Court Opinion

ID: 9663372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:36:30.375287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:48.633546
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
There are two simple issues presented by this appeal which involve two state statutes:
1. Did the City of Sturgis “officially sponsor” the 1984 Motorcycle Classic? See SDCL 10-45-13(3).
2. Was the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Revenue clearly erroneous in light of the entire evidence in the record? See SDCL 1-26-36(5).
It is obvious that the City of Sturgis “officially sponsored” the 1984 Motorcycle Classic. The City of Sturgis:
a. Has tolerated, condoned, encouraged, and permitted the Black Hills Motorcycle Classic and Rally since the year 1941;
b. Since 1941, has budgeted, as a line item, expenses for the Motorcycle Classic in its annual budget;
c. Through its Mayor, by sworn testimony, acknowledged over four decades of line budgeting for this event (the Classic);
d. Advertises and pays for advertisements concerning the Classic;
e. Hires extra police each year costing the taxpayers of Sturgis the sum of $25,000 by way of law enforcement to discipline and superintend the Classic;
f. Appropriates City funds to the street department for the maintenance of the racetrack and fairgrounds where (in part) the Classic ensues;
g. Closes off the main street to accommodate this one-of-a-kind event (not just in South Dakota but in the entire nation), all during the Classic, clearly indicating official sponsorship by the City fathers;
h. Charges the Sturgis Chamber of Commerce $1.00 to rent the City’s property which is then used for the Classic; revenues for use of City property are then paid to the Chamber of Commerce by various individuals who utilize the premises;
i.Held a city-wide election in 1982 to determine if Sturgis should continue to support or encourage the Classic and to determine if the City of Stur-gis should notify the Jackpine Gypsies and Black Hills Motorcycle Classic whether the Classic should be continued. A clear public opinion was expressed: Sturgis should continue to support, encourage, and continue the Classic. True, the measure (an initiated one) was cast in a negative interrogatory to the voters by stating should the City of Sturgis discontinue leasing space to concessionaires, refrain from closing Main Street, or in any manner “supporting, encouraging,” etc.; however, the measure was defeated 1,454 against, 826 for. Reflected in settled record at 35-53. Hence, the message was clear: The voters expressed that they wanted, officially, the City of Sturgis to continue the motorcycle classic. It is fundamental that the voters are entitled to vote and that their expression at the polls should be heeded. Certainly, this was, and is, a significant fact in deciding that the City of Stur-gis would continue its sponsorship.
Subsection (3) of SDCL 10-45-13 does not express what action a municipality must take in order to “officially sponsor” any event. Obviously, certain citizens of Sturgis who referred the vote on the City’s involvement in the Classic believed that there was something official being done by the City in conjunction with the Classic. It appears the City Attorney and the City Council agreed that the matter was referable and an election was held. To totally ignore the involvement and the actions of the City of Sturgis and to take the position that only a paper resolution will suffice is to fly in the face of a reasonable construction of statutory provisions.
*597I agree with the rationale of Acting Justice Hertz. Accordingly, I dissent because (a) the exemption exists under SDCL 10-45-13(3) and (b) the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Revenue is clearly erroneous in light of the entire record per SDCL 1-26-36(5). The circuit court should be affirmed.