SB 78 is South Dakota’s fiscal year 2026 budget revision bill. It amends the General Appropriations Act by adjusting appropriations across a wide range of state agencies and institutions, including economic development, finance and administration, information and telecommunications, revenue, agriculture, tourism, game, fish and parks, social services, health, labor and regulation, transportation, education, public safety, the Board of Regents, the military, veterans’ affairs, corrections, human services, the unified judicial system, the legislative branch, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the state treasurer. The bill changes funding levels for personal services, operating expenses, federal funds, general funds, and other funds, and also updates full-time equivalent positions in several agencies.
The measure also includes several fund transfers and budget management provisions. It directs transfers from the general fund to the IT modernization fund, reemployment assistance modernization fund, and court security fund, and it authorizes carryover of certain unspent appropriations into later fiscal years, including some amounts that may remain available until June 30, 2028. It also preserves the existing mechanism for transferring money from the Dakota Cement Trust Fund to support state aid to education.
In practical terms, SB 78 affects the spending authority and staffing levels of many state programs and institutions rather than creating new policy programs. Some of the largest changes include increases for education-related spending, higher funding for several higher education institutions, additional resources for corrections, veterans’ services, and public safety-related functions, and adjustments to social services and health programs. The bill therefore operates as a broad mid-cycle budget correction and reallocation measure for fiscal year 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced through committee and floor votes with clear majorities, including a 13-5 committee vote and later 26-8 and 52-15 votes, indicating broad support for the budget revisions. The lack of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded opposition suggests some disagreement over specific spending changes, transfers, or carryover provisions rather than over the need for a budget revision itself.
The main points of contention likely center on the size and direction of certain appropriations changes, especially increases in general fund spending, transfers to special funds, and the authority to carry unspent funds forward for multiple years. Because the bill touches many agencies and includes both increases and decreases, objections may have focused on particular program priorities, the balance between general and federal funding, or the long-term budget implications of deferred spending authority.
SB 78 amends the fiscal year 2026 General Appropriations Act and changes the legal spending authority for numerous state departments, boards, and institutions. It revises line-item appropriations, updates FTE counts, authorizes specific fund transfers, and allows certain unspent appropriations to carry forward into future fiscal years. The bill directly affects state budget administration, agency operations, higher education, corrections, social services, public safety, and other state functions, while also modifying how general, federal, and other funds may be used.
The bill appears to have been generally supported by lawmakers, as shown by its passage through committee and both chambers with comfortable majorities. At the same time, the recorded nays indicate that a meaningful minority had reservations, suggesting the bill was accepted as necessary budget legislation but not without concern over some of its spending shifts and fiscal management provisions.
The likely areas of contention are the magnitude of spending increases in selected agencies, the use of general fund transfers to special funds such as IT modernization, reemployment assistance modernization, and court security, and the authorization to carry unspent appropriations forward for multiple years. Opponents may have been concerned about fiscal discipline, while supporters likely viewed the changes as necessary to align appropriations with current needs and project timing.