April 4, 1976
Mr. Eldon Stoehr
Auditor General
State Capitol Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 76-41
Interpretation of SDCL 16-2-34 and 7-18A-3S, relating to disposition of fines and penalties collected for violations of county ordinances
Dear Mr. Stoehr:
The question you have asked is: What is the proper disposition of fines, penalties and forfeitures for violations of county ordinances?
The two statutes which deal with the subject are:
16-2-34. All fines, penalties, and forfeitures when collected by or through the use of a circuit or magistrate court, clerk or other court officer for violations of a county, township, municipal or chartered governmental unit's ordinance, charter or bylaw, shall be paid into the appropriate county, township, municipal or chartered governmental unit's treasury. Fifteen days following the end of each quarter in 1975, twenty-five per cent; of each quarter in 1976, thirty per cent; of each quarter in 1977, thirty-five per cent; of each quarter in 1978, forty per cent; of each quarter in 1979, forty-five per cent; and of each quarter thereafter, fifty per cent of all such fines, penalties and forfeitures collected during the previous quarter shall be remitted by the appropriate county, township, municipal or chartered governmental unit's treasurer to the state treasurer who shall deposit such remittance into the state general fund.
7-18A-35. All fines, penalties, and forfeitures collected for violations of a county ordinance, resolution or charter shall be paid into the county treasury. Fifteen days following the end of each quarter, the county treasurer shall remit an amount equal to all fines, penalties and forfeitures collected during the previous quarter to the state treasurer, who shall deposit such remittance into the state's general fund.
SDCL 16-2-34 provides that counties are to remit quarterly a percentage of fines and penalties collected and retain the balance in the county treasury; whereas, SDCL 7-18A-35 requires quarterly remittances of all collections to the state. Therefore, those portions of the statutes in question appear to be in direct conflict. However, it is also a well established rule of statutory construction that statutes should also be construed in relation to each other so as to give effect to all the provisions of each. Every statement must be made to reconcile apparent conflicts. Hirning v. Toohey, 210 N.W. 723, 50 S.D. 457.
In reviewing the history of both statutes, is should be noted that SDCL 7-18A was enacted in 1975 while SDCL 16-2-34 was part of the 1974 court reorganization legislation. However, the original enactment of SDCL 16-2-34 contained no reference to fines and penalties resulting from violations of county ordinances, etc. The reference to counties was added by the 1975 Legislature.
Therefore, in view of the above it is my opinion that the 1975 Legislature, by enacting SDCL 7-18A-35, did not intend to negate the effect of SDCL 16-2-34 with respect to counties. It is further my opinion that the term "all" as used in said statute should be interpreted to mean all of that amount designated for remittance pursuant to SDCL 16-2-34. Therefore, for the year 1977, thirty-five per cent of all collections should be remitted to the state on a quarterly basis.
Because of the fact that the provisions in question could easily be subject to other interpretations, the next Legislature should clarify the matter.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW
ATTORNEY GENERAL
WJJ:LLV:dh
