Could Anderson County spend “C” road funds on public roads inside a privately developed industrial park?

Plain-English summary

An Anderson County senator asked whether the county transportation committee could put “C” road funds toward roads inside a privately developed industrial park. The developer would dedicate the road rights-of-way to the county, and the finished roads would become county roads or part of the state secondary-road system. The Attorney General said the expenditure remained permissible because road construction for industrial development served a public purpose.

The opinion relied on earlier AG answers permitting such funds for roads in industrial and office parks. It found later amendments to the funding statute did not change those conclusions. It still required the final allocation and project specifications to comply with Section 12-28-2740.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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 private ownership of the surrounding industrial park itself bar road funding?
A: The AG said no on the described facts. The roads were to be dedicated for public use, and the opinion treated their construction as serving industrial development.

Q: Was the proposed amount automatically approved?
A: No. The opinion said the final amount and project specifications had to comply with the “C” fund statute.

Q: Did later amendments overturn earlier AG views on industrial-park roads?
A: The opinion said the amendments and recodification did not alter those earlier conclusions.

Background and statutory framework

The request described a proposed Anderson County industrial park and public road dedication. The opinion applied prior AG opinions and the state supreme court's recognition of industrial development as a public purpose, then read the amended “C” fund statute as preserving eligibility for this kind of road project.

Citations and references

• Section 12-28-2740, the “C” fund distribution and project statute applied by the opinion.
• Nichols v. South Carolina Research Authority, 290 S.C. 415, 351 S.E.2d 155 (1986), cited for industrial development as a public purpose.

Official title

Concerning the use of “C” funds to construct public roads which will be utilized as part of a privately owned and developed industrial park contributing to the economic development of Anderson County.

Requester

The Honorable Robert L. Waldrep, Senator, District No. 3

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-13-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/98aug13waldrep.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 13, 1998

The Honorable Robert L. Waldrep
Senator, District No. 3
P.O. Box 2367
Anderson, South Carolina 29622
RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Senator Waldrep:
Attorney General Condon has forwarded your opinion request to me for reply. You have informed this Office that a private developer has proposed construction of a major, Class A industrial park in Anderson County. The purpose of the park will be to attract manufacturing industry to Anderson County and the park will contain restrictive covenants limiting its use to that purpose. The Anderson County Economic Development Department, Anderson County Council, and the Anderson County Transportation Committee all believe, and have directly or indirectly noted on the record, that continued economic development, through the attraction of manufacturing industries, is critical to A.Ilderson County and that development of a Class A industrial park for that purpose is likewise a major need of the County at this time. The developer has asked Anderson County to construct and maintain the internal roads within the park and has agreed to dedicate the right-of-way for such roads to Anderson County and to join with the County in further dedicating such roads to public use upon completion. Anderson County has requested that the transportation committee expend up to $250,000 of otherwise available Anderson County "C" funds for the construction and paving of the roads in question. With the above facts in mind, you have asked that this Office render an opinion concerning the use of "C" funds to construct public roads which will be utilized as part of a privately owned and developed industrial park contributing to the economic development of Anderson County. Your specific question is whether pursuant to Section 12-28-2740 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, the Anderson County
/) _

_REMBERT

S· DEN(ll~UILDING • Posr OrncE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, S .C. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FAcsrMILE: 803-253-6283

~ C><"'-4L'1'k.J

(

The Honorable Robert L. Waldrep
Page 2
August 13, 1998
Transportation Committee may designate up to $250,000 of otherwise available "C" funds from the County's apportionment of such funds to construct and pave roads on rights-ofway provided to Anderson County by a private developer, which roads will become either Anderson County roads or a part of the state highway secondary road system. Your request includes a very thorough analysis of the law in this area, which I greatly appreciate.

I
I

The Supreme Court has concluded that industrial development is a public purpose for which public revenues may be appropriated and expended. Nichols v. South Carolina Research Authority, 290 S.C. 415, 351 S.E.2d 155 (1986). As you state in your letter, this Office has previously addressed the question of whether "C" funds may be used to construct and pave roads within an industrial park or an office park. Ops. Atty. Gen. dated August 1, 1986 and June 12, 1989. In the 1986 opinion, this Office approved, with certain conditions, Florence County's use of "C" funds to build roads on private property which it anticipated developing as an industrial park. The 1989 opinion, which relied heavily on the 1986 opinion, also concluded that "C" funds may be used to build roads within an office and light industrial park. The conclusions reached in these opinion were based on the fact that the construction of roads within these industrial and office parks was for a public purpose and, therefore, the expenditure of "C" funds to construct roads was permissible. Since the time these opinions were issued, the portion of the Code of Laws regarding the distribution and use of "C" funds has been amended and recodified. 1 Therefore, it must be determined whether these amendments have any effect on the continuing validity of the conclusions reached in these opinions. I have reviewed the amendments and, in my opinion, such amendments do not alter the conclusions reached in these prior opinions. In addition, case law permitting the use of public funds for industrial development has only been strengthened since the issuance of these opinions. Therefore, it is still the opinion of this Office that "C" funds may be used to construct roads within an industrial park, as such is for a public purpose. Of course, a final determination of the money to be allocated for such a project and the specifications of the project must comply with the terms of Section 12-28-2740. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated assistant attorney general and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the

1

This section was formerly codified as Section 12-27-400 of the Code and is now codified as Section 12-28-2740, entitled "Distribution of gasoline tax among counties."

The Honorable Robert L. Waldrep
Page 3
August 13, 1998
specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kindest regards, I remain Very truly yours,

13~ !/.<

I
I

J

iMJ

I

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General