Who inspected a South Carolina public school building constructed and owned by a private company in 2003?

Plain-English summary

In December 2003, South Carolina's Attorney General said the State Superintendent of Education or a designee was the code-inspecting authority for Greenville County public school buildings being built and owned by a private company. The recently enacted school-building provision required state inspection and a state certificate of approval before a public school building could be occupied. It did not distinguish buildings by owner or financing method.

The opinion also read the local-building-standards provision as exempting a school district facility reviewed by the State Department of Education from county permit or license requirements unless the department or district directed otherwise. Local inspectors could assist by courtesy or agreement, without independently requiring local permits under that provision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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.

Historical summary

School districts and state education officials

The AG treated use as a public school as the controlling feature for inspection authority. A private company's ownership did not shift the statutory inspection duty away from state education officials.

County building inspectors

The opinion allowed cooperation with state officials and voluntary inspections. It said county officials could not require permits under the cited local rule for a covered school facility unless the department or district chose to apply it.

Common questions

Did private ownership transfer inspection authority to the county?
No. The AG said the state school-inspection requirement made no such distinction.

Who had to approve the building before occupancy?
The State Superintendent of Education or a designee, under the provision discussed in the opinion.

Could local inspectors participate at all?
Yes. The AG said they could inspect as a courtesy or under an agreement and report their findings.

Background and statutory framework

A senator asked about Greenville County schools owned and built by a private entity. The AG compared the state school-inspection provision with the exemption from certain local building requirements and an earlier opinion on voluntary local assistance.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed Section 59-23-220 and S.C. Code Ann. Section 6-9-110.

Official title

Questioning who is the code inspecting authority for certain new schools in Greenville County currently being built.

Requester

The Honorable Mike Fair, Senator, District No. 6

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-3-2003/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/03dec-3-Fair.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY MCMASTER
AITORNEY GENERAL

December 3, 2003

f

L,

I

The Honorable Mike Fair
Senator, District No. 6
211 Gressette Senate Office Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Senator Fair:
In a letter to this office you questioned who is the code inspecting authority for certain new schools in Greenville County currently being built. According to your letter the schools are owned and are being constructed by Institutional Resources, a private entity. A recently enacted provision of Act No. 87 of 2003 appears to control. Pursuant to a provision to be codified as Section 59-23-220, All construction, improvements, and renovation of public school buildings and property must be inspected by the State Superintendent of Education or the superintendent's designee for compliance with the applicable codes and standards. A certificate of approval must be obtained from the State Superintendent of Education or the superintendent's designee before a building may be occupied. It is my understanding that the legislation was enacted primarily due to the recent situation involving Richland School District No. 1 and the plans for Dreher High School. The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). A statutory provision should be given a reasonable and practical construction consistent with the purpose and policy expressed in the legislation. Hayv. S.C. Tax Commission, 273 S.C. 269, 255 S.E.2d 837 (1979). A statute's words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to a forced or subtle construction which would work to limit or expand the statute's operation. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991 ). When the terms of a particular statute are plain and unambiguous, the literal meaning should be applied. Duke Power Co. v. S.C. Tax Commission, 292 S.C. 64, 354 S.E.2d 902 (1987).

I)

iV //l ,, . "

l)EMB,ERT

c. DENNI.S BUil..DING • Posr OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

~/~--LL

The Honorable Mike Fair
Page2
December 3, 2003

The term "public school building" is not separately defined by Section 59-23-220. However, the requirements of such provision appear clear in mandating that all construction of a public school building be inspected by the State Superintendent of Education or her designee for compliance with relevant building codes and standards. No distinction is made as to a building owned by a private entity which may be considered a "public school building".

It

In determining the meaning of a statute, it is proper to consider other statutory provisions relating to the same subject matter. Southern Railway Co. v. S.C. Highway Dept., 237 S.C. 75, 115 S.E.2d 685 (1960). The construction of Section 59-23-220 as set forth above is consistent with S.C. Code Ann. Section 6-9-110 (Supp. 2002) which states that (A) A county... or other local ordinance or regulation which requires the purchase or acquisition of a permit, license, or other device utilized to enforce any building standard does not apply to a: (2) school district facility, permanent improvement project, construction project, renovation project, or property which is reviewed and approved by the State Department of Education; except that the State Department of Education or a local school district may direct that the local ordinance or regulation apply to a particular facility, project or property....

I

(emphasis added). Therefore, a county building standard is inapplicable to a school district facility reviewed by the State Department of Education unless the Department or local school district directs that the local ordinance or regulation apply. At your suggestion, I contacted the Greenville County Attorney who had also reviewed this question. Section 6-9-110 was cited by him in an opinion dated November 5, 2003 that similarly concluded that as to the particular school building cited in your request letter, " ... financing arrangements and actual ownership would not modify a school facility's exemption from local building standards." It was the conclusion of that opinion that State law prohibited Greenville County from imposing building code standards on public school construction. As explained in that opinion, the use and operation of a building as a public school appears to control a building's status as a school facility, not its ownership or financing arrangements. A prior opinion of this office dated April 9, 2001 referenced Section 6-9-110 in dealing with the question of whether local inspection officials may have some role in inspecting a school district facility. The opinion commented that:
... because pursuant to Section 6-9-1 IO(A), the school district facilities are exempt from certain local ordinances, the local building inspection officials may perform the inspection services as a courtesy, but cannot require the school facilities to acquire permits or licenses in compliance with local ordinances. Thus, a school district

The Honorable Mike Fair
Page 3
December 3, 2003

facility may request an inspection by the local inspection officials, and the local officials may perform the service, despite a facility's option not to comply with local building code requirements.

L
I

The opinion further stated that no statute " ... prohibits local building inspection officials and school district facilities from entering into an agreement by which the local officials inspect the facility and report the findings to the facility for its own information." Inasmuch as the facility addressed in your letter is being built by a private entity due to the current bonded indebtedness situation in Greenville County, cooperation between the State Department of Education and local building inspection officials would appear to be in order. While Section 59-23-220 does not speak to an exception for school buildings being built under such circumstances, input from local building inspection officials could certainly be sought as a courtesy in assuring compliance with all relevant building code requirements. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours,

I

~wAv( tlw,/4~
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General