Could Pickens County charge Six Mile residents a sewer fee without providing sewer service?

Plain-English summary

A state representative asked whether Pickens County could charge residents of the Town of Six Mile a county sewer fee when they did not receive the benefit of the county sewer system. The South Carolina Attorney General's office concluded in 2008 that the county generally had authority to impose sewer charges, but the people charged had to receive at least some benefit. If the residents received no sewer service or other benefit, the office did not believe the county could impose the fee under the authorities it discussed.

The opinion did not identify the authority Pickens County actually relied on for the particular charges. It analyzed both the county's general power to levy uniform service charges and the specific statute authorizing sewer charges for those to whom sewer service was rendered. The conclusion was tied to the facts stated in the representative's letter.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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

Did the AG say counties had no power to charge sewer fees?

No. The opinion recognized general county authority to levy service charges, including for sewage collection and treatment. It said the charge nonetheless had to benefit those who paid it.

Could a county charge residents who received no county sewer service?

Based on the request's description, the AG did not believe the county could impose the fee without providing a benefit, particularly sewer service, to those residents.

What test did the opinion use for a uniform service charge?

It quoted a four-part court test: proceeds benefit the payers, fund only the contemplated improvement, do not exceed its cost, and are imposed uniformly on payers.

Background and statutory framework

Section 4-9-30 of the South Carolina Code gave counties power to levy uniform service charges and use them for sewage services. The opinion quoted Brown v. CountyofHorry on reasonableness and equal protection and C.R. Campbell Const. Co. v. City of Charleston on the four-part service-charge test. It also quoted S.C. Code Ann.§ 6-15-60, which authorized sewer service charges upon those to whom service was rendered. The opinion reasoned that either statutory route required some benefit for the payers and noted that the county's actual asserted authority was unknown.

Citations and references

• Section 4-9-30: county service-charge power discussed in the opinion.
• S.C. Code Ann.§ 6-15-60: sewer charges for recipients of service.
• Brown v. CountyofHorry, 308 S.C. 180, 183, 417 S.E.2d 565, 567 (1992): service-charge limits and payer benefit.
• C.R. Campbell Const. Co. v. City of Charleston, 325 S.C. 235, 481 S.E.2d437 (1997): four-part test for a uniform service charge.

Official title

December 3, 2008

Requester

The Honorable B. R. Skelton, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-3-2008/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/skelton-b-r-os-8684-imposition-of-county-sewer-fees.pdf

Original opinion text

•'

HENRY MCMASTER
AITORNEY GENERAL

December 3, 2008

The Honorable B. R. Skelton
Member, House of Representatives
2962 Walhalla Highway
Six Mile, South Carolina 29682
Dear Representative Skelton:
We understand that you desire an attorney general's opinion regarding the imposition of sewer fees by a county on county residents who do not receive sewer service. In your letter, you state: During the past six months, several constituents in the Town of Six Mile have expressed concerns about having to pay a county sewer fee without the benefit of a county sewer system. Under what authority, if any, may Pickens County impose a sewer fee to the residents of the Town of Six Mile? If Pickens County does have authority to impose a sewer fee to the residents of the Town of Six Mile, then may it do so without also providing the benefit of a sewer system?

Law/Analysis
Section 4-9-30 ofthe South Carolina Code (1986 & Supp. 2007) designates specific powers afforded to counties. IncJuded in these power is the authority to levy uniform service charges and the ability to use such fees to provide for sewage collection and treatment. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-930(5) (Supp. 2007). Accordingly, we believe the Pickens County (the "County") generally has the authority to impose sewer fees. However, as the South Carolina Supreme Court noted in Brown v. CountyofHorry, 308 S.C. 180, 183, 417 S.E.2d 565, 567 (1992), section 4-9-30(5) "does not specify the amount of such fees or the persons upon whom they can be imposed. These limitations are governed by the requirements of equal protection and reasonableness." Thus, our Supreme Court developed the following four-prong test to determine whether a fee is valid as a uniform service charge:

R EMB ERT C. DENNIS B UILDING

•

POST 0Ff-1CE Box 11 549

•

COLUMBIA. SC: ?.Q? 11-1 '\40

•

Teo cnum•r 0 " " ., ., , "'~"

The Honorable B. R. Skelton
Page2
December 3, 2008

( 1) the revenue generated is used to the benefit of the payers, even if the general public also benefits (2) the revenue generated is used only for the specific improvement contemplated (3) the revenue generated by the fee does not exceed the cost ofthe improvement and (4) the fee is uniformly imposed on all the payers. C.R. Campbell Const. Co. v. City of Charleston, 325 S.C. 235, 481 S.E.2d437 (1997)(citingBrown, 308 S.C. 180, 417 S.E.2d 565). The first prong of this test demonstrates the Court's view that in order for a service charge to be valid, it must provide some benefit to the payer of the charge. The Court in Brown emphasized this requirement in stating: "A service charge is imposed on the theory that the portion of the community which is required to pay it receives some special benefit as a result of the improvement made with the proceeds of the charge." Brown, 308 S.C. at 185, 417 S.E.2d at 568. In addition to a county's authority to levy fees pursuant to section 4-9-30,section 6-15-60 of the South Carolina Code (2004) specifically authorizes governmental entities, which pursuant to 615-10 of the South Carolina Code (2004) includes counties, to impose sewer charges. This provision states: The General Assembly confirms the right of any governmental entity to impose upon all those to whom sewer service is rendered, (a) a sewer service charge therefor, which may, in the discretion of its governing body, be sufficient to provide for all or any part of the cost of operating and maintaining the sewer facilities and to provide debt service on bonds or other obligations of the governmental entity issued to provide any type of sewer collection, disposal, or treatment service, and (b) a sewer connection charge, or connection fee or tapping fee designed to adequately reimburse the governing body for effecting the connection to provide sewer service. S.C. Code Ann.§ 6-15-60 (emphasis added). Thus, while specifically allowing counties to impose sewer service charges, this provision requires that those required to pay the charge receive sewer service. Regardless of whether the County receives its authority to impose sewer service fees on its residents pursuant to section 4-9-30 or section 6-15-60, those paying the fee must at a minium receive some benefit from paying the charge. According to your letter, residents ofthe Town of Six Mile (the "Town") do not receive the benefit of the County sewer system. We are not aware of what authority the County is relying on to collect such a fee from the Town's residents. However, ifthe County is relying on either its general authority to impose a fee pursuant to section 4-9-30 or its

The Honorable B. R. Skelton
Page 3
December 3, 2008

specific authority pursuant to section 6-15-60, we do not believe the County may impose such a fee without providing a benefit, particularly sewer service, to the Town's residents. Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

h_ffe

By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~,QA
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General

Cydriey M. Milling
Assistant Attorney General