STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
February 25, 1969
Don E. Erickson
Yankton County
Yankton, South Dakota 57078
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 69-20
Apportionment of District County Court budget between affected counties and municipalities whose Municipal Court has been absorbed by District County Court. Ch. 144, SL 1968
Dear Mr. Erickson:
You have requested my official opinion to determine the method of apportioning the estimated annual budget for the newly created District County Court in and for Yankton and Clay Counties, which, by virtue of the legislative enactment, will also serve for the municipal courts of the Cities of Yankton and Vermillion, within such district.
The latest Federal census shows the following population for such counties and the two affected municipalities:
Clay County Total Population 10,810
Rural Population 4,708
City of Vermillion 6,102
Yankton County Total Population 17,551
Rural Population 8,272
City of Yankton 9,279
______ ______
28,361 28,361
The specific questions you have submitted are as follows:
1. What is the proper formula to be used in apportioning the costs of maintaining such District County Court between the counties and affected municipalities within such district?
2. Where does the power rest to put this formula into practice?
The answers to your questions must be found in a proper interpretation of Chapter 144 of the Session Laws of 1968. Because of the length of the particular statute, it will not be set forth in full in this opinion. Briefly stated, this statute provides that the District County Judge on before January 1st of each year must designate one of the counties within his district as the administrative county of the district. By the 1st day of July of each year such District County Judge must prepare a budget which includes his salary, expenses, and all other salaries and expenses, including travel, board, etc., related to the office. It is this budget which must be apportioned among the counties comprising the District County Court District and when, as in the case of such district of which Yankton County is a part, the costs to be apportioned to the municipalities, whose Municipal Court has been assumed by the District County Court.
The statute itself provides that each district county judge receives an annual salary of $16,500.00. A complete reading of the entire statute discloses that it is only this salary which is apportioned between the counties and municipalities within the district. All other salaries and expenses reflected in such budget are not apportioned between the several counties making up such district county court, and such affected municipalities, but are charges against the affected counties.
In order to compute the necessary amounts to be raised by taxation, from the several tax entities involved, the salary of the District County Court, Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, must be deducted from the total estimated budget.
It is the duty of the county auditor of the administrative county to compute the calculations to determine the proper share of such judge's salary between the affected counties and municipalities. To do this, to the population of the whole district is added seventy-five per cent of the population of all participating municipalities according to the latest Federal census. Then, as the statute states, such auditor of the administrative county reaches the proper charges against such counties and participating municipalities,
"By apportioning the cost of said judge's salary budget to each county and municipality on the basis of such population figures."
Translating this directive to the 1960 Federal Census-the latest Federal census-to the two affected counties and two municipalities, we arrive at the following computations:
Total population of Yankton County ……………………………..17,551
Total population of Clay County………………………………….10,810
75% of population of City of Vermillion…………………………. 4,577
75% of population of City of Yankton……………………………..6,959
______
Total population for apportioning Judge's salary………………….39,897
Based upon the above figures, the auditor of the administrative county apportions the $16,500.00 District County Judge's salary between the affected counties and municipalities.
As to the remainder of such budget, after the deduction of the salary of the district county judge, such expenses must be borne by the counties comprising such county court district. The apportionment, as the statute states, is "based on the population of such county as to the whole population of the district according to the latest Federal census."
As the statute states, the duty to put the formula as prescribed therein into practice rests upon the county auditor of the administrative county.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon Mydland
Attorney General
