Must a South Carolina special purpose district follow the state procurement code when leasing property?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether a special purpose district had to follow the South Carolina Consolidated Procurement Code when leasing or disposing of property. The 2000 informal opinion answered no. The code's definition of “governmental body” expressly excluded special purpose districts and other local political subdivisions.

The letter said special purpose districts were required to develop their own procurement procedures. If a district failed to adopt proper procedures, the state code's remedies were unavailable. Because the district was not bound by the state code, the AG considered the question whether a violation of that code could terminate a lease moot.

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 state procurement code govern a special purpose district's property lease?
A: No. The opinion said the code's definition of governmental body excluded special purpose districts.

Q: Could the district ignore procurement procedures altogether?
A: No. The AG said § 11-35-50 required special purpose districts to develop their own procedures.

Q: Would the state code's remedies apply if the district had not adopted its procedures?
A: The opinion said they would not. It assumed for this answer that the district had failed to adopt them and did not decide another basis for terminating the lease.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion distinguished the state code's scope from the separate duty imposed on political subdivisions to set their own procurement procedures. It read the local-government exclusion in § 11-35-310(18) with the rule in § 11-35-50 that a failure to adopt local procedures was not subject to the state procurement code's remedies.

Citations and references

• § 11-35-40(2), defining the state code's scope.
• § 11-35-310(18), excluding local political subdivisions from “governmental body.”
• § 11-35-50, requiring local procurement procedures and addressing remedies.

Official title

Requesting whether a special purpose district must follow the state procurement code when leasing and disposing of property.

Requester

The Honorable Alex Harvin, III, The Majority Leader Emeritus, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-11-2000-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00oct11harvin.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CON DO N
ATIORNEY GENERAL

October 11, 2000
The Honorable Alex Harvin, III
The Majority Leader Emeritus
House of Representatives
Post Office Box 266
Summerton, South Carolina 29148
I '<

RE: Informal Opinion

Dear Representative Harvin:
By your letter of October 3, 2000, you have requested an opinion of this Office on whether a special purpose district must follow the state procurement code when leasing and disposing of property. You also ask whether a special purpose district's failure to follow the state procurement code, if so bound, could result of the termination of a lease. The South Carolina Consolidated Procurement Code, codified at S.C. Code§ 11-35-10 et seq., applies to "every expenditure of funds by this State under contract acting through a governmental body as herein defined." S.C. CODE ANN. § 11-35-40(2). The definition of "Governmental Body," for purposes of the procurement code, expressly excludes "all local political subdivisions such as counties, municipalities, school districts, or public service or special purpose districts ..." S.C. CODE ANN.§ 11-35-310(18). Thus, in response to your first question, a special purpose is not required to follow the S.C. Consolidated Procurement Code.

In fact, under S.C. Code § 11-35-50, special purpose districts are required to develop their own procedures for procurement, which should have been implemented by July 1, 1983. However, Section 11-35-50 also provides that a political subdivision's failure to adopt proper procedures for procurement is not subject to the remedies provided in the procurement code. Your second question appears to be moot because it is contingent on the special purpose district being bound by the state procurement code. I assume, however, that the special purpose district has not adopted its own procurement procedures. If that is indeed the case, procurement code remedies are unavailable to the special purpose district or other aggrieved party concerning the termination of the lease.

j)
RE.\ t111xr C.!]Ejj'' Bltl.DI NG
f.-e A>((,u-o:I r v J.L.1-1 . .

•

PosT OtFICt; Rox

115-19

•

Cot.1 · ~1111 ,,, S.C. 29211 - 15-19

•

TEL E PHO ~E : 801-7J-1-J970

•

F11cs1M 11.i:: 803-2.'iJ -6283

Representative Harvin
October 11, 2000
Page 2 of2
This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I remain

!

L
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

I
m.~'';

I