Change the approval requirement for the construction or expansion of a municipal camping or tourist accommodation facility.
Summary
HB 1154 changes South Dakota law governing when a municipality may build or expand a municipal camping or tourist accommodation facility. Under current law, a municipality generally may not establish such a facility within 15 miles of an existing private campground unless the private campground owner gives written approval. The bill keeps that basic approval requirement, but clarifies how approval must be obtained when the private campground has multiple owners, requiring the owners to act as a group and allowing one person with authority to sign on behalf of the group.
The bill also creates a limited exception for certain additions to an existing municipal camping or tourist accommodation facility. A municipality would not need private campground owner approval to add cabins or campsites if it reduces existing campsite counts by one for each cabin added, reduces tent sites by one for each campsite added, and does not increase the total size of the facility. The bill preserves existing grandfather provisions for facilities established before July 1, 1970, and exempts municipalities that lease state-owned camping and tourist accommodation facilities that were already in existence before January 1, 2017.
Impact
HB 1154 amends SDCL 9-38-1, affecting municipal authority, private campground owners, and local park or tourism facility planning. It preserves the private-approval framework for new municipal campground or tourist accommodation projects near existing private campgrounds, while narrowing and clarifying how that approval works in cases of multiple private owners. It also gives municipalities a limited path to reconfigure or modestly expand existing facilities without private approval, so long as the overall footprint does not grow and existing site counts are reduced as specified.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received mixed but generally favorable support, as reflected by committee and floor votes that advanced it on a do-pass amended basis. However, the final committee action shown in the record deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day, suggesting unresolved concerns or a desire for further review. The voting pattern indicates the measure was not unanimous and likely drew some skepticism even among lawmakers who supported moving it forward.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between municipal development authority and protection of nearby private campground businesses. Supporters likely view the bill as a clarification and a modest flexibility measure for municipalities, especially for changes to existing facilities. Opponents or skeptics may be concerned that the bill could weaken private campground owners’ leverage over competing public facilities, or that the new exception could allow municipalities to expand tourism-related amenities without the same level of private consent. The multiple-owner approval language may also have been intended to address practical disputes over who can authorize or block a project.