Which South Carolina agency tracked local-government debt limits for legislators in 1995?

Short answer The 1995 AG letter pointed to the State Treasurer’s statutory responsibilities and published debt reports, but said a requirement to keep legislators informed about local debt percentages was a policy choice for the General Assembly. It suggested amending the reporting statute if lawmakers wanted those additional figures.
State
South Carolina
Opinion
1995-october-2-1995-1
Issued
October 2, 1995
Issued by
Office of the South Carolina Attorney General
Requested by
The Honorable Larry L. Koon, Member of House of Representatives

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what current South Carolina law means for your facts, with citations you can check.

Disclaimer: This is an official South Carolina Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed South Carolina attorney for advice on your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Official title

Inquiring as to what state agency is responsible for monitoring the eight and fifteen percent debt limitations for the various political subdivisions of the State of South Carolina.

Requester

The Honorable Larry L. Koon, Member of House of Representatives

Plain-English summary

A 1995 South Carolina Attorney General letter pointed a legislator to the State Treasurer's statutory responsibilities and reports on political-subdivision debt. The legislator had asked who monitored the state's eight- and fifteen-percent debt limits. The letter observed that the Treasurer's published report did not give each subdivision's actual debt percentage, though its explanation showed that aggregate information existed.

The author suggested the General Assembly could amend the reporting statute to require more information for legislative delegations. Which state agency should keep legislators informed about debt limits in their districts, the letter said, was a policy decision for the legislature. It did not assert that a then-existing law already required every local percentage to be sent to each legislator.

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.

Common questions

Q: Did the 1995 letter identify an agency already publishing each locality's debt percentage? A: No. It pointed to the State Treasurer's debt responsibilities and reports but expressly said the actual percentage for each political subdivision was not shown in the report it reviewed.

Q: What change did the letter suggest for legislative reporting? A: It suggested lawmakers consider amending the statute to require the additional debt information they wanted sent to legislative delegations.

Background and statutory framework

The inquiry concerned oversight of percentage debt limits for South Carolina political subdivisions. The letter enclosed the Treasurer statute and sample report pages, then separated existing responsibilities from the legislature's choice about future reporting.

Citations and references

  • S.C. Code Ann. §11-15-100

Source

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 2, 1995

The Honorable Larry L. Koon
Member, House of Representatives
2263-C Old Cherokee Road
Lexington, South Carolina 29072
Dear Representative Koon:

I
I

~

By your letter of September 25, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, you have inquired as to what state agency is responsible for monitoring the eight and fifteen percent debt limitations for the various political subdivisions of the State of South Carolina. I am enclosing a copy of S.C. Code Ann. §11-15-100 (1994 Cum. Supp.), which reposes certain responsibilities with respect to indebtedness of the various political subdivisions with the Treasurer of the State of South Carolina. I am also enclosing copies of several pages of one of the reports published by the State Treasurer with respect to such indebtedness. While the actual percent of debt of each political subdivision is not reported therein, it is apparent that such figures may exist, for in the explanatory material it is observed that 42 counties are within the eight percent limit, while 33 counties are below four percent. You may wish to consider amending § 11-15-100 to have reported the additional information to the legislative delegations, as you have outlined in your letter. '

As to which state agency "should" be required to keep legislative members informed as to the debt limits in their local legislative districts, that would be a matter of policy to be addressed by the General Assembly.

REMBERT

c. DENNIS Bt'ILDl'.'G

•

PosTOmcE Box 11549

•

CoLCMBIA.

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Lany L. Koon
Page 2
October 2, 1995
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,

Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Enclosures

What does South Carolina law say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1995. Ezel checks the current South Carolina statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace