May 5, 1976
Mr. Arnold C. Jones
Executive Secretary
Pennington County
Pennington County Courthouse
Rapid City, South Dakota, 57701
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 76-51
County board's responsibility to provide circuit court facilities
Dear Mr. Jones:
You have requested an official opinion from this office based upon the following facts:
Prior to court reorganization Pennington County provided two courtrooms and three offices for the two circuit judges and one district county judge. Under reorganization, the presiding judge of this circuit has asked Pennington County for full time use office space for five circuit judges and their staffs plus five courtrooms. (The City of Rapid City is also providing space, including a courtroom for a law trained magistrate.)
Based on the above factual situation you ask:
1. Since the courts are no longer a part of county government, does the county have an obligation to provide any building facilities for the court?
2. Assuming the county must continue to provide existing facilities, does the county have an obligation to provide new facilities for a state court system that has expanded beyond the old county facilities?
3. What obligation does Pennington County have to provide court facilities and full time office space for five circuit judges when there are two other counties in the circuit?
4. Assuming Pennington County must provide five courtrooms and full time office space for five circuit judges, what financial help can we expect from the other counties in this circuit?
5. What is the obligation of the State of South Dakota to provide court facilities for the state court system?
6. Who is responsible for paying for utilities, janitorial and maintenance services to the areas in the county courthouse which are used for court facilities under the unified judicial system?
In view of the number of complex questions you ask, they will be considered in the order in which they are set forth above.
With respect to the first question you raise, several statutes are of significance. These statutes provide:
7-25-17. In any county where there is no courthouse or jail erected by the county, or no lodging for prisoners provided under a joint agreement pursuant to SDCL 24-11-4, or where those erected have not sufficient capacity, it shall be the duty of the board of county commissioners to provide for courtroom, jail, and offices for the following named officers: sheriff, treasurer, register of deeds, state's attorney, auditor, clerk of courts and district county judge, to be furnished by such county in a suitable building or buildings for the lowest rent to be obtained at the county seat, or to secure and occupy suitable rooms at a free rent within the limits of the county seat or any of the additions thereto until such county builds a courthouse.
§ 11, Ch. 130, SL 1973. Whenever the term "judge," "county judge," "district county judge," "municipal judge," "judge of the municipal court," or "police magistrate," or whenever the term "county court," "district county judge," "municipal court," "justice of the peace court," or "police magistrate court" appears in the South Dakota Compiled Laws they shall mean "judge of the circuit court" or the "circuit court," respectively, except in the event courts of limited jurisdiction are established appropriate addition or change shall be made to correspond to the jurisdiction of that court or those courts.
16-2-25.1. All furnishings, supplies and materials owned by a county, municipality or township, which were used by, or on behalf of any judge or justice of the peace for the execution of his judicial duties on or before January 7, 1975, or which are purchased after that date for the use of a judge or magistrate, shall be provided to the unified judicial system.
16-6-7. The board of county commissioners in every county in this state may provide the circuit judge of the judicial circuit of which such county forms a part with suitable and sufficient courtroom facilities and equip the same to conduct the business of the court at a place other than the county seat of such county but within said county where such judge resides.
Based on the above statutes, it is my opinion that the Legislature has provided that the several counties of the state have the obligation to provide courtroom facilities and offices for the judges of the circuit court. SDCL 7-25-17 and Section 11 of Chapter 130 of the Session Laws of 1973, clearly indicate to me that the counties of the state have obligations in this regard. SDCL 16-2-25.1 also appears to support this position in that it recognizes that even after January 7, 1975, the furnishings, supplies, and materials owned or purchased by counties for court use shall be provided to the unified judicial system.
One might argue that SDCL 16-1-7 provides that the county's obligation in regard to furnishing court facilities has been changed from a mandatory to a permissive state. This argument is not convincing in my view, since as a whole SDCL 16-6-7 deals with providing court equipment and office space at a place other than the county seat of the county, but within the county wherein the judge resides. When seen in this context, the statute does not contradict SDCL 7-25-17, but, in fact, implicitly supports that statute in that it recognizes that the county has a basic obligation to provide court facilities, but may provide it at a place other than the county seat.
The answer to your first question therefore, is YES. The counties have an obligation to provide facilities for the circuit courts of the state.
In response to your second question, it is my view that if the total number of circuit judges in the circuit is equal to or less than the number of existing judge offices in the circuit, there is per se no obligation on the counties to provide new or additional facilities for judges' offices. If, however, as in the case presented, there are more circuit judges in the circuit than total offices for judges in the counties in the circuit, each county would seem to be required to provide their fair share under SDCL 7-25-17. This, in my opinion, would require two judges' offices for each county in the situation you present, since the total number of judges divided by the number of existing offices comes closest to the workable number of two. Pennington County does not, however, have the entire burden of providing offices for all circuit judges just because the circuit judges in the circuit would like to live in a particular county and have an office there.
In regard to existing courtroom space, it is my opinion that such space and facilities are to be continued to be used for courtroom facilities and if such facilities do not have sufficient capacity, SDCL 7-25-17 would seem to require the counties to remedy the situation.
As to your third question, it is my opinion that, as discussed above, Pennington County is required to provide its pro rata share of office space to circuit judges. As discussed above, this would at present seem to require two offices for judges in Pennington County.
In view of the above analysis, it is not necessary to deal more specifically with your fourth question.
In response to your fifth question, it is my opinion that the law places the obligation on the counties to provide courtroom space for the circuit courts and offices for the judges of the circuit court (SDCL 7-25-17), as well as to provide suitable and adequate facilities for the magistrate court (SDCL 16-12A-29), with the exceptions noted in SDCL 16-2-26. SDCL 16-2-25 provides that counties also have an obligation to provide suitable and adequate facilities for the clerk of the circuit court, with certain exceptions noted at SDCL 16-2-26.
The unified judicial system also contains the South Dakota Supreme Court, as well as administrators and employees for the unified judicial system. These individuals are presently being paid by the State and provided office space and courtroom space by the State of South Dakota. (See SDCL
16-1-9.)
With respect to your sixth question, although SDCL 7-25-18 has been repealed, I am of the opinion that providing utilities and janitorial services for circuit court facilities continues to be an obligation of the county. In view of the requirements imposed on counties in this regard by SDCL 7-25-17, I cannot reasonably conclude that the obligation for providing these utilities and janitorial services has passed to the State of South Dakota. In my opinion, if the county has the obligation to provide office space and courtroom space, it seems only reasonable to conclude that in the absence of legislation to the contrary, they also have the obligation to provide necessary utilities and janitorial services.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW
ATTORNEY GENERAL
WJJ:DOC:dk
