Can a South Carolina county bill a city for 911 dispatch and for housing the city's inmates, even though the county already collects 911 fees and taxes residents?

Plain-English summary

The Varnville police chief asked two questions. First, is it legal for Hampton County to charge the town a monthly fee (he cited $1,687.50) to dispatch police and fire, when the county already collects all the 911 fees from landlines and cell phones, and does that amount to an extra tax on town residents? Second, is the county's $25-per-day charge for housing municipal inmates at the county detention center "double taxation," given that the county also taxes its residents to run the jail?

The Attorney General began by explaining a limit on what it can do: it cannot decide whether a particular bill from a county to a city is authorized, because that "will necessarily depend on the facts," and the AG's office is not a court or fact-finding body. So the opinion lays out the legal framework rather than declaring the specific bills legal or illegal.

On 911 dispatch billing. The South Carolina Constitution (art. VIII, § 13) expressly lets political subdivisions agree with the State or each other for "the joint administration of any function and exercise of powers and the sharing of the costs thereof," and § 4-9-40 lets a county contract to provide services within municipalities. So a county and city plainly may agree to share 911 dispatch costs. The 911 system framework is in Title 23, Chapter 47. The AG noted prior guidance that a municipality inside an approved countywide 911 plan generally cannot break off and adopt its own separate 911 surcharge. But those limits on extra surcharges do not stop counties and cities from agreeing to supplement their 911 funding. The catch: if there is no cost-sharing agreement, the AG said it "cannot speculate as to what authority the county would cite to directly bill a municipality for 911 services."

On housing municipal inmates. Section 24-7-120 gives a municipality three choices: operate its own jail, enter a joint facility with other municipalities, or agree with the county to pay a fee that offsets the cost of detaining municipal inmates (covering things like medical care, lodging, meals, transportation, and security for court appearances). Because Varnville's inmates are housed at the county detention center, the AG concluded it appears the town elected the agreement option and is being billed "as authorized by the General Assembly."

The opinion does not use the phrase "double taxation" as a legal conclusion; it points to the statutes that authorize cost-sharing agreements and explains the specific question of any one bill's validity is factual.

What this means for you

Municipal officials and police chiefs

Based on this opinion, a county and a city may lawfully agree to share 911 dispatch costs, and a city may agree to pay the county to house its inmates under § 24-7-120. The key question for any specific charge is whether an agreement authorizes it. The AG did not say the Varnville charges are illegal; it said whether a given bill is authorized depends on the facts, including whether an intergovernmental agreement exists. If you are unsure, locate the underlying agreement (or confirm none exists).

County officials

The opinion confirms counties may contract to provide services within municipalities (§ 4-9-40) and share costs under art. VIII, § 13, and may charge a city to house municipal inmates under § 24-7-120. It does not bless billing a city for 911 services absent some authorizing agreement; the AG could not identify what authority would support a direct bill where no cost-sharing agreement exists.

Local government attorneys

Note the two limits the AG flagged: (1) a municipality within an approved countywide 911 plan generally cannot adopt a separate 911 surcharge (Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 3199995), though that does not bar voluntary supplemental funding agreements; and (2) the AG expressly declined to determine whether the specific bills are authorized, calling that a factual question outside an opinion. Verify the existence and terms of any intergovernmental agreement before advising on a particular charge.

Common questions

Did the AG say the county's 911 charge is illegal?
No. The AG said it cannot decide whether a specific bill is authorized because that depends on the facts. It explained counties and cities may agree to share 911 costs, and that absent an agreement it could not say what authority would support a direct bill.

Can a city run its own 911 system to avoid the county's charge?
The AG cited prior guidance that a municipality within an approved countywide 911 plan generally cannot break off with its own separate 911 surcharge. Cost-sharing agreements, however, are permitted.

Is the $25-per-day inmate charge allowed?
Section 24-7-120 expressly lets a city agree to pay the county a fee to offset the cost of housing municipal inmates. Because the town's inmates are at the county facility, the AG said it appears the town chose that agreement option and is being billed as the statute authorizes.

Is any of this "double taxation"?
The opinion does not reach a "double taxation" conclusion. It frames the issue around whether cost-sharing agreements authorize the charges and notes the validity of any specific bill is a fact question.

Background and statutory framework

Article VIII, § 13 of the South Carolina Constitution authorizes the State and its political subdivisions to agree on the joint administration of functions and the sharing of costs. Section 4-9-40 authorizes a county to contract to provide services within municipalities. Title 23, Chapter 47 establishes South Carolina's 911 systems, including the countywide-plan and surcharge framework (§§ 23-47-10, 23-47-20(B)(2), 23-47-30, 23-47-40). The AG has previously opined that a municipality within an approved countywide 911 plan generally cannot adopt a separate 911 surcharge (Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 3199995 (Oct. 26, 2006)).

Section 24-7-120 governs municipal inmates: a municipality may operate its own jail, enter a joint facility with other municipalities, or agree with the county to pay a fee offsetting the cost of detaining municipal inmates.

The AG repeatedly notes it cannot make factual determinations in an opinion (Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (Apr. 3, 1989)), so it addressed the legal framework rather than the validity of the specific bills.

Citations

• S.C. Const. art. VIII, § 13 (joint administration and cost-sharing among governments)
• S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-40 (county power to contract for services within municipalities)
• S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-47-10, 23-47-20(B)(2), 23-47-30, 23-47-40 (911 systems; countywide plans and surcharges)
• S.C. Code Ann. § 24-7-120 (municipal jails; agreements to house municipal inmates)
• Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 3199995 (Oct. 26, 2006); Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (Apr. 3, 1989)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-a-county-billing-a-municipality-for-911-system-services-and-housing-municipal-inmates/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/11cmmlux/smitht-os-10973-final-opinion-1-3-2025-pdf.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 3, 2025

Chief Tyrone Smith
Varnville Police Department
P.O. Box 308
Varnville, SC 29944

Dear Chief Smith:

Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. Your letter requests an opinion addressing the following:

Hampton County Government charges the Municipality of Varnville a monthly fee of $1687.50 to dispatch the Police & Fire Department (Section 23-47-10). Hampton County Government receives all 911 fees from landlines and cellphone services. This arrangement prohibits the Municipalities from collecting those fees.

Is it legal/illegal for the County of Hampton to charge the Municipalities to dispatch Police and Fire when it is already collecting the forementioned 911 fees from landlines and cellphone services? Would that not be considered an additional tax to the citizens of the municipalities?

In addition, I am also requesting a legal opinion of the Attorney General's office in reference to housing of inmates at the Hampton County Detention Center:

Hampton County Government charges the municipalities $25.00 a day for housing inmates that are being detained at the Hampton County Detention Center for misdemeanors. Hampton County also taxes its citizens to operate the Detention Center.

Would this be considered double taxation? This current arrangement may inevitably cause our municipalities and others to increase taxes on its own citizens.

Law/Analysis

This Office's opinions cannot determine whether a bill from a county to a municipality is authorized or not as it will necessarily depend on the facts. See Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (April 3, 1989) ("Because this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able, in a legal opinion, to adjudicate or investigate factual questions."). The South Carolina Constitution expressly allows political subdivisions to agree with the State or "other political subdivision for the joint administration of any function and exercise of powers and the sharing of the costs thereof." S.C. Const. art. VIII, § 13. This section additionally clarifies, "Nothing in this Constitution may be construed to prohibit the State or any of its counties, incorporated municipalities, or other political subdivisions from agreeing to share the lawful cost, responsibility, and administration of functions with any one or more governments, whether within or without this State." Id. (emphasis added); see also S.C. Code § 4-9-40 (Power of county to contract for services within municipalities).

As described in your letter, the municipality receives a monthly bill from the county for costs associated with Police and Fire dispatch. However, there is no indication whether this bill was issued pursuant to an agreement between the two political subdivisions or not. Certainly, the municipality and the county have the authority to enter into an agreement to share the costs associated with 911 dispatch services. The South Carolina Code of Laws establishes 911 systems in Title 23, Chapter 47. This Office previously opined regarding a municipality's authority to establish a second surcharge for 911 services after a county already had an approved countywide plan. Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 3199995 (October 26, 2006). Therein, we explained that it did not appear a municipality had authority to adopt an ordinance calling for funds to be remitted to it from a service supplier as a countywide plan was already in place.

In formulating a response to your questions, I contacted individuals with the State Budget and Control Board who oversee 911 systems in this state. I was informed that Lexington County submitted a plan to the Board that has been reviewed and approved consistent with Section 23-47-30 referenced above. It has always been the policy of the Board that once a county has filed a 911 plan that has been approved, not to allow a municipality which is part of an approved county plan to break off and file a separate plan. Moreover, it is the policy of the Board that once a county has adopted a Board approved ordinance under Section 23-47-40, a city cannot adopt a separate ordinance to implement a 911 charge. Additionally, as set forth above, Section 23-47-20(B)(2) provides that "...public safety agencies that provide emergency service within the territory of a 911 system shall participate in the countywide system." Such provision does not appear to support the separate surcharge funding of a 911 system for West Columbia.

Id. at 1-2. While there are limitations on authorization of additional surcharges, these limitations do not prohibit counties and municipalities from agreeing to provide supplemental funding to their 911 systems. However, if there is no agreement to share costs between them, we cannot speculate as to what authority the county would cite to directly bill a municipality for 911 services.

Your second question concerns the county billing the municipality for the housing of inmates. South Carolina Code § 24-7-120 allows a municipality to either operate its own jail, enter into an agreement with other municipalities to operate a joint facility, or agree the county in which it is located to pay a fee to offset the costs of detaining municipal inmates at a county detention facility.

A municipality may operate its own jail for the purpose of detaining those persons charged with a criminal offense pending release on bond or trial and for the purpose of detaining those individuals who have been tried and convicted of a criminal offense in the municipal court. The governing body of the municipality must provide suitable and sufficient employee supervision and equipment to safely keep all persons charged or detained and must pay all costs and expenses. Where the municipality elects not to operate its own jail, then the municipality may enter into an agreement with other municipalities, preferably in the county of jurisdiction, to operate a joint facility to hold these individuals.

The municipality also may elect, in the alternative, to enter into an agreement with the county governing body in which the municipality is located. The agreement may require the municipality to pay a fee to offset the costs of detaining the offenders to include, but not be limited to, medical care and treatment of the offenders, all lodging and meal expenses, all transportation and security for court appearances, medical appointments, other transportation as may be necessary, and other miscellaneous expenses as may be mutually agreed upon. Those persons so detained must be in the custody of the county official who has custody of the jail or of the prison camp, as appropriate.

Id. (emphasis added). Because your letter indicates municipal inmates are being housed at the county detention center, it appears that the municipality elected to enter into an agreement with the county governing body and is being billed as authorized by the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

Matthew Houck
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General