Prohibit the use of drones for purposes of assessing real property for taxation, and to provide a penalty therefor.
Summary
SB 50 would prohibit county or local property tax assessment officials, including directors and their deputies, from using drones or any information gathered by drones when assessing real property for taxation. The bill is narrowly focused on the appraisal and assessment process and does not otherwise change how property taxes are calculated or collected.
The bill also creates a criminal penalty for violations: using a drone, or drone-derived information, in property assessment would be a Class 2 misdemeanor. In practical terms, the measure would add a new restriction on assessment practices and could affect assessors, county officials, and any contractors or agencies involved in aerial data collection for valuation purposes.
Impact
If enacted, SB 50 would amend South Dakota law in chapter 10-6 by adding a new section that bars the use of drones in real property tax assessment. It would limit the evidence and tools available to assessors when valuing property and would expose violators to misdemeanor liability. The bill primarily affects local property tax assessment offices and any governmental use of unmanned aerial vehicles for valuation work.
Sentiment
The recorded votes suggest the bill drew mixed and closely divided support. It passed an initial committee vote 5-2 and a later floor vote 17-16, indicating substantial support but also significant opposition. A subsequent 17-18 reconsideration vote shows the measure remained controversial and did not command a stable majority at that stage.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether government assessors should be allowed to use drones or drone-collected data as part of property valuation. Supporters likely view the bill as protecting privacy and limiting intrusive surveillance, while opponents may see it as unnecessarily restricting modern assessment tools and potentially reducing efficiency or accuracy in tax administration. The narrow vote margins indicate disagreement over balancing property-owner privacy concerns against administrative and valuation benefits.