*1
CITY the State of South
corporation of Appellant,
Dakota, Plaintiff COUNTY, political
PENNINGTON the State South
subdivision
Dakota, Appellee. Defendant 22521.
No. Dakota. of South
Supreme Court April
Argued Aug.
Decided Altman, City Attorney, Jason E.
Adam Green, Attorney, Rapid Assistant Dakota, plaintiff appel- City, lant. *2 Brenner, Pennington County A. In [¶ 3.]
Glenn December the county Earn, Attorney, Pennington State’s Tobin applied Rapid City Planning Com- County Special Deputy Attorney, State’s mission for city’s amendments to the Dakota, for defendant prehensive plan, change for a in zoning, for appellee. permit, use on review and for review under SDCL allowing proper-
KONENKAMP, Justice.
ty
operated
to be
jail-work
as a
release
Pennington County sought ap-
facility.
After
hearings, both the
proval
juvenile
to change its former
deten- Planning Commission and the Common
jail-work
facility.
tion center into
release
Council denied the requests.
response,
Rapid City’s Planning
Commission
Pennington County
Board of Commis-
disapproved
change
Common Council
sioners voted unanimously to override the
Invoking
use.
denial, invoking
pro-
SDCL 11-6-21.
It
city
proceeded
overruled the
project
ceeded with the
to renovate the
project. Rapid City brought
with the
suit.
juvenile
property
detention center
into a
The circuit court
held
SDCL 11-6-21 jail-work
facility.
release
proceed
authorized the
with
Rapid City sought
a writ of cer-
project
city’s
without
approval.1
On
tiorari,
permanent
injunction,
ap-
or an
appeal, Rapid City argues that
11-
peal
prevent
6-21 does not authorize the
under SDCL 7-8-27 to
approval
ceed without
council’s
property
being
jail-work
used as a
intruding jurisdiction
when the
ais
city’s
violation of the
jurisdiction
and the
a municipality
host
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances.
county.
located within the
Because
The
sought
injunctive
also
preliminary
statutorily
permitted
has
relief based
on Lincoln
v. John-
counties to construct certain
(S.D.1977).
son,
Background the circuit court ruled authorized the with the parties dispute [¶ 2.] The do not city approval. appeal, without On essential facts of this case. (1) Rapid City contends: “SDCL 11-6-21 juvenile wishes to renovate its de- does not authorize a proper- to use tention center into a facil- ty located within a in violation ity county-owned on land in Rapid located municipality’s comprehensive City. Previously, plan this property had been operated juvenile and zoning approval as a detention center and ordinance without the juvenile (2) before that as both a court and municipal governing body.” detention center. adopted has apply “The circuit court erred in failing to comprehensive zoning plan under SDCL the rule of Lincoln County v. Johnson.” comprehensive plan and a for de- Analysis and Decision velopment under SDCL 11-6-18. The Statutory interpretation property district which the is a designated question situated is density, legal for medium reviewed without deference residential use. Ridley to the trial court’s decision. Circuit, Timothy 1. The Honorable sitting by designation. R. Johns of the Fourth Judicial Comm’n, §in be one the au- ferred to 2000 SD Lawrence financing (citations does of which thorization omit- 5, 619 N.W.2d not, provisions or charter under the law ted). wheth- question here is specific same, fall within governing the to construct and county’s decision er the *3 body province the council or other facility can jail-work release operate a municipality, then of the or official relevant stat- zoning. The override plan- to the the submission of such are as follows: utes by ning shall be board commission Planning commission 11-6-19. SDCL having jurisdiction, such or official required for construction approval disap- planning and the commission’s comprehensive plan. by area covered may by proval board be overruled said any municipal council such Whenever by a vote not less than two-thirds comprehensive adopted the shall have membership by or said offi- its entire any part or municipality plan of cial. thenceforth, street, thereof, no then added). (Emphasis way, ground, place, public other park, or structure, in these building Several of the terms public or no space, 11-6-1 and statutes are defined SDCL pri- or utility, whether 11-2-1, planning and compre- govern which owned, by SDCL if vately covered zoning in Dakota. “Commission” any adopted part plan hensive or zoning commission” and “planning and thereof, or au- shall be constructed “any are defined as “planning commission” municipality in the or within thorized zoning commission creat- city planning and jurisdiction as defined subdivision its 11-6].” under the terms of [SDCL ed the lo- § until and unless 11-6-1(1). “Comprehensive plan” SDCL shall have and extent thereof cation which de- “any is defined as document approved to and been submitted words, illustrate scribes planning commission. charts, plats, descriptive and other maps, 11-6-20. Reasons SDCL matter, policies, objectives goals, construction disapproval of commission interrelate all func- municipal council-Vote communicated systems and activities tional and natural council to overrule. required for of the territo- relating development to the disapproval any construc- In case of jurisdiction.” its SDCL 11—6— ry under submitted under tion or authorization 1(2). The is defined as “the term “council” § commission body of legislative body governing chief or communicate its reasons shall 11-6-1(3). municipality.” SDCL council, council, by vote of not and the “Municipality” “city” “any is defined as of its entire mem- less than two-thirds incorporated city or town.” SDCL 11—6— power to overrule bership, shall have 1(5). “Board” is defined as “the board of and, upon disapproval such overrul- 11-2-1(1). county commissioners.” SDCL appropriate board ing the council or “Governing body” is “the board of power have the or officer shall commissioners, council or ceed. 11-2-1(4). commission.” SDCL by public bodies 11-6-21. Action SDCL having ju- municipal other than council 11—6— examining risdiction over construction. alone, appears Coun with its ty would not be able public way, ground, place,
If until the was building, utility proposed re- renovation space, Rapid City Planning “building The first element is the ... re- by the approved Rapid City has § jail-work Commission ferred to 11-6-19.” The Yet, plan. comprehensive adopted facility qualifies release as a ... “building 11-6-21, pro- 11-6-20 and SDCL § to in referred 11-6-19.” second exceptions to SDCL 11-6-19. SDCL vide “financing element municipal allows the council jail-work facility] [the which does disap- commission’s overrule province fall within the proval project by of a a two-thirds vote. body council or other or official of the this But 11-6-20 does not control Here, municipality.” because the Common case by Pennington County, is financed disapprove Pennington voted to Council *4 “financing so the ... does parties agree in Both County’s change use. province not ... fall within the of ... 11—6— applicable that the statute is SDCL municipality.” The third element states however, on how the They disagree, having that “the board or official such interpreted. Rapid City statute should be jurisdiction” shall submit the ... “building 11-6-19, city under argues that SDCL §in planning referred to 11-6-19” to the “street, any park, or other approve must board, i.e., Penning- commission. The ... ground, place, space, public way, County County ton Board of Commission- building public [PJublic ers, 11-2-1(1), in accord with SDCL did privately utility, whether fact, submit the owned,” any may begin construction before Planning Com- may be used within its or such structure mission. The final element authorizes alternative, In the municipal boundaries. “said board” or “said official” to overrule if 11- Rapid City argues that even SDCL planning disapproval “by commission’s county authorizes the commissioners 6-21 a vote of not less than two-thirds of its commission, it planning to overrule the Indeed, membership.” entire more than “proceed” does not allow the Penning- two-thirds members of approval. Pennington without council County County ton Board of Commission- it to County asserts that state law ers did vote to overrule the jail and that such facili- provide facilities disapproval project.2 ties are included SDCL 11-6-19 mission’s Further, through 11-6-21. statutory
contends that this We believe that enact jails exempts comply- vide ing SDCL could municipal zoning with ordinances and ing placement and construc foresee regulations. Both the and the cir- facilities, jails, like tion of certain language cuit court construed the SDCL residents, popular not be with so 11-6-21—“the commission’s dis- provided to authorize coun mechanism approval may be overruled said Rapid facilities. ty construction board”—to mean that the can over- City if argues even proceed project. rule the with its authorizes the commissioners commission, overrule the it does decipher 8.] To we “proceed.” divide the text of the statute into elements. not allow the We to, Initially, Pennington County nington County County Board of Board of Commis- meeting County vote at the next Commissioners voted to overrule the sioners to correct the Rapid Rapid City Planning Council. The circuit to overrule the Commis- Common disapproval. court made note of this and allowed the Pen- sion’s 124 958, (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (operat- construction de novo. So.2d 959 statutory
examine
Krahwinkel,
160, 13,
2002
county jail
v.
SD
func-
ing
State
451, 458. We read statutes as
tion);
656
N.W.2d
Comm’rs Bristol v. Con-
relating
the enactments
along
a whole
with
Dartmouth,
380
servation Comm’n of
subject. Kayser v. South
to the same
(1980)
706,
637,
(op-
Mass.
405 N.E.2d
640
Comm’n, 512 N.W.2d
Dakota State Elec.
erating
county jail
govern-
is an essential
(S.D.1994) (citations omitted).
746, 747
function);
mental
Metro. Dade
v.
Ass’n,
Parkway Towers
281
Condo.
So.2d
Originally,
through
(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973) (county
11-6-23 were enacted
the same
69
could
section; therefore,
language
we review the
“possessed
override its own
as it
together.
statutes
of these
place govern-
right
at common law to
“upon
overruling
such
provides that
[prison work
facili-
mental function
appropriate
or officer
council or the
board
ty]
any
site selected within the
on
proceed.” Al-
power
shall have the
as directed
Board
Com-
explicitly
though SDCL 11-6-21 does not
missioners”);
Angeles County City
Los
so,
implied
say
right
Angeles,
Cal.App.2d
Los
having
when the “board or official
(“essential
(1963)
Cal.Rptr.
function-
*5
jurisdiction”
the
overrules
ing
county”);
County City
Green
v.
Thus,
that
mission.
we conclude
Monroe,
196,
827,
3 Wis.2d
87 N.W.2d
of
provides
a mechanism to overrule
(1958).
829
a
commission
order to con-
“street, park,
struct and maintain a
or
County
12.]
commissions
public way,
place, space, ...
ground,
other
required by
South Dakota are
statute to
public building
or
county jails.
establish and maintain
When
utility,
privately
or
whether
operates
a
maintains and
a
owned” under SDCL 11-6-19. Under
jail
authority
under the
of SDCL 24^11-2
statutes, Pennington County
was not
in governmen
it acts
subject
Rapid City’s zoning
to
ordinances
capacity.3
County
tal
Jerauld
v.
Paul-
St.
in the creation of its
release facil-
Co.,
1, 7,
Mercury Indem.
76 S.D.
71
ity.
(1955).
N.W.2d
574
The erection and
jurisdictions have ruled
[¶ 11.] Other
jail
operation
governmen
is
common
likewise under the
law. Several
necessary
general
tal
to the
function
ad
courts
the issue of whether a
addressing
justice
particularly
ministration
subject
city zoning
is
to
ordinances
the criminal
laws.
the enforcement of
constructing
renovating
when
(Wis.
County,
ute renders commissions impotent in where the Coun-
councils cases City. land
ty purchases owns or within majority opinion’s 21.] Under requirement
reading, proposal Commis-
submit its County may
(cid:127)~sion is absurd because
proceed regardless of the Commission’s
disapproval. Legis- It is doubtful results, these and our
lature intended
holding County prevents Lincoln here, when, intergov- as there is an
results dispute over land I
ernmental use. would proper for a balancing
reverse and remand parties’ interests circuit
court.
CONSOLIDATED *7 Appellant,
Plaintiff
IBP, INC., Corporation, a Delaware Appellee.
Defendant and
No. 22456.
Supreme Court South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs Nov. 2002.
Reassigned June Aug.
Decided