The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 7-18A outlines the procedures for county commissioners to adopt ordinances. Specifically, SDCL 7-18A-2 mandates that proposed ordinances must be published once in the official newspaper of the county at least ten days and not more than twenty days before the date set for the public hearing. Following the hearing, if the ordinance is adopted, it must be published again in the official newspaper. The effective date of an ordinance is typically specified within the ordinance itself, but if not, it generally becomes effective upon the final publication or a specified period thereafter. In this scenario, the ordinance was published on June 1st for a hearing on June 15th. This publication date is within the ten to twenty-day window before the hearing, satisfying the initial publication requirement. The subsequent publication after adoption is a separate step that ensures public notice of the enacted ordinance. The question asks about the minimum time between the initial publication and the public hearing. The law states “at least ten days and not more than twenty days.” Therefore, the minimum period is ten days.

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 9-27 governs the establishment and powers of municipal police departments. Specifically, SDCL 9-27-1 grants cities the authority to establish a police department and appoint a chief of police and such other police officers as the needs of the municipality may require. SDCL 9-27-2 further details the qualifications for police officers, generally requiring them to be U.S. citizens and of good moral character. The process of appointing a police chief typically involves a decision by the city’s governing body, often the city council, based on recommendations or a formal selection process. While specific procedures can vary slightly by city ordinance, the underlying authority and general requirements are established by state law. The question probes the foundational legal basis for a city’s ability to create and staff its police force within the South Dakota legal framework, emphasizing the legislative grant of power and the inherent need for qualified personnel.

The scenario involves a county in South Dakota considering the establishment of a special taxing district to fund a new infrastructure project. South Dakota law, specifically relating to county powers and special districts, outlines the procedures for creating such entities. The key statute governing the creation of special districts for infrastructure, such as those for roads or utilities, typically involves a petition process or a resolution by the county commission, followed by a public hearing. The enabling legislation for special taxing districts in South Dakota, often found within Title 11 of the South Dakota Codified Laws, details the requirements for the district’s purpose, boundaries, and the method of financing. For a special taxing district to be validly established for a specific public purpose, the county must adhere to the statutory notice requirements for public hearings and ensure that the proposed district’s boundaries are clearly defined and serve a legitimate public interest. The process generally requires a resolution by the board of county commissioners, a public notice period, and a hearing where affected landowners can voice objections. Following the hearing, if the commission finds that the project serves a public purpose and the district is feasible, they can adopt a resolution officially establishing the district and authorizing the levy of taxes or special assessments. The question tests the understanding of the foundational legal steps a South Dakota county must take to initiate the formation of a special taxing district for a public improvement, emphasizing the initial procedural requirement. The correct answer reflects the statutory prerequisite for initiating such a district’s formation.

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 10-12 governs the taxation of property within the state, including the assessment and collection of taxes by local governments. When a local government entity, such as a county or municipality, levies property taxes, it must adhere to the established assessment procedures and valuation methods outlined in state law. SDCL 10-12-1 sets forth the general requirement for all taxable property to be assessed at its actual value. This actual value is determined through a process that considers various factors, including market conditions, property characteristics, and appraisal methodologies. The county director of equalization is responsible for overseeing the assessment process within their county, ensuring that all property is assessed uniformly and equitably. This involves maintaining assessment rolls, conducting property reappraisals periodically as mandated by law, and hearing appeals from property owners who believe their property has been overvalued. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the tax burden is distributed fairly among all property owners in accordance with state law. The specific percentage of value used for taxation is determined by legislative action and can vary based on the type of property and the taxing district. However, the foundational principle remains that the initial assessment must reflect the property’s actual value.

The question pertains to the process by which a municipality in South Dakota can annex territory. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 9-32 outlines the procedures for annexation. Specifically, SDCL 9-32-18 provides for the annexation of contiguous territory by ordinance if certain conditions are met, including the consent of the owners of at least 60% of the assessed valuation of the territory. If the owners do not consent, a petition signed by at least 40% of the electors residing in the territory and owning at least 40% of the assessed valuation is required, followed by a public hearing and an ordinance, which can be challenged by a referendum. Alternatively, SDCL 9-32-11.2 allows for annexation by resolution after a public hearing and a finding that the territory is contiguous and will be benefited by municipal services, provided that no electors reside in the territory. Given the scenario where no electors reside in the unincorporated area and the municipality wishes to annex it, the most direct and legally sound method that avoids the complexities of owner consent or elector petitions is annexation by resolution, which requires a public hearing and a finding of benefit. The scenario explicitly states no electors reside in the area, which aligns with the conditions for annexation by resolution under SDCL 9-32-11.2, assuming the territory is contiguous and will be benefited. The other options represent either incorrect procedures for this specific scenario or are not primary methods for annexing uninhabited territory in South Dakota. For instance, annexation by petition requires elector signatures, which are absent here. Annexation by ordinance with owner consent requires a high percentage of owner consent, which is not specified as achieved, and is typically a more involved process than resolution for uninhabited areas. Annexation by court order is a separate legal process generally used in disputes or specific circumstances not described.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-2 governs the establishment and operation of planning and zoning commissions in municipalities. Specifically, SDCL 11-2-1 mandates that any municipality that adopts a comprehensive plan must also establish a planning commission. The law further details the composition of this commission, typically requiring a minimum of five members, appointed by the governing body of the municipality. These members are generally required to be residents of the municipality and may include representatives from various local interests. The commission’s primary role is to advise the municipal governing body on matters of land use, development, and community planning, ensuring that growth aligns with the adopted comprehensive plan. The authority to create and define the powers of the planning commission stems from the state’s delegation of zoning and planning authority to its local governments. Therefore, the establishment of a planning commission is a direct consequence of a municipality’s decision to engage in formal land use planning, as codified by state statute.

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-4, concerning the establishment and powers of planning and zoning commissions, outlines the framework for how local governments manage land use and development. Specifically, SDCL 11-4-1 requires counties to appoint a planning and zoning commission if they intend to exercise planning and zoning powers. These commissions are empowered to prepare a comprehensive plan, adopt zoning ordinances, and review subdivision plats, all with the ultimate goal of promoting public health, safety, and general welfare. The law also details the process for public hearings and notice requirements when adopting or amending zoning ordinances, ensuring citizen input. The authority granted to these commissions is not absolute; it is subject to state law and often requires county commission approval for ordinance adoption or significant zoning changes. The question probes the foundational legal basis for a county’s ability to regulate land use through a planning and zoning commission, which is directly established by the state legislature’s grant of authority. The existence and function of such a commission are contingent upon the enabling legislation provided by South Dakota law.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 6-7 governs the establishment and operation of county public improvement districts. Specifically, SDCL § 6-7-1.1 outlines the process for a county to form such a district for specific public works projects, including roads, water systems, and sewer systems. The law requires that the county auditor publish notice of the proposed district in a legal newspaper in the county. This notice must contain specific information, including the purpose of the district, the proposed improvements, the estimated costs, and the method of financing. Crucially, the law also mandates a public hearing to allow affected property owners to voice their concerns or objections. Following the hearing, if the county board of commissioners finds that the public interest and necessity require the formation of the district, and that the benefits conferred upon the property within the district are sufficient to justify the cost, they may by resolution declare the district organized. The formation is generally effective upon the adoption of this resolution, unless the resolution specifies a later date. The question tests the understanding of the procedural steps and legal basis for forming a county public improvement district in South Dakota, emphasizing the publication of notice and the subsequent public hearing as critical preliminary stages.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-2 governs the planning and zoning powers of counties. Specifically, SDCL 11-2-1 grants counties the authority to adopt and enforce zoning ordinances for the promotion of public health, safety, and general welfare. SDCL 11-2-11 outlines the process for amending zoning ordinances, which typically involves a public hearing before the county planning commission and subsequent approval by the county commission. The question concerns the statutory requirements for amending a zoning ordinance in South Dakota, focusing on the procedural steps mandated by law. The correct procedure requires notice of the proposed amendment to be published in the official newspaper of the county at least ten days prior to the hearing, as per SDCL 11-2-11. This notice must specify the time and place of the hearing. The county planning commission then reviews the proposed amendment and makes a recommendation to the county commission, which ultimately votes on the adoption of the amendment. The question tests the understanding of these procedural safeguards designed to ensure public input and due process.

The scenario involves a county in South Dakota considering the annexation of a portion of an adjacent, unincorporated township. South Dakota Codified Law § 9-4-1.1 outlines the procedures and conditions for a municipality to annex unincorporated territory. Specifically, it requires that the territory to be annexed must be adjacent to the municipality’s corporate limits. The law also addresses the process when the territory is within a township, often requiring consent or a petition from the residents or the township board under certain circumstances, or adherence to specific notice and hearing requirements. The key consideration here is whether the county board of commissioners has the authority to approve or deny such an annexation solely based on the potential fiscal impact on the county’s tax base, or if their role is primarily procedural and tied to the legal requirements of annexation as defined by state statute. South Dakota law generally vests the authority for annexation with the municipality, subject to statutory procedural safeguards and, in some cases, resident consent or objections. The county’s role is typically limited to ensuring the statutory procedures are followed and that the annexation does not violate other state laws. While fiscal impact is a legitimate concern for any local government, the county board’s legal standing to veto an annexation solely on this basis, when the statutory requirements are otherwise met, is questionable under South Dakota law. The primary legal basis for annexation rests on the municipal powers granted by the state and the fulfillment of statutory annexation criteria, not on the county’s independent fiscal assessment of the proposed change. Therefore, the county board cannot unilaterally reject an annexation solely because it would reduce the county’s tax revenue if all legal requirements for annexation by the municipality have been met.

The question concerns the process by which a county in South Dakota can annex territory that is currently unincorporated but adjacent to an existing municipality. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 9-4, specifically SDCL 9-4-1, outlines the procedures for municipal annexation. This chapter details the requirements for a municipality to annex adjacent unincorporated territory. The core of the process involves a resolution by the municipal governing body and, crucially, a petition signed by a majority of the electors residing in the territory to be annexed. Alternatively, if no electors reside in the territory, the petition must be signed by the owners of at least 50% of the assessed valuation of the property within the territory. The question presents a scenario where the town of Oacoma, South Dakota, wishes to expand its boundaries to include a nearby undeveloped parcel of land. This parcel is currently unincorporated and is adjacent to Oacoma’s existing municipal limits. No residents currently live on this parcel. Therefore, to annex this territory, Oacoma must follow the procedure laid out in SDCL 9-4-1, which requires a petition signed by the owners of at least 50% of the assessed valuation of the property in the territory to be annexed, along with a resolution by the town board. The question asks for the most appropriate initial step for Oacoma to initiate this annexation. Among the given options, obtaining the consent of the property owners through a petition is the legally mandated prerequisite for initiating the annexation process under these circumstances. The resolution by the town board follows the demonstration of property owner consent. Public notice is also a part of the process but typically occurs after the initial consent is secured and the resolution is passed. A county board approval is not the primary mechanism for municipal annexation of adjacent unincorporated land in South Dakota; rather, it is a municipal process.

The scenario involves a county in South Dakota seeking to annex a portion of unincorporated territory that contains a small, privately owned industrial park. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 9-31 governs the annexation of territory by municipalities. Specifically, SDCL 9-31-1 through 9-31-3 outline the procedures for annexation by ordinance and petition. For unincorporated areas, the process often involves a petition signed by a majority of the property owners in the area to be annexed, or a resolution by the governing body followed by a public hearing and an ordinance. However, when annexing territory that includes a business or industrial park, additional considerations might apply, particularly regarding the impact on the county’s tax base and the provision of services. SDCL 9-31-10.1 specifically addresses the annexation of territory that includes a business or industrial park. This statute requires that if the territory to be annexed includes a business or industrial park, the annexing municipality must provide a written agreement with the county detailing the disposition of property taxes levied on the park for a period not to exceed ten years. This agreement aims to mitigate the financial impact on the county from the loss of tax revenue. Without such an agreement, the annexation of the industrial park portion would be legally impermissible under South Dakota law. Therefore, the county’s proposed annexation, without a prior tax revenue sharing agreement with the county for the industrial park, would be invalid concerning that specific portion of the territory. The question tests the understanding of this specific statutory requirement for annexing areas with industrial parks.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) § 11-6-18 outlines the process for the vacation of a platted street or alley by a municipality. This statute requires a petition signed by at least two-thirds of the landowners in the affected block or by the owners of at least two-thirds of the property in the block. The municipal board must then hold a public hearing, after providing notice as prescribed by law. Following the hearing, if the board finds that the vacation is not detrimental to the public interest, they may adopt an ordinance vacating the street or alley. The statute specifically addresses the requirement for a supermajority of landowner consent and the procedural steps involving public notice and a hearing to ensure due process and consideration of public impact. Therefore, the foundational legal basis for such municipal action in South Dakota is found within this specific codification.

South Dakota Codified Law § 11-2-19 governs the establishment of a county planning commission. It mandates that the county auditor, upon the adoption of a county comprehensive plan, shall submit a map and description of the planning and zoning jurisdiction to the register of deeds for recording. This ensures public notice and legal clarity regarding the designated areas subject to the county’s planning and zoning authority. The process is initiated by the county commission’s adoption of the comprehensive plan, followed by the auditor’s official recording action. This step is crucial for the enforceability of zoning ordinances and land use regulations within the defined jurisdiction, as it provides a public record accessible to all stakeholders, including landowners, developers, and other governmental agencies. The law aims to prevent disputes over planning boundaries and ensure that all parties are aware of the legal framework governing land development within the county.

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-2 governs the creation and organization of planning and zoning commissions. When a municipality or county in South Dakota decides to establish a planning commission, the enabling legislation outlines specific requirements for its composition and powers. SDCL 11-2-1 states that the governing body of any municipality or county may appoint a planning commission. SDCL 11-2-3 details the membership, generally requiring a minimum of five members, appointed by the chief executive officer of the municipality or the chairman of the board of county commissioners, with the approval of the governing body. The statute also allows for staggered terms to ensure continuity. Crucially, these commissions are empowered to prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations, and to review development proposals. The statute does not mandate that all members must be residents of the specific municipality or county for which they are appointed, nor does it require them to own property within the jurisdiction, though it is common practice for members to be residents. The appointment process, including the approval by the governing body, is a key procedural step. The question tests the understanding of the statutory basis for planning commission establishment and the typical composition requirements in South Dakota, specifically focusing on the statutory authority and the typical, though not strictly mandated, residency aspect of appointed members. The provided scenario highlights the need to consult the relevant South Dakota Codified Laws to determine the legality of a proposed commission’s composition.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-2, concerning the planning and zoning powers of counties, grants counties the authority to adopt and enforce zoning ordinances. When a county creates a comprehensive plan, as authorized by SDCL 11-2-11, and subsequently adopts a zoning ordinance consistent with that plan, the ordinance is presumed to be a valid exercise of the county’s police power for the public welfare. The question asks about the legal basis for a county’s ability to regulate land use through zoning. SDCL 11-2-11 specifically empowers counties to enact zoning ordinances to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to implement the goals of a comprehensive plan. This statutory grant of authority is the foundational legal principle that enables county zoning. The other options represent related but distinct legal concepts or powers that do not directly address the primary authority for enacting a zoning ordinance. For instance, the power of eminent domain (SDCL 21-35) relates to the acquisition of private property for public use, not the regulation of land use through zoning. General county powers (SDCL 2-14-1) are broad but must be exercised within specific statutory grants, and zoning authority is a specific grant. The creation of special assessment districts (SDCL 9-42) pertains to the financing of public improvements and is separate from land use regulation. Therefore, the statutory authority provided by SDCL Chapter 11-2 for planning and zoning is the direct legal basis for a county’s zoning powers in South Dakota.

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-2 governs the establishment and operation of planning and zoning commissions in municipalities. Specifically, SDCL 11-2-13 outlines the process for a municipality to adopt a comprehensive plan, which is a foundational document for zoning ordinances. When a municipality proposes amendments to its zoning ordinance that are not in conformity with its adopted comprehensive plan, SDCL 11-2-11 requires the planning commission to review and report on the proposed amendment’s consistency with the comprehensive plan. The board of county commissioners, or the governing body of the municipality, must consider this report when making its decision. The law emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive plan as a guide for development and requires that zoning regulations be in accordance with it. Therefore, an amendment that deviates from the comprehensive plan necessitates a specific finding by the governing body that the amendment is in the public interest and promotes the general welfare, often requiring a supermajority vote for adoption if the planning commission’s report is adverse or if the amendment is substantial. The core principle is that zoning should implement the long-range vision articulated in the comprehensive plan.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) § 11-2-19 outlines the process for a municipality to adopt a comprehensive plan. This statute requires that before a planning commission can recommend a comprehensive plan or any amendment thereto to the governing body, it must hold at least one public hearing on the proposed plan or amendment. Notice of this hearing must be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality. Furthermore, SDCL § 11-2-19.1 mandates that the governing body of the municipality must also hold at least one public hearing on the proposed comprehensive plan or amendment after receiving the planning commission’s recommendation. Similar to the planning commission’s hearing, notice of the governing body’s hearing must also be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality. Therefore, for a comprehensive plan amendment to be legally adopted, both the planning commission and the municipal governing body must conduct separate public hearings, with proper public notice provided for each. The absence of either of these procedural steps would render the adoption invalid.

The scenario involves a county in South Dakota seeking to amend its zoning ordinance to restrict the placement of certain types of agricultural operations within a specific distance of residential areas. This action implicates the authority of local governments in South Dakota to enact and enforce zoning regulations. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-2 outlines the powers and procedures for county zoning. Specifically, SDCL 11-2-1 grants counties the power to regulate land use through zoning ordinances. The process for amending a zoning ordinance typically involves public hearings and adoption by the county commission. The core legal question is whether a county can enact a zoning ordinance that directly impacts agricultural land uses, even if those uses are traditional. South Dakota law, while generally protecting agricultural operations, also grants local governments the power to zone. The ability to impose distance restrictions is a common zoning tool to mitigate potential nuisances. The question tests the understanding of the balance between agricultural rights and the police power of local governments to promote public health, safety, and welfare through zoning. The amendment process itself is governed by SDCL 11-2-18 and related sections, requiring notice and hearings. The proposed amendment’s validity would depend on its reasonableness and its consistency with state law. The authority to zone agricultural land is firmly established, subject to procedural requirements and the overall scope of police power.

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 6-13 governs the issuance of bonds by political subdivisions. Specifically, SDCL 6-13-3 outlines the requirements for a bond election. For a general obligation bond to be approved, a majority of the votes cast on the proposition must be in favor. This means that if 100 votes are cast on the bond question, at least 51 votes are needed for approval. The question concerns the process for a municipal improvement project requiring a bond issuance. The county auditor is responsible for canvassing election results. If the bond proposition fails to receive a majority of the votes cast, it does not pass. The law does not provide for a runoff election for bond propositions; rather, the proposition is defeated if the majority threshold is not met. The auditor’s role is to officially certify the election outcome based on the votes cast. Therefore, if 1,500 votes are cast on the bond proposition, 751 votes are required for approval, representing a simple majority of the votes cast. The auditor would then certify that the proposition failed if it received only 700 votes.

The scenario presented involves a county auditor in South Dakota attempting to annex a small, unincorporated area adjacent to a municipality. The auditor’s action is predicated on the assumption that the municipality’s governing body has implicitly agreed to the annexation by not formally objecting within a specific timeframe after notification. South Dakota law, specifically South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 9-32, governs the annexation of territory by municipalities. This chapter outlines the procedures for annexation, including the requirement for a resolution by the municipal governing body and, in certain circumstances, consent from residents or landowners. SDCL 9-32-18 specifies that a municipality may annex territory by resolution if it is contiguous and the territory is not already included within another municipality. Crucially, SDCL 9-32-19 addresses the annexation of territory without the consent of the electors or owners when the territory is contiguous to the municipality and is not already part of another organized municipality. This section requires a resolution passed by the municipal board. However, the auditor’s unilateral action based on a lack of objection is not a recognized method for annexation under South Dakota law. The process is initiated by the municipality, not the county auditor, and requires a formal resolution from the municipal governing body. The auditor’s role is generally administrative, involving the recording of official actions, not the initiation or determination of annexation. Therefore, the auditor’s action is procedurally flawed and legally invalid as a means of annexation. The correct procedure would involve the municipality adopting a resolution of annexation, which would then be filed with the county auditor and potentially other state entities. The auditor cannot unilaterally annex territory, regardless of any perceived lack of objection from the municipality.

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 9-32 governs the powers and duties of municipalities, including their authority to enact and enforce ordinances. Specifically, SDCL 9-32-1 grants cities and towns the power to enact, amend, and repeal ordinances for the general welfare, health, safety, and morals of the municipality. The process for enacting an ordinance typically involves introduction, reading, and a vote by the governing body, as outlined in SDCL 9-19. While municipalities have broad powers, these powers are not absolute and are subject to state law and constitutional limitations. For example, an ordinance cannot conflict with state statutes or supersede state law where the state has preempted the field. Furthermore, ordinances must be reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory. The question tests the understanding of the foundational authority granted to municipalities in South Dakota to legislate through ordinances and the inherent limitations on this power derived from state law. The scenario presented involves a city council considering an ordinance that impacts a specific business practice. The core issue is whether the city has the legal basis to enact such a regulation given the existing state framework. The analysis focuses on the general welfare clause and the potential for conflict with broader state regulatory schemes or established business rights.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 7-18A outlines the procedures for the creation and dissolution of special districts. Specifically, SDCL 7-18A-12 addresses the requirement for a petition to be signed by a specified percentage of the landowners within the proposed district. This percentage is generally set at 30% of the landowners or landowners representing 30% of the assessed valuation of the property within the proposed district. The law emphasizes that the petition must demonstrate sufficient local support to initiate the process. This requirement serves as a crucial gatekeeping mechanism, ensuring that any proposed special district has a demonstrable base of support from those most directly affected by its creation and potential taxation. The process also involves public hearings and potential review by county commissioners or other designated bodies, depending on the specific type of special district being considered. The intent behind these statutory requirements is to balance the flexibility of creating special districts to address specific local needs with the protection of property owner rights and the prevention of frivolous or unsupportable district formations.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-6 governs municipal planning and zoning. Specifically, SDCL 11-6-18 outlines the powers of a planning commission, including the preparation and adoption of a master plan. A master plan, as defined by statute and common planning practice, is a comprehensive, long-range document that sets forth the commission’s recommendations for the physical development of the municipality. It serves as a guide for future zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and public improvements. While a planning commission can hold hearings and make recommendations regarding zoning amendments, the ultimate authority to adopt or reject zoning ordinances, including amendments, rests with the municipal governing body, such as the city council. Therefore, a planning commission cannot unilaterally enact zoning changes; its role is advisory and preparatory in this regard. The process of zoning amendment typically involves a proposal, review by the planning commission, public hearings, and a final vote by the city council. The master plan provides the foundational vision and principles that inform these zoning decisions, ensuring consistency with the municipality’s long-term development goals.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-2, concerning zoning, grants significant authority to county commissioners to adopt and enforce zoning ordinances. When a proposed development project in a South Dakota county, such as the one planned by agricultural producer Elias Vance for his property bordering a designated conservation area, potentially conflicts with existing zoning regulations, the process for obtaining necessary approvals or variances is crucial. SDCL 11-2-19 outlines the procedure for amending or repealing zoning ordinances, which requires a public hearing and a majority vote of the board of county commissioners. SDCL 11-2-18 details the process for granting variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance, which typically involves a finding that strict application of the ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship and that the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. In this scenario, Vance’s request for a special use permit to construct a small processing facility for his locally grown produce, which might be permissible under a specific zoning classification but requires an administrative review and potential approval from the county planning commission and board of commissioners, falls under the purview of these zoning statutes. The question tests the understanding of how a local government in South Dakota, specifically a county, manages land use decisions that involve potential deviations from established zoning ordinances, emphasizing the procedural steps and the decision-making authority vested in the county commissioners. The correct understanding involves recognizing that while a variance addresses hardship from strict application, a special use permit addresses uses that are conditionally allowed within a zoning district, often requiring specific findings and approvals, and that the county commissioners hold the ultimate decision-making power after appropriate review and public input as outlined in SDCL 11-2.

South Dakota law, specifically under SDCL Chapter 7-18, governs the process by which counties can enter into intergovernmental agreements. These agreements are crucial for efficient service delivery and resource sharing among local governments. When a county in South Dakota proposes to contract with another political subdivision, whether within or outside the state, for the joint exercise of powers or for the provision of services, it must adhere to specific statutory requirements. The primary consideration is whether the proposed agreement falls within the scope of authorized intergovernmental cooperation as defined by state law. SDCL 7-18-2 explicitly permits counties to contract with other political subdivisions for any purpose for which the contracting parties are authorized to act. The law further mandates that such agreements must be approved by the governing body of each participating political subdivision. In the context of a county contracting for services, such as emergency dispatch or road maintenance, the county commission is the designated governing body. The approval process typically involves a formal resolution or ordinance passed by the county commission at a duly called public meeting, ensuring transparency and public input. The statute does not require a referendum for such contractual agreements, as they are considered administrative functions within the purview of the county commission’s authority to manage county affairs and resources. The key is that the agreement must serve a legitimate public purpose and be within the powers granted to the county by the South Dakota Legislature.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 6-7 addresses the powers and duties of county coroners. Specifically, SDCL 6-7-1 outlines the qualifications for a county coroner, requiring them to be a qualified elector of the county and to have resided in the county for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. Furthermore, SDCL 6-7-1.1 mandates that a county coroner must be a licensed physician and surgeon or a person who has completed a course of study in mortuary science. The question presents a scenario where a candidate for county coroner in Harding County, South Dakota, has resided in the county for only six months but is a licensed physician. This candidate meets the medical qualification but not the residency requirement as stated in SDCL 6-7-1. Therefore, the candidate is not eligible to hold the office of county coroner in South Dakota under these specific circumstances. The law requires both residency and either being a licensed physician or having completed mortuary science studies.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 6-11 addresses the establishment and powers of county economic development corporations. Specifically, SDCL 6-11-4 outlines the purposes for which these corporations may expend funds. These purposes are generally related to promoting and encouraging the development of economic and industrial activities within the county. This includes activities such as land acquisition, site preparation, construction of facilities, and the provision of infrastructure necessary for economic growth. The law also permits expenditures for marketing, feasibility studies, and the provision of incentives to attract businesses. The key principle is that expenditures must directly relate to the stated goal of fostering economic development within the county. Therefore, an expenditure for a county fairgrounds renovation, while potentially beneficial to the county, does not directly align with the specific statutory purposes of a county economic development corporation as defined in SDCL 6-11-4, which focuses on industrial and commercial growth.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 11-2 outlines the procedures for county planning and zoning. Specifically, SDCL 11-2-19 details the requirements for adopting and amending zoning ordinances. When a county commission considers a proposed zoning amendment, it must hold a public hearing. Notice of this hearing must be published at least once in the official newspaper of the county, and this publication must occur not less than ten days and not more than twenty days prior to the date of the hearing. This notice requirement ensures public awareness and provides an opportunity for affected parties to voice their opinions before the commission makes a decision. Failure to adhere to these notice provisions can render the zoning amendment invalid. For example, if a county commission in South Dakota approved a zoning change on May 15th, and the required public hearing was held on May 1st, but the notice of the hearing was only published on April 28th, this would violate the statutory timeframe because the notice was published less than ten days before the hearing. The law mandates a specific window for public notification to guarantee due process and adequate community input.

The scenario presented involves a county in South Dakota considering the establishment of a special taxing district for rural road improvements. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 9-32 governs the creation and operation of municipal improvement districts, which can be adapted for county use or similar concepts. While not directly a “special taxing district” in the same vein as a municipal improvement district under Chapter 9-32, counties in South Dakota have broad powers to levy taxes for public purposes, including road maintenance and construction, under SDCL Chapter 10-12. Specifically, SDCL 10-12-10 allows counties to levy taxes for the construction and maintenance of public highways. The creation of a dedicated fund or a special mill levy for a specific road project would fall under the general taxing authority of the county, requiring a resolution passed by the county commission. The process typically involves public notice and a hearing to allow for public input, as mandated by general administrative procedures for county actions affecting taxpayers. There is no specific statutory provision for a “special taxing district” for rural roads that mirrors the detailed procedures of municipal improvement districts in SDCL Chapter 9-32. Instead, the county would utilize its existing taxing powers, potentially designating a portion of its general fund or enacting a specific mill levy increase subject to voter approval if required by other statutes or if the commission chooses to put it to a vote. The most direct method for funding such an undertaking through a dedicated tax levy, without creating a separate legal entity, would be through a resolution by the county commission to impose a specific mill levy for road improvements, which would then be collected as part of the general property tax.