Could the Irmo-Chapin Recreation District build and operate Saluda Shoals Park?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, a state senator asked whether the Irmo-Chapin Recreation District could construct and operate Saluda Shoals Park. The Attorney General's office concluded that it could. The district's creating act gave it broad authority over recreational facilities, including acquiring land, contracting for construction and services, operating equipment, setting use rules and charges, and spending its funds. The opinion also identified revenue bonds and a district property tax as ways to fund recreational facilities.

The answer concerned a 270-acre park within district boundaries, with boating, fishing, picnic, and walking facilities and additional facilities planned. Applying the act's plain language to those facts, the office said constructing, operating, and maintaining the park fell well within the district's powers. The letter was informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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

Could the recreation district operate Saluda Shoals Park? A: The AG said yes, on the facts presented. The park was within the district and fit the act's grant of authority over parks and recreational facilities.

Could the district contract for construction and services? A: The opinion quoted the creating act's powers to make contracts needed for district functions and to contract for construction and other services.

What funding powers did the opinion identify?
A: It identified revenue bonds for constructing and operating recreational facilities and a district property tax for operating and maintaining parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities under district jurisdiction.

Could the district set use fees?
A: The opinion quoted the act's authority to fix rates and charges for use of its facilities. It did not set any particular fee.

Background and statutory framework

Act No. 329 created the district in 1969. The opinion quoted several enumerated powers from that act and read its grant of park authority according to its plain terms. It cited South Carolina cases for ordinary statutory interpretation, then applied the act to the described park.

Citations and references

Act: Act No. 329.

Cases: State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987); Bryant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408, 368 S.E.2d 899 (1988).

Official title

Asking whether the Irmo-Chapin Recreation District possesses the authority to construct and operate the Saluda Shoals Park.

Requester

The Honorable Joe Wilson, Member, South Carolina Senate

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-25-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99aug-25-wilson000.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 25, 1999

The Honorable Joe Wilson
Member, South Carolina Senate
Post Office Box 142
211 Gressette Senate Office Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Senator Wilson:
Your recent opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. You have asked whether the Irmo-Chapin Recreation District (hereinafter "the District") possesses the authority to construct and operate the Saluda Shoals Park. The District was created by Act No. 329of1969, and its powers are set forth therein. These powers include, in pertinent part, the authority: (5)

To acquire, by gift, purchase, or through the exercise of eminent domain, lands or interest thereon whereupon to establish general recreational facilities ;

(6)

To expend all moneys which it shall receive and which may be set apart to the commission for its functions ;

(7)

To acquire and operate any apparatus or equipment useful in the operation of its facilities;

(8)

To prescribe rules and regulations governing the use of the facilities;

(9)

To fix rates and charges for the use of any of its facilities;

M~~V..;;;;;:c 1 Lo 1 N<>

•

Po sT oFFwE

sox

11s-19

•

co 1.u \1AI.-. s. c. 292 11 -1 s-19

•

TELEPHONE : so> -n -1-:i970

•

F \CS l.\111.E: 80.> -2s.1-62s.1

The Honorable Joe Wilson
Page2
August 25, 1999

I
I

( 10)

To make contracts and to execute instruments that are necessary or convenient for the discharge of the functions of the commission;

(11)

To make contracts for construction and other services;

In addition, the District possesses the authority to issue and sell revenue bonds for the construction and operation of recreational facilities. Finally, property in the District is subject to a tax to meet the cost of operating and maintaining parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities under its jurisdiction. The Saluda Shoals Park is a 270-acre recreational facility located within the District boundaries. The park contains a boat ramp, a canoe launch area, a fishing pier, a picnic area, and walking trails. In the future, the park will add an amphitheater, a meeting facility, and an environmental education center. When interpreting a statute, the primary purpose is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). The words of a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. Bryant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408, 368 S.E.2d 899 (1988). The Court must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of the statute according to their literal meaning. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991 ). The full effect must be given to each section of a statute, giving the words used their plain meaning, and in the absence of ambiguity, words must not be added or taken from the statute. Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. City ofSptg., 185 S.C. 313, 194 S.E. 139 (1938). Act No. 329 is clear and unambiguous. The General Assembly has granted the District broad authority to construct, maintain, and operate parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities. In addition, the General Assembly has provided methods to fund these facilities. Based on the facts presented, it appears that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Saluda Shoals Park falls well within the statutory authority of the District. 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 specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

The Honorable Joe Wilson
Page 3
August 25, 1999

With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,

8A.KoJ
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General

r
!

L.·}