May 17, 1982
Mr. Robert R. Slocum
Walworth County State's Attorney
Post Office Box 575
Mobridge, South Dakota 57601
Official Opinion No. 82-31
Use of Revenue Sharing Funds
Dear Mr. Slocum:
You have requested an official opinion from this office in regard to the following factual situation:
FACTS:
The Walworth County Recreational and Industrial Development Committee has been incorporated as a nonprofit corporation. The Walworth County Commissioners approved a request for funding for the Walworth County Recreational and Industrial Development Corporation, from Revenue Sharing funds, for a maximum of $40,000. The County also informally agreed to provide the Development Corporation office space in the county courthouse.
The county funding is being provided pursuant to SDCL 7-18-11 and 12. The taxable valuation of all property in Walworth County for the current year is $78,474,264. The equivalent of one-eighth mill is $9,809.27.
Based on the above facts, you have asked the following questions:
QUESTIONS:
1. May the Walworth County Commissioners allocate federal revenue sharing money for promotion of industrial and recreational activities for the use of the Walworth County Recreational and Development Corporation in excess of the limitation expressed in SDCL 7-18-11, which is the equivalent of one- eighth mill of all taxable property in the county?
2. If the answer to Question no. 2 is No, could the limit be extended because the money being allocated is, or may have been, derived from revenue sharing money being received by the county over a period of more than one year?
3. May the Walworth County Commissioners provide office space for the Walworth County Recreational and Development Board in the Walworth County Courthouse?
IN RE QUESTION NO. 1:
The federal regulations dealing with Revenue Sharing funds set forth the procedures and methods by which the funds may be expended by the entities receiving the funds. 31 C.F.R. § 51.100(c) states:
A recipient government which receives entitlement funds under the [State and Local Fiscal Assistance] Act shall:
(c) Provide for the expenditure of entitlement funds in accordance with the laws and procedures applicable to the expenditure of its own revenue.
It appears that the Revenue Sharing funds can be used for the purpose contemplated by the county commissioners. However, because the federal regulations tie the procedures and methods of expending Revenue Sharing funds to state law, a review of the procedural sections of the state statutes is also necessary.
SDCL 7-18-11 provides for a fund for the promotion of industrial, tourist and recreational activities. In part, that statute states (emphasis added):
The board of county commissioners may in their discretion establish a county fund to promote industrial, tourist, and recreational activities by a levy of up to one-eighth mill on each dollar of taxable property, which tax levy shall be in addition to all other county tax levies or, in lieu thereof, may appropriate and transfer from the county general fund to the fund authorized by this section an amount not to exceed the equivalent of one- eighth mill.
The County Commissioners are proceeding with funding of the Development Corporation under the emphasized portion of the above-quoted section. Revenue Sharing funds are being used for the funding, which is allowed by federal regulation. Because of the provisions of 31 C.F.R. § 51.100(c), however, the County Commissioners are also bound by the funding procedures and methods set forth in SDCL 7-18-11. Therefore, it is my opinion that the answer to your first question is NO, the Walworth County Commissioners may not allocate federal Revenue Sharing money for promotion of industrial and recreational activities for the use of the Walworth County Recreational and Development Corporation in excess of the limits expressed in SDCL 7-18-11.
IN RE QUESTION NO. 2:
Because there is no extension of the funding limit based on the time frame involved in SDCL 7-18-11, and because no other state statutes or federal Revenue Sharing regulations extend the funding limit as a function of time, it is my opinion that the answer to your second question is NO, the funding limit set forth in SDCL 7-18-11 cannot be extended because the funds are derived from revenue sharing money received by the county over a period of more than one year.
IN RE QUESTION NO. 3:
In Official Opinion 75-196, my predecessor reviewed a question similar to the one presented in your request. In that opinion, the question was whether Yankton County could provide office space in the County Courthouse for Contact, anon-profit office which coordinated helping services in the county. In concluding that county could not provide such office space, the opinion states:
[T]he county courthouse exists for the purpose of housing county officials and providing chambers for a courtroom or for court purposes. It does not exist for the purpose of providing office space for public-spirited nonprofit corporations or associations. It is my opinion that there is no authority to provide office space in a courthouse to any private person, association, or service organization.
No statutory changes have taken place which would affect the result reached in that opinion. Therefore, it is my opinion that the answer to your third question is NO, the Walworth County Commissioners may not provide office space for the Walworth County Recreational and Development Board in the Walworth County Courthouse.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark V. Meierhenry
Attorney General
