If only Rock Hill earned one seat by population, who selected the other municipal members of a county sales tax commission?

Plain-English summary

The Capital Projects Sales Tax Act provided for a six-member commission: three county appointees and three municipal members. Municipal seats were first allocated using a population-based appointive index. If that method filled fewer than three seats, the municipal appointees already selected were to choose the remaining members from municipalities that lacked representation.

Rock Hill told the Attorney General that it was the only York County municipality entitled to make an initial appointment under the formula. On those stated facts, the opinion concluded that Rock Hill's one appointee could select the two remaining municipal members. It read the statute's reference to a joint meeting of municipal appointees to include a situation with only one such appointee.

What this means for you

Municipalities in the county

For the arrangement Rock Hill described, the first municipal appointee held the selection authority for the two unfilled municipal seats. The statute required those seats to be filled from municipalities that had not yet supplied a representative.

County officials and commission members

The opinion left the county's three appointments separate from the municipal selection process. Its conclusion depended on the stated population calculation yielding only one initial municipal appointee.

Common questions

Could Rock Hill's single appointee choose two more municipal commission members?

The Attorney General said yes, on the facts supplied by the city. Since only one municipal member had been selected under the population formula, that member could make the two remaining selections.

Did the statute require appointees from multiple cities to meet before selecting the remaining seats?

The opinion said no for this situation. It interpreted the provision for a joint meeting of municipal appointees to allow the sole existing municipal appointee to select the unfilled seats.

Could the remaining selections come from the same municipality?

The statute quoted in the opinion directed that the remaining members come from municipalities in the county that had not yet provided a representative. The opinion applied that rule to Rock Hill's one initial appointment.

Background and legal framework

The act charged the commission with considering capital project proposals and shaping referendum questions. Its six seats were divided equally between county and municipal appointees. The municipal allocation formula used census population to calculate an appointive index for each municipality. The Attorney General applied the text for unfilled municipal seats to the city's account that Rock Hill alone qualified for an initial appointment. It answered who selected the remaining two seats, without recalculating the population figures itself.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code section 4-10-320(A)(2) (commission composition and municipal seat allocation).
• State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 587, 713 S.E.2d 621, 622-23 (2011) (plain meaning rule quoted by the opinion).

Official title

Opinion addressing appointments to commissions created under the Capital Projects Sales Tax Act.

Requester

Requested by Paul W. Dillingham, Esquire, attorney for the City of Rock Hill.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-appointments-to-commissions-created-under-the-capital-projects-sales-tax-act/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/kvzbrgdt/03158535.pdf

Original opinion text

O

Alan Wilson
Attorney General

November 15, 2022

Paul W. Dillingham, Esq.
Spencer & Spencer

Post Office Box 790

Rock Hill, South Carolina 29731-6790
Dear Mr. Dillingham:

We understand your firm represents the City of Rock (the “City”) and you desire an opinion from this Office on behalf of the City concerning the South Carolina Capital Projects Sales Tax Act. Your question pertains to the commissions created pursuant to section 4-10-320 of the South Carolina Code (2021), which are charged with considering proposals for capital projects and formulating referendum questions for the funding of proposed projects. Specifically, you ask whether “[i]f under S.C. Code Ann. § 4- 10-3 20(A)(2)(c) only the City is able to appoint a commission member, does S.C. Code Ann. § 4-10-320(A)(2)(d) provide that the City appointed commission member thereby appoints the two remaining commission appointees of municipalities?” Law/Analysis

The answer to your question necessitates an interpretation of section 4-10-320 of the South Carolina Code. When interpreting this statute, we must keep in mind the primary rule of statutory construction, which is “to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent.” Hodges v, Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). The best evidence of legislative intent is gleaned from the text of the statute. Id. “[A] court must abide by the plain meaning of the words of a statute. When interpreting the plain meaning of a statute, courts should not resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute’s operation.” State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 587, 713 S.E.2d 621, 622-23 (2011) (citations omitted). Section 4-10-320 provides in pertinent part:

(A) The governing body of any county is authorized to create a commission subject to the provisions of this section. The commission consists of six members, all of whom must be residents of the county, appointed as follows: (1) The governing body of the county must appoint three members of the commission.

ilembertC. Dennis Building

~

Post Ctfice Box i 1 549

«

Columbia, SC 292 1 i - 1 549

Telephone Su?.-734-3970

Facsimile <.-03-253-6283

Paul W. Dillingham, Esq.
Page 2

November 15, 2022

(2) The municipalities in the county must appoint three members, who

must be residents of incorporated municipalities within the county, and who are selected according to the following mechanism: (a) The total population of all incorporated municipalities within the county, as determined by the most recent United States census, must be divided by three, the result being an apportionate average.

(b) The respective population of each municipality in the county

must be divided by the apportionate average to determine an appointive index. (c) Each municipality in the county appoints a number of members to the commission equal to

indicated

by their appointive

index.

the whole number

However,

no

single

municipality may appoint more than two members to the
commission; unless there is only one municipality in the county, and

in

such

case

the

municipality

is

entitled

to

three

appointments to the commission.

(d) When less than three members are selected to the
commission in accordance with the prescribed appointive index method, the remaining member or members must be selected in

a joint meeting of the commission appointees of the
municipalities in the county. The member or members must be chosen from among the residents of the municipalities in the

county that before this time have not provided a representative for the commission. (e) In the event no municipality is entitled to appoint a member to the commission pursuant to the formula in subitem (c) of this subsection, the municipality with the highest appointive index must be deemed to have an appointive index of one.

In your letter, you informed us that “[u]nder the statute and using the latest census numbers, the City is the only municipality in York County that is able to appoint an initial municipal member to the commission. The City has made this appointment, leaving two (2) additional municipal members to be selected.” Based on this information, pursuant to section 4- 10-3 20(A)(2)(c), we presume the City is the only municipality with an appointive index greater than one, but its appointive index is less than two. Therefore, initially, the City may only appoint one member to

Paul W. Dillingham, Esq.
Page 3
November 15, 2022

the commission pursuant to section 4-10-320(A)(2)(c). As such, you question how the other two

municipal members of the commission are to be appointed.
You reference section 4-1 0-320(A)(2)(d), which requires “the remaining member or members must be selected in a joint meeting of the commission appointees of the municipalities in the

county.” Based on a plain reading of this provision, the municipal appointees who have already been appointed to serve on the commission pursuant to the appointive index method select the remaining member or members. According to the information you provided, the City’s appointee is the only member appointed through the appointive indexing process. Therefore, we agree with your opinion that the City’s appointee, as the only appointee of the municipalities in the county,

may appoint the other two municipal members of the commission. Conclusion According to section 4-10-320(A)(2), which governs the creation of commissions under the Capital Project Sales Tax Act, when less than three municipal members arc appointed using the

appointive index method, the Legislature gives the municipal appointees who have been appointed using such method the authority to appoint the remaining members.

Therefore, when only one

municipal member is appointed under the appointed index method, we believe the Legislature intended to allow that member to appoint the two remaining members.

Sincerely,

Cydncy Milling

Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Xobcrt D. Cook
Solicitor General