STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 26, 1975
Mr. Jerry L. Siegel, Chairman
State Lakes Preservation Committee
524 17th Avenue
Brookings, South Dakota 57006
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 75-167
Chapter 278-Session Laws of 1975
Dear Mr. Siegel:
You have requested an opinion from this office on several items pertaining to chapter 278 of the session laws of 1975 which created the State Lakes Preservation Committee.
The first question you ask is whether or not the committee can provide in its by-laws that the designated alternates of the secretaries are entitled to vote on the committee in the absence of the secretaries. Section 3 of chapter 278 sets forth the membership of the State Lakes Preservation Committee. Subdivisions 4 through 7 inclusive of section 3 refer to various secretaries of state departments being members of the committee. Each of these sections also refers to the alternative of a designee of the secretary being a member of the committee. This in my judgment clearly allows the designee of the departmental secretary to vote. If the committee so desires such a provision can be inserted in their by-laws.
The second question you ask is closely related to the first question. Section 3 of chapter 278 also refers to designees of the first and fourth planning and development districts as being members of the commission. Your second question is whether or not the State Lakes Preservation Committee can in its by-laws also provide that an alternate member appointed by the regional offices is entitled to vote on the committee in the absence of the regional offices' first designee. It is my opinion that the committee can so provide in its by-laws and that the alternate member or members designated by the regional offices are entitled to vote on the committee in the absence of the regional offices' first designees.
Your third question asks where the proper place is for disposition of the committee's funds. There is evidently some confusion as to whether or not the committee funds should be placed in a separate account of the state treasury or whether the funds could be placed in the account and under the administrative umbrella of one of the sixteen executive departments of state government.
Section 9 of chapter 278 provides:
There is hereby established within the state treasury a fund to be known as the lake preservation fund. The lake preservation fund shall consist of the funds appropriated to it by the Legislature and such other funds as the committee may receive from the government of the United States, local political subdivisions, private or other sources and placed within the funds.
Although section 6 of chapter 278 provides that the committee shall be a temporary commission and as such shall expire on June 30, 1977, the clear intent of section 9 appears to me to create a specific fund in the state treasury to be known as the lake preservation fund. It does not appear to me that there is any authority in chapter 278 for placing the account under the administrative umbrella of any of the sixteen executive departments in state government.
Your fourth question concerns section 11 of chapter 278 which provides:
Except for funds expended for the payment of per diem and expenses of the members of the committee, funds appropriated by this act shall not be expended until such funds are matched by funds from the government of the United States, local political subdivisions, private or other sources in an amount equal to at least three times the funds provided under this act.
The question you raise with respect to this section is whether or not the full amount of $12,500 will have to be matched three to one by other sources before the $12,500 can be utilized for other than member expenses. The answer to this question appears to be clearly YES in view of the provisions of section 11.
Another question you ask with respect to section 11 is whether or not federal and local agencies can provide in kind services as matched to the $12,500 state appropriation.
The provisions of section 11 specifically refer to the requirement that the state funds not be expended until they are matched by funds from the United States government, local political subdivisions, private or other sources. The language in section 11 appears to me to require the match to be of funds, and not of in kind service.
The final question you ask is whether or not funds which are expended by other state entities for lake preservation and restoration could be included as matching funds for the $12,500 state appropriation.
It is my opinion that the language of section 11 contemplates funds being matched with funds and not funds being matched with expenditures by other state entities or local political subdivisions for similar lake preservation and restoration purposes.
Respectfully submitted,
William Janklow
Attorney General
WJJ:DOC:rw
