The South Dakota House of Representatives is rejecting a bill that would have allocated state money to help fund airport terminal expansion projects.
SB 127 appropriates taxpayer dollars into a new, one-time fund. Airports could then apply for grants from the funding pool to support terminal expansion projects.
It became a tough sell in a tight budget year.
The debate on the House floor quickly turned to whether the state should be funding a private entity to see economic growth in South Dakota.
For some, using taxpayer dollars to fund a private corporation was a sticking point.
That includes Republican Rep. Liz May. She said the bill only helps larger airports in the state.
“So, it’s for two airports: Rapid City and Sioux Falls. This isn’t going to do anything for any of the small airports that my good friend here talked about. This bill is specific. Terminal expansion which is Rapid City and Sioux Falls. I get the economic growth. I get all that. I understand it,” May said. “But you remember, we had all kinds of other issues that we didn’t fund, and now we’re gonna come through, and we’re gonna put money into airports. I did not come down here for my constituents to put money into airports when it’s the job of the owners of the airports.”
Proponents countered saying though the bill does benefit the Sioux Falls and Rapid City airports, smaller airports can apply and get funds for improvements.
They added if you want to have successful airports and economic growth, then you “need to put some skin in the game” to get matching federal dollars.
Rep. Tim Goodwin spoke in favor of the bill. He said it’s high time the state takes airports seriously.
“I would like to not just be a flyover state, but an actual business state that we can actually partake in the growth in of our state. And an airport’s a vital part of that. I mean, it’s part of business," Goodwin said. "If you want us to be a futuristic state that has a future for not just us. We’ve kind of all made it, but our kids and our grandkids, we’ve got to have airport service. To me, it’s just progress."
Since the bill included a financial component, it required a 2/3 majority to pass. The House voted 37 for and 32 against – falling short of that threshold.
