Burns v. Greenville County Council
28041
| S.C. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Greenville County Council enacted two 2017 ordinances: Ordinance 4906 (road maintenance fee increased to $25/year for each vehicle registered in Greenville County) and Ordinance 4907 (a $14.95/year charge on each parcel for ten years to fund a county-wide public safety telecommunications network).
- Plaintiffs are three members of the South Carolina General Assembly who sued, arguing the charges are taxes and therefore invalid under S.C. Code § 6-1-310 (localities cannot impose new taxes unless authorized by the General Assembly).
- The case was tried before a master in equity (by consent); the master found the ordinances lawful; plaintiffs appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- The Court framed the dispute under the statutory definition of "service or user fee" in S.C. Code § 6-1-300(6): a fee must provide the payer a benefit different from members of the general public.
- The County relied on Brown and its progeny (arguing the fees satisfied traditional "uniform service charge" criteria), while the Court analyzed compliance with § 6-1-300(6) and concluded the ordinances failed that statutory test.
- Holding: both ordinances are taxes not authorized by the General Assembly and therefore invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance 4906 (vehicle/road maintenance fee) is a valid "service or user fee" or an unauthorized tax | Burns: fee is a tax because it does not confer a benefit on payers different from the general public | Greenville County: funds are specifically allocated for road maintenance; vehicle owners who pay use the roads most and thus receive distinct benefit | Held: Invalid as a fee — road maintenance benefits all drivers (including non-paying drivers), so it fails § 6-1-300(6) and is a tax |
| Whether Ordinance 4907 (telecommunications parcel charge) is a valid "service or user fee" or an unauthorized tax | Burns: charge is a tax because any benefit to parcel owners is not shown to be distinct or significant | Greenville County: improved public-safety telecom will enhance property values and thus benefits property owners paying the fee | Held: Invalid as a fee — County failed to demonstrate a distinct, non-speculative benefit to paying property owners; mere speculation about property-value enhancement insufficient under § 6-1-300(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Cty. of Horry, 308 S.C. 180, 417 S.E.2d 565 (1992) (established factors distinguishing uniform service charges from taxes)
- C.R. Campbell Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Charleston, 325 S.C. 235, 481 S.E.2d 437 (1997) (applied Brown; upheld fee where city specifically found parks enhanced property values and record supported that finding)
- Whiteside v. Cherokee Cty. Sch. Dist. No. One, 311 S.C. 335, 428 S.E.2d 886 (1993) (court may decline to address additional issues once a dispositive issue is resolved)