If a North Carolina town passes its own school-zone speed limit on a road that is part of the State Highway System, does the speed limit take effect on its own, or does the state DOT also have to pass a matching ordinance before drivers can actually be ticketed for going faster?

Plain-English summary

Chapel Hill Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos asked AG Lacy Thornburg a narrow but practically important question. G.S. 20-141.1 authorizes a town to set a reduced speed limit in a school zone "within its jurisdiction." If the school is on a road that the State Highway System owns and maintains, can the town's ordinance, standing alone, change the enforceable speed limit? Or does the town also need DOT to pass a matching (concurring) ordinance, the way G.S. 20-141(f) requires for non-school-zone speed limit changes on state highways inside municipalities?

The AG said no, the town's ordinance is not self-executing on a state highway. Three reasons did the work.

First, the 1977 act that created G.S. 20-141.1 was, in its legislative title and structure, an act to bump the drivers-license points for speeding in a school zone from 2 to 3. The substantive speed-setting authority for school zones already existed under other statutes and under the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The new G.S. 20-141.1 simply gave the State a charging hook (a "school-zone violation") that matched the new 3-point penalty. It was not meant to displace the concurrence regime in G.S. 20-141.

Second, G.S. 20-169 is express: local authorities have "no power to alter any speed limitations declared in this article" except as G.S. 20-141 authorizes. G.S. 20-169 also says all traffic-control devices on the State Highway System are subject to DOT approval and must follow the MUTCD. Statutes on the same subject must be read together (in pari materia), and repeal by implication is disfavored, so G.S. 20-141.1 does not silently override G.S. 20-141(f) or G.S. 20-169.

Third, as a practical matter, the question is somewhat academic. Even if a town could enact a school-zone speed ordinance unilaterally, DOT has exclusive control over traffic-control devices on state highways. The reduced limit cannot be enforced without posted signs, and DOT's regulations and policy require an engineering and traffic investigation plus a concurring ordinance before DOT will post school-zone signs on a state-system street. So the concurrence requirement is built into the operational reality even before the legal analysis kicks in.

The AG flagged the broader principle: the General Assembly has repeatedly used a "concurrence" or "exclusive DOT authority" pattern wherever municipal regulation might bump up against state highway control, including for stop signs, traffic lights, parking, and right-of-way encroachments. School-zone speeds fit the same template.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. NC has restructured several of the cited statutes (Chapter 20 reorganization, MUTCD updates, and various amendments to G.S. 20-141 and 20-141.1 since 1988), and the operational practice between DOT and municipalities has evolved. Check the current statutes and DOT's current Traffic Engineering policies before relying on this analysis.

Background and statutory framework

NC public streets within a municipality fall into two categories. Some are part of the Municipal Street System (city responsible for maintenance and traffic control). Others are part of the State Highway System (DOT responsible for maintenance and traffic control), even though they pass through the city. State highways through cities are typically the main through-streets and arterials. See City of Raleigh v. Riley, 64 N.C. App. 623 (1983); G.S. 136-66.1.

For non-school-zone speed limits, G.S. 20-141 sets default statutory limits (35 mph in cities, 55 mph outside). To change those defaults on a state highway inside a municipality, G.S. 20-141(f) requires both DOT and the city to pass concurring ordinances (except on controlled-access facilities). The change is also conditioned on an engineering and traffic study.

For school zones, the General Assembly enacted G.S. 20-141.1 in 1977, alongside an increase in license points for school-zone speed violations. G.S. 20-141.1 authorizes the Board of Transportation "or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions" to set speed limits lower than the G.S. 20-141 defaults near schools, by ordinance, taking effect when signs are posted. The disjunctive language ("Board of Transportation or local authorities") is what created the ambiguity that Chapel Hill flagged: does the local authority have unilateral power within its corporate limits, or is the local authority's power confined to streets the local authority actually owns and controls?

G.S. 20-169 is the integrating provision. It both preempts local authority over speed limits ("Local authorities, except as expressly authorized by G.S. 20-141 . . . shall have no power to alter any speed limitations declared in this article") and requires that all traffic control devices on the State Highway System be approved by DOT and conform to the MUTCD. The MUTCD itself (§ 7B-12) requires an engineering and traffic investigation as the basis for school-zone speed reductions.

The AG's analysis stacked these provisions together. Reading G.S. 20-141.1 as a complete grant of independent municipal authority would silently repeal both G.S. 20-141(f) and the relevant chunks of G.S. 20-169 by implication. Implied repeals are disfavored, especially where the statutes can be read together. The harmonized reading is that G.S. 20-141.1 expanded the substantive authority to set lower school-zone limits (and gave it teeth via the 3-point license penalty), but did not change the procedural allocation of authority over state-system streets.

The AG also noted that DOT's post-1977 practice continued to insist on concurring ordinances for school-zone speed reductions on state highways, citing 12 Strong's N.C. Index 3d, Statutes § 5.7 for the rule that consistent administrative interpretation by the agency charged with administering a statute is entitled to weight.

The practical bite is captured in the final paragraph: even if a town's ordinance were independently valid, DOT controls the signs. No DOT sign means no posted notice of the school-zone limit. No posted notice means the limit is unenforceable against drivers under the statute. So municipalities seeking school-zone reductions on state highways have always had to work with DOT in practice, whether or not the statute strictly required it.

Common questions

Can a town just pass its own school-zone speed limit on a state highway and start ticketing speeders?

Not effectively. The opinion was clear that the town's ordinance does not, by itself, change the enforceable speed limit on a state highway. DOT has to pass a concurring ordinance and post the signs. Without DOT's involvement, the lower limit has no posted notice and is not enforceable.

Is the rule different for streets the city actually owns and maintains?

Yes. On streets that are part of the Municipal Street System, the city is the local authority with the relevant jurisdiction and can set school-zone speed limits under G.S. 20-141.1 on its own. The concurrence problem is specific to streets in the State Highway System.

What was the AG's reasoning for not letting G.S. 20-141.1 control on its own?

Three things. The 1977 act's title and structure showed it was really about increasing license points, not about reallocating authority over state highways. G.S. 20-169 expressly preempts local speed-limit authority except as G.S. 20-141 allows. And implied repeal of G.S. 20-141(f) and 20-169 by G.S. 20-141.1 would violate the rule that statutes on the same subject are read together where possible.

Did DOT have to use any particular procedure to set a school-zone speed limit on a state highway?

DOT's policy was (and largely still is) to require an engineering and traffic investigation as the basis for the reduction. That tracks the MUTCD § 7B-12 requirement. Then DOT and the city would each adopt their concurring ordinances and DOT would post the signs.

Was the AG saying the town's ordinance was completely without effect?

It was without independent effect on a state highway. The town could still adopt an ordinance reflecting its judgment about the desired speed limit, and that ordinance would be the city's half of the concurring-ordinance process. But the ordinance would not become enforceable on the state highway without DOT's matching action.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/reduced-speed-limits-school-zones-state-highway-system-streets/

Original opinion text

Requested By: Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Question: Is a municipal ordinance adopted pursuant to G.S. 20-141.1 reducing the speed in a school zone on a State Highway System street, effective without a concurring ordinance by the Department of Transportation as provided for by G.S. 20-141(f)?

Conclusion: No.

G.S. 20-141.1 provides as follows: "The Board of Transportation or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions may, by ordinance, set speed limits lower than those designated in G.S. 20-141 for areas adjacent to or near a public, private or parochial school. Limits set pursuant to this section shall become effective when signs are erected giving notice of the school zone, the authorized speed limit, and the days and hours when the lower limit is effective [or by erecting signs giving notice of the school zone, the authorized speed limit and which indicate the days and hours the lower limits are effective by an electronic flasher operated with a time clock.] Limits set pursuant to this section may be enforced only on days when school is in session, and no speed limit below 20 miles per hour may be set under the authority of this section." (Underlined portion for emphasis; portion in brackets adopted in 1979.)

G.S. 20-141 provides for speed limits on public streets and highways of the state. It sets the statutory speed limits at 55 miles per hour outside municipal corporate limits and 35 miles per hour inside the municipal corporate limits. It provides for the raising and lowering of statutory speeds on state highways inside municipalities based upon an engineering and traffic study and it requires concurring ordinances by the Department and the municipality on noncontrolled access highways. G.S. 20-141(f).

G.S. 20-141.1 was passed in 1977 as a part of a bill to increase drivers license points for speed violations in school zones. (1977, Chapter 902). The caption of the Act is "AN ACT TO INCREASE DRIVERS LICENSE POINTS FOR SPEED VIOLATIONS IN SCHOOL ZONES." Section 1 of the Act added to the "SCHEDULE OF POINT VALUES" in G.S. 20-16(c) for drivers license revocation for "Speeding in a school zone in excess of the posted school zone speed limit . . . 3". The gist of Section 1 was to increase the point schedule for that violation from 2 to 3 points. The points for the violation had previously been covered under Subsection (c) within the provision for "all other moving violations . . . 2".

Section 2 of Chapter 902, 1977 Session Laws enacted G.S. 20-141.1 substantially as it is now. It provides that the "Board of Transportation or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions may, by ordinance set speed limits lower than those designated in G.S. 20-141" in school zones. G.S. 20-141.1 when passed, was only incidental to increase the "drivers license points for speed violations in school zones." Authorization to reduce speed in school zones was already provided for by other statutes and the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices", which the Department is required to comply with by Federal-aid provisions and G.S. 20-169.

We believe the purpose of the act adopting G.S. 20-141.1 is described by the caption of the Act. The purpose was "to increase the drivers license points for speed violations in school zones" from two to three points. Section 1 of the Act established three points for the violation. Section 2 (adopting G.S. 20-141.1) added an additional element to the charges in G.S. 20-141 for speed violations for the purpose of providing a formal charge to coincide with the new schedule in G.S. 20-16(c) for increased points for drivers license revocations for speed violations in school zones. Prior to 1977, the charge for speeding in a school zone, was the same as any other locations; i.e. exceeding the posted speed limits, which carried two points under "other moving traffic violations." Without the adoption of G.S. 20-141.1 there would have been no formal charge to correspond to the increased points provided for in G.S. 20-16(c).

The question presented is not addressed by G.S. 20-141.1. (Whether or not concurring ordinances are required as provided for in GS. 20-141(f) for reduced speed limits set pursuant to G.S. 20-141.1 on the State Highway System streets in school zones within municipalities.) Generally, the various statutes granting regulatory authority over state highways within a municipality deal with the question of concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction. As G.S. 20-141.1 does not, it is necessary to also consider G.S. 20-141, G.S. 20-169, and other statutes and cases dealing with the State Highway System to resolve the issue.

Public streets within municipalities include those on the Municipal Street System and those on the State Highway System. State highways within municipalities generally consist of those main through streets and highways. City of Raleigh v. Riley, 64 N.C. App. 623 (1983). The Municipal Street System includes the remainder of the public streets. Municipalities have the duty and responsibility of constructing and maintaining streets and highways on the Municipal Street System and the Department of Transportation has the duty and responsibility to maintain streets and highways on the State Highway System. G.S. 136-66.1. Milner Hotels, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 271 N.C. 224 (1967); Matterness v. Winston-Salem, 286 N.C. 1 (1974). Municipalities have general police power within municipalities, including state highways. G.S. 160A-296 grants municipalities authority to regulate public streets within municipalities, "except to the extent power and control is vested in the Department of Transportation." The Department of Transportation is also vested with general regulatory authority over the use of State Highway System streets. G.S. 136-18. The general grant of authority to municipalities over streets is subordinate to the Department of Transportation's rights and duties to maintain the State Highway System. Morehead City v. N.C. Department of Transportation, 74 N.C. App. 66 (1985).

G.S. 20-169 provides that "Local authorities, except as expressly authorized by G.S. 20-141 . . . shall have no power to alter any speed limitations declared in this article . . . ." G.S. 20-169 also provides that all traffic control devices on the State Highway System shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Transportation and shall be in accordance with the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices."

The Legislature, in most cases involving the regulation of state highways within municipalities, has been specific as to jurisdiction where there may be a problem of conflicting regulations, i.e.

(a) Speed limits. Changes in the statutory speed limits on State Highway System streets within municipalities require concurring ordinances by the municipality and the Department (except in cases by controlled access facilities). G.S. 20-141.

(b) Stop and Yield signs and traffic lights. The Department of Transportation has exclusive authority to place and control traffic lights and stop and yield signs on the State Highway System streets. G.S. 20-158; G.S. 20-169; G.S. 20-158.1.

(c) Traffic Control Devices. The Department of Transportation has exclusive authority over all Traffic Control Devices on the State Highway System. G.S. 20-169; G.S. 136-30; 43 N.C.A.G. 309 (1974).

(d) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. All traffic control devices are required to be in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. G.S. 20-169.

(e) Parking. The Department of Transportation has authority to regulate parking and to pre-empt municipal parking regulations on the State Highway System. G.S. 136-18(5).

(f) Utilities, etc. on Highway Right-of-Way. The Department of Transportation has exclusive control over all utilities and encroachments on state highway right-of-way. G.S. 136-18(10); G.S. 136-93.

Procedural matters are not addressed in G.S. 20-141.1. The Legislature in passing G.S. 20-141.1, neither repealed nor amended existing statutes dealing with the procedures for changing statutory speed limits. The Legislature did not amend the express mandatory provision that no statutory speed limits shall be changed except in accordance with G.S. 20-141 (which requires a concurring ordinance). G.S. 20-169. Repeal by implication is not favored in the law, and statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia, and harmonized if possible to give each effect. Town of Morehead City v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, 74 N.C. App. 66, 327 S.E. 2d 602 (1985).

The Legislature has provided a statutory scheme for changing statutory speed limits on state highways within municipalities including concurring ordinances (on noncontrolled access highways). G.S. 20-141. Federal-aid provisions and statutory provisions require compliance with the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" on state highways and streets, which includes the requirement for a traffic and engineering investigation as a basis for reduced speeds in school zones. MUTCD 7B-12. The Department has exclusive control over traffic signs and other traffic control devices on state highways in order to comply with federal standards. There appears to be no legislative intent in adopting G.S. 20-141-1 to change the statutory scheme for compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the exclusive control of traffic Control Devices by the Department of Transportation on the State Highway System, nor the requirement for concurring ordinances and engineering and traffic investigation for changes in the statutory speed limits.

This office is of the opinion that G.S. 20-141.1 must be construed together with G.S. 20-141, G.S. 20-169, and other statutes, and when so construed, the provision for concurring ordinances in G.S. 20-141 when reducing speed limits on state highways in school zones within municipalities must be given effect and must be complied with. This opinion is consistent with the interpretation and practice of the administrative agency which executes and administers the law. The Department of Transportation continued to comply with G.S. 20-141 for speed changes in school zones after passage of G.S. 20-141.1 in 1977. 12 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Statutes 5.7. However, the applicability of the requirement for concurring ordinances in G.S. 20-141(f) to school zones within municipalities appears to be academic. The Department's regulations and policy require traffic and engineering investigations and concurring ordinances for the posting of signs and traffic control devices on the State Highway System for reduced speed limits within municipalities. Since the Department of Transportation has exclusive control over traffic control devices on state highway system streets, and posted notice is required for changes in the statutory limits, as a practical matter, any municipal ordinance pursuant to G.S. 20-141.1 is ineffectual without approval of the Department of Transportation. 41 N.C.A.G. 309; 43 N.C.A.G. 167.

Lacy H. Thornburg
Attorney General

Eugene A. Smith
Senior Deputy Attorney General