who was just in my office debating this with me I now feel I may have been looking at this bill wrong.

      I had not considered the fact a bike on a highway typically isn’t even taking a lane because they are riding along the shoulder. This new law would at least require motor vehicles to scoot over when passing those bicycles. Actually it is what all motor vehicles should be doing for anything on the shoulder, whether it be a bicycle or a car pulled over.

      You are correct, current law enforcement is not enforcing the lane law for bicycles being passed by motor vehicles. I don’t know that this will be enforced either. I think the most this law will do is bring attention to the fact that people should be moving over, and that in itself may save some lives.

  3. February 23, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    You’re welcome! And I thank you for being open to different interpretations.

    I forgot to mention that 32-26-6 may also allow automobile users to stay in their original lane when passing a bicycle on roads without shoulders if that lane is wide enough to hold the automobile and the bicycle without collision, because 32-26-26 only requires drivers to pass “at a safe distance” from another vehicle. That’s largely why the amendment was proposed in the first place, according to Bill Nevin’s testimony in the House Transportation Committee. So we can maybe say law enforcement (by doing nothing) actually is enforcing the current lane law for bicycles being passed by motor vehicles.

    If the amendment were to do nothing more than raise awareness, I could still appreciate that. But I do think the amendment would at least have more potential for enforcement than does the current law, because a safe distance is subjective, whereas three and six feet are objective. Of course, judging those distances will not always be without question, but some infractions would be obvious for police officers.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: