The name of the person involved was not released.

Preliminary crash information from the South Dakota Highway Patrol indicates the man was driving a 2003 Chevrolet Silverado southbound on Grand Avenue near Elizabeth Street when, due to a medical situation, the vehicle left the roadway and ended up on residential property (513 Grand Ave.) where it collided into the front porch and wall.

The driver was taken to Avera St. Mary’s with life-threatening injuries, then flown to a Sioux Falls hospital for further treatment. He was wearing his seat belt.

The South Dakota Highway Patrol is investigating the crash.

The Highway Patrol is an agency of the South Dakota Department of Public Safety.

The coupon was printed on blue paper and lists an expiration date of November 30, 2020. This is not the correct coupon for 2026 and should not be used. The fees listed on the coupon are also no longer current.

The residents should expect to receive their updated 2026 Free/Discounted Load Coupon in the mail within the next month. The Free/Discounted Load Coupon allows Pierre residents to dispose of one pickup load or similar-sized trailer load of waste up to 1,200 pounds at no cost at the Pierre Solid Waste Facility.

Residents enrolled in paperless billing will not receive anything additional in the mail. They are already included on the internal list at the Solid Waste Facility billing office. These customers will simply be able to use the updated 2026 coupon.

Solid Waste Superintendent Val Keller encourages residents to take advantage of the program as they clean out garages, yards, and storage areas.

Important details about the (correct) 2026 free/reduced load coupons:

• The coupon must be presented before dumping at the Pierre Solid Waste Facility, located at 2800 E. Park Street (entrance on Lowell Street).

• Valid for residential use only

• No business, commercial, government, or rental property waste

• No typical household garbage

• No electronic recycling, tires, vehicle batteries, oil, items containing Freon, or other materials not normally accepted

• Expires November 30, 2026

Recycling & Yard Waste Access:

City recycling, tree, and yard waste bins are located behind the gate at the Solid Waste Facility. City residential utility customers may access these bins at no cost using a city-issued access card. Residents can obtain a card by calling 605-773-7434. Those without an access card may access the bins for $3.75 per load.

Recycling bins accept:

• Aluminum

• Tin

• Computer paper and office paper

• Corrugated cardboard

• Newspapers and magazines

• #1 and #2 Plastics

Electronic recycling is available for a fee.

Usable paint and certain household cleaning supplies in their original containers may be dropped off at no charge during normal operating hours. Those will be added to the paint swap and cleaner swap areas that are available to Pierre utility customers, free of charge.

Facility Hours:

• Monday–Friday: 8a.m. to 5p.m.

• Saturday: 9a.m. to 1p.m.

• Holiday hours are posted at cityofpierre.org.

Residents with questions about the Free/Reduced Load Coupon or acceptable materials may contact the Solid Waste Facility at 605-773-7434 or visit cityofpierre.org.

The City appreciates residents’ patience as the corrected coupons are distributed and apologizes for the inconvenience.

A couple weeks ago, I announced I am leaving the Legislature after this year. It has been a great run, and I’m proud of the work. As I enter my final week in the House of Representatives, I compiled five lessons I learned about the institution while serving in the Capitol:

1. Not Enough Focus on the Future. From our budget to our regulations to our tax policy, we are increasingly focused on preservation of the present rather than building for the future. Medicaid spending surpassing K-12 Education is a prime example of this trend. There is a lot of talk about kids in the Capitol, but there is no real vision or overarching plan for how South Dakota will be better for them than it was for us.

2. Term Limits Have Harmed the Legislative Branch. Almost half of the Legislature turns over each term. Imagine how disruptive that would be for a sports team, business, or non-profit board! Experience and policy knowledge are sorely lacking. There has been a decline in decorum, and no real consequences, since leadership turns over every term. This is a problem that seems to be getting worse, not better.

3. The Status Quo Is Hard to Break (and That is Mostly a Good Thing). Bucking the lobbyists is tough business – they are by-and-large sent to the Capitol by hundreds or thousands of South Dakotans, who share a common trade, profession, or passion. They know the laws and how they were developed. If you’re trying to change the way things have always been done, you’ve got to have a well-considered, well-supported plan, because the status quo is hard to break.

4. Our Citizen Legislature is the Best Thing State Government Has. States with full-time legislatures routinely spend into the red and regulate until they are blue in the face. Our 9-week session may be fast-and-furious, but it also keeps us from coming up with too many new government programs or new ways to run your lives. Every few years, some legislators try to add more days, add more staff, or generally make the legislature a full-time job. We have seen the results of professionalizing the legislative branch in Washington, DC and must avoid it at all costs.

5. “It’s the Best Gig in the State” – Rep. Mike Stevens (R-Yankton). It really is. You learn a ton about the world around you. You meet people across the state, in all walks of life, and with limitless perspectives. You get to work in a timeless building and know that you played a small part in the stewardship of your state. You get to witness some truly bizarre behavior. When things get harried or frustrating under the Capitol, Stevens always reminds us: it is the best gig in the state, and he’s absolutely right.

Water for the Next (Ten) Generations by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre)(March 1, 2026)

I often tell my kids: if you don’t get started, you’ll never get done. That’s an important lesson as we think about the enormous task of providing water to the next ten generations of South Dakotans.

I live about fifty yards from the Missouri River. It defines the community that I have always called home. It brings recreation and beauty. More importantly, the clean, fresh water of the Missouri River is life-giving and is used by South Dakotans from Aberdeen to Yankton and Pierre to Pine Ridge. The water lines laid by our forebearers have served South Dakotans in big ways and small for decades. We must continue that work.

A couple years ago, knowing that the West River Regional Water Project was on the horizon, I read up on the Pick-Sloan Act, which established the dams along the Missouri River. The damming of the Missouri was already part of my family’s heritage, since it meant the loss of over 1,000 acres from our original ranch. A lot of the most fertile farmland and the most protected acres on South Dakota reservations up-and-down the Missouri were flooded when the dams were built. Whole communities had to move to the windy bluffs or disperse to different areas entirely. South Dakota sacrificed so that the dams could be built to provide power to Chicago and Minneapolis, and for the assurance of barge transport in Iowa and Missouri.

South Dakota has paid its share and should not hesitate to ensure South Dakota benefits from this resource. If we do not seek to establish our water rights, in conjunction with the tribes in our state, others will. Partnership with the tribes is essential, not just recommended. The water lines that currently serve our West River tribes are leaky and inconsistent. The tribes know what folks across western South Dakota know – the time is right for a full-scale partnership and to take the effort of establishing a West River Regional Water System seriously.

South Dakota is in a moment of opportunity. Our state has never had so much clout in Congress, between Majority Leader John Thune, Senator Mike Rounds, and Congressman Dusty Johnson. Each are pushing hard for the federal government to prioritize this large-scale infrastructure project. Our state must be ready to meet its obligation to match, if they are successful. We cannot afford to wait or hope the federal government will fund-in-full. They will not. South Dakota needs to be forward-thinking and prove that we understand the importance of water to our communities, even if it may not come to fruition for decades.

Lately, it seems, we have forgotten the steps taken by our parents, grandparents and great grandparents to build the state we now enjoy. They looked to a future – not only their own, but our future – and built highways, grain elevators, electrical lines, ethanol plants, water lines, oil and gas pipelines, and countless other major projects. They knew it might be costly during their lifetime or inconvenient for some in the short-term, but it would provide for all of us in the future. Now, it is our turn to think about future generations. Nothing is more foundational to a thriving society than water, and no infrastructure project right now is more important than these major water lines. Let’s get started.

The Vital Importance of “No” by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (February 22, 2026)

As your Representative, I’ve got to admit that it’s a lot more fun to be “for” bills than “against” them. I like talking to my neighbors about things I’m “for”: agriculture, education, hunting, and preserving South Dakota values. Those are the reasons I ran for the Legislature and the issues that I’m passionate about.

Lately, though, I have spent more time working against bills and voting “No” than supporting bills and voting “Yes.” Instead of championing dozens of changes to our state laws, I find myself regularly opposing new mandates, pumping the brakes on new regulations, or halting new spending programs.

Remember – every bill changes South Dakota. I love South Dakota. It’s my home and the place I care most about. Legislation that seeks to change our state needs to pass a high hurdle. As a common sense conservative, change comes hard for me. If four parts of a bill are good for South Dakota, but one part is bad, I’m bound to vote against the entire bill. It isn’t enough that a bill sounds good on the surface or makes for a good slogan. I’m interested in what does good, not what looks good.

While voting No is a critically important part of the job, it isn’t a fun one. Often, saying “No” is painful.

Telling my colleagues that I don’t support their bill isn’t enjoyable, nor is it something I do lightly. Each proposal comes from a legislator that truly believes in the idea and was elected by thousands of South Dakotans. However, I owe my constituents (and my colleagues) a duty of uprightness and honesty. So, I spend a lot of my day delivering bad news.

“No” isn’t fun, but it is necessary in government. If I were voting on emotion or trying to make sure the legislator sponsoring the bill liked me, I’d vote yes on every bill. Instead, I think, read, listen, and ask questions on each bill. I test the bill against my values, the constitution, and the impact on South Dakota (and central South Dakota, in particular). No matter my emotional reaction, I run each bill through the same critical, analytical, and careful process.

So, I’ll probably continue to vote “No” more than most. It is a reflection of the high standard I have for changes to our laws in South Dakota. It is rooted in true, restrained conservatism. It is the practical implementation of my common refrain: we just don’t need all these laws.

In government, voting “No” isn’t fun, but it is vitally important.

A Question that Should Not Be Asked by District 24 Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (February 15, 2026)

Difficult and uncomfortable conversation still need to be had. This is one of those. I am bringing a bill to prohibit statewide elected officials and legislators from raising campaign funds from their high-level employees. Those folks work for the taxpayers, and it puts them in a tough spot when their boss asks for a campaign donation. At its worst, this is known as a “shakedown.” At its best, the campaign donation request can never be free of inherent pressure. It is just a question that should not be asked.

I want to be clear: I am not alleging that any inappropriate or overt pressure has been applied by any officeholder. I know all the legislators who would be subject to this law as well as the statewide officeholders. I am not aware of anything overtly unethical, am not alleging anything inappropriate, and mean no disrespect to those folks. In fact, my proposed legislation would not even take effect until January 1, 2027, and would not affect anyone running for office today.

Still, this is an important and necessary proposal. Too many aspects of policymaking these days have become about politics and not public service. Perhaps that is unavoidable in the Internet era, or merely an inherent aspect of a democracy where elected officials keep a close eye on the voters’ sentiment, which leads to pandering and political behavior. When it comes to employees who work for the taxpayers, though, we should want them solely focused on public service, and we should do what we can to take politics out of the question.

While prohibiting this kind of request may seem like common sense, it is not the law today in South Dakota. It is the law at the federal level and in many other states. The rationale for the proposal is obvious: there is an inherent pressure on an employee when his or her boss asks for a campaign check. The pressure may not be overt and the request may be made in the friendliest terms imaginable, but common sense tells us the question is not a fair one to impose on that employee.

I am sure I will be removed from several Christmas card lists over this proposal, but my constituents who work for state government deserve to focus their efforts only on the efficient and effective administration of the public good. I am proud of the folks who lead state agencies and have dedicated their lives to serving other South Dakotans. They deserve our support and protection. Our state is best-served when those folks are focused only on the merits of public service. This year, we can take a step toward that goal, no matter how uncomfortable the process is to get there.

The Dawn of Data Centers by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (February 8, 2026)

We are entering a new era of the digital age. The first iPhone was unveiled in 2007, around the time this year’s class of high school Seniors were born. Since then, most of us have snapped tens of thousands of photos, taken hours of video, and downloaded countless apps on our phones. Now, all large organizations and most citizens are exploring the world of generative artificial intelligence (AI), which consumes data at rates previously unseen. That AI is useful not just in creating Muppet images of your friends or drafting an email. Harnessing and directing AI is critical for military and economic dominance in the years to come. We need enhanced data infrastructure in this country, because consumers (aka the public) demand it and because the strength of our nation requires it.

In South Dakota, we are currently deciding whether to welcome this infrastructure development or whether to use government to block these projects. If we site them, there are substantial economic benefits (jobs and wages) and massive tax-base benefits (lower property taxes and more funding for schools, roads, and law enforcement). If we block the projects through over-taxation or over-regulation, the states around us will permit the market to function, and this infrastructure will get built. As a small government conservative, I believe South Dakota’s decision is an easy one: get government out of the way and encourage this infrastructure to get built.

As with any new project, there is fear that comes from the unknown. While the benefits of data centers are clear (and massive), we must be mindful of potential drawbacks as well. Folks often point to concerns about water and power use by these massive infrastructure projects, which might crowd-out consumer use, or make it more expensive. The water issue has been overcome by a ‘closed loop system,’ which does not use all that much water. The electrical issue can and should be confronted to ensure these projects’ electricity costs do not get passed on to other consumers. The good news: the project developers agree with this goal.

If you think the electricity consumption risk is just too big, and government should block data centers, I have bad news for you. Our electric supply is regional and does not abide state borders. That is – if the data center is getting built in North Dakota or Wyoming, we are on the same power grid and would have the same potential effects, whether the data center is sited here or there. We cannot bury our heads in the sand to protect ourselves in this arena. We need to get in the game.

So, our response should be two-fold: we should welcome this data infrastructure, and ensure they are not over-taxed or overregulated. At the same time, we should consider laws to ensure data centers to internalize their electrical costs and to use the water-preserving ‘closed loop’ system. I believe Dusty Johnson called that “Data Centers Done Right.” His plan is a thoughtful, responsible approach for South Dakota and I believe would be a good start.

More generally, we need to get back to being a state and country that builds infrastructure and makes our society stronger for the next generation. We may not know what the world will look like when babies born this year are high school Seniors, but we want to do all we can to provide them with a strong home with real opportunity. We cannot let every online rumor get in the way of building infrastructure that will make South Dakota more prosperous and keep America dominant. We are at the dawn of an era of vast data infrastructure development. Now is the time to look for the path forward, not to run-scared from bumps on the road. Our world needs this data infrastructure and South Dakota should welcome our chance to help build it.

Cigar Bars: Where Freedom Meets Local Control by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre)(February 2, 2026)

There may not be two more frequently used buzzwords under the Capitol dome than “Freedom” and “Local Control.” We had a bill this week that would entirely ban a type of fake meat, pushed by people preaching freedom, because it competes with an industry they like (and of which I’m a part – cattle). I believe freedom includes freedom to make a decision I would never make myself, like buying unnatural fake meat. Likewise for local control – the same folks preaching local control will often put mandates on schools, hospitals, and businesses, if it aligns with their political rhetoric. In other words, when you hear someone shouting “freedom” or “local control,” you should just know that those terms are not absolute.

With that disclaimer, I wrote a bill this year that I believe perfectly blends freedom and local control. HB1215 would allow (if the city or county wanted to) the creation of a license in each community for a cigar bar. This allows complete discretion in the cities and counties to allow regulated cigar bars, if they choose. If such an establishment is set up, then people can go (or not), if they choose.

Currently, there are three cigar bars allowed in the state, in Deadwood, Rapid City, and Sioux Falls. They were all grandfathered in when the smoking ban took effect in 2009. They have tight requirements about ventilation, ensuring cigars-not-cigarettes, and that cigars be a main source of revenue. If they are OK for three communities, they should be allowed in the rest of the state as well, subject to the same requirements. This doesn’t overturn the smoking ban, it just allows the same freedom and local control for all communities that are currently enjoyed in three.

I often say, when legislating, that “we don’t need all these laws.” Each year, the legislature adds regulation and cost. I sincerely try to push the other way, and have brought regulation cuts each year I’ve been in the legislature. This year, in the Cigar Bar Bill, we would be granting more discretion to our cities and counties, and more freedom for our citizens. In this bill, freedom really does meet local control, and I can’t wait to get to work on it.

Real Partnerships Lead to Real Results in Indian Country by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (January 26, 2026)

As chairman of the South Dakota State‑Tribal Relations Committee this summer, I had the honor of working closely with tribal leaders on issues of shared concern. I visited Sisseton, Cheyenne River, and Standing Rock to hear directly from the tribes and the people who live and work on the reservations. As a tribal member, I have long been frustrated by the pessimism of policymakers and lack of solutions when it comes to Indian Country.

Building strong state‑tribal relationships is not for photo ops or sentimentalism. Building trust is a necessary step to turning the tide. Our approach must be grounded in mutual respect and informed by the history, culture, and needs of Tribal communities in South Dakota. The policy outcomes in Indian Country are not a given. They are not inherent. We should not throw up our hands and assume these outcomes will always be. We can and we must do better.

In our committee hearings and discussions over the summer, we focused on two critical priorities: protecting public safety on and off reservations, and expanding access to effective health care for Tribal members. I’m proud to say we are making substantive strides in both areas.

All policy outcomes are downstream of public safety. A people cannot thrive without a safe community. We listened to Tribal law enforcement, county sheriffs and prosecutors, and community advocates. The committee endorsed measures (which are now bills) to support and protect frontline tribal law enforcement officers and to push for a tribal law enforcement training facility in South Dakota. The most striking thing to me, hearing from law enforcement, was the shared faith among tribal, state, and county law enforcement officers. We need to trust those folks as much as they trust each other.

The most groundbreaking committee recommendation pertained to healthcare. Tribal leaders asked the committee to explore an innovative approach to Medicaid that would give tribes greater self-determination over the design and delivery of care for their citizens, commonly described as the Indian‑Managed Care model.

Under this concept, Tribes would have the opportunity to administer Medicaid benefits for their members through a Tribal health organization or Indian Managed Care Entity (IMCE) under a contract with the state and federal government. This isn’t about dismantling current systems, but about empowering Tribal leadership to coordinate care in ways that are culturally responsive, community‑based, and aligned with Tribal priorities.

In other states where Tribal managed care options have been implemented, Tribal‑led models have demonstrated potential benefits including stronger Tribal sovereignty and self‑governance over health care provision, enhanced financial stability for Tribal health programs, and expanded access to preventative, behavioral, and chronic disease services tailored to community needs and delivered by providers familiar with the cultural and social context of Tribal members.

The Tribal‑managed care approach builds on these protections by giving Tribes a stronger voice in planning, oversight, and administration. If endorsed by the Legislature this year, a measure I am carrying will establish a mechanism for how to set up an Indian-Managed Care model in a way that works for the tribes and their members.

This summer’s work was an important first step in listening, learning, and building trust. I want to thank Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Chairman J. Garrett Renville for his collaboration and leadership on the Indian-Managed Care model. The ideas we explored aren’t easy, but they are critically important if we want health systems that work for every South Dakotan.

I look forward to continuing this work with Tribal nations, public safety partners, and legislators from across the state. Too often, policy debates involving Indian Country are rooted in pessimism and buck-passing. We do not have to solve every issue to improve an issue. I am hopeful that this year, we will build from the foundation of the relationships built, and pave the way for more partnership in years to come.

.

Jan. 19, 2026:

The Big Problem with the Rhoden Tax Plan by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (Jan. 19, 2026)

In each policy proposal, we must look beyond the talking points and to the real impact on South Dakotans. Nowhere is that more important than in the property tax debate that has been getting louder in the past several years. I have lent support for proposals that provide statewide property tax relief without defunding schools, roads, and law enforcement. While I have been a supporter of property tax changes, I am more interested in getting our policy right than “getting something done,” just because it is an election year.

I applaud Governor Rhoden for presenting a property tax plan that does not require schools, counties, or cities to cut their budgets. I believe there are areas of government where cuts can and should be made, but those spending cuts should be specifically identified and considered. Any plan that vaguely promises or forces cuts to pay for property tax reduction is not a plan at all – it is just political posturing. Governor Rhoden has made clear that his plan is paid for by a new tax, rather than spending cuts, and the math checks out.

The Rhoden Plan would allow the establishment of a county-by-county sales tax of up to 0.5%, which would then be used to reduce homeowner property taxes. Because it is permissive, the plan would result in different sales tax rates county-by-county, depending on whether and how much each county chooses to increase its sales tax rate. If all counties adopt the plan, it would reduce homeowner property taxes by about 20%, spread unevenly across the state.

The big problem with the Rhoden tax plan is where the real estate tax benefit falls, and who pays to provide that benefit. The Rhoden Tax Plan focuses property tax relief on the biggest houses in the biggest towns. It is hard to imagine a property tax plan that would be a more direct shift of dollars from rural South Dakota to the bigger towns, and from lower-income South Dakotans to high-net worth property owners.

The shift from rural-to-urban comes from the fact that the Rhoden Plan keeps all sales tax where it is collected. So, if you live in Lincoln County and buy your groceries, appliances, or vehicles in Minnehaha County, the sales tax you are paying would be used to cut the property taxes of property owners in Minnehaha County and the Lincoln County resident would receive none of the benefit. For folks who live outside of shopping hubs like Aberdeen, Yankton, Brookings, Pierre, Watertown, and Huron (or folks from those towns who visit Sioux Falls or Rapid City) that same trend would follow. Thus, the Rhoden Plan creates a big transfer of dollars from areas without much economic activity to places that are doing much better, economically.

Just as prominently, the Rhoden Plan allocates the bulk of the property tax benefit to the biggest houses in town. The plan calls for the property tax cut to be proportional to assessed value. So, someone owning a $5 Million house will receive twenty times the benefit of someone living in a $250,000 house. Most of the concerns raised by citizens about property taxes have focused on the middle-class, senior citizen homeowners on a fixed income. The Rhoden Plan doesn’t prioritize middle-class South Dakotans, who might only receive a cut of $200 or $300, but instead allocates the vast majority of the property tax relief to the biggest houses in town. Of course, people who do not own their home would receive no property tax benefit, but would be subjected to the additional sales tax rate. This shift persists across a number of proposals, including some I have been open to.

I do not know if Governor Rhoden intended to focus property tax relief on the biggest houses in the biggest towns, or if that was an unintended consequence. But, the facts are, that the Rhoden Plan results in massive winners and losers: the most valuable properties in bigger, richer towns would syphon dollars from renters and middle-class homeowners, as well as everyone in more-rural communities. Again, I applaud any effort to make a responsible, specific proposal on property taxes. That said, the massive shift of dollars that Rhoden’s Plan contains is a huge problem, and one that South Dakotans need to avoid.

.

Jan. 12, 2026:

Economics, Schools, and Property Taxes by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (Jan. 12, 2026)

Three major issues will dominate this year’s legislative session: economic growth, education funding, and property taxes. While often treated as separate debates, they are in fact tightly connected. In South Dakota, economic growth is what allows us to fund schools, maintain infrastructure and public safety, and keep property taxes in check. Ignoring that connection risks serious long-term consequences.

Yet a significant faction under the Capitol dome is advocating policies aimed at slowing or blocking economic growth for South Dakotans. They want to repeal the Future Fund, which has supported initiatives ranging from the Build Dakota Scholarship to the Homestake Mine Research Lab. They seek to strip cities and counties of tools like tax increment financing (TIF) that help attract new construction, businesses or housing. And they are increasingly inclined to overregulate or discourage new industries from locating here. While sometimes well-intentioned, this approach will lead to a stagnant and less prosperous South Dakota.

The reality, which is obvious to anyone who has managed a household budget or run a business, is that the big issues of growth, school funding, and property taxes rise and fall together. Economic growth increases incomes and expands the tax base, generating more revenue for schools without raising tax rates. New construction and added taxable value reduce pressure on property tax rates, holding taxes down without cutting schools, roads, or law enforcement. Growth is not a distraction from these goals; it is the engine that makes them possible.

This year, Governor Rhoden proposed no additional funding for education. That fact is a direct reflection of a stagnating economy in our state. Over the last year, South Dakota’s economy shrank while most other states (and the country as a whole) grew significantly. The economic health of our citizens is paramount and is directly tied into whether we can afford to provide additional funding to schools or hold down property taxes.

For that reason, my focus will be on promoting prosperity and defending South Dakota’s longstanding ethic as a place where people can build and invest. That is the surest path to stronger communities, better schools, and lower property taxes over the long term. South Dakota, for decades, has reflected the American belief in optimism, growth, and the builder, and it must continue to do so if we want to get our state back on track.

.

Dec. 3, 2025:

Stuck in the Mud by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (December 3, 2025)

South Dakota has real cause for concern. On December 2, Governor Rhoden put forth his budget proposal for 2026. The news is bleak. Our state sales tax collections went backward for only the 3^rd time in the last 30 years, and education, nursing homes, and state employees will see 0% increases. After years of growth and advancement, it seems that South Dakota is stuck in the mud.

The state budget is a general proxy for our state’s economy. Because we are largely a Sales-Tax state, the ongoing revenues of state government provide a reflection of economic activity from year-to-year. Despite 3.0% inflation (or so), our revenues actually declined 0.6% last year. Consider that: if we would have just had the same economic activity as the year before, we would have grown by 3.0%. Instead, we went backward.

Do not get me wrong: we should not be spending for spending’s sake. While I understand it will be a belt-tightening year for our schools, hospitals, and law enforcement, I am more concerned about what this budget reflects about the condition of our state. Gov. Rhoden noted that his budget will be the first in state history where South Dakota spends more on Medicaid than on K-12 education. That should be a deeply troubling statistic for anyone who cares about the future of our state.

Unfortunately, the stagnation we see in the state budget was foreseeable. Lately, many in the legislature and in local governments have focused on what government can block rather than what South Dakotans can build. In 2013, South Dakota was the #1 ranked state for business. Today, using the same metrics and from the same entity, we are ranked #35. Worse than no plan, our economic policy has been that of big-government protection rather than people-first prosperity.

We don’t need tours, rallies, politics, or gladhanding. We need a real, clear plan for better wages, more growth, and a robust economy. South Dakota has always prided itself on our independence, our work ethic, and our common-sense values. If we want to ensure that our kids can raise their families here, that opportunity still lives on our main streets, and that our best days are ahead, we need to make prosperity a priority again.

After years of strength, the Rhoden budget reflects sluggishness and an economy that is stuck in the mud. We need to get back-on-track, with budget priorities that focus on the future and a plan for prosperity for generations to come. The news out of the Capitol was bleak this week, but it does not need to remain that way. We can do better, and we must.

.

Oct. 22, 2025:

The Simple Solution to Property Taxes by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (October 21, 2025)

Property taxes are irritating. The tax notice comes in the mail twice a year, showing that you owe the county treasurer hundreds, thousands, or (if you’re lucky and own very valuable property) tens of thousands of dollars. You pay property taxes, even though you may have bought your house, farm, or business fifty years ago and paid off the mortgage twenty years ago. Because of the stark, high-dollar reminder and the fact that no transaction has taken place, property taxes represent more of a burr under South Dakotans’ saddles than about any other tax.

So, if we do not like property taxes and we want to pay less of them, how should we go about doing that? It is important to know that the State of South Dakota, your state government, does not spend one dime of property tax revenue. All property taxes are allocated to local governments, with about 90% spent in three areas: Law Enforcement, Schools, and Roads. The dollars are not going to some faceless paper-pusher; property taxes fund your teachers, sheriffs, city streets, and rural bridges. So, any real, responsible plan to reduce property taxes must replace the revenue instead of recklessly suggesting that our schools, cities, or counties simply cut their staff or their road budget by 25%.

The good news: a simple, straightforward solution has already been proposed. Last year, I co-sponsored a bill that would have cut owner-occupied property taxes by 35% for all homeowners without defunding the police, our schools, or our roads. The replacement revenue was an increase in the sales tax rate by 0.8%, moving us from 11^th lowest in the nation to 18^th lowest, and making our sales tax rate the same as North Dakota (still 1% lower than Nebraska). Despite the support of a couple dozen smart conservatives in the House of Representatives, the bill was opposed by Gov. Rhoden, the Democrats, and House Leadership, and was defeated. If it had passed, the property taxes on your home would be lower by more than one-third in 2026. Remember that when the notice comes this spring.

A consumption tax like the sales tax is the best replacement revenue. It is fair and consistent across the state. It allows frugal, conservative spenders to avoid paying some taxes, if they are willing to consume less. Another benefit: out-of-staters pay sales tax, from truckers passing through to visiting tourists to out-of-state corporations buying goods and services in South Dakota. While it may only account for ten or fifteen percent, tens of millions of dollars would be paid by out-of-staters in sales taxes that are now paid 100% by South Dakota homeowners in property taxes. Owing to that fact, the property-tax-for-sales-tax swap represents a clear and substantial tax cut for South Dakotans.

The best solution for reducing property taxes is a simple, responsible one, that replaces property tax revenue without defunding vital local services. This summer, ideas have been floated, ranging from a State Income Tax to New County Taxes to putting a 16.2% tax on eggs and bread (that last idea is proposed to go in our constitution!). Reducing property taxes for South Dakota homeowners can be achieved, but not at the expense of our law enforcement, not on the backs of our teachers, and not through income taxes or 15%+ taxes on groceries. If we are going to deliver property tax relief and tamp down the irritation of that semiannual tax notice, we need to keep it simple, South Dakota.

However, Parks and Recreation Division Director Jeff VanMeeteren says a focus on the central part of the state and good fishing on Lake Oahe translated into good camping numbers at nearby campgrounds.

Overall, camping at state parks and recreation areas is down roughly 5% when compared to 2024.

Over the past year or so, the United States Postal Service has moved mail processing from some of its small facilities to larger ones.

In a letter emailed to the current Postmaster General, Rounds urged him to abide by an agreement signed by his predecessor that sought to restore reliable mail service in South Dakota because customers are facing persistent delays.

Now, Rounds says, items mailed in South Dakota are taken out-of-state to be processed.

Rounds says the challenges facing the U.S. Postal Service aren’t the fault of the employees.

Along with keeping mail that originates within South Dakota from leaving the state for processing, Rounds’ February 2025 agreement with former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy included not only keeping the Dakota Central facility in Huron open, but also making $3 million in improvements at the facility.

Read the full text of the letter using this link.

The “No Travel” advisory is still in place in rural Stanley County.

The Stanley County Sheriff’s Office says several roads are still not passable because of flooding, damage caused by flooding or both. Public Safety Officials will continue to monitor the roads and will lift the “No Travel” advisory when it’s safe to do so.

Also, the emergency shelter at the Expo Center in Fort Pierre has been closed because flood waters in Stanley County are receding. Public Safety Officials will continue to monitor the area and, if needed, the shelter will be reopened.

Bad River flowing through Fort Pierre, SD. Sept. 20, 2025, at 9:15am CT.
Photo credit to Jody Heemstra, DRG Media Group.

Bad River flowing through Fort Pierre, SD. Sept. 20, 2025, at 9:15am CT.
Photo credit to Jody Heemstra, DRG Media Group.

Bad River flowing through Fort Pierre, SD. Sept. 20, 2025, at 9:15am CT.
Photo credit to Jody Heemstra, DRG Media Group.

Sept. 19, 2025, update:

A “No Travel” advisory continues in Stanley County after several days in a row of rain has saturated the soils and roadways.

Sheriff Brad Rathbun says pretty much every gravel road is restricted to local traffic only.

Humans are naturally curious creatures, but Rathbun is asking people to NOT try to drive around in Stanley County to look at the flooding.

The Bad River, which runs through Fort Pierre, picks up water from a few tributaries and a basin area that extends roughly 100 miles west to the Wall, SD, area.

An emergency shelter is available at the Expo Center in Fort Pierre for Stanley County residents who have been displaced by recent flooding. To access the shelter, contact the Stanley County Sheriff’s Office through the Central South Dakota Dispatch Center at 605-773-7410, then ask to speak to a Stanley County Deputy. They will assist you with the entry process and provide any necessary guidance.

This initiative is a joint effort between Stanley County, the Stanley County Sheriff’s Office and the Hughes/Stanley County Emergency Management Office, dedicated to supporting their community through the crisis.

For updated road condition information for all of South Dakota,

• make a free call to 511

• use the SD511 mobile app

• go to www.DRGnews.com, click on Weather, then click on the blue SD511 button.

Flooding 23 miles west of Fort Pierre in Stanley County on Bad River Road. Photo taken the morning of Sept. 18, 2025.
Photo courtesy of the Stanley County Highway Department.

Flooding in Stanley County on Bad River Road. Photo taken the morning of Sept. 18, 2025.
Photo courtesy of the Stanley County Highway Department.

Flooding n War Creek Road in Stanley County. Photo taken Sept. 19, 2025.
Photo courtesy of the Stanley County Highway Department.

Sept. 19, 2025:

An emergency shelter has been set up at the Expo Center in Fort Pierre for Stanley County residents who have been displaced by recent flooding.

To access the shelter, contact the Stanley County Sheriff’s Office through the Central South Dakota Dispatch Center at 605-773-7410, then ask to speak to a Stanley County Deputy. They will assist you with the entry process and provide any necessary guidance.

The expected peak of the Bad River was at 1:00 AM on 9/19/25, reaching 24.5 feet. Remember, flooding can be very dangerous. Stay away from moving water, avoid driving through flooded areas, and follow all local authority warnings.

This initiative is a joint effort between Stanley County, the Stanley County Sheriff’s Office and the Hughes/Stanley County Emergency Management Office, dedicated to supporting their community through the crisis.

Bad River flowing through Fort Pierre, SD. Sept. 19, 2025, at 7am CT.
Photo credit to Jody Heemstra, DRG Media Group.

Bad River flowing through Fort Pierre, SD. Sept. 19, 2025, at 7am CT.
Photo credit to Jody Heemstra, DRG Media Group.

Bad River flowing through Fort Pierre, SD. Sept. 19, 2025, at 7am CT.
Photo credit to Jody Heemstra, DRG Media Group.

Bad River flowing through Fort Pierre, SD. Sept. 19, 2025, at 7am CT.
Photo credit to Jody Heemstra, DRG Media Group.

Sept. 17, 2025:

No travel is advised in Stanley County because of localized flooding.

Emergency Manager AJ Rounds says several parts of Bad River Road and other gravel roads are temporarily flooding in one or more places.

For updated road condition information for Stanley County and all of South Dakota,

• make a free call to 511
• use the SD511 mobile app
• go to www.sd511.org

South Dakota lawmakers meet in special session in Pierre Tuesday (Sept. 23, 2025) to determine the path forward for building a new men’s prison adjacent to the current state penitentiary campus in Sioux Falls.

Project Prison Reset Task Force Chairman Lt. Governor Tony Venhuizen says the new prison would replace the old facility that’s “up on the top of the hill.”

Venhuizen says South Dakota is in a good financial position because not only did the state set aside money for this project, but also the change of location from the site in Lincoln County to the site in Sioux Falls is expected to save $154.2 million in taxpayer money.

Venhuizen says the state’s other men’s correctional facility locations are in fairly good condition.

State lawmakers killed the prison proposal supported by Governor Larry Rhoden during this year’s regular legislative session, but Venhuizen thinks this new plan will get their approval.

Additionally, Venhuizen says, the plan has the support of many statewide criminal justice and law enforcement organizations.

This week (Sept. 17, 2025), the Governor’s Office released information about their plan to pay for the new men’s prison and held conference calls with state legislators to answer their questions ahead of Tuesday’s special session. The legislation requires a two-thirds majority vote from lawmakers to pass.

Rhoden Administration’s full new men’s prison plan: https://governor.sd.gov/doc/Prison%20Plan%20Packet.pdf.

Find information related to the funding plan for the new prison here: https://governor.sd.gov/doc/Mens-Prison-Slides.pdf.

Find answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the prison plan here: https://governor.sd.gov/priorities/PrisonFAQ.aspx.

Sept. 4, 2025:

South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden has released his draft proposal for a new men’s prison to be built in Sioux Falls.

Rhoden says now state legislators have about three weeks to strategize for the special legislative session later this month (Sept. 23, 2025) in Pierre.

Rhoden says the Project Prison Reset task force put together a solid proposal.

Rhoden looks forward to working with legislators to get the prison bill passed.

Rhoden says the 140-year-old State Penitentiary must be replaced. He says now that there’s a good site, a good plan, the money to pay for it and the legislation to authorize it, it’s time to get the process moving forward.

From central South Dakota, Senator Mark Lapka from Leola and Senator Jim Mehlhaff from Pierre were both members of the Project Prison Reset task force.

Click here to see the proposed legislation. It was drafted with consultation from legislative leadership, members of the prison task force and the Legislative Research Council.

Find an outline of the draft legislation here.

Click here to see a Frequently Asked Questions website about the plan for the new men’s prison.

Aug. 11, 2025:

South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden announced that the third-party consultant for the prison task force ranked the Benson Road site as the best prison location among the options under consideration. The analysis was done by Arrington Watkins, the prison task force’s independent consultant.

“If you followed the prison task force, you know that our consultant did an analysis of the Lincoln County site and five alternative sites, based on several criteria, and scored the Lincoln County site the highest,” said Lt. Governor Tony Venhuizen. “The Benson Road site, though, had not been offered at that time and was not scored. The prison task force’s consultant has analyzed this new site and now considers the Benson Road site to be the best site available.”

Arrington Watkins cited the following as prime attributes contributing to the Benson Road site’s favorable rating:

• It is within a preferred 30-mile radius of Sioux Falls;
• Site utilities, including water, sewer, storm, and power, are available along Benson Road;
• Multiple points of entry exist; and
• Minimal additional costs will be needed to extend utilities.

Rhoden previously announced that the State of South Dakota has entered into a purchase agreement that grants the State the option to purchase land at the Benson Road site. This agreement represents over $10 million savings on what was estimated by the prison task force.

Aug. 8, 2025:

The State of South Dakota has entered into a purchase agreement that grants the State the option to purchase land at the Benson Road site. This agreement represents over $10 million savings on what was estimated by the prison task force.

“South Dakota needs a new prison to keep our people safe, and we are moving forward with delivering a proposal that prioritizes safety and conservative fiscal stewardship,” said Governor Larry Rhoden. “We appreciate the Legislature’s continued attention to this project, and we are excited to deliver this as efficiently as possible for South Dakota taxpayers.”

The land in question is approximately 148 acres in northeast Sioux Falls along Benson Road (the “Benson Road site”). The State of South Dakota will only complete the purchase if approval to acquire the site is granted by the South Dakota Legislature.

If the purchase of the Benson Road site is approved by the Legislature on September 23, 2025, the Lincoln County site would no longer be owned by the State. As private property, any agricultural use or development of this land would be subject to county zoning.

“Residents of Lincoln County should be excited about the opportunity to regain control over what happens to that land,” said Sen. Ernie Otten (R-Lincoln County), who served on the prison task force. “I look forward to working with my fellow legislators to get this project across the finish line.”

The Benson Road site will represent millions of dollars in savings on utility development costs compared to the Lincoln County land, as there will be no need for a water tower, long sewer line, or other expenses. The purchase of the new Benson Road site also represents a more-than $10 million savings on the previous estimate by the prison task force. The purchase price is to be paid as follows:

• Cash payment of $12.5 million dollars for the Benson Road site, plus
• Exchange of the previously proposed Lincoln County land with an estimated agricultural value of $4.5 million.

July 21, 2025:

South Dakota legislators will be back in Pierre Sept. 23, 2025, for a special session to decide on the details of building a new men’s state penitentiary.

In his letter calling the special session, Rhoden said consensus needed to be established for a plan that a supermajority of the legislature can agree on and he believes “we are in good shape to achieve that.” He said the purpose of this session is to consider and pass a law to authorize the Department of Corrections to do everything necessary to move forward with this project.

When the Prison Reset Task Force was announced by Governor Larry Rhoden in February, they were tasked with answering three questions:

• Do we need a new prison?
• How big should it be?
• Where should it go?

Lt. Governor Tony Venhuizen, who chaired the prison task force, said the group’s unanimous vote for its recommendation demonstrates that they have found a good site for a new penitentiary and a strong path forward.

The special session will begin Sept. 23 at 9am CT.

The special session is called pursuant to Article IV, Section 3 of the South Dakota Constitution.

February 24, 2025:

An effort to reconsider a bill that would provide some of the funding needed to build a new men’s state prison south of Sioux Falls failed on a tie vote Monday (Feb. 24, 2025) in the South Dakota House of Representatives.

The vote on House Bill 1025 ended in a 35-35 tie, causing it to fail. On Friday, the measure went down by a 34-35 vote, but Rep. Tim Reisch (rye-sh) of Howard— a former Department of Corrections secretary and proponent of the project– returned to the chamber Monday.

Though Reisch was a yes, and Rep. Brian Mulder of Sioux Falls flipped to a yes for reconsideration, Rep. Roger DeGroot of Brookings voted against the measure, forcing the tie vote. DeGroot told the South Dakota Broadcasters Association after the bill’s failure that he voted “nay” on accident.

“I voted wrong by mistake,” DeGroot said moments after. “I have supported this thing all the way.”

HB 1025 in its original form gave clearance to the remaining funds to be transferred into the incarceration construction fund and begin construction in Lincoln County. The bill was amended after proponents realized they did not have the two-thirds votes required to push it through.

February 21, 2025:

(South Dakota Broadcasters Association)- The South Dakota House rejected a bill Friday (Feb. 21, 2025) that would have transferred $148.1 million toward a new men’s prison in Lincoln County, voting 34-35 against the measure.

House Bill 1025, stripped of its original construction authorization through an amendment, would have added funding for the proposed $825 million facility planned between Harrisburg and Canton.

“We’ll have roughly $790.1 million available for the prison project, but we have separated the funding from the construction while we analyze and discuss the overall project,” amendment sponsor Rep. Jack Kolbeck, R-Sioux Falls, said.

Rep. Will Mortenson of Fort Pierre, defended the spending.

“This prison isn’t a want, it’s a need,” he said. “I’d much rather be giving this money back to taxpayers, but we need to build this facility.”

Rep. Aaron Aylward, R-Harrisburg, voiced concerns about the site selection.

“Some folks woke up one morning, read in the newspaper that this thing was going in their yard, and they’ve been fighting it like crazy,” he said.

Rep. Peri Pourier, D-Rapid City, questioned whether the state should examine the root causes of incarceration.

“We don’t have enough money to feed our kids in the summertime,” she said. “They are hungry, they are trying to fill their own way out, and what does that look like?”

Rep. Mary Fitzgerald, R-Spearfish, cited public safety concerns regarding recent violent crimes.

“No one wants to build a prison, no one wants to spend the money, but I’m sorry, people continue to hurt other people,” she said.

Rep. Liz May, R-Kyle, emphasized fiscal constraints.

“We argue back and forth here over a few million dollars for this and a few million dollars for that,” she said. “I really don’t want to build a billion-dollar prison.”

The Department of Corrections requested the new facility to replace the aging state penitentiary in Sioux Falls.

The amended bill would have freed up approximately $34 million to fund other needs in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

The legislature is approaching one of its most important deadlines–“Crossover Day.” Tuesday, all bills from the house of origin must be passed or killed. This deadline puts additional pressure on legislators to devise a solution or compromise on prison funding.

Bill supporters asked for reconsideration of the measure on Monday.

February 13, 2025:

The South Dakota House State Affairs Committee voted 12-1 this week (Feb. 12, 2025) to send House Bill 1025 to the House Appropriations Committee, with no specific recommendation made on funding for the project.

Department of Corrections Secretary Kellie Wasko defended the $825 million project.

Nearby residents criticized the location choice and what it would mean for the future growth of Lincoln County– which has the state’s fastest population growth rate. One of those people was construction company owner Mike Hoffman, who questioned the functionality of the location where the prison will be built.

The state will pay $10.5 million to the city of Lennox to connect to its sewer line, after the Harrisburg City Council rejected a similar offer.

Rep. Spencer Gosch of Glenham was the one vote against sending HB 1025 to House appropriations with a neutral recommendation. Gosch told the South Dakota Broadcasters Association that the project “stands against everything I stand for. The project clearly displays reckless planning, reckless spending, and complete disregard for the people of South Dakota.”

Story courtesy of the South Dakota Broadcasters Association.

February 12, 2025:

Three South Dakota Law Enforcement associations have issued statements of support for the construction of a new men’s state prison in Lincoln County. The South Dakota State’s Attorneys Association, the South Dakota Sheriffs Association, and the South Dakota Police Chiefs Association agreed over the need for the new correctional facility. 

“Thank you to all of our law enforcement for their continued dedication to protect the people of South Dakota,” said Governor Larry Rhoden. “The construction of a new prison is one way that we can improve public safety. The condition of our current facility is unacceptable – it is gothic, outdated, and unsafe for inmates, staff, and the public. We cannot afford to continue operating under these conditions.” 

“As law enforcement leaders dedicated to protecting our communities, we recognize the essential role that a well-functioning prison system plays in maintaining public safety,” wrote Jason Foote, South Dakota Chiefs Association President. “This funding is a necessary step towards ensuring a secure, rehabilitative, and well-managed environment for all stakeholders.” You can find the statement of support from the South Dakota Police Chiefs Association here. 

“Much of the current facility is an unsafe environment for both guards and inmates,” wrote the South Dakota State’s Attorneys Association. “A new facility is needed to ensure both are provided with a more-safe environment.” You can find the statement of support from the South Dakota State’s Attorneys Association here. 

The construction of a new correctional facility would be made possible through HB 1025, which authorizes the Department of Corrections to construct a prison facility for offenders committed to the Department of Corrections in Lincoln County. 

“County jails are increasingly forced to house individuals sentenced to the state, filling local beds that are already in short supply,” wrote the South Dakota Sheriffs Association. “We support the construction of a new Department of Corrections facility to help address these critical safety and capacity issues.” You can find the statement of support from the South Dakota Sheriffs Association here. 

The Associated General Contractors of South Dakota also supported HB 1025 in House State Affairs Committee Wednesday (Feb. 12, 2025). 

January 29, 2024:

OCTOBER 6, 2023:

The South Dakota Department of Corrections (DOC) has agreed to purchase two 160-acre parcels of land in rural Lincoln County. This land provides a sufficient site plan for a new men’s prison to replace much of the current State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls.

“This site is the best choice for a modern correctional facility that supports our state’s public safety needs, minimizes the impact on community growth, and keeps us close to available workforce,” said Kellie Wasko, Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Corrections. “We appreciate Governor Noem’s leadership, the Legislature’s financial support, and Commissioner Greenfield’s work to secure this land for the state’s public safety needs for generations to come.”

In both 2022 and 2023, the South Dakota State Legislature provided funding for the Incarceration Construction Fund for the purpose of constructing new prison facilities in South Dakota, including a new men’s prison. In 2023, the Legislature passed and Governor Noem signed HB 1017, which appropriated $52 million to purchase land and contract for architectural services, engineering services, and other required services to build a new men’s prison. That legislation also appropriated an additional $270.7 million for construction of the facility.

In July 2023, Governor Noem indicated, “we will be able to avoid unnecessary debt by using [the state’s $96.8 million budget surplus] for future prison construction costs.”

The land is located in rural Lincoln County on the western side of the corner of 477^th and 278^th street. The land is already owned by the state of South Dakota through the Office of School and Public Lands. State law allows School and Public Lands to transfer property to another government entity for the appraised value. The appraised value of both parcels has been set at a total of $7,910,000. Using land the state already owns is a financially responsible choice.

Commissioner Brock Greenfield acknowledged the historic role of the school and public land office: “This sale allows us to fulfill our constitutional duty to make money for education while providing a key public safety need for future.” The Office of School and Public Lands was established at statehood in 1889 just a few years after the current state prison was built in 1881.

Story courtesy of the South Dakota Broadcasters Association.

MARCH 2, 2023:

Spending bills authorizing over $380 million for new men’s and women’s state prisons passed the South Dakota Senate yesterday (March 1, 2023).

HB 1016, which allocates $60 million to construct a women’s facility in Rapid City, passed 32 to 1. The money comes from the state’s incarceration construction fund. Building a women’s prison in Rapid City would expand the capacity of the Department of Corrections to house and rehabilitate female offenders.

HB 1017, which allocates around $320 million in planning and purchasing land for a men’s facility in the Sioux Falls area, also passed 32 to 1. Approximately $217 million will go into the incarceration construction fund for work following the design phase. The remainder will be used for planning and the purchase of land.

The state still needs to decide where the new men’s facility will be built in the Sioux Falls area. The men’s prison would replace most of the current penitentiary campus in Sioux Falls. “The Hill” overlooking the Falls of the Big Sioux River in Sioux Falls was built in 1881 when South Dakota was still a territory. The state has yet to decide how that facility– with its massive stone walls– could be used for other purposes or would be torn down.

There was no debate on either bill.

The bills now head to Gov. Kristi Noem for her consideration.

Story courtesy of the South Dakota Broadcasters Association.

FEBRUARY 27, 2023:

The South Dakota House passes two large spending bills for planning a new women’s prison in Rapid City and the planning and purchase of land for a new men’s facility in the Sioux Falls area.

HB 1016, the bill allocating $60 million for the women’s prison, passed 66 to 2, without debate. It now goes to a Senate committee.

However, HB 1017, which would provide around $52 million to purchase land for the men’s new facility and move nearly $184 million from the state budget reserve into a prison building fund, met some opposition.

“This is a core state obligation,” said Republican House Majority Leader Will Mortenson from Pierre. “We can’t say I wish it would go away or not do it. No one is happy with this. It will be safer for prisoners and rehabilitation. It will be safer for the guards.”

Republican Rep. Marty Overweg from New Holland said legislators should slow the process because of too many unanswered questions.

“This is government gone wild,” Overweg said. “It is an open checkbook. This will cost the taxpayers of South Dakota hundreds of millions of dollars.”

One legislator asked if the state could bond for the new prison. However, HB 1017 prime sponsor, Republican Rep. Tony Venhuizen, said the state could only bond up to $200 million. After that, the state would lose its triple-A bond rating.

According to the state Department of Corrections, the cost estimate for the new men’s prison is between $535 and $550 million. The funding bill passed 53 to 16.

HB 1017 will also now go to a Senate committee.

Story courtesy of the South Dakota Broadcasters Association.

FEBRUARY 22, 2023:

South Dakota Legislative appropriators passed two bills today (Feb. 22, 2023) that provide new or continuing funding to build a women’s prison in Rapid City and a new men’s prison in the Sioux Falls area.

HB 1016, allocates $60 million for the first phase of the design and development of the new women’s facility in Rapid City.

HB 1017, allocates over $340 million for the first two phases of design and construction for the men’s facility in Sioux Falls. The current state penitentiary in Sioux Falls was built in 1881.

South Dakota Correction Secretary Kellie Wasko says the Sioux Falls prison no longer serves its purpose, needs repairs and is unsafe for staff and inmates. She says the original prison–“The Hill”–was built for single occupancy cells. Now, most cells house “multiple” inmates in them.

As to the women’s prison, Wasco said the current design has three, 96-bed housing units. When asked if the prison could add more space, she said they could expand upward another story or two, but they’d need more staff to do it. She said modern prison design is on one level, which is easier to manage and staff and safer for inmates and employees.

Currently, Wasko says all of the state’s prison facilities are over capacity or nearly so. She says the Corrections Department expects prisoner numbers to continue increasing because of the state’s population growth, particularly on the men’s side. She says new facilities will allow for better programming and better separation of classes of inmates.

Both appropriation bills passed on 17 to 0 votes. They now go to the House floor.

Story courtesy of the South Dakota Broadcasters Association.

FEBRUARY 1, 2023:

Members of the Joint Committee on Appropriations of the South Dakota legislature heard more about issues in the state prisons.

Corrections Department Secretary Kellie Wasko says they hold more prisoners than the system is designed for.

Wasko says the penitentiary in Sioux Falls is not safe for staff or prisoners.

Wasko says told the committee that land they bought in Rapid City for a new prison won’t work for the initial design.

Wasko also detailed their ongoing staffing issues in Pierre, Sioux Falls and Springfield.

The Joint Committee on Appropriations is working through the Corrections Department’s budget requests.

(Story courtesy of news partner WNAX.)

A contract to operate a restaurant, bar and convenience store at a state Recreation Area north of Pierre has been approved by the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Commission.

GFP asked for proposals to operate Spring Creek Resort about a handful of times, but didn’t get an acceptable bid to open the facilities at all during the summer of 2025.

Now, GFP Business Administrator Sean Blanchette says a family group from Highmore has agreed to provide all required services for the next five years.

Blanchette says the Rezac’s want to operate Spring Creek all year long, not just during the summer months.

The sale of off-sale malt beverages at the convenience store was also approved. A date for opening the Spring Creek Resort wasn’t mentioned during this month’s (Sept. 4-5, 2025) GFP Commission meeting when the agreement was approved.

The Spring Creek Recreation Area is located where Hughes and Sully counties meet, about 20 miles north of Pierre on South Dakota Highway 1804.

July 16, 2025:

After getting no viable bids in May or June, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks has pushed the deadline back again, hoping to find someone to be the concessionaire at the Spring Creek Recreation Area north of Pierre.

Proposals are now due by 8am CT on July 25, 2025.

The Spring Creek Recreation Area is located where Hughes and Sully counties meet, 20 miles north of Pierre on Highway 1804.

The prospectus contains the details, terms and conditions necessary to submit a proposal for consideration. A copy is available on the GFP website or by contacting the Division of Parks and Recreation:

• by mail at 523 East Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, or

• by phone at 605-773-3391.

Images courtesy of South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks.

Images courtesy of South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks.

Images courtesy of South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks.

May 30, 2025:

After getting no bids in May, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks Department is making yet another attempt at finding someone to be the concessionaire at the Spring Creek Recreation Area north of Pierre.

Required services this time around include running the restaurant, with an additional option to operate the convenience store. Proposals are due by 8am CT on June 25, 2025. If no viable proposals are received by then, GFP will automatically extend the deadline to July 25 (8am CT).

The Spring Creek Recreation Area is located where Hughes and Sully counties meet, 20 miles north of Pierre on Highway 1804.

The prospectus contains the details, terms and conditions necessary to submit a proposal for consideration. A copy is available on the GFP website or by contacting the Division of Parks and Recreation:

• by mail at 523 East Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, or

• by phone at 605-773-3391.

May 12, 2025:

The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks Department is making another attempt at finding someone to operate the bar, steak house and convenience store at the Spring Creek Recreation Area north of Pierre.

The most recent request for bids from concessionaires were due in mid-April.

Parks and Recreation Division Director Jeff VanMeeteren says no one submitted a proposal. But, he says, they want to give the resort another shot at being open so they made a few changes to the prospectus for the facility.

If they don’t receive any bids this time around, VanMeeteren says they’ll make changes to the prospectus and send it out for bid, again.

The Spring Creek Recreation Area is located where Hughes and Sully counties meet north of Pierre on Highway 1804.

March 11, 2025:

The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks Department is taking a second run at finding someone to operate the bar, steak house and convenience store at Spring Creek Recreation Area north of Pierre.

GFP Business Administrator Shawn Blanchette recently told the GFP Commission that there was some interest in operating the restaurant piece of Spring Creek Resort.

Blanchette says in the past, GFP has paid for nearly all of the operational costs.

GFP is proposing changes to the fees to include reimbursement for utility costs or a franchise fee of 4%.

Blanchette says if they don’t find a concessionaire in this second attempt, it might be the end of having a restaurant at Spring Creek.

Proposals are due by 8am CT on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. Blanchette says a decision will most likely happen at the May GFP Commission.

The prospectus is available on the GFP website, by calling 605-773-3391 or by mailing a request to GFP Division of Parks and Recreation at 523 East Capitol, Pierre, SD, 57501. It contains the details, terms, and conditions necessary to submit a proposal for consideration. Required services include restaurant operation, with an additional option to operate the convenience store.

The Jackrabbits improved to 2-0 on the season, while Montana State dropped to 0-2. The game was played before a Gold Rush crowd of 22,117 at Bobcat Stadium.

Tied at 17 after regulation, Mason hooked up with wide receiver Lofton O’Groske for a one-handed catch and a 2-yard touchdown for the first score in overtime. It was the second touchdown of the game for the sophomore wide receiver and his 12th and final catch of a career night.

The Bobcats quickly answered with a six-play drive that ended with a 2-yard touchdown run by Adam Jones.

On what would be the only SDSU offensive play of the second overtime, Mason found Delahoyde, a redshirt freshman from Spearfish, open down the left hash for a 25-yard score. The two-point attempt was no good.

Montana State picked up a first down early in the ensuing possession and, after a Jackrabbit penalty for offsides on fourth-and-6 from the 10, needed only a yard to extend the drive. However, SDSU linebacker Kytan Fyfe stopped Bobcat running back Julius Davis inches shy of the line to gain on a play up the middle to end the contest.

The Jackrabbits scored on the opening drive of the game, marching deep into MSU territory before culminating the 11-play, 68-yard drive with a 25-yard field goal by Eli Stader.

Montana State took its lone lead of the night on a 7-yard touchdown run by quarterback Justin Lamson early in the second quarter, finishing off a nine-play, 88-yard drive that began with a 34-yard pass from Lamson to Dane Steel.

A big play by the Jackrabbits’ special teams set up the first Jackrabbit touchdown of the night in the closing minutes of the first half. True freshman Casey Larson broke through the line and blocked the MSU punt attempt, setting SDSU up at the Bobcat 21. The Jacks needed only two plays to find paydirt, with Mason scoring around right end from 8 yards out after a 13-yard run by Julius Loughridge.

The Bobcats tied the game at 10-all on a 33-yard field goal by Myles Sansted at the first-half horn, and the game remained knotted heading into the final quarter.

After SDSU missed a field goal attempt in the third quarter, O’Groske put the Jackrabbits back out front with an 8-yard touchdown reception with 9:08 remaining.

However, Montana State returned the favor with a momentum-changing play of its own on special teams. SDSU punter Max Pelham initially evaded a heavy rush near his own end zone, but his botched punt attempt after moving to the right rolled into the hands of Seth Brock, who returned the miscue 10 yards for the game-tying touchdown with 6:37 to play in regulation.

Mason, who completed his first seven pass attempts of the night, ended the game 17-of-25 for 190 yards and a career-high three touchdowns. O’Groske totaled 141 receiving yards on his dozen catches.
Loughridge recorded a team-high 83 rushing yards on 23 carries.

Montana State finished with a 349-297 advantage in total offense. Lamson was the Bobcats’ leading rusher with 96 yards on 20 carries and completed 18-of-28 passes for 123 yards. Julius Davis added 76 rushing yards on 12 carries.

Cullen McShane led the Jackrabbit defense with 11 tackles, followed by fellow linebacker Joe Ollman with eight stops. Ollman and Noah St-Juste each forced fumbles, with Logan Green adding a sack and a half.
Cole Taylor registered a game-high 13 tackles and forced a fumble for Montana State.

UP NEXT
The Jackrabbits return home Sept. 13 to host Drake in the 58^th Beef Bowl game. Kickoff for the Jacks in Black game is set for 6 p.m. at Dana J. Dykhouse Stadium.

NOTES

• Montana State leads the all-time series, 11-8, although the Jackrabbits have won six of the last seven meetings
• O’Groske’s 12 receptions are tied for third-most in a game by an SDSU receiver and were the most by a Jackrabbit since Dallas Goedert caught 12 passes at Southern Illinois on Oct. 8, 2016
• Delahoyde’s game-winning touchdown came on his first collegiate reception
• SDSU improved to 7-6 all-time in overtime games
• The Jackrabbits won despite going 1-for-13 on third-down attempts
• Stader topped the 500-point mark for his collegiate career, ending the night with 501
• SDSU has won 28 of its last 30 games against ranked Football Championship Subdivision opponents since the start of the 2022 season

Story Provided by GoJacks.com

The place where he works was actually her fiancé’s favorite bar, but they never met