Could South Carolina’s vocational rehabilitation agency keep federal reallotment money for later capital projects in 1995?

Plain-English summary

In January 1995, South Carolina's vocational rehabilitation agency asked whether federal reallotment money associated with its state appropriation had to be remitted to the General Fund or could support capital projects in later years. An Assistant Attorney General read a specific 1992–93 budget proviso as allowing excess reallotment funds to be budgeted in following state fiscal years. He concluded that the funds could remain available for long-term capital improvements in the described circumstances, particularly when the federal source was specified in the required capital-approval process.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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

Agency and budget officials

The opinion distinguished a general reconciliation requirement from a specific proviso permitting later-year budgeting of reallotment and other funds above original projections. It treated the more specific reallotment authorization as controlling and did not require remittance of these federal funds on the stated facts.

Capital-project reviewers

The letter said capital improvements required approval by the Joint Bond Review Committee and State Budget and Control Board, with the funding source identified during review. The writer treated earmarking the federal funds for approved projects as an obligation to use them for that purpose.

Common questions

Could the agency budget reallotment funds beyond the year received? The 1995 opinion said the cited proviso allowed them in following state fiscal years, including for the long-term projects described.

Did the letter direct the agency to return those federal funds to the General Fund? No. It concluded remittance was unnecessary under the described appropriation and capital-project circumstances.

Was ordinary reconciliation ignored? No. The opinion read the reconciliation provision together with the more specific later-year reallotment proviso.

Background and statutory framework

The letter compared Provisos 31.2 and 31.3 of the 1992–93 Appropriations Act and identified capital-improvement approval statutes. It applied the rule that a specific provision governs the situation it addresses. Its answer concerned the older budget act and the agency's federal reallotment facts, not current appropriations.

Citations and references

• Provisos 31.2 and 31.3: later-year reallotment authorization and reconciliation rule.
• §§1-11-65 and §2-47-40: capital approval and source-identification provisions cited.
• Duke Power Co. v. S. C. Public Service Comm'n and Langley v. Pierce: cited for the specific-over-general reading.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-13-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995jan13coleman.pdf

Original opinion text

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING

T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK
ATIORNEY GENERAL

POST OFFICE BOX 11549
COLUMBIA. S.C. 29211-1549
TELEPHONE: 803-734-'.!680
FACSIMIUl: 803-253-6283

January 13, 1995

Mr. Preston Coleman
Commissioner
Vocational Rehabilitation Department
P. o. Box 15
West Columbia, SC
29171-0015
Dear Mr. Coleman:
The South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Agency (Agency) requests an opinion concerning whether funds appropriated the Agency under the 1992-93 Appropriations Act should be remitted to the State General Fund. The Agency receives federal funds to match the State's appropriation of funds. Later in the federal fiscal year, funds are voluntarily returned to the federal government from other states who do not spend their entire allotment. These funds are then remitted back to the federal government. The Agency may then request a portion of that money resubmitted to the federal government.

I

Often the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Agency receives these reallotment funds from the federal government at the end of the federal fiscal year. Thus, the Agency requests an opinion as to whether reallotment of funds set aside for capital improvement projects may be used in later years. Proviso 31.3 of the 1992-93 Appropriations Act directs the Agency "to complete a reconciliation of the cost to -0perate the Basic Support Program related to the combination of State and federal funds available following the close of each federal fiscal year." It further directs that this reconciliation be effected within 120 days following the close of that fiscal year. However, Proviso 31.2 provides that To maximize the utilization of federal f un?ing and prevent the loss of such funding to other states in the Basic Service Program, the State Agency of Vocational Rehabilitation be allowed to budget reallotment and other funds received

Mr. Preston Coleman
Page 2
January 13, 1995

in excess of original projections in following State fiscal years. (Emphasis added).

I

This provision specifically addresses the reallotment of funds and allows those funds to be used in later years. It is well settled that "[l]aws giving specific treatment to a given situation take pr~cedence over general laws on the subject . . . . " Duke Power Co. v. S. C. Public Service Comm'n, 284 S.C. 81, 326 S.E.2d 395, 399 (1985); Langley v. Pierce, 438 S.E.2d 242 (S.C. 1993); see also, Ramsey v. County of ,McCormick, 412 S.E.2d 408 (S.C. 1991) ("Where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another with a portion of the same subject in a more specific and definite way, the special statute will be given effect.") Therefore, the General Assembly in setting forth that the funds may be used in subsequent fiscal years as opposed to only the following year, made clear that these funds may be available for long-term capital improvement projects. Furthermore, South Carolina requires all capital improvements to be approved by both the Joint Bond Review Committee and the State Budget and Control Board. s.c. Code Ann. §§1-11-65 and 2-47-50 (1976, as amended). The South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Agency must specify the source of the funding when seeking the Committee's approval. S.C. Code Ann. §2-47-40 (1976). But for this requirement, the Agency could let the building contract bid immediately. However, earmarking the federal funds as a source of the capital improvements creates an obligation to use those funds for the purpose indicated. Therefore, the Agency would not be required to remit the federal reallotment funds under these circumstances. Sincerely,
,--.,

,~--/

I

)

~

. l'-.J(J-v c'~·
."l..----.. /"'_
// I.°"·,\ .~ ~-'"~,-..,""'4''
\
i I ><._AL u...,,r-~ ; l
.·

• .. -

'

!

/

'

'

I

Ralph K~ Anderson,- III
Assistant Attorney General
RKAIII/rho
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

....____
/

+r··1·
i

~----··

Mr. Preston Coleman
Page 3
January 13, 1995

/~1~
ROBERT D. COOK
Deputy Attorney General

I
I

I