Was a local bill needed to pay Chester County schools for Fairfield County students who lived closer to Chester schools?

Plain-English summary

A South Carolina representative asked in 2009 about a proposed local bill directing Fairfield County funds to Chester County to help pay for Fairfield students attending Chester schools. The Attorney General said existing state law already covered the intended arrangement for children who lived closer to schools in an adjacent county. The bill therefore appeared unnecessary, assuming Chester’s schools agreed to accept the students and the stated payments.

Under the statute quoted in the letter, the home district’s trustees made a written admission application through the county board of education. The receiving district had to agree, and its school and county board determined monthly per-pupil overhead costs not paid by the state. The opinion cited a state appeals court decision saying the home trustees had no discretion to withhold an application for children meeting the statutory closeness condition.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. 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

Q: Did the proposed bill create the only way to pay for nearby out-of-county schooling? A: The Attorney General said no. It found a preexisting statutory admission and payment process for qualifying children near adjacent-county schools.

Q: Did Chester County schools have to accept the Fairfield students? A: The opinion said the receiving school district had to agree to accept them; the bill was unnecessary only on the stated assumption of acceptance and payment agreement.

Q: Could Fairfield’s home district refuse to apply for a qualifying child? A: The state appeals court decision cited in the letter said the home board had no discretion to withhold an application when the statutory closer-school condition applied.

Background and statutory framework

The Attorney General responded to a question about S. 796 by quoting Section 59-63-480 and citing a South Carolina Court of Appeals decision construing it. The statute set out written application, receiving-district agreement, and monthly cost calculation. The letter treated the proposed fund transfer as already addressed by that scheme under the assumptions it stated.

Citations and references

Statute discussed: Section 59-63-480, on admission and payment for students living closer to schools in an adjacent county.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-10-2009/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/brown-b-b-os-8800-6-10-09-fairfield-county-treasurer-transfer-funds-to-chester-county-students.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY McMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 10, 2009

The Honorable H. Boyd Brown
Member, House of Representatives
P. 0. Box 26
Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180
Dear Representative Brown:

In a letter to this office you requested an opinion regarding S. 796, a local legislation bill filed by Senator Coleman, directing that the Fairfield County Treasurer transfer funds from Fairfield County to Chester County in order to defray the cost of educating Fairfield County students being educated in Chester County Schools. Prior to receiving your request, I received a similar request from Senator Coleman. I spoke with him by telephone Monday and faxed him a copy of a prior opinion of this office dated January 30, 2006, a copy of which is enclosed, which references the provisions of S. C. Code Ann. § 59-63480 which state that (i]f school children in one county reside closer to schools in an adjacent county, they may attend such schools upon the school authorities of the county of their residence arranging with the school officials of the adjacent county for such admission and upon payment of appropriate charges as herein authorized. The board of trustees in the school district in which the pupils reside shall make written application through its county board of education to the board of trustees of the district in which the school is located for the admission of such children, giving full information as to ages, residence and school attainment, and the board oftrustees in the school district, agreeing to accept such pupils, shall give a written statement of agreement. Upon receipt of such application the board oftrustees of the school and its county board of education shall determine the monthly per pupil cost of all overhead expenses of the school, which will include all expenses of the school not paid by the State. Upon proper aiTangement being made for the payment monthly of such overhead per pupil cost for each such child the same shall be admitted to the schools of the adjacent county.

REMBERT C. D 11NN1s Bun.DING

• PosT OFFJce Box J 1549 •

COLUMBI A, SC 29211 -1549

•

TELEPHONE; 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMLLE 803-253-6283

The Honorable H. Boyd Brown
Page2
June 10, 2009

I am also forwarding a copy of a decision of the State Court of Appeals in Smith v. Wallace, 295 S.C. 448, 369 S.E.2d 657 (Ct.App. 1988) which construed Section 59-63-480 to indicate that when students living in one county reside closer to a school in an adjoining county than to a school in the county of their residence, the board of trustees of the school district in which the students reside has no discretion with regard to making an application to the adjoining school district for these students to be admitted to that district. Of course, as specified by Section 59-63-480, the district to which application is made must agree to accept these students. The statute also states that the board of trustees of the school to which the application is made and its county board of education shall determine the monthly per pupil cost of all overhead expenses of the school, which will include all expenses of the school not paid by the State. Therefore, consistent with such statute, it appears that the intended purpose of S. 796 is already covered by state law. I have discussed such with Senator Coleman and advised him of my conclusions. Therefore, it does not appear that the enactment of S. 796 would be necessary assuming, of course, that the Chester County schools agree to take the Fairfield County students and agree to the payments provided by S. 796. If there are any questions, please advise.

Very truly yours,
Henry McMaster
Attorney General

By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General
cc:

The Honorable Creighton B. Coleman
Senator, District No. 17

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General