When a South Carolina consolidated school district sets its annual tax levy, does the county council have the final say on the millage, or can the school board set it independently?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current South Carolina law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Hampton County's two school districts were consolidated by Act 184 of 2020, which also rewrote the funding mechanism. Beginning in 2025, the consolidated district's board of trustees has the authority to propose an annual tax levy and to propose a millage increase of up to two mills. But neither becomes the actual levy until the Hampton County Council approves it. Any larger increase requires Hampton County Council to call a referendum, which the county election commission would run alongside the next general election.
The split between the districts inside the county council had been whether the school board could independently set its own millage rate for fiscal year 2025-2026. The AG read the words "upon approval of the county governing body" in Section 5(B) of the Act as plain text granting the county council discretionary approval authority over both the levy itself and the small annual increase.
For comparison, the AG distinguished a 2021 Clarendon County act that gave the consolidated district direct authority to raise millage without separate county approval. Hampton County's statute is structured differently, and the AG declined to read in the same self-executing authority.
What this means for you
If you sit on Hampton County Council
For fiscal year 2025-2026 and forward, you have a real vote on the Hampton County School District's annual millage. The board of trustees can propose, but the levy doesn't become effective without your approval. The county auditor and treasurer act on whatever rate is certified after that approval, not on the board's initial proposal.
The same is true for the two-mill annual increase cap. The school district can ask for up to two mills above last year's rate (plus EFA inflation adjustments), but you control whether that ask becomes the actual levy. If the district wants more than two mills, your council, not the school board, is responsible for calling the referendum that would put it to voters.
If you sit on the Hampton County School District Board of Trustees
Your authority is to set a proposed rate and present it to county council. Plan your budget timeline around the council's approval cycle. If you proceed as though your board's vote is the final word, your certification to the auditor will be premature, and the council can refuse to approve.
A few practical implications: keep your communication with county council ongoing rather than dropping a proposed rate on them just before the auditor's certification deadline. If you want a larger-than-two-mill increase, build that into your timeline because it requires a council-called referendum at the next general election, not just a school board vote.
If you are a Hampton County taxpayer
Two layers of elected officials, the school board and the county council, both have a say on your school tax rate. If you object to a proposed increase, you can make your case to either body. The county council's approval is what actually triggers the bill on your tax statement.
For increases above two mills, you also have a direct vote because state law requires a referendum.
If you are a municipal finance attorney advising consolidated school districts
When you read local legislation that consolidated school districts, pay close attention to whether the millage clause says "the consolidated school district may raise its millage" (self-executing, see the 2021 Clarendon County act) or "the board of trustees is authorized to impose ... upon approval of the county governing body" (county approval required, the Hampton County structure). The AG draws a sharp line between those two phrasings, and that distinction will likely come up again as more consolidation acts are drafted.
Common questions
Q: Who actually sets the Hampton County School District millage rate?
A: The school board proposes it. Hampton County Council approves (or modifies, or denies) it. The auditor levies whatever rate the council certifies.
Q: Can the school district raise the millage by two mills on its own?
A: No. The two-mill annual increase still requires county council approval under Section 5(B) of Act 184. The two mills is a ceiling on what the board can propose without going to referendum, not an authorization to act unilaterally.
Q: What about increases above two mills?
A: The county council must call a referendum, run by the county election commission alongside the next general election. Voters in the district decide.
Q: How does this interact with S.C. Code § 6-1-320 (the general millage cap)?
A: Section 5(B) of the 2020 Act says where there is a conflict between its millage-increase rules and the general cap in § 6-1-320, the general cap controls. That means the local Act cannot be used to exceed the statewide limitation.
Q: What about adjustments for inflation and EFA funding?
A: The two-mill annual cap is in addition to whatever is needed to adjust for the EFA inflation factor and to meet § 59-21-1030 requirements. Those are not counted against the two-mill ceiling.
Q: Is this the same as Clarendon County's setup?
A: No. Act 106 of 2021 gave the Clarendon County consolidated district authority to set increases up to two mills without separate county approval. The Hampton County 2020 Act conditions both the levy and the increase on county council approval. The AG flagged that this drafting difference is what controls the answer.
Background and statutory framework
Act 184 of 2020 merged Hampton County School Districts No. 1 and No. 2 into a single unified Hampton County School District governed by an elected Board of Trustees. Section 5 of that Act set the funding rules.
The key language, Section 5(B):
Beginning in 2025, in order to obtain funds for school purposes the board of trustees is authorized to impose an annual tax levy upon approval of the county governing body, exclusive of any millage imposed for bond debt service.
And further:
Upon approval of the county governing body, the consolidated school district may raise its millage by no more than two mills over that levied for the previous year, in addition to any millage needed to adjust for the EFA inflation factor and sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 59-21-1030. An increase above this two mills for operations may be levied only after a majority of the registered electors of the district vote in favor of the millage increase in a referendum called by the county governing body and conducted by the county election commission at the same time as the general election.
The AG's interpretive move was straightforward: when the statute says "upon approval of the county governing body" twice, that approval is a precondition, not a courtesy. Under Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000), the text of a statute is the best evidence of legislative intent when the language is plain.
The Office also drew a contrast with its earlier April 15, 2025 opinion on Clarendon County, where 2021 Act 106 § 5 expressly gave the consolidated district authority to raise millage by up to two mills without separate county approval. That language is conspicuously absent from the Hampton County Act.
The result: Hampton County School District operates under a "school proposes, county approves" model for its annual levy and any small increase, with referendum required for anything larger.
Citations
- 2020 Act No. 184, § 5(B) (Hampton County school district consolidation; tax levy and millage)
- 2021 Act No. 106, § 5 (Clarendon County school district, contrasting structure)
- S.C. Code § 6-1-320 (statewide millage-rate-increase limitation)
- S.C. Code § 59-21-1030 (Education Finance Act requirements)
- Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000) (plain-language statutory interpretation)
- Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., WL (April 15, 2025) (Clarendon County comparison opinion)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-hampton-county-council-s-approval-over-the-tax-levy-on-mileage-increases-for-hampton-county-school-district/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/2vomwpmf/youmansl-os-11022-final-opinion-5-5-2025.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.
ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
May 05, 2025
Lavar Youmans
County Administrator
200 Jackson Ave. E.
Hampton, SC 29924
Dear Mr. Youmans:
Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. Your letter requests an expedited opinion addressing the following:
On behalf of the Hampton County Council, the governing body of Hampton County, South Carolina, I respectfully submit this formal request for an opinion from your office concerning the appropriate interpretation and legal application of Act No. 184 of 2020, which consolidated Hampton County School Districts No. 1 and No. 2 into a single unified Hampton County School District governed by an elected Board of Trustees.
Background and Legal Context
Section 5(B) of Act No. 184 states in part:
"Beginning in 2025, in order to obtain funds for school purposes, the board of trustees is authorized to impose an annual tax levy upon approval of the county governing body ..."
This provision has prompted differing interpretations as to whether, beginning in Fiscal Year 2025-2026, the Hampton County School Board may independently impose a millage rate for school operations, or whether the Hampton County Council retains discretionary authority to approve, modify, or deny the proposed rate.
Law/Analysis
This Office is issuing an expedited opinion, and it should be read in the context of this Office's prior opinions and other applicable law. It is this Office's opinion that section 5 of 2020 Act No. 184 (the "2020 Act") assigns the Hampton County Council approval authority over both the annual tax levy and millage increases of no more than two mills. Section 5(B) reads:
(B) Beginning in 2025, in order to obtain funds for school purposes the board of trustees is authorized to impose an annual tax levy upon approval of the county governing body, exclusive of any millage imposed for bond debt service. Upon certification to the county auditor of the tax levy to be imposed, the auditor shall levy and the county treasurer shall collect the millage so certified upon all taxable property in the district. Upon approval of the county governing body, the consolidated school district may raise its millage by no more than two mills over that levied for the previous year, in addition to any millage needed to adjust for the EFA inflation factor and sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 59-21-1030. An increase above this two mills for operations may be levied only after a majority of the registered electors of the district vote in favor of the millage increase in a referendum called by the county governing body and conducted by the county election commission at the same time as the general election. To the extent the provisions of this section relating to increases in school millages conflict with the provisions of Section 6-1-320, relating to the millage rate increase limitation, the provisions of Section 6-1-320 control.
Id. (emphasis added). The plain language of the 2020 Act states the "the board of trustees is authorized to impose an annual tax levy," but that authority is contingent upon the approval of "the county governing body." Similarly, while "the consolidated school district may raise its millage by no more than two mills," that is again contingent upon the approval of "the county governing body." In both instances, the county governing body refers to the county council. Therefore, Hampton County Council is vested with approval authority over the tax levy and increases to millage of no more than two mills above the millage in the prior year. Moreover, the 2020 Act authorizes Hampton County Council to call for a referendum to be submitted to the electors of the district for millage increases above two mills.
This Office recently issued an opinion on local legislation regarding the Clarendon County School District and Clarendon County Council's role in approving the school district's budget and millage which we attach for reference. See Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., WL (April 15, 2025). The relevant local legislation, 2021 Act No. 106, § 5, expressly stated "the consolidated school district" was authorized to increase its millage by no more than two mills or to call for a referendum for increases above two mills. In contrast, the express language of 2020 Act authorizes the board of trustees or the consolidated school district such powers, but only "upon approval." It is clear that the General Assembly intended for Hampton County Council to hold discretionary authority to approve or reject the proposed millage submitted by the school district board of trustees. Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) (Where a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, "the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will.").
Sincerely,
Matthew Houck
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2025 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current South Carolina statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.