After the 2025 amendment, does the Clarendon County School District board still set its own budget and millage, or does county council have to approve them?

Plain-English summary

In 2021, the General Assembly merged Clarendon County's two school districts into one, with an elected board of trustees, and gave that board "total fiscal autonomy" starting in 2024. Four years later, in March 2025, the General Assembly walked it back. H-3792 (the "2025 Act") amended the 2021 statute so that the school board now has to submit its annual budget to Clarendon County Council by May 31 each year, and the budget is "subject to approval by the county council."

This opinion settles the procedural questions that the amendment raised: who holds the public hearing, who acts by ordinance versus resolution, and what happens when the two bodies disagree.

The AG's answers:

• Both the school district and the county council must hold public hearings before they act. The school board needs one under S.C. Code § 6-1-80, and county council needs one under S.C. Code § 4-9-130(1). Two hearings, not one.
• Once county council acts to approve, that action must be by ordinance, not resolution, because S.C. Code § 4-9-130 says "final council action" to "adopt annual operational and capital budgets" requires public hearing and § 4-9-140 makes the adoption an ordinance.
• If the board and the council cannot agree, county council has independent authority to decline the proposed budget. But the council cannot use that authority to fall below state-law minimum funding levels for the district.
• The 2021 Act's "total fiscal autonomy" language conflicts with the 2025 Act's "approval" requirement. The 2025 Act controls. The 2021 Act's millage rules (two-mill annual cap, referendum required for more) remain because they do not conflict.

What this means for you

If you sit on the Clarendon County School District Board of Trustees

Your budget cycle is now county-dependent. You must submit your proposed budget to Clarendon County Council by May 31 each year in line-item form. The budget has to detail expenditures by office or department, and it must specifically itemize salaries paid to all administrators and department heads.

Before you submit, hold your own public hearing under S.C. Code § 6-1-80. Advertise it in a newspaper of general circulation. After you submit, county council holds its own hearing before approving.

Keep in mind: the board still has authority to hire the superintendent, and the superintendent still has authority to hire, fire, and set salaries of district employees. The 2025 Act did not transfer those powers to county council. Your discretion over personnel decisions remains intact, even as the budget total becomes a council decision.

If you sit on Clarendon County Council

Treat the budget approval as a legislative act. You will hold a public hearing under S.C. Code § 4-9-130(1), and you will adopt the approved budget by ordinance under § 4-9-120 and § 4-9-140. A resolution is not enough.

Your discretion to decline is real but not unlimited. The AG explicitly noted that:

1. Your approval or rejection "must not create a conflict with funding mandates" under state law. Richland County School District One v. Richland County Council holds that a county cannot unilaterally drop millage below the EFA-mandated minimum local effort. If the school district's submitted budget meets the state-law floor, you cannot cut it below that floor on your own initiative.
2. Per Jasper County Board of Education v. Jasper County Council, your oversight is "subject to the exercise of good faith and for an appropriate purpose." Open-ended pretextual rejections may not survive judicial scrutiny.

If you cannot reach agreement with the school board, a court can order both sides to comply, Dorchester County School District Three v. Dorchester County Council (1986) shows the SC Supreme Court has done exactly that: ordering the council to consider the budget and ordering the school board to submit one, with mandamus and contempt as the enforcement teeth.

If you are a Clarendon County parent or taxpayer

Two layers of elected officials now sit between you and your school taxes. The school board sets the proposed budget; the county council has the final say. You can speak at both the school board's hearing under § 6-1-80 and the county council's hearing under § 4-9-130. Both must be advertised in a local paper before they happen.

The millage cap rules are unchanged: the district can ask for up to two additional mills per year (above the prior year's levy plus EFA adjustments). Anything above that requires a referendum that the school district itself calls. The 2025 Act left the millage mechanics alone, only the budget approval changed.

If you are a municipal finance attorney working on consolidation legislation

The Clarendon County experience is now an instructive case study in re-localizing fiscal control. The 2021 Act gave the consolidated district "total fiscal autonomy," and four years of friction prompted the General Assembly to take it back. When you draft a consolidation bill, the budget-approval structure deserves more attention than it usually gets:

• "Total fiscal autonomy" language without an approval requirement leaves the district fully independent.
• "Subject to approval by the county council" language requires county action, two public hearings, and adoption by ordinance.
• A drafting choice the legislature can revisit. Plan for both directions.

Also watch what happens when a statute conflicts with an amendment. Under State v. Hood, repeals by implication are disfavored. The AG concluded the 2021 Act's millage rules survive because they can be reconciled; only the parts inconsistent with the 2025 Act are superseded.

Common questions

Q: Who has final authority over the Clarendon County School District's budget?
A: Clarendon County Council. The school board proposes the budget by May 31; council approves (or declines, or modifies) by ordinance after a public hearing.

Q: Does the school board still have any independent budget authority?
A: Not on the budget total or the millage. But the board still controls hiring the superintendent, and the superintendent still controls hiring, firing, and setting salaries for district employees. Those powers were not transferred by the 2025 Act.

Q: How many public hearings are required?
A: Two. The school board holds one under S.C. Code § 6-1-80 before submitting its proposed budget. County council holds another under § 4-9-130(1) before adopting the approved budget. The AG read the two statutes as not superseding each other; both apply.

Q: Can county council just adopt the budget by resolution?
A: No. S.C. Code § 4-9-120 requires ordinances for council action of this character, and § 4-9-140 ties budget adoption to ordinances. A resolution would not be a valid budget adoption.

Q: What happens if the school board and county council cannot agree?
A: They have to keep negotiating, or they end up in court. Dorchester County School District Three v. Dorchester County Council (1986) is precedent for the Supreme Court ordering both sides to act, with contempt as enforcement.

Q: Can county council reject the budget for any reason it wants?
A: Mostly yes, but not entirely. The AG flagged two limits. First, Jasper County Board of Education v. Jasper County Council says oversight must be "in good faith and for an appropriate purpose." Second, the council cannot reject in a way that violates state-law minimum funding requirements for the district.

Q: What about the two-mill annual increase?
A: The 2021 Act's millage rules survive the 2025 Act because they do not conflict. The district can raise its millage by up to two mills per year (plus EFA adjustments). Anything above two mills requires a referendum the school district calls. That part of the framework is unchanged.

Q: Does the school district still levy taxes directly?
A: The mechanics changed. Under the 2021 Act, the board certified the millage to the auditor directly. Under the 2025 Act, county council must approve the budget that drives the millage, and the auditor then levies what council approves.

Background and statutory framework

The Clarendon County school consolidation is a multi-year story. Act 106 of 2021 merged Clarendon County School Districts 2 and 4 into the Clarendon County School District, created an elected Board of Trustees, and (in section 5) granted the district "total fiscal autonomy" beginning in 2024. The board had power to adopt the annual budget and impose an annual tax levy without county council involvement, subject only to the two-mill cap and the referendum requirement for larger increases.

H-3792, ratified March 7, 2025 (the "2025 Act"), reversed that allocation of power. The 2025 Act amended section 3 of the 2021 Act to add: "adopt the annual school district budget subject to approval by the Clarendon County Council." It also rewrote section 5 to read: "Beginning with Fiscal Year 2025-2026, the Clarendon County School District Board of Trustees shall annually, on or before the thirty-first of May, submit to the Clarendon County Council its proposed budget for the ensuing school year, which shall be subject to approval by the county council."

The 2025 Act did not expressly repeal section 5 of the 2021 Act. That created the ambiguity the County Attorney brought to the AG: does the new "approval" requirement override the older "total fiscal autonomy" grant, or do both somehow coexist?

The AG's resolution applied two interpretive canons:

• Repeal by implication is disfavored. State v. Hood, 181 S.C. 488, 188 S.E. 134 (1936); Capco of Summerville v. J.H. Gayle Construction, 368 S.C. 137, 628 S.E.2d 38 (2006). When two statutes can be harmonized, courts harmonize them.
• Legislative intent controls. Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 770 S.E.2d 391 (2015). When language is plain, text is the best evidence (Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000)).

Applying both: the "total fiscal autonomy" language and the "approval by the county council" language are genuinely irreconcilable on budget approval, so the 2025 Act controls there. But the millage cap and referendum mechanics in the 2021 Act are independent of the approval question, and the 2025 Act does not touch them, so they remain in effect.

The opinion also drew on prior AG opinions and case law on county-school district disputes. The September 19, 2012 opinion to Lugoff Fire District (2012 WL 4711426) had already worked out the relationship between S.C. Code § 6-1-80 and § 4-9-130, concluding both apply when a county adopts another body's budget. The opinion to a fire district context (Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2012 WL 889085 (March 2, 2012)) had also established that counties can decline to approve subordinate-body budgets without being limited to particular reasons, though they cannot interfere with matters committed to the subordinate body's discretion.

Citations

• 2021 Act No. 106 (Clarendon County school consolidation)
• 2025 Act (H-3792, Ratification No. 0006, signed March 7, 2025)
• S.C. Code § 6-1-80 (budget public hearings)
• S.C. Code § 4-9-130 (county council public hearings)
• S.C. Code § 4-9-120 (council action by ordinance)
• S.C. Code § 4-9-140 (budget adoption procedure)
• S.C. Code § 59-21-1030 (EFA inflation factor)
• S.C. Code § 6-1-320 (millage rate increase limitation)
• S.C. Code § 6-11-260 (county adoption of district budget)
• Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 770 S.E.2d 391 (2015)
• Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000)
• State v. Hood, 181 S.C. 488, 188 S.E. 134 (1936)
• Capco of Summerville, Inc. v. J.H. Gayle Const. Co., 368 S.C. 137, 628 S.E.2d 38 (2006)
• Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat. Vendors Div., 319 S.C. 556, 462 S.E.2d 858 (1995)
• Jasper County Board of Education v. Jasper County Council, No. 2013CP2700362, 2013 WL 8477933 (S.C. Com. Pl. Oct. 22, 2013)
• Richland County School District One v. Richland County Council, 310 S.C. 106, 425 S.E.2d 747 (1992)
• Dorchester County School District Three v. Dorchester County Council, 289 S.C. 475, 347 S.E.2d 93 (1986)
• Gould, 256 S.C. 175, 181 S.E.2d 662 (cited via prior AG opinion)
• Prior AG Opinions: 2012 WL 4711426 (Sept. 19, 2012); 2012 WL 889085 (March 2, 2012)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-clarendon-county-council-s-authority-to-approve-or-decline-a-proposed-school-district-budget/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/wa5emwqj/rhodesc-os-11003-final-opinion-4-15-2025.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

April 15, 2025

C.D. Rhodes, III, Esq.
County Attorney
Clarendon County
Pope Flynn, LLC
P.O. Box 11509
Columbia, SC 29201

Dear Mr. Rhodes:

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

On behalf of Clarendon County Council ("County Council" or the "Council"), the governing body of Clarendon County, South Carolina (the "County"), as County Attorney for the County, I respectfully request an opinion of the South Carolina Attorney General regarding the matter referenced above, as explained in greater detail below.

The South Carolina General Assembly recently enacted H-3792 (Rat. Num. 0006), which was signed by the Governor of South Carolina on March 7, 2025 (the "2025 Act"). The 2025 Act amended Act 106 of 2021 (the "2021 Act"), which consolidated all school districts within the County into the Clarendon County School District (the "School District"), established an elected Clarendon County School District Board of Trustees (the "School Board") to govern the School District, and, among other things, gave the School Board the power to adopt an annual budget and levy property taxes to fund the operations of the School District. Among other amendments, the 2025 Act amended the 2021 Act to strike the provisions empowering the School Board to adopt a budget and levy property taxes, and replaced those provisions with a requirement that the School Board receive the County Council's approval for its annual budget. ...

The enactment of the 2025 Act has raised questions regarding the correct procedure that the County Council must follow to fulfill its responsibilities concerning the School District's annual budget. The 2025 Act does not clearly state whether action by the School Board to adopt the School District's annual budget or action by the County Council to approve the School District's annual budget constitutes the essential legislative action necessary to appropriate funds and levy property taxes for School District operations. This ambiguity raises a number of questions concerning the nature of County Council's actions under the 2025 Act and the proper procedures that County Council must follow in connection with these actions. To ensure that County Council follows the correct procedures, I ask that you consider the following questions:

1. Does the School Board or County Council have the responsibility to comply with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 6-1-80 to hold a public hearing concerning the School District's annual budget?

2. Should the County Council's action to approve the School District's annual budget be considered legislative in nature, such that this action must be taken by ordinance pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-120, or is this action of a non-legislative nature such that County Council may act by resolution?

3. Should County Council's action to approve the School District's annual budget, whether done by ordinance or resolution, be considered an action to "levy taxes" pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-130(5), for which County Council must conduct a properly-noticed public hearing (separate and distinct from any budget-related public hearing under S.C. Code Ann. § 6-1-80)?

4. If the County Council and the School Board are unable to agree on the School District's annual budget or the millage levy necessary to fund this annual budget, does the County Council have independent authority regarding either of these matters, subject to any State law requiring operations of the School District to be funded in specified amounts or levels?

Law/Analysis

As an initial matter, it should be noted that 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. This opinion will address your first three questions together. This Office's September 19, 2012, opinion to Dennis Ray, Lugoff Fire District Chief, analyzed a similar situation concerning a special purpose district's ability to incur new debt and whether it must seek its county council's approval for new debt service millage. Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2012 WL 4711426 (September 19, 2012). The opinion reconciled the requirements of sections 6-1-80 and 4-9-130 as follows:

Section 4-9-130 of the South Carolina Code (1986), which concerns county government, provides in relevant part:

Public hearings, after reasonable public notice, must be held before final council action is taken to:

(1) adopt annual operational and capital budgets....

South Carolina Code section 6-1-80 (2004) provides notice requirements "in lieu of the requirements of Section 4-9-130," including in relevant part the following:

A county, municipality, special purpose or public service district, and a school district shall provide notice to the public by advertising the public hearing before the adoption of its budget for the next fiscal year in at least one South Carolina newspaper of general circulation in the area.

Section 6-1-80 implies that a public hearing is required before a special purpose district adopts its budget. As to counties, if read narrowly, section 6-1-80 would supplant only the notice provisions of section 4-9-130, not supersede section 4-9-130 in its entirety. While the plain language of section 6-1-80 is limited to an entity's adoption of "its" budget, section 4-9-130 contains no such limitation. Rather, section 4-9-130 appears to be triggered by any action by county council to adopt a budget. As section 6-11-260 provides that the county must "adopt[]" the district's budget, a court giving effect to both 6-1-80 and 4-9-130 likely would find that each body must hold a public hearing prior to its adoption of the district budget.

Id. at 5. Section 6-1-80 is equally applicable to the adoption of a school district's budget. After county council receives a proposed budget from the school district, section 4-9-130(1) requires council to hold a public hearing, and, if it approves the budget, to adopt it by ordinance pursuant to sections 4-9-120 and 4-9-140.

It is this Office's opinion that if county council and the school district board of trustees are unable to agree on the district's proposed budget or the millage levy, county council can decline to approve the budget. In a prior opinion, this Office was asked to address a county's approval authority over a fire district's budget and taxing power. Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2012 WL 889085 (March 2, 2012). Therein, we found that relevant statutes "demonstrate[d] ... the General Assembly ha[d] seen fit to limit the fiscal autonomy of districts," and the imposition of budgetary oversight of special purpose districts was "not uncommon in our State." Id. at 2. We opined that a county would be restrained from interfering with matters "committed explicitly to the discretion of the district's board ..."

[I]t is our opinion that a court would be unlikely to restrict the discretion of the county absent a clear reason for doing so.

We have discovered nothing in the history or context of the relevant Act that would suggest the county's ability to accept or reject the budget is limited to particular reasons ...

This is not to say that the county may interfere with matters committed explicitly to the discretion of the district's board of commissioners ...

Therefore, if, for example, the governing body of a fire district exercises its authority to contract with existing companies for the provision of water or adopts a schedule of charges according to its independent authority to do so, a court would be unlikely to find that the county could later modify or eliminate these items from the annual budget. Nevertheless, a court would be likely to uphold a county's decision to accept or reject the budget as a whole and return it to the governing body of the district for further consideration. Cf Gould, 256 S.C. 175, 181 S.E.2d 662. In this way, the county may act as a check upon the fiscal authority of the board of commissioners without usurping the board's discretion as to any particular funding issue.

To interpret these acts, this opinion will rely on the rules of statutory construction. When interpreting a statute, the primary goal is to determine the General Assembly's intent. See Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 634, 770 S.E.2d 391, 392 (2015) ("The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible."). 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." Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). Finally, our state courts have consistently held that repeal by implication is disfavored.

It is presumed that the Legislature was familiar with prior legislation, and that if it intended to repeal existing laws it would have expressly done so; hence, if by any fair or liberal construction two acts may be made to harmonize, no court is justified in deciding that the last repealed the first.

State v. Hood, 181 S.C. 488, 188 S.E. 134, 136 (1936). With these principles in mind, this opinion will review relevant portions of the 2021 Act and the amendments thereto in the 2025 Act.

Act No. 106 of 2021 consolidated Clarendon County School District No. 2 and 4 and created the Clarendon County School District. 2021 Act No. 106, § 1. Therein, the District's Board of Trustees (the "Board") was assigned several powers, duties, and responsibilities including to "(1) employ a superintendent as the chief executive officer; ... (3) adopt the annual school district budget." 2021 Act No. 106, § 3(B). Additionally, the district superintendent was directed to "(1) appoint and, when necessary for the good of the district, remove appointed officers or employees of the district and fix the salaries of these officers and employees, ... (2) prepare the budget annually, submit it to the board, and be responsible for its administration after adoption; ..." 2021 Act No. 106, § 4. Finally, beginning in 2024, section 5 granted the District "total fiscal autonomy."

(B) Beginning in 2024, the Clarendon County School District shall be vested with total fiscal autonomy. In order to obtain funds for school purposes, the board of trustees is authorized to impose an annual tax levy, exclusive of any millage imposed for bond debt service. Upon certification by the board of trustees 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. 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 Education Finance Act inflation factor and sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 59-21-1030. An increase above the 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 district school board and conducted by the county election commission. If the school district calls for the referendum provided for in this subsection to be held at any time other than at the general election conducted pursuant to Section 7-13-10, then the school district shall pay the cost of the referendum. To the extent that 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.

2021 Act No. 106, § 5.

As described in your letter, H-3792 (the "2025 Act") amended 2021 Act No. 106. The 2025 Act did not expressly repeal any section of the 2021 Act. Rather, it amended specific identified sections. In relevant part, the 2025 Act amended the Boards' duties to read "(3) adopt the annual school district budget subject to approval by the Clarendon County Council." Id. at § 2 (emphasis added). The 2025 Act also amended section 5 of the 2021 Act concerning the annual budget by adding:

Section 5 of Act 106 of 2021 is amended is read:

Beginning with Fiscal Year 2025-2026, the Clarendon County School District Board of Trustees shall annually, on or before the thirty-first of May, submit to the Clarendon County Council its proposed budget for the ensuing school year, which shall be subject to approval by the county council. Each proposed budget shall be in line-item form so as to reflect the purpose of all expenditures from any source of funds which will be required within each office or department of the district. The budget must specifically include, without limitation, an itemized list of salaries paid to all administrators and heads of departments or offices within the school district. Each line item in the budget must be reconciled at the end of the fiscal year, and a detailed accounting of budgetary funds used on each item, as well any resulting surpluses or deficits, must be included in the district superintendent's annual report on the finances and administrative activities of the board.

Id. at § 3 (emphasis added).

To the extent that a provision in the 2021 can be reconciled with the 2025 Act, a court would hold that it remains in effect. See State v. Hood, supra. It seems clear that the plain language in 2021 Act No. 106, § 5 vesting "total fiscal autonomy" in the District conflicts with section 3 of the 2025 Act that subjects the budget to "approval by the county council." The rest of 2021 Act No. 106, § 5 addressing millage does not necessarily conflict with the 2025 Act, and, therefore, likely still applies. This includes the parameters on how millage may be increased by no more than two mills without voter approval, but a referendum would be required when the millage increase sought would exceed this threshold.

As noted above, the 2021 Act grants the Board authority to hire a superintendent, and the superintendent has power to hire, fire, and fix salaries of officers and employees. Because the sections granting authority over these subjects were not expressly altered by the 2025 Act, a court would likely find they remain within the Board's and Superintendent's discretion, rather than subject to county council's approval authority.

As in the prior opinion, the 2025 Act does not suggest the county's ability to accept or reject the proposed budget is limited to particular reasons. However, at least one court decision has articulated that county council oversight of a school district's operating budget and determinations regarding millage are "subject to the exercise of good faith and for an appropriate purpose." Jasper County Board of Educ. v. Jasper County Council, No. 2013CP2700362, 2013 WL 8477933, at *4 (S.C. Com. Pl. Oct. 22, 2013). Your letter notes that state law requires a county council's approval or rejection of a proposed budget to comply with specific minimum funding levels for the school district. See Richland Cnty. Sch. Dist. One v. Richland Cnty. Council, 310 S.C. 106, 111, 425 S.E.2d 747, 749-50 (1992) (holding S.C. Code § 59-21-1030 did not authorize county auditor to "unilaterally reduce" millage below the minimum local effort set by school district board of trustees). Certainly, this Office agrees that the county council's approval or rejection of a proposed school district budget must not create a conflict with funding mandates called for under state law. Ultimately, county council and the Board will have to reach an agreement on a budget, or our state courts may order their compliance. See Dorchester Cnty. Sch. Dist. Three v. Dorchester Cnty. Council, 289 S.C. 475, 475-76, 347 S.E.2d 93, 93-94 (1986).

Conclusion

Based on the discussion above, it is this Office's opinion that S.C. Code § 6-1-80 implies that a public hearing is required before the Clarendon County School District adopts its proposed budget. After Clarendon County Council receives a proposed budget from the school district, section 4-9-130(1) requires council to hold a public hearing, and, if it approves the budget, to adopt it by ordinance pursuant to sections 4-9-120 and 4-9-140.

[Footnote: The Court's order, while brief, suggests impasses developed with both parties as they sought writs directing their bodies to take action. Appellants-Respondents (School Board) seek supersedeas of a writ of mandamus compelling it to submit a budget to Respondents-Appellants (County Council). County Council seeks supersedeas of a writ of mandamus compelling it to impose a tax levy in an amount sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Education Finance Act of 1977. The Court issued the following writ: "County Council is ordered to consider all submitted budgets for one week, at which time it shall either adopt or reject them. In any case, the Council shall approve and adopt a budget by Friday, February 21, 1986. Act 230 of 1985." The Court warned that "[f]ailure to comply" with the order was "punishable as contempt of this Court," and admonished both parties to remember that "the paramount concern here is the welfare of the children of Dorchester County School District."]

Sincerely,

Matthew Houck
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General