SB73 updates multiple South Dakota statutes to reflect electronic workflows, tighten public transparency for state contracts, and adjust travel reimbursement rules for specially equipped vehicles. It requires agencies to deliver consulting contracts and other financial records electronically to the state auditor, mandates online posting of higher-value contracts, and formalizes electronic claims, reconciliations, and records-destruction authority.
The bill matters because it moves routine financial controls from paper to electronic processes, creates new public visibility into state contracting (contracts $10,000+ must be posted), and increases reimbursement in defined circumstances for transporting individuals with disabilities. Agencies, the Bureau of Finance and Management, and IT operations will need to absorb implementation work and costs, while the state faces new transparency and records-management trade-offs.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires agencies to file or make available electronically consulting contracts to the state auditor within five days, defines which contracts must be posted on a searchable public website, updates what counts as an electronic claim, and grants the state auditor discretion to destroy certain microfilmed or electronic records after specified retention ages. It also changes mileage reimbursement formulas and ties several administrative duties to the Bureau of Finance and Management.
Who It Affects
State agencies and their finance/records teams, the Bureau of Finance and Management, the Office of the State Auditor, the Bureau of Information and Telecommunications, vendors and consultants with state contracts (notably contracts $10,000+), and employees or contractors who transport individuals with special needs.
Why It Matters
This is an operational modernization that creates compliance obligations (electronic filing, public posting, reconciliations) and financial impacts (higher mileage rates in some cases, lower reimbursement when fleet vehicles are available). For compliance officers and IT leaders, SB73 shifts attention to access controls, data publication rules, and the systems that will support those functions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB73 is a package of technical and operational amendments that pushes South Dakota’s financial practices into an explicit electronic-first posture. Agencies must file or make available electronically to the state auditor copies of consulting contracts within five days of final approval.
The bill revamps the statutory definition of a "consulting contract" to rely on current commissioner guidance (rather than a dated accounting manual reference), which broadens administrative control over what gets reported.
The bill makes public transparency concrete: contracts for supplies, services, or professional services of $10,000 or more—and other contracts filed with the state auditor or attorney general—must be posted on a searchable state website at least 60 days after a contract term starts and kept online for the statutory retention period. The statute assigns joint administration of the site to three bureaus and explicitly excludes mere purchase orders issued against statewide contracts.On payments and travel, SB73 updates claim procedures to accept electronic submissions and electronic acknowledgement in lieu of notarization, preserves perjury penalties, and requires monthly reconciliations between the accounting system and the treasurer’s bank records with electronic access to those reconciliations.
It also changes mileage rules: a higher rate applies when certain vehicle types (vans, pickups, SUVs) are used to transport an "individual with special needs," defines that term, and establishes a reduced reimbursement formula (a percentage of the IRS rate) when fleet vehicles are available within ten miles.Finally, the bill clarifies the scope of records the auditor must maintain or have electronic access to, permits destruction of microfilmed or electronic copies subject to age and audit thresholds without records board approval, and moves authorization for the state’s electronic procurement system to the Bureau of Finance and Management. Taken together, the amendments reallocate responsibilities—from manual, paper-based checks to system-enabled controls—and create explicit publication and retention rules that agencies must operationalize.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Agencies must file or make available electronically to the state auditor any consulting contract within five days after final approval.
Contracts for supplies, services, or professional services of $10,000 or more must be posted on a searchable state website no later than 60 days after the contract term begins and retained there for the statutory retention period.
If a passenger/cargo van, pickup, or SUV is used to transport an "individual with special needs," mileage reimbursement is the greater of 68¢ per mile or 130% of the IRS standard mileage rate (rounded up); other vehicles use 51¢ or the IRS rate, whichever is greater.
When a state pool vehicle is available within ten miles but an individual uses a private vehicle, reimbursement is reduced to 45% of the IRS business mileage rate; the Office of Fleet and Travel Management must approve exceptions.
The state auditor may destroy verified microfilmed records, electronic copies audited and 15+ years old, and vouchers/receipts audited and 7+ years old without further approval from the records destruction board.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Electronic filing and updated definition for consulting contracts
The bill requires each agency to file with—or make available electronically to—the state auditor copies of consulting contracts within five days of final approval. It replaces a dated accounting-manual reference with authority for the commissioner of finance and management to specify which contractual services accounts constitute a "consulting contract." Practically, agencies must update intake workflows so the auditor receives timely electronic records and review existing contract categories against the commissioner's guidance.
Retention floor for claims, invoices, and vouchers
Heads of agencies must keep records retention schedules, and the statute sets a minimum retention of seven years for original claims, invoices, and vouchers submitted to the state auditor. This creates a nonwaivable baseline for financial documentation that agencies must reflect in their records-management practices and budgeting for storage—physical or electronic.
Public-facing financial transparency portal and contract posting
The state must maintain a searchable website (administered jointly by three bureaus) that publishes public financial records, including copies of written contracts meeting specified criteria. The statute requires posting of each written contract for supplies, services, or professional services of $10,000 or more, plus contracts filed with the auditor or attorney general. Contracts must appear online within 60 days of the contract term start and remain for the statutory retention period; purchase orders against statewide contracts are excluded. Agencies will need metadata standards, redaction policies, and QA processes to meet these posting requirements.
Mileage reimbursement: special‑needs rates and fleet availability discounts
SB73 retools mileage rules: the baseline maximum remains 51¢ or the IRS rate (whichever is greater), but the statute creates a premium for certain vehicle types transporting an "individual with special needs"—68¢ per mile or 130% of the IRS rate, rounded up, whichever is greater. If a fleet pool vehicle is within ten miles and an individual elects a private vehicle, reimbursement drops to 45% of the IRS rate, and the Office of Fleet and Travel Management must approve reimbursements under the higher rate when pool vehicles are available. The bill also codifies a statutory definition for "individual with special needs," which limits the premium to specific disability-related transport scenarios.
Delegation and electronic verification for out-of-state travel and expense claims
The Governor retains authority to delegate approvals for travel outside the state and to set general travel guidelines, while agencies can follow federal rules for federally funded international travel allowances. Expense claims must be itemized and verified under oath, but the statute now allows filing or making claims electronically and permits electronic acknowledgement in lieu of notarization, subject to perjury penalties. Receipts are required only pursuant to a rule adopted by the state auditor, shifting some discretion to the auditor's rulemaking authority.
Accounting access, monthly reconciliations, and records-destruction authority
The Bureau of Finance and Management must reconcile accounting balances with the treasurer's bank records monthly and provide electronic access to those reconciliations. The bureau must also provide the state auditor with electronic access to budgetary accounting reports on request. The auditor is required to maintain or have electronic access to returned accounts and vouchers. Importantly, the bill grants the auditor discretion to destroy microfilmed or electronic records once verified or if audited and older than statute-specified ages (15 years for microfilm/electronic audit copies; vouchers/receipts at least seven years old may be destroyed after an additional four years). Certified microfilm/electronic copies remain admissible evidence.
Centralized electronic procurement system authority
The statute restricts submission of electronic sealed bids and proposals for state contracts to an electronic procurement system authorized for use by the Bureau of Finance and Management (shifting this authorization role from a prior bureau). This centralizes control over the procurement platform and places responsibility for system authorization with the finance bureau, which affects vendor onboarding, system requirements, and procurement security controls.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals with disabilities who require modified vehicles — the bill establishes a higher mileage reimbursement rate (greater of 68¢ or 130% of the IRS rate for specified vehicle types) when transporting an "individual with special needs," which compensates for higher operating costs of modified vehicles.
- Office of the State Auditor — receives timely electronic access to consulting contracts, claims, and budget reports, improving oversight capability and reducing time spent acquiring records from agencies.
- Members of the public and watchdog groups — gain easier access to higher-value state contracts via the searchable website, improving contract-level transparency and oversight.
- Bureau of Finance and Management — gains central authority over the electronic procurement system and clearer responsibility for monthly reconciliations and defining consulting-contract categories, increasing operational control.
- State agencies with robust IT and records systems — those that already use electronic workflows will find compliance simpler and will have reduced paperwork and faster processing for audits and reconciliations.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies' finance and records teams — must implement or upgrade electronic filing, posting, retention, and redaction processes and meet a five-day filing deadline for consulting contracts, creating upfront systems and staffing costs.
- Bureau of Information and Telecommunications and the three jointly administering bureaus — will need to expand or reconfigure the public portal, ensure searchability, security, and uptime, and manage the increased publishing workload.
- State budget/treasury — faces higher mileage reimbursements in defined situations and potential administrative costs tied to monthly reconciliations and increased audit support.
- Vendors and consultants — public posting of contracts (including commercially sensitive terms) increases exposure; vendors may incur compliance costs to accommodate state posting requirements and possible redactions processes.
- Records destruction oversight bodies — the records destruction board loses a layer of review for certain audit-verified electronic and microfilmed records, shifting responsibility (and potential liability) to the auditor’s office.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma SB73 tries to solve is balancing transparency, timeliness, and efficiency against administrative cost and record integrity: it requires fast electronic disclosure and gives the auditor broad discretion to cull old records, but it leaves critical implementation decisions (redaction, verification standards, publishing formats, and fleet-availability adjudication) to agencies and bureaux that must deliver secure, defensible processes without explicit statutory guidance.
SB73 accelerates the shift to electronic workflows and public posting without prescribing detailed operational standards—leaving implementation choices to agencies and three bureaus. That gap creates operational uncertainty: agencies must decide how to redact sensitive contract terms, how to format metadata for searchable publication, and what security controls to adopt for electronic submission of claims.
The statute gives the auditor discretion to require receipts by rule, to verify microfilm/electronic copies, and to destroy records after age thresholds; those discretionary hooks concentrate judgment calls in the auditor's office and require robust internal policies to avoid accidental loss of legally significant records.
The changes to mileage reimbursement create a practical fairness issue and a budgetary one. The premium for specially equipped vehicles compensates for real costs but hinges on a narrowly defined class of "individual with special needs" and on vehicle-type distinctions that may not map neatly to real-world transport scenarios.
Conversely, the 45% reimbursement when fleet vehicles are available creates an incentive to use state vehicles but requires the fleet-management office to adjudicate availability and approve exceptions, which will produce administrative friction. Finally, allowing destruction of certain records without records-board approval expedites file management but raises litigable questions about evidentiary chain-of-custody and whether audit verifications are sufficiently rigorous to justify disposal.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.