Could a city require permits and license fees from contractors on an approved school expansion project in 2000?

Plain-English summary

Oconee County's school district asked whether a city inspector could require its prime contractor or subcontractors to obtain building permits and pay license fees for expansion work. The 2000 informal opinion agreed with the district attorney's reading of the then-current statute, assuming the projects satisfied its terms. Local permit or license rules used to enforce building standards did not apply to a school district facility or construction project reviewed and approved by the State Department of Education.

The statute also allowed the department or school district to direct that a local rule apply to a particular facility or project. The AG did not make a factual finding that every Oconee project had the required state approval or that no such direction had been given.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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 local permit exemption cover every school construction project?
A: No. The AG's answer assumed the project met the statute's State Department of Education review and approval condition.

Q: Could the school district choose to apply a local building rule?
A: Yes. The statute quoted in the letter allowed either the department or the district to direct that a local rule apply to a particular project.

Q: Did the letter decide whether Oconee's projects met the condition?
A: No. It expressly framed the conclusion as an assumption that the projects satisfied the statutory terms.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted §6-9-110 (A), which exempted qualifying school district facilities and projects from local permit, license, or similar requirements used to enforce building standards. The exception to the exemption permitted state education officials or the local district to direct local application in a particular case.

Citations and references

• §6-9-110 (A), the school-project building-standard exemption and its opt-in clause.

Official title

Requesting as to whether a city inspector may require a prime contractor or sub-contractor to obtain a building permit and pay licensing fees for your school district’s current expansion projects.

Requester

Buddy Herring, Superintendent, Oconee County School District

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-15-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00june15herring.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY G ENERAL

Jun.e 15,

2000

Mr. Buddy Herring
Superintendent
Oconee County School District
P.O. Box 649
Walhalla, SC 29691
Dear Mr. Herring:
Your School District 's attorney has requested the opinion of this Office as to whether a city inspector may require a prime contractor or sub-contractor to obtain a building permit and pay licensing fees for your school district's current expansion projects. According to your attorney's letter of May 18, 2000, you have concluded that the inspector may not impose such requirements under the terms of S.C. Code Ann. §6-9-110 (A) (Supp. 1999) which provides, in part, as follows: (A) A county, municipal , or other local ordinance or regulation which requires the purchase or acquisition of a permit, license, or other device utilized to enforce any building standard does not apply to a: ... (2) school district facility, permanent improvement project, construction project, renovation project, or property which is reviewed and approved by the State Department of Education: except that the State Department of Education or a local school district may direct that the local ordinance or regulation apply to a particular facility. project, or property. Assuming that the projects meet the terms of paragraph 2. supra, I concur with the advice of your attorney. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a previous opinion of this Office which addressed this issue and reached a similar conclusion prior to the adoption of ~6-9-110. Ops. Atty. Gt:n. (\,larch 20. J978). This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions

RF\11111n C Dr.-.s1\ 8111 .111M;

•

Posr 01-rn-r Ho x I l :i4 lJ

•

( '<H n1111 .,. S.C . 2'!211 - 154'!

•

T1 '1.Er>11o>;E: X0.'- 7.1 4-J'J70

•

F..'cs1\111 r

XO\ - c'i .1 - li2~n

Mr. Buddy Herring
June 15, 2000
Page 2
asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Enclosures
CC:

I

Kenneth L. Childs, Esquire