Could Clarendon County use local hospitality tax revenue to operate and maintain a tourism building?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General concluded that Clarendon County could spend local hospitality tax revenue on operating and maintaining its renovated building if two conditions were true: the building was tourism-related, and the county collected at least nine hundred thousand dollars annually in accommodations taxes. The opinion read the 2010 statute's permitted tourism-building use together with the provision allowing operation and maintenance for counties at that tax threshold.

The opinion did not find as a fact that the building qualified or that Clarendon County reached the threshold. The statute also described a different, limited allowance for counties below the threshold, but the office's direct answer was conditioned on meeting it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. 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 opinion approve hospitality tax spending on any county building? A: No. Its conclusion required the building to be tourism-related.

Q: What tax threshold did the opinion apply to operation and maintenance? A: It required at least nine hundred thousand dollars in annual accommodations tax collections for the answer it gave Clarendon County.

Q: Did the Attorney General verify the county's collections or classify its building? A: No. It stated the conclusion conditionally, leaving those factual premises unresolved.

Background and statutory framework

Clarendon County wanted to use local hospitality tax receipts for ongoing costs at a renovated tourism facility. The opinion interpreted section 6-1-730's listed permissible uses and its two rules for facility operation and maintenance based on accommodations tax collections.

Citations and references

The original text below quotes Section 6-1-730 and cites Denman v. City of Columbia, 387 S.C. 131, 691 S.E.2d 465, 468 (2010).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-10-2010/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/epperson-d-w-os-9067-6-10-10-local-hospitality-tax.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY McMAsTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 10, 2010

David W. Epperson, Esquire
County Attorney, Clarendon County
Post Office Box 486
Manning, South Carolina 29102
Dear Mr. Epperson:
We understand you desire an opinion of this Office concerning section 6-1-730 of the South Carolina Code. You state in your letter to this Office that Clarendon County enacted an ordinance calling for the imposition of a Local Hospitality Tax pursuant to sections 6-1-700 et seq. ofthe South Carolina Code. In addition, you state: "Since that time, Clarendon County has collected a substantial amount in this fund and wishes to expend it on a tourism related building that is currently under renovations.,, You informed us that "Clarendon County would like to use a portion of these funds on the operations and maintenance of this facility on an ongoing basis." Thus, you ask that we provide you with an opinion "as to whether Clarendon County can utilize a portion of its collected local hospitality tax for the operations and maintenance of its newly renovated tourism facility pursuant to §6-1-730, S.C. Code ofLaws 1976, as amended, more specifically §6-1-730(B)(2), S.C. Code of Laws 1976, as amended."

Law/Analysis
Section 6-1 -730 of the South Carolina Code (2004 & Supp. 2009) provides: (A) The revenue generated by the hospitality tax must be used exclusively for the following purposes: (1) tourism-related buildings including, but not limited to, civic centers, coliseums, and aquariums; (2) tourism-related cultural, recreational, or historic facilities; (3) beach access and renourishment; (4) highways, roads, streets, and bridges providing access to tourist destinations;

RnMBliR'f c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

PosT OFFICE Box 11549 •

COLUMBIA , SC 292Jl -1549

•

Tm.EPHONE 803-734-3970

• FACS!MILE 803-253-6283

Mr. Epperson
Page2
June 10, 2010

(5) advertisements and promotions related to tourism
development; or
(6) water and sewer infrastructure to serve tourism-related demand. (B)(l) In a county in which at least nine hundred thousand dollars in accommodations taxes is collected annually pursuant to Section 12-36-920, the revenues of the hospitality tax authorized in this article may be used for the operation and maintenance of those items provided in (A)(l) through (6) including police, fire protection, emergency medical services, and emergency-preparedness operations directly attendant to those facilities. (2) In a county in which less than nine hundred thousand dollars in accommodations taxes is collected annually pursuant to Section 12-36-920, an amount not to exceed twenty percent of the revenue in the preceding fiscal year of the local hospitality tax authorized pursuant to this article may be used for the additional purposes provided in item (1) of this subsection. (emphasis added). In interpreting section 6-1-730, we employ the rules of statutory interpretation, the primary of which is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Denman v. City of Columbia, 387 S.C. 131, 691 S.E.2d 465, 468 (2010). "A statute as a whole must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of the lawmakers." Browning v. Hartvigsen, 307 S.C. 122, 125, 414 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1992). "The best evidence of legislative intent is the text of the statute." Sims v. Gregory, 387 S.C. 169, 691 S.E.2d 480 (Ct. App. 2010). "What a legislature says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence oflegislative intent or will." Hardee v. McDowell, 381 S.C. 445, 453, 673 S.E.2d 813, 817 (2009)(quotations omitted). In subsection (B)(l) of section 6-1-730, the Legislature specifically allows counties that collect nine hundred thousand dollars in accommodations tax to use hospitality tax revenue for "the operation and maintenance of those items provided in (A)(l) through (6) .... " Subsection (A)(l) refers to tourism-related buildings. Thus, the plain language of the statute provides counties collecting a certain amount of accommodations tax to use hospitality tax revenue for the operation and maintenance of tourism-related buildings. Therefore, to answer your question, if Clarendon County collects at least nine hundred thousand dollars in accommodations taxes and the building it

Mr. Epperson
Page 3
June 10, 2010

is renovating is in fact tourism-related, we are of the opinion that it may use its hospitality tax revenue for the maintenance and operation of such a building. Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

~~~·
By:

cYd~ey ~Milling

Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General