Could Allendale County base its school tax cap on last year’s budget instead of last year’s millage?

Plain-English summary

The Allendale County school district and county officials disagreed over how to apply a 1992 local act to the district's 1998-99 operating tax. The auditor and county council began with the previous year's 152-mill levy. The district began with the previous year's operating budget in dollars, adjusted that amount for inflation, converted it to mills at the new, lower value of a mill, and then added four mills. Those methods produced materially different levies after property assessment appeals reduced the value of a mill.

The Attorney General read the act's phrase “preceding year's millage” literally. It concluded that the annual tax levy was tied to the preceding year's millage, rather than the preceding year's budget. The office declined to calculate the precise permissible number of mills because that was a factual determination. It also said the county auditor's role was ministerial: after the school board certified a levy, the auditor was to levy it on taxable property, without independent discretion to set the school district's funding. Given the disagreement, the opinion suggested a declaratory judgment as a way to reach a final resolution.

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

Could the school district start with last year's dollar budget to calculate its millage limit? A: The AG said the act used the preceding year's millage as its starting point. It did not authorize replacing that phrase with “preceding year's budget.”

Did the AG calculate the exact maximum levy for 1998-99? A: No. It interpreted the statutory formula but said the precise number of mills depended on facts outside a legal opinion.

Could the county auditor revise the school board's certified levy? A: The opinion said the auditor's duty under the act was to levy the certified millage on taxable property. It described that duty as ministerial, without discretion to set a different school levy.

How did the opinion suggest resolving the dispute? A: It said an appropriate party might seek a declaratory judgment. It also said the auditor, as a county citizen and taxpayer, might be able to seek one.

Background and statutory framework

Act No. 577 of 1992 let the Allendale County Board of Education impose an annual tax levy that did not exceed the preceding year's millage by more than four mills, excluding the required inflation factor. It directed the county auditor to levy the millage certified by the board. The opinion treated the text of those two provisions as controlling, while leaving the arithmetic and any final judicial resolution open.

Citations and references

The opinion quoted Act No. 577 of 1992 and cited County of Lee v. Stevens when describing the auditor's ministerial role. Its source PDF contains the full statutory text and analysis.

Official title

Requesting on the application of Act No. 577 of 1992, as it relates to the 1998-1999 Allendale County School District budget.

Requester

Elizabeth Kearse Gooding, Esquire, Allendale County Attorney

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-4-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/98dec4gooding.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M . C OND ON
ATIORNE Y GENERAL

December 4, 1998

Elizabeth Kearse Gooding, Esquire
Allendale County Attorney
Post Office Box 1000
Allendale, South Carolina 29810
RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Ms. Gooding:

iii

Your opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. On behalf of the Allendale County Auditor and the Allendale County Council, you have requested an opinion on the application of Act No. 577 of 1992, as it relates to the 1998-1999 Allendale County School District budget. You have informed this Office of the following: Last year (1997-98), the total local school district millage for operations was 152 mills. The County Auditor and Council interpret Act
#577 as limiting this year's tax levy for operations to 160 mills, or 8 mills over last year's levy. The inflation factor of 2.2% accounts for 4 of the additional mills, and the Act itself specifies the additional 4 mills as a cap. Last year the value of a mill in Allendale County was $25 ,963 .00. The value of a mill dropped this year to 24,690.00, primarily as a result of appeals filed by two industries contesting their assessments. The School District's 1998-99 budget requested $4, 133,569.00 for operations. The 8 mill increase would authorize only $3,950,400.00 for operations. This cuts the School's requested operational budget by
$183 , 169.00.

R EM llEIH C D t·: NNl s 11 1:11 .t>IN<;

~w:l0/~J

•

PnsT O rrt«E Box I 154'J

•

Cnu :M11tA. S.C . 292 11 - 1549

•

TnJ-.1•110 Nr-:: XOl ·7 H- .l'J7 1)

•

FA CS IMILE : 8o:1 -25 .l-6 2XJ

Elizabeth Kearse Gooding, Esquire
December 4, 1998
Page 2

The School District maintains that the correct method for calculating the cap of Act #577 is to start with last year's dollar figure for the operational budget ($3,942,971) and apply the 2.2% inflation factor to arrive at a preliminary figure of $4,029,716.00 The School District maintains that whatever number of mills is necessary to generate this
$4,029,716.00 is a permissible millage increase and that the additional 4 mills is then added to this. The School District's calculations would therefore be presented as follows:

I
I

$3,942,971 + 2.2%
$3,942,971 + $86,745 = $4,029,716
$4,029,716 [divided by] $24,690 per mill= 163.21
163 .21 mills + 4 mills = 167 .21 mills
167.21 mills x $24,690 per mill= $4,128,414
The Auditor and County Council interpret Act #577 literally which states that the proposed new tax levy may not exceed the preceding year's millage by more that 4 mills, excluding the inflation factor. The Auditor and Council believe it is in error to substitute the dollar amount of last year's operations budget in the formula when the Act plainly states that it is the preceding year's millage that is used as the basis for the calculation.

I

'

With the preceding in mind, you have asked two questions:

'

1. What is the correct method for calculating the cap as set forth in Act

577?

2. Does the Auditor have the responsibility or right to insure that the
   school district's tax levy complies with the cap as set forth in Act #577? LAW/ANALYSIS

Act No. 577of1992 provides in pertinent part as follows: Section 1. The Allendale County Board of Education shall prepare and

Elizabeth Kearse Gooding, Esquire
December 4. 1998
Page 3

submit to the county auditor on or before April first of each year a proposed budget and an annual tax levy for the ensuing school year. In order to obtain funds to implement this budget the board may impose an annual tax levy, not to exceed the preceding year's millage by more than four mills, excluding the required inflation factor contained in the Education Improvement Act and the Education Finance Act. (Emphasis added).

I
I

Upon certification by the board to the county auditor of the tax levy to be imposed each year, the auditor shall leyy and the county treasurer shall collect the millage upon all taxable property in the county and place it in a separate interest-bearing account with the interest to accrue to the account. (Emphasis added). In 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). As to your first question, this Office cannot make a definitive statement regarding the precise number of mills needed to be levied as such would be a factual determination which is beyond the scope of a legal opinion. Op. Atty. Gen. dated December 12, 1983. However, in interpreting Act No. 577, the Act provides that in order to implement its budget, the Board of Education may impose an annual tax levy which does not exceed the "preceding year's millage" by more than four mills, excluding the required inflation factor. The General Assembly has chosen to use the words "preceding year's millage" rather than the words "preceding year's budget." This Office cannot now substitute the words "preceding year's budget" for the words "preceding year's millage." Therefore, based on the foregoing rules of statutory construction and the clear and unambiguous language of Act No. 577, it appears that the annual tax levy is tied to the preceding year's

Elizabeth Kearse Gooding, Esquire
December 4, 1998
Page4

millage and nothing else. 1 While I reach this conclusion based on the language of the Act and the general rules of statutory interpretation, I do so with some hesitancy. It is obvious that there is great disagreement regarding the proper interpretation of the Act. Therefore, in order to reach a final resolution acceptable to all parties, it may be wise for an appropriate party to seek a declaratory judgment in this matter. In regards to your second question, the auditor's role is limited in determining the millage for the school district. The Act grants the Board of Education the independence to determine the amount of funding needed for the schools, within the parameters set forth in the Act. The Auditor's role is limited to levying the millage upon all taxable property in the county. The Auditor does not possess any discretion in doing so, but act in a ministerial capacity only. See, County of Lee v. Stevens, 277 S.C. 421, 289 S.E.2d 155 (1982). I note, however, that it may be possible for the Auditor, in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer of Allendale County, to seek a declaratory judgment in this matter.

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. With kindest regards, I remain
~truly yours,

/-:2{1(.J.

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General

' Of course. any final determination of actual funds needed must also include appropriate consideration of the general state law on the subject of school funding.