Can South Carolina C-funds pave a public road to a county administration building?

Plain-English summary

Senator Kent M. Williams asked about using C-funds to pave a public road between Marion County's administration building and a highway. The Attorney General said a court would likely view the described roadway as serving a public purpose. That alone did not answer the funding question. The state statute required C-funds to be approved by and used to advance an adopted countywide transportation plan.

The office could not decide whether this particular project advanced that plan. It called the issue factual and said only a court could determine it.

What this means for you

County transportation officials

The opinion made the project's link to the countywide transportation plan decisive for C-fund eligibility. The county's ownership of the road was not, by itself, the controlling factor under the earlier AG opinion the office discussed.

Residents and county budget officials

For the described public road, the office saw a likely public purpose but did not give a final approval to spend C-funds. Its answer depended on whether the adopted countywide transportation plan covered or benefited from the proposed paving.

Common questions

Q: Are C-funds automatically available for a road beside a county building?
A: No. The opinion said the road's public purpose was likely satisfied on the stated facts, but C-fund use still had to advance an approved countywide transportation plan.

Q: Did the AG decide whether Marion County's road met the plan requirement?
A: No. The office said that was a factual question for a court, beyond the scope of its opinion.

Q: Does ownership of the pavement decide C-fund eligibility?
A: The opinion quoted an earlier view that the project's transportation connection mattered more than who owned the property.

Background and statutory framework

S.C. Code § 12-28-2740(B) required gasoline user-fee C-funds to be approved by and used in furtherance of a countywide transportation plan adopted by a county transportation committee. The request described an existing public roadway used for county activities, rather than a private-business driveway or parking lot. The office separated the likely public purpose of the paving from the unresolved transportation-plan condition.

Citations and references

The official PDF quotes S.C. Code § 12-28-2740(B) and discusses a prior C-funds opinion concerning fire-department access and parking areas.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/whether-c-funds-can-be-used-to-finance-paving-a-road-that-connects-a-county-administration-building-to-a-highway/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/0grncquf/02801617.pdf

Original opinion text

c$j^sSSS!i£c>
$

f,

I

u

41 imI

o

*

*

y%*k

SPIS ///Mf rr*

°^OUTVl ^¥>
Alan Wilson
ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 25, 2021

The Honorable Kent M. Williams
Member

South Carolina Senate
District No. 30
P.O. Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Senator Williams:

Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section.

Your

letter states the following:

A question has arisen in Marion County concerning whether the county can use C-Funds to pave an existing roadway that connects the Marion County Administration building with US Highway 76.

Marion County renovated an old Walmart several years ago to provide a 'one stop shop' for residents to access county services. There is an existing

roadway that is used by the county during drive-through programs and other similar events. The roadway is a public road that is not used for ingress and egress to private businesses and it is not a parking lot that is used for the benefit of private business. This is the roadway that the county would like to pave. I have

attached a map that reflects where the existing roadway is located. Is the county statutorily authorized to use C-Funds to pave the roadway? Law/Analysis

It is this Office's opinion that the South Carolina Code of Laws requires that the user fee on gasoline, or "C" funds, must be "approved by and used in furtherance of a countywide transportation plan adopted by a county transportation committee." S.C. Code § 12-28-2740(B).

A prior opinion of this Office addressed a similar proposal by Chester County to use C funds "to pave the ingress, egress and parking areas of [several fire departments.]" Op. S.C. Att'v Gen..

RembertC. Dennis Building

»

Post Office Box 11549

• Columbia, SC2921I-1549

• Telephone 803-734-3970

• Facsimile 803-253-6283

The Honorable Kent M. Williams
Page 2

October 25, 2021

2016 WL 7177426 (November 18, 2016). Therein we stated, "[Ijt is this Office's opinion that it

is the nature of the project's nexus to transportation which is determinative rather than the ownership of the property for determining the appropriateness of expending "C" funds under Section 12-28-2740." Id at 3. As described in the request letter, a court would likely find paving

the subject roadway serves a public purpose and would therefore be a permissible use of public funds. Elliott v. McNair. 250 S.C. 75, 156 S.E.2d 421 (1967); S.C. Const, art. X, § 5. However, the use of "C" funds on a project must benefit a countywide transportation plan.

Whether a

particular project furthers a countywide transportation plan is a factual determination that only a

court can decide. Sec Op. S.C. Atf v Gen., 2006 WE 1207271 (April 4, 2006) ("Because this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we arc not able to adjudicate or investigate factual questions").

Sincerely,

Matthew Houek

Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

%

Robert" D. Cook
Solicitor General

I