HB 1230 Talking Points

ENTITLED, An Act to establish the large project development fund, to provide for its administration and to make an appropriation therefore. HB 1230 was passed by the House of Representatives on February 17, 2011 and was passed by the Senate March 3, 2011. The Governor signed HB 1230 on March 10, 2011. The effective date of HB 1230 is January 01, 2013.

What is HB 1230?

HB 1230 is a measure allowing the governor to take 22% of the contractor’s excise tax, which normally goes to fund education, health care, and other essential government programs, and use it to pay for a subsidy program to attract new large corporate projects.

How much money does HB 1230 take from education and healthcare?

This year, 22% of the contractor’s excise tax would take nearly $16 million dollars from the general funds budget. In periods of stronger economic growth, this amount could rise above $20 million a year or up to $300 million over 15 years.

Why is HB 1230 bad for SD?

Education is the best form of economic development. HB 1230 takes money away from funds for education and healthcare when we are struggling to keep teachers in our classrooms and trying to keep nursing homes from closing because of the governor’s budget mistakes.

Businesses that come to South Dakota require a system of education that equips workers with the skills businesses need in order to succeed in the 21st century economy. Cutting funding for education in order to bankroll the governor’s slush fund will neither train our workers nor attract new businesses to South Dakota.

Do South Dakotans support HB 1230?

This bill is deeply unpopular with voters in South Dakota: Public Policy Polling found that 62% of South Dakotans oppose the corporate give-away, while only 19% liked the idea. 18% were undecided. The poll questioned 1,667 voters between Feb. 25-27, 2011, and has a margin of error of +/- 2.4%.

Will South Dakotans know how Governor Daugaard will use the economic development funds?

NO. South Dakota has weak pay-to-play laws and little transparency concerning economic development funds.

  • Case in point: TransCanada, a foreign oil company, may have received up to $38 million in subsidies for a transcontinental pipeline that created very few permanent jobs in South Dakota, and would have gone through our state anyway. Because South Dakota lacks open transparency laws, South Dakotans may never know how much money TransCanada actually received or how they used it.