Make an appropriation for the development of South Dakota.
Summary
House Bill 1167 is a very small general fund appropriation bill that directs $100 to the state for the stated purpose of developing the economic viability of South Dakota. The bill does not create a new program, regulatory scheme, or tax change; instead, it makes a nominal appropriation and sets out the usual voucher, warrant, and reversion procedures for any unspent funds. It becomes effective June 29, 2025.
In practical terms, the measure amends state spending authority only to the extent of this appropriation and would be administered under existing state fiscal procedures. Because the amount is symbolic rather than operational, the bill’s legal impact on state law is minimal, but it still functions as an appropriation measure tied to economic development objectives.
Impact
HB1167 affects state law only by authorizing a $100 general fund appropriation and by invoking standard state payment and reversion rules for appropriated funds. It does not amend substantive law outside the budget process, but it does create a specific line item for economic development purposes and requires any unspent or unobligated money to revert under chapter 4-8.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests broad procedural support, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee approval at one stage and strong floor passage in the House. The later tabling vote indicates some additional hesitation or procedural delay, but there is no transcript evidence of substantive opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a low-contention, largely symbolic appropriation measure.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is not the policy direction but the unusual nature of the appropriation itself: the bill allocates only $100 for the development of South Dakota, which may invite questions about whether it is a serious funding measure or a symbolic gesture. Any disagreement appears to have been procedural rather than ideological, since the recorded votes show strong support and there are no committee transcript remarks identifying specific objections.