Holding Our Legislators to Task

The South Dakota public has recently become aware that many special districts have been unlawfully imposing a “special maintenance fee” with the blessing of their respective county (ies) and the blind eye of their county state’s attorney.

It’s been suggested that rather than requiring all these special districts and the county to start following the law, that instead they could just change the law to allow the use of the special maintenance fee.

Here are the most effective arguments against updating SDCL 31-12A, the Road District chapter, to include a “special maintenance fee.”

If it becomes public that boards have been improperly using this fee, legislators might try to “fix” the problem by simply legalizing it. We should frame our opposition around fiscal accountability, transparency, and taxpayer protection in the current 2026 climate.

1. The “Shadow Tax” Argument

In 2026, South Dakota is facing a historic push to abolish property taxes via a November ballot initiative. Adding a new fee to special districts/road districts would be seen as creating a “shadow tax” to bypass voter-mandated relief.

• The Point: A “fee” is often just a tax with a different name. If legislators legalize it for road districts, they are giving small, *elected boards the power to effectively raise taxes without the “guardrails” (like the 2.5% or 3% growth caps) that govern cities and counties.
• The Trap: Unlike a Levy, which has clear statutory limits, or a Special Assessment, which requires a public hearing on “special benefit,” a “Maintenance Fee” can be passed by a simple board resolution, making it the perfect tool for “closed-door” tax hikes.

2. The “Rewarding Bad Behavior” Argument

If boards have been improperly imposing this fee, legalizing it after the fact is effectively a legislative “pardon” for official misconduct.

• The Point: It sends a message to all local governments that they can ignore the law and wait for the Legislature to “bail them out” later.
• The Alternative: Instead of legalizing the fee, the Legislature should be strengthening the County Auditor’s duty to verify the legality of every certification before it ever touches a tax bill.

3. The Lack of Due Process

Special Assessments (the current legal path) have strict “due process” protections: public hearings, mailed notices, and the right to formally protest.

• The Point: The “Special Maintenance Fee” in the municipal code lacks these rigorous protections. Allowing road districts to use it would strip rural residents of their right to object to specific spending projects.
• The Result: It shifts the burden of proof from the government (who must prove a “special benefit”) to the taxpayer (who must hire a private lawyer to stop a “fee”).

4. The Agricultural Burden

As we discussed, agricultural property is currently exempt from the municipal maintenance fee.

• The Point: If legislators update 31-12A to allow this fee, they might accidentally (or intentionally) remove the agricultural exemption to “broaden the base.”
• The Danger: This would force backyard nurseries, specialty farms, and large-scale producers to pay for residential-grade road maintenance that provides them zero benefit and actively drains their production capital.

5. The “Ministerial” Blackout

Road districts are already plagued by “secret ministerial meetings”.

• The Point: Adding an administrative “fee” into the mix—which doesn’t require a public hearing—would only encourage boards to move even more of their business into private text messages and emails.
• The Argument: If anything, road district powers should be restricted, not expanded, until they can demonstrate a consistent history of following the Open Meetings Act.

Summary of the Counter-Attack for 2026:

Tell legislators: “At a time when South Dakotans are demanding property tax relief, we should not be creating a new, uncapped ‘maintenance fee’ that bypasses the 2.5% growth caps and strips landowners of their right to a public hearing. Legalizing a fee that boards have already used improperly isn’t ‘efficiency’—it’s a legislative bailout for corruption.”

*While the boards are elected, their elections suffer from incredibly low visibility and turnout, often resulting in a “capture” by a small, vested interest group.

The Result: A small, “captured” group can easily re-elect itself and its “friendly” candidates year after year. Giving this low-accountability board the power to impose an administrative “fee” without a public hearing is a recipe for abuse.

The Point: These annual meetings are often held at inconvenient times and places, and—crucially—South Dakota law does not allow absentee voting for these elections. This effectively disenfranchises the majority of busy residents or out-of-state landowners.