Could a South Carolina county charge a municipality a monthly fee to fund county 911 dispatch?

Plain-English summary

In 2021, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that a county could not charge a municipality within its territory a monthly fee to fund the county's 911 system. The opinion read the Public Safety Communications Center Act as tying 911 charges to telephone, wireless, prepaid wireless, and VoIP service customers rather than to municipalities receiving dispatch service.

The office could discuss the statutory framework but said it could not make the factual findings needed to resolve the particular Hampton County and Yemassee dispute. It identified a court as a possible forum for that resolution.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2021. 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.

Common questions

Q: Did the opinion allow a county to bill a municipality monthly for its 911 system?
A: No. The Attorney General said the Act did not authorize that charge to a municipality within the county's territory.

Q: Who paid the 911 charges discussed in the opinion?
A: The opinion described charges linked to telephone, wireless, prepaid wireless, and VoIP subscribers or customers, collected through their service providers and suppliers.

Q: Did the Attorney General settle the Hampton County and Yemassee billing dispute?
A: No. It said resolving the specific facts was outside its role and suggested that the issue might belong in court.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion said the Act required public safety agencies serving an area to participate in the countywide 911 system. It described the charges authorized for communications-service customers, including those under S.C. Code Ann. § 23-47-50, and read the Act as limiting additional 911 charges by political subdivisions. That statutory reading formed the basis of its answer to the municipality's billing question.

Citations and references

The statutory citations listed above appear in the linked official opinion. The conclusion addressed the question presented to the Attorney General in 2021.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/911-dispatch-fees/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/wq4lawj4/02709816.pdf

Original opinion text

fej

£

o

*

*

w

*v>

Op

souths

Alan Wilson
Attorney General

September 2, 2021

Chief G.Z. Alexander
Yemassee Police Department
PO Box 577
Yemassee, SC 29945
Dear Chief Alexander:

You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding 911 dispatch fees.

You are asking

whether it is legal for Hampton County to charge Yemassee a monthly fee to dispatch the police department. LAW/ANALYSIS

As we have stated in many prior opinions, this Office is not empowered to make factual

findings.1 However, we can provide you with the applicable law.

The Public Safety

Communications Center Act ("Act"), S.C. Code Ann. § 23-47-10 et seo. (1976 Code, as

amended), provides for the operation of 91 1 systems. Pursuant to the Act, "[a] 91 1 system must include all of the territory of the local government, either county, municipality, or multijurisdictional government." S.C. Code Ann. § 23-47-20(B)(l) (1976 Code, as amended).

"Public safety agencies2 that provide emergency service within the territory of a 91 1 system" are required to "participate in the countywide system." S.C. Code Ann. § 23-47-20(B)(2) (1976 Code, as amended). The [p]ublic safety agencies . . . ., "in all cases, must be notified by the PSAP [91 1 call center] of a request for service in their area." S.C. Code Ann. § 23-47-20(A)(l) (1976 Code, as amended).

To fund their 911 systems,3 local governments can adopt an ordinance imposing a monthly 91 1 charge on telephone subscribers in the area served by the 91 1 service. See S.C. Code Ann. §§

See Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 1989 WL 406130 (April 3, 1989) ("[b] ecause this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able, in a legal opinion, to adjudicate or investigate factual questions.") 2 tu

Public safety agent' means a functional agency which provides fire fighting, law enforcement, medical, or other emergency services." S.C. Code Ann. § 23-47-10(26) (1976 Code, as amended).

3 A local government seeking to impose a fee for its 9 1 1 system is required to "submit to the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, a 91 1 system plan for review and approval." S.C. Code Ann. § 23-47-30 (1976 Code, as amended). Rembert C.Dennis Building

»

Post Office Box i 1 549

• Columbia, SC 292 11-1549

. Telephone 803-734-3970

• Facsimile 803-253-6283

Chief G.Z. Alexander
Page 2

September 2, 2021

23-47-40(A), 23-47-50 (1976 Code, as amended).
911 charges are also collected from
subscribers and prepaid consumers of wireless service, as well as from subscribers of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol). See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-47-50; 23-47-68; 23-47-67 (1976 Code, as amended), The 911 charges are collected by the providers and suppliers of the telephone, wireless, and VoIP service. The State, any of its political subdivisions, or an intergovernmental agency are prohibited from requiring any service provider to "impose, collect, or remit a tax, fee, surcharge, or other charge for 91 1 funding purposes other than the 91 1 charges" set forth in the Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 23 47-69 (1976 Code, as amended). It is well settled that the title or caption of an act may be considered to aid in the construction of a statute and to show the intent of the Legislature. Lindsay v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.. 258 S.C. 272, 188 S.E.2d 374 (1972); University of S.C. v. Elliott. 248 S.C. 218, 149 S.E.2d 433 (1966). According to the title of the act enacting section 23-47-69, the statute was added "so as to limit the charges that may be imposed for 91 1 service." 2010 S.C. Acts 135.

In a prior opinion, we considered whether the free telephone service offered by SafeLink

Wireless service4 to low-income recipients was subject to 91 1 charges. See Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 201 1 WL 5304075 (Oct. 10, 201 1). In our analysis, we discussed an opinion of the Tennessee Attorney General, Opinion 09-87 (May 18, 2009), because "Tennessee's emergency telephone service charge statute is functionally identical to South Carolina's E91 1 statute, in that fees are imposed on wireless subscribers billed retrospectively as well as on prepaid customers." Id- The Tennessee Attorney General "concluded that liability for the E91 1 charge is tied to the payment for the service and is implicitly limited to those who must make such payments." We noted that "[t]he Tennessee statute, just like the South Carolina E911 statute, provides no mechanism for payment of the E911 charge by someone who is neither charged nor billed for their wireless

service." Id. Consequently, we determined:
While SafeLink program participants may use the emergency
telephone service, such participants would not be considered
"subscribers" or "prepaid customers" within the context of S.C.
Code § 23-47-50 or S.C. Code § 23-47-68. Both S.C. Code § 23
47-50 and S.C. Code § 23-47-68 indicate that the 911 charge is

associated with the subscribers or prepaid wireless customers, not
persons to whom a free phone is supplied.
Id.

Based on the Act and our prior opinion, we do not believe that a county can charge a municipality in its territory a monthly fee to fund its 911 system. The Act only provides for

4 "

SafeLink Wireless service is provided completely free to qualifying low-income citizens of South Carolina and is subsidized in its entirety by the federal Universal Service Fund." Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 201 1 WL 5304075 (Oct. 10, 2011).

Chief G.Z. Alexander
Page 3

September 2, 2021

payment of 91 1 charges by subscribers of telephone, wireless, and VoIP service, as well as by

prepaid consumers of wireless service. As we discussed in our prior opinion, liability for the 91 1 charge is tied to payment for service and is implicitly limited to those who make such payments. Additionally, the Act makes clear that charges for 91 1 service are limited to those provided for in

the Act, and that a political subdivision, such as a county, is prohibited from collecting any additional 91 1 charges. CONCLUSION

It is our opinion that a county cannot charge a municipality in its territory a monthly fee to fund its 911 system. However, such a determination is highly fact-specific and cannot be undertaken by this Office in an opinion. For this reason, we can only discuss the applicable law in the abstract here. We suggest that the proper venue for a resolution of this question may be in the courts.

Sincerely,

Elinor V. Lister

Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Roocrt D. Cook
Solicitor General