General Purpose Local
Government in South Carolina
Prepared for the
Local Government Funding
System Reform Project
By
Jon B. Pierce and Edwin C. Thomas
March 2000
Center for Governance
University of South Carolina
1
Introduction
Local government in South Carolina consists of general purpose governments as well as special purpose
governments. The 46 counties and 269 municipalities comprise the general purpose governments. These local
governments are political subdivisions of the State as they find the basis of their authority and governance structure
in the State Constitution and in the Code of Law of South Carolina. The most notable piece of legislation defining
their structure and authority is the Home Rule Act of 1975. (A brief history of how this act came to fruition is
included in the section of this report entitled “Counties in South Carolina.”)
Both counties and cities in South Carolina have been granted the authority to exercise broad “police powers.”
Municipalities have had this authority for some time and counties were given a clear grant of general police powers
in 1989 with passage of Act 139 of 1989. (Sec. 4-9-25) These powers allow them to legislate for the purpose of
regulating public health, safety, welfare, morals and abatements of nuisances, so long as such regulations do not
contradict constitutional and statutory rights of citizens and general state law. These general purpose local
governments deliver a broad array of services to address the needs and demands of their citizens. The majority of
governmental services that affect the day-to-day lives of citizens are provided by these general purpose local
governments. The notable exception is public education and that too is provided at the local government level by
the school districts.
When it comes to the ability to raise the revenue to pay for these services and the revenue sources, there is
considerable debate about the authority of general purpose local governments. Much of this debate has centered
around the issue of what is a tax and what is a fee. The State Supreme Court has ruled that local governments clearly
have significant latitude to raise the revenue necessary to fund these services, particularly through uniform service
charges and fees. (Williams v. Town of Hilton Head Island and Brown v. Horry County). The question of the
ability to assess taxes not specifically authorized in statute is much less clear. The General Assembly has not
extended fiscal home rule to counties and municipalities. This means that counties and municipalities cannot
impose taxes that they are not specifically authorized to levy by general state law. This was most recently affirmed
by the passage in 1997 of the Fiscal Authority Act (Act No. 138 of 1997) in which the General Assembly stated that
a “local governing body may not impose a new tax after December 31, 1996, unless specifically authorized by the
General Assembly. The General Assembly also defined the sources of revenue available to counties and
municipalities and grappled with the issue of what is a tax and what is a fee.
Special purpose governments are specialized local governments rendering particular services. Special purpose
governments in South Carolina consist of the 86 school districts that have the responsibility for providing public
education and special purpose districts. . A large number of special purpose districts exist in South Carolina.
Depending on the source, the number of such special purpose districts ranges from around 200 to over 500.
Special purpose districts usually supply one or a very few services which general governments could not or would
not provide. They were created before implementation of “home rule” and were created to respond to demands for
services that the counties could not constitutionally nor statutorily provide. These range widely, including water and
sewer services, flood control, recreation, fire services, airports, zoos and so on.
This report focuses exclusively on general purpose local governments in South Carolina. Special purpose districts
and school districts will be addressed in separate reports.
2
A Numerical Perspective
Table 1 below looks at South Carolina general-purpose local government from a numerical perspective. As is clear
from even the most cursory examination of the population breakdowns provided in Table 1, South Carolina is a state
of small general-purpose local governments. Over half of the counties (24) have populations of less than 50,000 and
69.6% (32) have populations of less than 100,000. (South Carolina Association of Counties) Of the 269
municipalities 128 (47.6 %) have populations of less than 1,000 and 203 (75.5%) have populations of 5,000 or less.
(Municipal Association of South Carolina) Population will be a particularly important consideration as we look at
the local service delivery system.
Table 1
General Purpose Local Governments in South Carolina
Type of Government
Counties
Number
46
By Population:
25,000 and under
25,001 – 50,000
50,001 – 99,999
100,000 and over
12
12
8
14
By Form of Government:
Council
Council/Supervisor
Council Administrator
Council/Manager
7
4
32
3*
Total # of Full-Time Employees
Total # of Council Members
Municipalities
By Population:
1,000 and under
1,001 – 5,000
5,001 – 10,000
10,001 – 20,000
20,001 – 39,999
40,000 and over
19,633
330
269
128
85
26
14
11
5
By Form of Government:
Council
Mayor/Council
Council/Manager
Total # of Full-Time Employees
Total # of Council Members
84
155
30
15,729
1,572
*Voters in Chester County approved a change in form in November, 1998; will take effect after election in November, 2000
Counties in South Carolina
The decade of the 1970s was a period of profound change in the character of county government in South Carolina,
change that was both a reflection and a cause of changes in other aspects of state politics. At the beginning of the
decade most counties had very limited powers, and in practice these were in the hands of the legislative delegation,
the state senator and representatives from the county. By the end of the decade parts of a home rule constitutional
3
amendment had been implemented and counties were undertaking a wide variety of municipal services under the
government of locally-elected councils. This marks a fundamental change in South Carolina politics.
During the colonial period, South Carolina's rudimentary local government was almost entirely confined to parishes
along the coast. The small number of local officials who existed were appointed by the governor or the legislature.
There was no regular system of local taxation (Andrews, 1983: 6-13). Local public works were authorized by special
acts of the legislature (Wallace, 1927: 92). During the first half of the nineteenth century the state was divided into
separate electoral and judicial districts instead of counties. Towns were chartered, but for most of the
overwhelmingly rural state there was little provision for local government. Most of the few local activities were
supervised by assorted boards, resulting in "carelessness, indecision, inactivity" (Wallace, 1934: 76), while the
legislature burdened itself by enacting large numbers of local laws.
The Reconstruction Constitution of 1868 was the first attempt to establish true county government. Article IV,
Section 19 provided for an elected Board of County Commissioners with authority over roads, ferries and bridges
and over taxes and expenditures for county purposes. However, scandals and the racial struggles of the period
doomed the experiment (Black, 1981: 3; Wickwar, 1970: 105-106), and in 1890 Section 19 was repealed. This
retreat from local control was confirmed by the Constitution of 1895. Although this document contained detailed
provisions regarding the formation and alteration of counties and required them to provide for the poor and to levy a
school tax, the General Assembly could authorize other taxes only for very limited traditional purposes. The absence
of any provision for a local governing body left control of county affairs in the hands of the legislature.
Even though it is now largely a thing of the past, control of county government by the legislature left such an
enduring mark on South Carolina politics that this style of local government deserves examination. Since counties
lacked constitutionally defined powers and governmental structures, all laws dealing with their activities had to be
enacted by the General Assembly. These included general laws applying to all counties and special acts or even
constitutional amendments authorizing particular counties to do things not authorized by the general laws or the
Constitution. Basic to this arrangement was the designation of the county as an electoral district, sending a
delegation of one senator, and depending on population, one or more representatives elected at large to the General
Assembly. Even to carry out the very limited traditional functions of counties - confined largely to caring for
paupers and maintaining roads, bridges and ferries - an annual supply bill had to be enacted for each county, levying
taxes and appropriating money. Historian D. D. Wallace remarked in 1927 on the absurdity of the system: "If the
courthouse grounds need a new fence, the state legislature must approve before money can be spent to provide it"
(Wallace, 1927: 91), but nearly half a century later many counties were still governed the same way. In early 1972
the York County delegation spent a day hearing requests for money from various county agencies and watching a
demonstration of a front-loading garbage truck as they considered what kind of trash collection equipment to
authorize the county to purchase (Evening Herald, 1972). Once the legislative delegation agreed on the supply bill
or other local law, it was enacted automatically by the General Assembly. Local affairs occupied much of a
legislator's time, and local laws made up the vast majority of laws enacted by the General Assembly.
In addition to its power over the budget and other local laws, the delegation or the senator alone also controlled
appointments to a variety of positions within the county, either directly or with the pro forma approval of the
governor. Because his approval was necessary to get local legislation passed in the Senate and because of his role in
appointments, delegation rule frequently meant virtual rule by the county senator.
For all its power, the delegation could not actually administer the laws. Thus the general law provided that each
county should have a Board of County Commissioners consisting of a popularly-elected supervisor and two
commissioners appointed by the governor on recommendation of the delegation. The supervisor was the county
executive and was in charge of carrying out the limited county responsibilities. All expenditures for county purposes
had to be approved by the Board before the county treasurer could pay the bills.
This description, however, suggests a totally misleading uniformity. From the start, exceptions for particular
counties were written into the Constitution regarding county powers, structure of the governing body, and debt
limitations. By the mid-1960s the general law still provided for an elected supervisor and two appointed
commissioners, but this provision of the Code of Laws was followed by a separate chapter of exceptions for each
county, most of which were significant. For example, Charleston by this time was self-governed by a locally-elected
4
council, several counties no longer had supervisors, and Berkeley County had eliminated the Board and was run by
the supervisor alone.
To further confuse matters, there were other county-level officials with their own political and legal sources of
power. The popularly-elected sheriff, coroner and clerk of court were among the earliest officials established to
exercise state authority at the local level. The county treasurer and auditor also had state responsibilities; nominally
appointed by the governor, they invariably were the winners of the Democratic primary. Magistrates were chosen
the same way. The board of tax assessors, voter registration board, and election commissioners usually were
appointed by the governor, meaning that the delegation or senator had actual control. These officials operated under
both general state law and under whatever local laws had been enacted. Much of the funding for their activities was
provided in the county supply bill. However, the powers and even the presence of some officials varied from county
to county. In short, what evolved at the county level did so haphazardly and was characterized by divided authority
and poor accountability.
In spite of its shortcomings, government by legislative delegation adequately served a predominantly rural,
independent-minded people who expected little from government. By the beginning of the 1960s, however, things
were changing. Developing industries brought new demands for local services. People from other parts of the
country brought with them higher expectations of government. The state was becoming more urban, and suburban
residents wanted municipal services. Cities were unable easily to annex these suburbs, and counties were largely
prevented from undertaking non-traditional functions. Even when special purpose districts could be established,
these added to the fragmentation and lack of coordination at the local level. In addition, the emergence of AfricanAmericans into the political arena from which they had been effectively barred since the 1890s added to the forces
favoring change.
The most immediate pressure for county government reform, however, came with the 1964 United States Supreme
Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims that seats in both houses of state legislatures must be apportioned by population.
Despite ingenious efforts by influential small- county senators, it was certain that some counties would no longer
have a resident senator, while others would be represented by several. This destroyed the basis of delegation rule.
Major changes in county government were inevitable.
Actually, change already was underway. Charleston County had received substantial control over its own affairs in
1948, followed by Darlington a few years later. During the 1960s a number of other counties received selfgoverning powers by local acts, and by the end of the decade nearly half of the counties with more than half of the
population had significant local self-rule (Stoudemire and Ascolillo, 1969: 2).
In 1972, as part of an ongoing article-by-article revision of the 1895 Constitution, the voters approved a new Article
VIII on local government. The key passage was Section 7:
The General Assembly shall provide by general law for the structure, organization, powers, duties,
functions, and the responsibilities of counties, including the power to tax different areas at different rates of
taxation related to the nature and level of government services provided. Alternate forms of government,
not to exceed five, shall be established. No laws for a specific county shall be enacted and no county shall
be exempted from the general laws or laws applicable to the selected alternative form of government.
Other sections elaborated on activities counties and municipalities could engage in, and Section 17 summed up by
reversing the previous restrictive constitutional philosophy:
The provisions of this Constitution and all laws concerning local government shall be liberally construed in
their favor. Powers, duties, and responsibilities granted local government subdivisions by this Constitution
and by law shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this Constitution.
In the words of the South Carolina Supreme Court in Knight v. Salisbury (1974), the Constitution intended that
"home rule be given to the counties and that county government should function in the county seats rather than at the
State Capitol" (262 S.C. 562; 206 S.E. 2d 875 (1974)).
After intense bargaining and compromise, implementing legislation was enacted in 1975. The Local Government
Act, usually called the home rule law, provided for five forms of county government. One perpetuated delegation
5
rule as a concession to legislators unwilling to give up the old ways; it was declared unconstitutional in 1976 by the
South Carolina Supreme Court. At the heart of the other four was an elected council empowered to carry on an
extensive list of activities. Counties could select a form by popular referendum or could accept the particular form
assigned each by the law. Most held referenda, and when the changeover was complete there were eight counties
with the council form, eight with council-supervisor, 29 with council-administrator, and one with the councilmanager form (Wallace and Tyer, 1979a: 28).
Forms of County Government
Article VIII, Section 7 of the South Carolina Constitution, passed in 1973 as part of the Home Rule amendment,
allowed the legislature to provide for up to five forms of county government. Act 283 of 1975 provided for five
forms of county government. One of these, the county commissioner form, was ruled unconstitutional by the State
Supreme Court in Duncan v. County of York in 1976 because it failed to provide county government with the powers
mandated by the Constitution. Therefore, there are four forms of government available to county governments in
South Carolina. These are the council form, council-supervisor form, council-administrator form, and the councilmanager form. The major difference in the forms is in where the administrative responsibilities and powers of the
county are vested. The form of government can be changed by employing one of two methods: (1) the county
council can call for a referendum to change the form of government; or (2) the citizens may petition the council for a
referendum. If this method is used the petition must be signed by at least ten percent of the county’s registered
voters. (Sec. 4-9-10) Each of the forms is discussed briefly below.
The Council Form
The council form is unique in that it is the only one of the four forms in which the administrative power is vested in
the council. The council has responsibility for both policymaking and administration of county government. (Sec. 49-310) The council may hire someone to assist it in carrying out its administrative responsibilities or may designate
the chair of council to carry out such activities. The council consists of not less than three or more than 12
members. Although omitted from state statute, terms of council members in this form shall be two to four years.
A total of seven counties presently operate under the council form of government. These are as follows:
Abbeville
Georgetown
Allendale
Laurens
Barnwell
Saluda
Calhoun
The Council-Supervisor Form
In the council-supervisor form, administrative responsibility and authority resides with the supervisor. The
supervisor is elected at-large for a term of two or four years. Compensation for the supervisor is set by the council
by ordinance, and council cannot reduce or increase the compensation of the supervisor during the term of office for
which he/she was elected. The supervisor may vote only to break tie votes of the council. The council consists of not
less than two nor more than 12 council members. Council members are elected for two or four year terms. (Sec. 49-410)
The powers and duties of the supervisor are spelled out in Section 4-9-420 of the South Carolina Code. They
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.
To serve as the chief administrative officer of the county government;
2.
To execute the policies and legislative actions of the council;
3.
To direct and coordinate operational agencies and administration of the county government;
4.
To prepare annual operating and capital improvement budgets for submission to council;
5.
To supervise the expenditure of funds appropriated by council;
6
6.
To prepare annual, monthly, and other reports for council of finances and administrative activities of the county;
7.
To recommend measures for adoption;
8.
To serve as presiding officer voting in case of council ties;
9.
To serve as official spokesperson for the council with respect to council’s policies and programs;
10. To inspect books, accounts, records, or documents pertaining to the property, money or assets of the county;
11. To be responsible for the administration of county personnel policies approved by the council, including salary and
compensation plans;
12. To be responsible for employment and discharge of personnel subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of Section 49-30 and subject to the appropriation of funds by the council or for that purpose.
The supervisor’s exercise of authority over other elected officials is limited to the implementation of organizational policies
and procedures established by the council. Debate over the exercise and scope of this authority is still ongoing, and from
time to time, the debate ends up being addressed by the courts. (For a fuller discussion of this issue refer to Pierce, Chapter
2 of A Handbook for South Carolina County Officials, South Carolina Association of Counties, 1999)
Only four counties still operate under the council-supervisor form. These are:
Berkeley
Oconee
Union
Williamsburg
The Council-Administrator Form
The council-administrator form of government is the most popular form. Almost three-quarters of the 46 counties
have this form. The council in this form consists of not less than three members or more than 12 members. Council
members are elected for two or four year terms of office. (Sec.4-9-610) The council-administrator form places the
executive responsibility in the hands of the administrator. The administrator is hired by the council and serves at its
pleasure. Should the council decide to terminate the administrator, the administrator must be given a written
statement of the reasons for termination and has the right to a public hearing at a council meeting. (Sec. 4-9-620)
The powers and duties of the administrator are specified in state statute. (Sec. 4-9-630) They include, but are not
limited to the following:
1.
To serve as the chief administrative officer of the county government;
2.
To execute the policies, directives, and legislative actions of the council;
3.
To direct and coordinate operational agencies and administrative activities of the county government;
4.
To prepare annual operating and capital improvement budgets for submission to the council, and in the exercise of
these responsibilities, the administrator shall be empowered to require such reports, estimates and statistics on an
annual or periodic basis as he deems necessary from all county departments and agencies;
5.
To supervise the expenditure of appropriated funds;
6.
To prepare annual, monthly and other reports for council on finances and administrative activities of the county;
7.
To be responsible for the administration of county personnel policies including salary and classification plans approved
by council;
7
8.
To be responsible for employment and discharge of personnel subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of Section 49-30 and subject to the appropriation of funds by the council for that purpose;
9.
To perform such other duties as may be required by the council.
The administrator is also charged with the preparation and submission of proposed operating and capital budgets. The
administrator is specifically directed by law to inform the council of anticipated revenues and the amount of tax revenue
required to meet the financial requirements of the county when he presents proposed operating and capital budgets to the
council. (Sec. 4-9-640)
The administrator’s authority over any elected officials (department heads), either constitutional or statutory, is limited to
organizational policies established by the governing body. (Sec. 4-9-660) As noted in the previous section on the councilsupervisor form this is occasionally an issue of debate.
In terms of the number of counties, this form of government is clearly the most popular. Some 32 of the counties
have adopted this form. These include:
Aiken
Charleston
Colleton
Edgefield
Hampton
Lancaster
Marlboro
Pickens
Anderson
Cherokee
Darlington
Fairfield
Horry
Lee
McCormick
Richland
Bamberg
Chesterfield
Dillon
Florence
Jasper
Lexington
Newberry
Spartanburg
Beaufort
Clarendon
Dorchester
Greenville
Kershaw
Marion
Orangeburg
Sumter
Council-Manager Form
The council consists of not less than five or more than 12 members who are, as in the other forms, elected for two or
four year terms of office. (Sec. 4-9-810) Executive authority under this form is vested in the county manager. The
manager is hired by the council and serves at its pleasure. The powers and duties of the manager are identical to
those listed above for the administrator. (Sec. 4-9-830) The same types of restrictions over elected officials
discussed in the council-supervisor and council-administrator forms apply here as well.
The most significant difference between the council-administrator and council-manager forms is that in the latter the
auditor and treasurer may be appointed rather than elected. The council must determine the method of selection for
these positions and if the appointive status is selected must pass an ordinance to that effect. Once made appointive,
the auditor and treasurer report to the county manager. (Sec. 4-9-860)
Only two counties presently operate under this form of government: Greenwood and York. A third (Chester)
approved a change in the form of government in November of 1998 and will begin operating as a council-manager
form after the general elections in November 2002.
General Powers of County Governments
The general powers of counties are enumerated in Section 4-9-30 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina. The
powers listed in this section apply to counties regardless of the form of government and are to be exercised by the
respective governing bodies. Counties have the power to:
1.
Adopt, use and revise a corporate seal;
2.
Acquire real property by purchase of gift, to lease, sell or otherwise dispose of real and personal property; and
to acquire tangible personal property and supplies;
8
3.
Make and execute contracts;
4.
Exercise powers of eminent domain for county purposes except where the land concerned is devoted to a public
use; (some limitations are specified in Sec. 4-9-30 (4) )
5.
Assess property and levy ad valorem property taxes and uniform service charges and create by ordinance of
county council special tax districts related to the nature and level of government services provided; (Sec. 4-930 (5) details the functions and operations for which special tax districts can be created )
6.
Establish such agencies, departments, boards, commissions and positions in the county as may be necessary and
proper to provide services of local concern for public purposes;
7.
Develop personnel system policies and procedures for county employees by which all county employees are
regulated except those elected directly by the people, and to be responsible for the employment and discharge of
county personnel in those county departments in which the employment authority is vested in county
government;
8.
Provide for an accounting and reporting system whereby funds are received, safely kept, allocated and
disbursed;
9.
Provide for land use and promulgate regulations;
10. Establish and implement policies and procedures for the issuance of revenue and general obligation bonds
subject to the bonded debt limitation;
11. Grant franchises in areas outside the corporate limits of municipalities within the county in the manner provided
for municipalities and subject to the same limitations, to provide for the orderly control of services and utilities
affected with the public interest; (Sec. 4-9-30 (11) places some limitations)
12. Levy uniform license taxes upon persons and businesses engaged in or intending to engage in any business,
occupation or profession, in whole or in part, within the county but outside the corporate limits of any
municipality. (See Section 4-9-30 (12) for limitations). Any such license tax shall be graduated according to the
gross income of the person or business taxed. (See Section 4-9-30 (12) for how this is applied where the person
or business is paying such a tax to a another county or a municipality).
13. Participate in multi-county projects and programs authorized by the general law and appropriate funds for such
projects and programs;
14. Enact ordinances for the implementation and enforcement of the powers granted in this section and provide
penalties for violations thereof not to exceed the penalty jurisdiction of magistrate’s courts;
15. Carry out slum clearance and redevelopment work in areas that are predominately slum or blighted, prepare
such areas for reuse, and sale or otherwise dispose of such areas to private or public enterprises. Counties can
exercise eminent domain to any property essential to the plan of slum clearance and redevelopment. Any
county may acquire and dispose of air rights or subsurface rights;
16. Conduct advisory referenda;
17. Enact ordinances to regulate solicitation within the county;
18. Obtain injunctive relief in the Court of Common Pleas to abate nuisances created by the operation of business
establishments in an excessively noisy or disorderly manner which disturbs the peace in the community in
which such establishments are located; and
19. Exercise such other powers as may be authorized for counties by the general law.
9
Municipalities in South Carolina
Municipal government in the United States had its origins in Europe, particularly the English parish and borough.
The parish was a unit of church service and road maintenance. The English borough was a populated area that had
received a charter from the king permitting the borough to engage in business and government. The parish and
borough concepts evolved into the American municipality (Zimmerman, 1970: 9).
Although each American colony had a governor, a legislative body and a court system, the colonists found it useful
to establish local units of government, i.e., cities and counties. These units were patterned closely on English models
and were created and permitted to exist under the authority of the king or colonial governor (Chudacoff, 1975: 2).
The earliest state constitutions gave state legislatures authority to create local units of government and to alter the
powers, organization and boundaries of existing units. Municipal corporations were set up to provide special
services which counties were unable or unwilling to provide (Zimmerman, 1970: 9).
In colonial times, cities were incorporated and their charters granted by colonial governors, acting in the name of the
king or the colony's proprietor. The charter was regarded as a contract between the governor and the municipality
and was thus not subject to alteration without mutual consent. After the American Revolution, charters continued to
be granted by state legislatures and came to be regarded as ordinary legislation, capable of being amended or even
repealed by the legislature (Caraley, 1977: 59).
Until the middle of the nineteenth century, it was common practice for state legislatures to grant municipal charters
by special legislative act. Each city charter was unique since special legislation defined the form of government and
scope of authority for the city being chartered. From the mid-nineteenth century onward there has been a movement
away from special legislation for cities. An increasing number of states enacted general legislation which provided
that charters could be granted upon petition by a required number of inhabitants and compliance with various other
requirements such as referendum (Caraley, 1977: 59-60).
The first European settlement in South Carolina was San Miguel, a Spanish settlement, established in 1526 in the
area of Winyah Bay on the South Carolina coast. In 1562 a French settlement called Charlesfort was established on
what is now Parris Island. Both the French and Spanish settlements were short-lived (Sherrill and Stoudemire, 1950:
1).
It was not until 1670 that a permanent European presence was established in what would become South Carolina. In
that year an English expedition settled on the South Carolina coast on the west bank of the Ashley River. This first
community was called Albemarle Point. The Albemarle Point community grew and a town was planned in 1672.
The new town was named Charles Town in 1679 and became the seat of government for South Carolina in 1680.
South Carolina became a state government in 1776. Charleston, as the city came to be called, was incorporated by
state legislative act in 1783 (Wallace, 1934: 28-30).
Until 1950 Charleston was South Carolina's largest city and indeed during colonial times was one of the nation's
largest cities. Throughout the colonial period Charleston was the commercial, political and social center of the
province.
Until 1896 the state legislature followed the practice of incorporating municipal governments by special legislative
action. By 1896 approximately 250 cities had been incorporated in South Carolina by special action of the state
legislature.
The state constitution adopted in December of 1895 altered municipal incorporation procedures. From 1896 onward
municipalities have been eligible to incorporate under general rather than special state legislation. The general
10
legislation has consistently provided for local action (an election) and state action by the South Carolina Secretary of
State (Sherrill and Stoudemire, 1950: 9).
Of course, some of these early municipalities have lost their corporate charter either through voluntary dissolution or
because the city population fell below the minimum of 100 persons for corporate status (the present minimum
population is 50 persons). Also, cities that were incorporated under special state legislation were chartered for a
fixed period of time and, in some cases, the legislative charter was not renewed.
The number of municipalities in South Carolina has remained fairly consistent from the late nineteenth century
onward. In 1896, the first year under the Constitution of 1895, there were at least 250 municipalities in the state. In
1940 the U.S. Bureau of the Census reported that there were 248 municipalities in South Carolina with populations
over 2,500. No officially recognized list of South Carolina municipalities existed prior to 1944 when the Municipal
Association of South Carolina began maintaining records on active municipalities in the state. There are currently
269 municipalities in South Carolina.
Legal Status of the Municipal Corporation
The roles of municipalities in South Carolina and in the United States are defined by legal interpretation. Our federal
system of government provides no inherent "right" to local self-government. The powers assumed by state
legislatures during the American Revolution ensured extensive state control over municipal governments by the
mid-nineteenth century. State intervention grew even stronger during the time of governmental reform from the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The generally held view that cities are subordinate units or subdivisions of the state was summarized in 1868 by
Justice John Dillon of the Iowa Supreme Court. What came to be known as "Dillon's Rule" reads:
It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise
the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or
fairly implied in or incident to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation - not simply convenient,
but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of power is resolved by
the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied (Dillon, 1911: 448).
Dillon's Rule confirmed the notion that municipal corporations "…owe their origin to, and derive their powers from
the state legislature” (Dillon, 1911: 448). The scope of legal authority enjoyed by municipalities in each state
depends on whether they have been granted constitutional or statutory home rule and the interpretive rulings made
by the state's courts.
In Williams v. Town of Hilton Head Island the South Carolina Supreme Court explicitly struck down Dillon’s Rule
in South Carolina. In this case the court interpreted broadly local governments’ exercise of police powers under
home rule.
Like counties, South Carolina’s municipalities benefited from a 1973 revision of the state's 1895 Constitution. As
revised, the Constitution provides a new local government article (Article VIII) which requires that both city and
county governments be operated under a framework of general laws. The General Assembly was authorized to
establish such a general framework. The Local Government Act, signed into law in 1975, did not grant full or true
home rule whereby cities could draft their own local charters but it did grant uniform powers and authority to all
South Carolina municipalities. Prior to the Local Government Act of 1975 municipal authority was not equally
shared among all cities. Some municipalities enjoyed special legal authority not granted to others; some powers
were granted based on city population or classification. While home rule did not alter municipal powers and
functions as established under previous laws or legislation, it did provide uniformity and promoted a greater degree
of local determination.
With the implementation of The Local Government Act in July, 1976, municipal governments were required to
select one of three alternate forms of government: the mayor-council form; the council form; or the council-manager
11
form. City councils were also required to select one of five methods of council election. Additional features of the
Local Government Act required that municipalities have an annual budget and audit, establish uniform legislative
procedures, provide for local initiative and referendum, and outline procedures for providing joint city/county
services (Pomeroy, 1979: 1-2).
Forms of Municipal Government
The Home Rule Act of 1975 enacted the mandates of the revised Article VIII of the South Carolina Constitution. The Act
provides for three forms of municipal government: the mayor-council (strong mayor) form; the council (weak mayor) form;
and the council-manager form. All municipalities in South Carolina operate under one of these three forms. The process
for selecting and altering forms of municipal government is addressed in Chapter 5 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina.
As with county forms of government, a primary distinguishing feature of the forms of municipal government is where
executive authority resides. Each of the forms is discussed below.
Mayor-Council Form
Under the mayor-council form of government there is a mayor and a council of four, six, eight or twelve council
members. The mayor is elected at-large and serves a term of two or four years. (Sec. 5-9-20) In case of four year
terms not more than one-half of the council and the mayor may be elected in the same general election. (Sec. 5-1540) This form is often referred to as the “strong mayor” form because the mayor holds both executive and legislative
powers.
The powers and duties of the mayor are delineated in Section 5-9-30:
1.
To appoint, suspend or remove municipal employees and appointive administrative officers;
2.
To direct and supervise the administration of all departments, offices and agencies of the municipality;
3.
To preside at meetings of the council and vote as other council members;
4.
To act to insure that all laws and ordinances of the council are faithfully executed;
5.
To prepare and submit the annual balanced budget and capital program to the council;
6.
To submit to the council and make available to the public a complete report on the finances and administrative
activities of the municipality as of the end of each fiscal year;
7.
To make other reports concerning the operations of municipal departments, offices and agencies subject to his direction
and supervision; and
8.
To designate a municipal judge in case of the temporary absence, sickness, or disability of the regular municipal judge.
The council has all powers not otherwise prohibited by law. The council has the following powers and duties:
1.
To exercise all legislative powers; (Sec. 5-7-160)
2.
To be the judge of the election and qualifications of its members and of the ground for forfeiture of their office; (Sec. 57-120)
3.
To appoint the municipal clerk (Sec. 5-7-220), the municipal attorney and the municipal judge (Sec. 5-7-230), and the
municipal election commission; (Sec. 5-15-90)
12
4.
To establish municipal departments, offices, and agencies and determine their functions; (Sec. 5-9-40)
5.
To adopt an annual balanced budget for the operation of the municipality and for capital improvements; (Sec. 5-7-260)
6.
Investigate any department of the municipal government and any office thereof and can compel the attendance of
witnesses and to require them to give evidence under oath in the same manner as is customary in the courts of this
State; (Sec. 5-7-100)
7.
Judge the election and qualifications of its members and of the grounds for forfeiture of their office and for that purpose
shall have power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and require the production of evidence; (Sec. 5-7-210)
8.
Provide for an independent annual audit of financial records and transactions of the municipality and agencies funded
by municipal funds; (Sec. 5-7-240)
The mayor and council may employ an administrator to assist the mayor. (Sec. 5-9-40)
The mayor-council form of government is by far the most popular of the three forms in terms of municipalities adopting the
form. A full 57.2% of the municipalities (154) operate under the mayor-council form. A list of these municipalities is
provided below.
13
Mayor-Council Form Municipalities
Andrews
Aynor
Bamberg
Bethune
Blackville
Blenheim
Bluffton
Blythewood
Bonneau
Bowman
Briarcliffe Acres
Brunson
Burnettown
Calhoun Falls
Cameron
Carlisle
Central Pacolet
Chapin
Charleston
Cheraw
Chesterfield
Cope
Cordova
Cottageville
Cross Hill
Darlington
Denmark
Donalds
Due West
Easley
Eastover
Edgefield
Ehrhardt
Elgin
Elko
Elloree
Eutawville
Fairfax
Folly Beach
Fort Lawn
Fountain Inn
Gaston
Georgetown
Gifford
Goose Creek
Govan
Gray Court
Greeleyville
Harleyville
Hickory Grove
Hilda
Hodges
Holly Hill
Hollywood
Honea Path
Inman
Iva
Jackson
Jamestown
Johnston
Jonesville
Kiawah Island
Kline
Lake City
Lamar
Lane
Latta
Laurens
Liberty
Lincolnville
Little Mountain
Lockhart
Lodge
Lowndesville
Lowrys
Luray
Lyman
Marion
Mayesville
McClellanville
McColl
McConnells
McCormick
Meggett
Moncks Corner
Monetta
Mount Croghan
Nichols
Ninety Six
North
North Augusta
North Charleston
Norway
Olanta
Olar
Pacolet
Parksville
Patrick
Pawleys Island
Paxville
Peak
Pelion
Pelzer
Pendleton
Perry
Pinewood
Plum Branch
Pomaria
Prosperity
Quinby
Ravenel
Reevesville
Reidville
Richburg
Ridge Spring
Ridgeville
Ridgeway
Rockville
Rowesville
Ruby
Saluda
Santee
Scotia
Scranton
Seabrook Island
Sellers
Seneca
Sharon
Silverstreet
Smyrna
Snelling
Society Hill
Springfield
St. Stephen
Starr
Summit
Tatum
Tega Cay
Travelers Rest
Trenton
Troy
14
Turbeville
Vance
Ward
Waterloo
Wellford
West Pelzer
Whitmire
Williams
Williamston
Williston
Windsor
Woodford
Yemassee
Council Form
Under the council form of municipal government both administrative and legislative powers are vested in the
council. (Sec. 5-11-30) Council is composed of a mayor and five, seven, or nine members including the mayor
elected for two or four year terms of office. (Sec. 5-11-20) If the term of office is four years then not more than onehalf of the council and mayor shall be elected in the same general election. (Sec. 5-15-40)
The mayor has no authority apart from other council members except:
1.
To preside over meetings;
2.
To call special meetings;
3.
To designate a municipal judge in case of the temporary absence, sickness, or disability of the regular municipal judge;
and
4.
To perform administrative duties authorized by council, if any.
The council has all powers not otherwise prohibited by law. The council has the following powers and duties:
1.
To exercise all legislative and administrative powers; (Sec. 5-11-30)
2.
To appoint the municipal clerk, (Sec. 5-7-220) the municipal attorney and the municipal judge, (Sec. 5-7-230) and the
municipal election commission; (Sec. 5-15-90)
3.
To establish municipal departments, offices, and agencies and determine their functions; (Sec. 5-11-40)
4.
To adopt an annual balanced budget for the operation of the municipality and for capital improvements; (Sec. 5-7-260)
5.
Investigate any department of the municipal government and any office thereof and can compel the attendance of
witnesses and to require them to give evidence under oath in the same manner as is customary in the courts of this
State; (Sec. 5-7-100)
6.
Judge the election and qualifications of its members and of the grounds for forfeiture of their office and for that purpose
shall have power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and require the production of evidence; (Sec. 5-7-210)
7.
Provide for an independent annual audit of financial records and transactions of the municipality and agencies funded
by municipal funds; (Sec. 5-7-240)
Some 86 municipalities operate under the council form of government. A list of these municipalities is provided
below.
15
Council Form Municipalities
Allendale
Arcadia Lakes
Awendaw
Barnwell
Belton
Bennettsville
Bishopville
Blacksburg
Branchville
Campobello
Central
Chesnee
Chester
Clemson
Clio
Clover
Conway
Coward
Cowpens
Duncan
Edisto Beach
Estill
Forest Acres
Furman
Gaffney
Gilbert
Great Falls
Greer
Hampton
Hanahan
Hardeeville
Heath Springs
Hemingway
Irmo
Isle of Palms
Jefferson
Johnsonville
Kershaw
Lake View
Lancaster
Landrum
Lexington
Livingston
Loris
Lynchburg
Manning
Mauldin
McBee
Mount Croghan
Mount Pleasant
Mullins
New Ellenton
Norris
Orangeburg
Pageland
Pamplico
Pickens
Pickens
Pine Ridge
Ridgeland
Salem
Salley
Simpsonville
Six Mile
Smoaks
South Congaree
Springdale
St. George
St. Matthews
Stuckey
Sullivan's Island
Summerton
Summerville
Surfside Beach
Swansea
Sycamore
Timmonsville
Ulmer
Union
Varnville
Wagener
Walhalla
Ware Shoals
West Columbia
West Union
Westminister
16
Council-Manager
The council-manager form of government is laid out in Chapter 13 of Title 5 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina. Under
the council-manager form there is a mayor and council composed of four, six, or eight members elected for two or four year
terms. The mayor acts as another member of council except that the mayor:
1.
Presides over council meetings;
2.
Calls special meetings; and
3.
Designates a municipal judge in case of the temporary absence, sickness, or disability of the regular municipal
judge.
All legislative powers of the municipality and the determination of all matters of policy are vested in the council. The
powers are spelled out in Section 5-13-30. The council shall:
1.
Employ a manager;
2.
Establish other administrative departments and assign and distribute the work thereof upon recommendation of
and with the approval of the manager;
3.
Adopt the budget of the municipality;
4.
Authorize the issuance of bonds by bond ordinance, subject to such restrictions and limitations as may be
prescribed by law;
5.
Have the power to inquire into the conduct of any office, department or agency of the municipality and for a
general survey of municipal business;
6.
Adopt plats;
7.
Adopt and modify the official map of the municipality;
8.
Provide for an independent annual audit of the books and business affairs of the municipality and for a general
survey of municipal business;
9.
Provide for the general health and welfare of the municipality in accordance with the statute law of the State
with reference to the general police powers granted to municipalities;
10. Enact ordinances of any nature and kind, not prohibited by the law of Constitution of the State or of the United
States; and
11. With the advice of the manager, appoint all committees, boards and commissions relating to the affairs of the
municipal government, except as otherwise provided by law. (Sec. 5-13-30)
According to the Code of Laws, Section 5-13-90, the manager is the chief executive officer and head of the
administrative branch of the municipal government. The manager shall:
1.
Appoint and, when necessary for the good of the municipality, remove any appointive officer or employee of
the municipality and fix the salaries of such officers and employees, except as otherwise provided in this
chapter or prohibited by law and except as he may authorize the head of a department or office to appoint and
remove subordinates is such department or office;
2.
Prepare the budget annually, submit it to the municipal council and be responsible for its administration after
adoption;
17
3.
Prepare and submit to the municipal council at the end of each fiscal year a complete annual report on the
finances and administrative activities of the municipality for the preceding year and make such other financial
reports from time to time as may be required by the council or by Chapter 1 through 17;
4.
Keep the municipal council advised of the financial condition and future needs of the municipality and make
such recommendations as may seem to him desirable;
5.
Perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law or required of him by the municipal council, not
inconsistent with the provisions of Chapters 1 through 17.
The manager is employed by the council in accordance with terms of employment and compensation determined by
council. If the council determines to remove the manager he shall be given a written statement of the reasons alleged for the
proposed removal and the right to a hearing at a public meeting of the council. (Sec. 5-13-70)
There are only 29 council-manager municipalities in South Carolina. A list of these follows.
Abbeville
Aiken
Anderson
Atlantic Beach
Batesburg-Leesville
Beaufort
Camden
Cayce
Clinton
Columbia
Dillon
Florence
Fort Mill
Greenville
Greenwood
Hartsville
Hilton Head Island
Kingstree
Myrtle Beach
Newberry
North Myrtle Beach
Port Royal
Rock Hill
Spartanburg
Sumter
Walterboro
Winnsboro
Woodruff
York
General Powers of Municipal Governments
The general powers of municipalities in South Carolina are spelled out in the Code of Laws of South Carolina. Each
municipality of the State, in addition to the powers conferred to its specific form of government has the power to:
18
1.
Enact regulations, resolutions, and ordinances, not inconsistent with the Constitution and the general law of this State,
including the exercise of powers in relation to roads, streets, markets, law enforcement, health, and order in relation to
roads, streets, markets, law enforcement, health, and order in the municipality or respecting any subject which appears
to it necessary and proper for the security, general welfare, and convenience of the municipality or for preserving
health, peace, order, and good government in it;
2.
Levy and collect taxes on real and personal property and as otherwise authorized in this section, make assessments, and
establish uniform service charges relating to them;
3.
Abate nuisances;
4.
Provide police protection in contiguous municipalities and in unincorporated areas located not more than three miles
from the municipal limits upon the request and agreement of the contiguous municipality or the county, including
agreement as to the boundaries of such police jurisdictional areas, in which case the municipal law enforcement officers
shall have the full jurisdiction, authority, rights, privileges, and immunities, including coverage under the workers’
compensation law, which they have in the municipality, including the authority to make arrests, and to execute criminal
process within the extended jurisdictional area; provided, however, that this shall not extend the effect of the laws of the
municipality beyond its corporate boundaries;
5.
Grant franchises for the use of public streets and make charges for them;
6.
Engage in the recreation function;
7.
Levy a business license tax on gross income;
8.
Borrow in anticipation of taxes;
9.
Pledge revenues to collected and the full faith and credit of the municipality against its note and conduct advisory
referenda;
10. Fix fines and penalties for the violation of municipal ordinances and regulations not exceeding five hundred dollars or
imprisonment not exceeding thirty days; and
11. For the purpose of providing and maintaining parking for the benefit of a downtown commercial area, levy a surtax
upon the business license of a person doing business in a designated area, in an amount not to exceed fifty percent of
the current yearly business license tax upon terms and conditions fixed by ordinance of the municipal council. (Powers
1-11 are set out in Sec. 5-7-30)
Other powers conferred upon municipalities include the authority to:
12. Own and possess property within and without their corporate limits, real, personal or mixed, without limitation and
may, by resolution of the council adopted at a public meeting and upon such terms and conditions as such council may
deem advisable, sell, alien, convey, lease or otherwise dispose of any such property at will; (Sec. 5-7-40)
13. Condemn land or right-of-way or easement; (Sec. 5-7-50)
14. Contract with any individual, corporation, state or political subdivision or agency or with the United State Government
to perform any of its functions or to furnish any of its services; (Sec. 5-7-60)
15. Require that the owner of any lot or property in the municipality shall keep such lot or property clean and free of
rubbish, debris and other unhealthy and unsightly material or conditions which constitute a public nuisance; (Sec. 5-780)
19
16. Notify the owner of conditions needing correction, may require that the owner take such action as is necessary to
correct the conditions, may provide the terms and conditions under which employees of the municipality or any person
employed for that purpose may go upon the property to correct the conditions and my provide that the cost of such shall
become a lien upon the real estate and shall be collectable in the same manner as municipal taxes; (Sec. 5-7-80)
17. Try all persons charged with violations of the ordinances of the municipality or the laws of the State within their
jurisdiction in a summary without a jury unless jury trial is demanded by the accused; (5-7-90)
18. Appoint or elect as many police officers, regular or special, as may be necessary for the proper law enforcement in such
municipality and fix their salaries and prescribe their duties; (Sec. 5-7-110) and
19. Send law enforcement officers to other political subdivisions of the State upon request in emergency situations; (Sec.57-120)
The powers of the municipality are vested in council. (Sec. 5-7-160)
The Local Governmental Service Delivery System
South Carolina municipalities and counties (counties since the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1975) have the
legal authority to, and do, provide a broad array of services for their residents and others that visit or work in their
communities. Prior to the mid-1970s counties were limited in the types and range of services they provided by the
“county purpose doctrine” which allowed counties to provide only a few services. These services range from such
basic services as police, fire, water and sewer to housing, cultural activities, and recreation and are driven by the
needs and demands of their citizenry. Many of these services are provided solely and directly by the counties and
municipalities, but others are delivered in cooperation with other local governments; others still are delivered by the
state, special purpose districts, the private sector, or the non-profit sector.
These cooperative service delivery arrangements are permissible under South Carolina’s Constitution and state law.
The Constitution permits counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions great latitude in terms of the
manner in which these services are provided. South Carolina local governments have the authority to consolidate
functions through the use of intergovernmental, or interlocal, agreements. They also have the authority to enter into
agreements with the state, as well as the private and non-profit sectors to meet the service needs and demands of
their citizens. (Art. VIII, Sec. 13, SC Constitution) A 1987 report by the SCACIR found a relatively high level of
cooperative service delivery efforts, particularly in the areas of tax billing and collection, water, sewer, garbage
collection, and landfill facilities. (SCACIR, 1987) A 1997 survey of the 46 counties conducted by the Center for
Governance of USC’s Institute of Public Affairs found that local governments had entered into interlocal service
agreements to deliver 27 distinct services. The survey also documented a large and growing number of successful
cooperative service efforts. These ranged from regional solid waste collection and water and sewer programs, joint
industrial parks, GIS services, public defender services to multi-county transportation efforts. (Pierce, 1997) All
indications are that these efforts to make the provision of services more effective and financially feasible are
continuing and are likely to increase in the future as more such efforts result in success and service demands
continue to escalate.
Although no local governments have done so to date, South Carolina local governments have the authority to enter
into political consolidation, which merges local governments on a countywide basis. Municipalities have had the
authority to merge for some time and periodically do so, take for example the merger of Batesburg and Leesville in
the early 1990s into the new town of Batesburg-Leesville. In 1972 the voters of the state approved an amendment to
Article VIII of the State Constitution which authorized this type of consolidation. This amendment required the
General Assembly to provide by law for the procedures by which this process could take place. Repeatedly from
1972-1992, this issue was discussed and legislation was filed in the General Assembly. Although this was simply
enabling legislation, providing another structural option for local governance, special purpose districts and public
utilities lobbied successfully against passage of such enabling legislation. All legislative attempts to enact statutes
failed until 1992. (Pierce and Smith, 1998) Finally in 1992 the General Assembly passed enabling legislation to
allow political consolidation. (Sec. 4-9-41, 4-8-10 et seq.) The local governments in Richland County are the only
20
ones to take a serious look at political consolidation to date and their efforts ended due primarily to technical flaws
in the legislation.
Local governments are also authorized to collaborate in the area of economic development. Under Section 4-1-170
of the South Carolina Code two or more counties may join together in developing an industrial or business park.
They are required to share expenses and share revenues equitably when entering into such a venture. (Sec. 4-1-170)
Another approach to rationalizing the delivery of services in annexation. Annexation allows municipalities to
increase the service area size so as to provide urban or municipal level services to the more densely populated
suburban circles around the city. Often county officials view annexation as a threat. In reality, however, annexation
may have positive benefits for counties, particularly those experiencing areas of rapid “urban” growth where citizens
expect a higher level of services. If such an area is annexed, the responsibility for providing these services becomes
the responsibility of the city, while the property tax revenue for the county from the annexed area is not reduced.
Thus, counties can see demand for services from fast-growing areas decrease while property tax revenue does not.
(Pierce and Smith, 1998) This allows counties to concentrate their limited financial resources on serving the more
rural areas of the county. It should be pointed out that the annexation laws are very restrictive.
Service Survey
Overview
A majority of the governmental services that affect the day-to-day lives of citizens in South Carolina are provided
by general purpose local governments; e.g. fire and police protection, emergency medical services, infrastructure
(water, sewer, drainage, streets, sidewalks, etc.), parks and recreation. In an attempt to better understand how these
services are delivered in South Carolina we conducted a survey of all municipalities and counties in the state.
Surveys were sent to the chief administrative officer or chief elected official (mayor or council chair) in each of the
269 municipalities and 46 counties. They were asked to indicate from a list of 39 services which ones their
jurisdiction delivered. For those their jurisdiction did not deliver they were asked to indicate whether some other
entity was providing the service for their residents. The other entities from which they could choose included the
following; state agency, council of governments, nonprofit, special purpose district, private business, county, city,
other city, and other county. We should stress that no attempt was made to assess the quality of the services
delivered. It is very often the case that the quality of a service delivered by two local governments varies greatly.
The overall response rate for the survey was 62.5%. Some 169 of the 269 municipalities responded for a response
rate of 62.8%. Twenty-eight of the 46 counties responded to the survey, a 60.1% response rate. Table 2 provides the
population breakdown of the local governments responding. The results of our analysis of the responses to the
survey are provided below.
21
Table 2
Response Rate by Population
Counties
Population
# of SC
Counties
# Responding
% Responding
25,000 and under
25,001 – 50,000
50,001 – 99,999
100,000 and over
12
12
8
14
6
6
6
10
50.0
50.0
75.0
71.4
Municipalities
# of SC
Population
Munici.
# Responding
% Responding
1,000 and under
1,001 – 5,000
5,001 – 10,000
10,000 – 20,000
20,001 – 39,999
40,000 and over
128
85
26
14
11
5
70
52
21
13
8
5
54.7
61.2
80.8
92.9
72.7
100.0
Findings
A majority of the 28 counties responding reported that they provided 27 of the 39 services included on the survey.
In fact, 100% of the counties reported providing the following services; police/law enforcement, magistrates court,
victims assistance, library, and tax collection. Of the 39 services included in the survey only 14 were delivered by a
majority of the 169 cities responding. The most often delivered services by municipalities include business license
administration (87.6%), beautification/appearance (83.4%), police/law enforcement (79.3%), municipal court
(78.7%), parks (72.2%), fire protection (68.6%), planning (66.3%), zoning administration (64.5%) and victims
assistance (62.7%).
Table 3 below masks a very important point. When it comes to the delivery of services by local governments in
South Carolina size counts, particularly when considering municipalities. These differences are displayed in Tables
4 and 5. A review of the survey results reveals that population does have some affect on the services that a
particular county delivers. A majority of the counties with populations of 50,000 or less indicated that they provided
23 of the 39 services included in the survey while a majority of those over 50,000 in population reported that they
delivered 27 of the 39 services to their citizens. This small difference is reflected in Table 4.
A review of the survey results reveals that population does have some affect on the services that a particular county
delivers. A majority of the counties with populations of 50,000 or less indicated that they provided 23 of the 39
services included in the survey while a majority of those over 50,000 in population reported that they delivered 27 of
the 39 services to their citizens. This small difference is reflected in Table 4.
22
Table 3
Services Delivered at the Local Level By Counties and Municipalities
Service/Function
% of All
Counties
Public Safety
Police/Law Enforcement
Dispatch
Animal Control
Emergency Medical Services
First Response
Fire Protection
100.0
96.4
92.9
82.1
78.6
75.0
79.3
26.0
30.8
16.0
41.4
68.6
Solid Waste
Litter Control
Recycling
Solid Waste Collection
Solid Waste Disposal
96.4
96.4
71.4
71.4
48.5
37.3
61.5
23.1
Transportation
Road (Street) and Bridge Maintenance
Road (Street) and Bridge Paving
Road (Street) Construction
Sidewalk Construction
Sidewalk Maintenance
Mass Transit
89.3
57.1
53.6
21.4
25.0
7.1
34.3
14.2
16.0
28.4
40.8
5.3
Utilities
Storm Water Management
Water
Sewer
Electric
Natural Gas
57.1
14.3
17.9
0.0
0.0
45.0
60.9
55.6
13.6
6.5
100.0
100.0
78.7
62.7
96.4
32.1
9.5
3.6
100.0
75.0
67.9
39.3
13.0
54.4
72.2
31.4
92.9
89.3
71.4
66.3
49.7
64.5
100.0
21.4
18.3
87.6
Community and Economic Development
Community Development
Economic Development
Housing
50.0
96.4
10.7
60.9
37.9
23.1
Appearance
Rights-of-Way Maintenance
Beautification/Appearance
67.9
57.1
39.6
83.4
N=28
N=169
Judicial
Magistrates/Municipal Court
Victims Assistance
Detention
Jail
Juvenile Detention
Leisure/Cultural Activities
Library
Recreation
Parks
Cultural Activities
Planning and Inspections
Planning
Building Inspections
Zoning Administration
Tax Collection and Administration
Tax Collection
Business License Administration
% of All
Municipalities
23
Table 4
Impact of Population on Service Delivery: Counties
Service/Function
% of All
Counties
% 50,000
or Less
% More
Than 50,000
Public Safety
Police/Law Enforcement
Dispatch
Animal Control
Emergency Medical Services
First Response
Fire Protection
100.0
96.4
92.9
82.1
78.6
75.0
100.0
91.7
83.3
75.0
75.0
83.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
87.5
81.3
68.8
Solid Waste
Litter Control
Recycling
Solid Waste Collection
Solid Waste Disposal
96.4
96.4
71.4
71.4
91.7
100.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
93.8
68.8
68.8
Transportation
Road and Bridge Maintenance
Road and Bridge Paving
Road Construction
Sidewalk Construction
Sidewalk Maintenance
Mass Transit
89.3
57.1
53.6
21.4
25.0
7.1
83.3
33.3
33.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
93.8
75.0
68.8
31.3
37.5
12.5
Utilities
Storm Water Management
Water
Sewer
Electric
Natural Gas
57.1
14.3
17.9
0.0
0.0
50.0
16.7
8.3
0.0
0.0
62.5
12.5
31.2
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.4
32.1
91.7
8.3
100.0
50.0
100.0
75.0
67.9
39.3
100.0
83.3
50.0
41.7
100.0
68.8
81.3
37.5
92.9
89.3
71.4
91.7
91.7
58.3
93.8
93.8
81.3
100.0
21.4
100.0
16.7
100.0
25.0
Community and Economic Development
Community Development
Economic Development
Housing
50.0
96.4
10.7
50.0
100.0
16.8
50.0
93.8
6.3
Appearance
Rights-of-Way Maintenance
Beautification/Appearance
67.9
57.1
58.3
41.7
75.0
75.0
N=28
N=12
N=16
Judicial
Magistrates/Municipal Court
Victims Assistance
Detention
Jail
Juvenile Detention
Leisure/Cultural Activities
Library
Recreation
Parks
Cultural Activities
Planning and Inspections
Planning
Building Inspections
Zoning Administration
Tax Collection and Administration
Tax Collection
Business License Administration
24
As Table 5 reveals the difference based on population is much more significant in the case of the municipalities. It is
very clear from even the most cursory review of the results of this survey that municipalities vary greatly in the
services they deliver. It is equally clear that the population of the jurisdiction is a clear factor in determining the
type and range of services provided. Municipalities with populations of 5,000 or above are much more likely to
provide a broad range of services (27 of the 39 services) as opposed to those with populations of less than 5,000. A
majority of these small municipalities, which by the way account for % of the 269 municipalities in the state,
reported only providing 13 of the 39 services. The difference is even more striking when municipalities under 1,000
in population are considered. A majority of these very small local governments reported delivering only
As Table reveals the difference based on population is much more significant in the case of the municipalities. It is
very clear from even the most cursory review of the results of this survey that municipalities vary greatly in the
services they deliver. It is equally clear that the population of the jurisdiction is a clear factor in determining the
type and range of services provided. Municipalities with populations of 5,000 or above are much more likely to
provide a broad range of services (27 of the 39 services) as opposed to those with populations of less than 5,000. A
majority of these small municipalities, which by the way account for % of the 269 municipalities in the state,
reported only providing 13 of the 39 services. The difference is even more striking when municipalities under 1,000
in population are considered. A majority of these very small local governments reported delivering only five
services; police (54.3%), parks (55.7%), business license administration (74.3%), beautification/appearance
(65.7%), and municipal court (57.1%). This means that a majority of the municipalities with populations of less than
1,000 do not deliver 34 of the services included in the survey. Therefore, these very small local governments who
make up 176 of the 269 municipalities (65.4%) in South Carolina can best be characterized as limited service
governments and, further, are very dependent on other entities for the provision of basic services.
25
Table 5
Impact of Population on Service Delivery: Municipalities
Service/Function
% of All
Municip.
Public Safety
Police/Law Enforcement
Dispatch
Animal Control
Emergency Medical Services
First Response
Fire Protection
79.3
26.0
30.8
16.0
41.4
68.6
97.9
55.3
70.2
17.0
68.1
80.1
72.1
14.8
15.6
15.6
31.2
63.9
Solid Waste
Litter Control
Recycling
Solid Waste Collection
Solid Waste Disposal
48.5
37.3
61.5
23.1
78.7
66.0
87.2
23.4
36.9
26.2
51.6
22.9
Transportation
Street Maintenance
Street and Bridge Paving
Street Construction
Sidewalk Construction
Sidewalk Maintenance
Mass Transit
34.3
14.2
16.0
28.4
40.8
5.3
72.3
38.3
40.3
40.4
76.6
8.5
19.6
4.9
6.5
13.9
27.1
4.1
Utilities
Storm Water Management
Water
Sewer
Electric
Natural Gas
45.0
60.9
55.6
13.6
6.5
76.7
72.3
80.9
23.4
8.5
32.8
56.6
45.9
9.8
5.7
Judicial
Magistrates/Municipal Court
Victims Assistance
78.7
62.7
100.0
91.5
70.5
51.6
9.5
3.6
21.3
6.4
4.9
2.7
Leisure/Cultural Activities
Library
Recreation
Parks
Cultural Activities
13.0
54.4
72.2
31.4
6.4
63.8
80.9
55.3
15.6
50.8
68.9
22.1
Planning and Inspections
Planning
Building Inspections
Zoning Administration
66.3
49.7
64.5
80.9
93.6
93.6
60.7
32.8
53.3
Tax Collection and Administration
Tax Collection
Business License Administration
18.3
87.6
29.8
95.7
13.9
84.4
Community and Economic Development
Community Development
Economic Development
Housing
60.9
37.9
23.1
85.1
61.7
55.3
51.6
28.7
10.6
Appearance
Rights-of-Way Maintenance
Beautification/Appearance
39.6
83.4
80.9
97.9
23.8
77.9
Detention
Jail
Juvenile Detention
% 5,000
and Above
N=169
N=47
26
% Below
5,000
N=122
Who provides which services at the local government level? For purposes of answering this question the 39 services
included on the survey are broken into 11 service categories; public safety, solid waste, transportation, utilities,
judicial, detention, leisure/cultural activities, planning and inspections, tax collection and administration, community
and economic development, and appearance. An examination of service provision for each of these categories
follows.
Public Safety: As Table 3 reveals local governments in South Carolina are clearly the primary providers of public
safety services. South Carolina counties are major players in providing these services. Seventy-five percent or more
of the counties responding reported that they delivered all six of the public safety services. Municipalities taken as a
whole are significant providers of two of the six, police/law enforcement and fire protection. Once again population
is a primary determinant of whether a municipality provides these services or not. (See Table 5) A majority of the
municipalities over 5,000 population reported providing all but one of the six services included in this category,
emergency medical services. In the aggregate, special purpose districts and non-profits also are somewhat involved
in providing fire protection and emergency medical services.
% Counties
Public Safety
Police/Law Enforcement
Dispatch
Animal Control
Emergency Medical Services
First Response
Fire Protection
% Muni.
100.0
96.4
92.9
82.1
78.6
75.0
79.3
26.0
30.8
16.0
41.4
68.6
Solid Waste: The counties are heavily involved in the provision of solid waste services. All four of the services
included in this category are delivered by a majority of the counties. Of these services only one, solid waste
collection, is provided by a majority of the municipalities. The private sector is a significant player in providing
both solid waste collection and solid waste disposal services. Some 16 % of the counties and municipalities
responded that solid waste collection was provided by private business while 19.1% responded that private business
was involved in solid waste disposal.
% Counties
Solid Waste
Litter Control
Recycling
Solid Waste Collection
Solid Waste Disposal
% Muni.
96.4
96.4
71.4
71.4
48.5
37.3
61.5
23.1
Transportation: A majority of the counties reported being involved in road and bridge maintenance, road and
bridge paving, and road construction. None of the transportation services were providing by a majority of the 169
municipalities responding. However, when population is taken into consideration, the picture changes. A majority
of the municipalities with populations over 5,000 indicated that they were involved in street and bridge maintenance
and sidewalk maintenance and a significant number reported being involved in street and bridge paving (38.3%),
street construction (40.3%), and sidewalk construction (40.4%). It is evident from the numbers displayed below that
neither counties nor municipalities are primary providers of mass transit. In fact, 46.4% of the counties and 71.4%
of the municipalities indicated that mass transit was not provided by any entity in their jurisdiction.
% Muni.
% Counties
Transportation
Road (Street) and Bridge Maintenance
Road (Street) and Bridge Paving
Road (Street) Construction
Sidewalk Construction
Sidewalk Maintenance
Mass Transit
89.3
57.1
53.6
21.4
25.0
7.1
34.3
14.2
16.0
28.4
40.8
5.3
27
The counties and municipalities reported that many of the transportation related services were provided either by the
State or by multiple providers. This is particularly true of municipalities as the percentages reported below
illustrate.
Multiple
State
Service
Providers
Agency
Street and Bridge Paving
Street and Bridge Maintenance
Street Construction
Sidewalk Maintenance
Sidewalk Construction
20.7%
14.2%
17.8%
7.7%
7.7%
34.3%
28.4%
32.0%
27.8%
27.2%
Utilities: Counties are not major players in providing utility services. Of the five services listed in this category a
majority of the counties indicated only that they were involved in storm water management. Municipalities are a
primary source of water and sewer services. Special purpose districts are also a major provider of these services in
certain counties and municipalities. A small percentage of the counties reported that water (17.9%) and sewer
(14.3%) services are delivered by multiple providers. It should be noted that these services are only available for
some residents in most, if not all, of the counties. None of the counties provide electricity or natural gas and only a
very small percentage of the municipalities reported doing so. Electricity and natural gas are primarily provided by
private business.
% Counties
Utilities
Storm Water Management
Water
Sewer
Electric
Natural Gas
% Muni.
57.1
14.3
17.9
0.0
0.0
45.0
60.9
55.6
13.6
6.5
Judicial: One hundred percent of the counties responding indicated that they provided the two services included in
this category. They also are a primary provider of these services for the minority of municipalities not providing the
services.
% Counties
Judicial
Magistrates/Municipal Court
Victims Assistance
% Muni.
100.0
100.0
78.7
62.7
Detention: It is quite clear that the counties are the primary providers of jails at the local government level. They
are also somewhat active in the area of juvenile detention. The municipalities look to the counties to provide jail
services and to the counties (43.8%) and the state (36.7%) for juvenile detention.
% Muni.
% Counties
Detention
Jail
Juvenile Detention
96.4
32.1
9.5
3.6
28
Leisure/Cultural Activities: A majority of both the counties and municipalities reported providing recreation
services and parks. All of the counties are in the library business and both local government units are somewhat
active in providing cultural activities. Over 25 percent of both the counties and municipalities indicated that
nonprofit organizations were the primary providers of cultural activities in their jurisdiction. Almost a quarter
(23.7%) of the municipalities reported that no one provided cultural activities for their residents.
% Counties
Leisure/Cultural Activities
Library
Recreation
Parks
Cultural Activities
% Muni.
100.0
75.0
67.9
39.3
13.0
54.4
72.2
31.4
Planning and Inspections: A majority of the counties are involved in planning, building inspections and zoning
administration while a majority of the municipalities are active in planning and zoning administration and just
slightly less than half (49.7%) provide building inspections. As has been the case in many of the service categories,
size clearly is a variable in determining whether a municipality will be involved in this service category. Consider
the following: 80.9% of the municipalities 5,000 and above deliver planning services while 60.7% of the smaller
municipalities do so; 93.6% of the larger municipalities are involved in building inspections and zoning
administration while only 32.8% and 53.3% of the municipalities below 5,000 population are.
% Counties
Planning and Inspections
Planning
Building Inspections
Zoning Administration
% Muni.
92.9
89.3
71.4
66.3
49.7
64.5
Tax Collection and Administration: Counties are the primary collector of taxes at the local government level.
They are less active in business license administration because relatively few of the counties assess business license
taxes while the large majority of municipalities do collect such a tax.
% Counties
Tax Collection and Administration
Tax Collection
Business License Administration
% Muni.
100.0
21.4
18.3
87.6
Community and Economic Development: Counties are much more likely to undertake economic development
services than are cities while municipalities are somewhat more likely to be involved in community development
activities than are counties. Neither the counties nor the municipalities are heavily involved in providing housing
services. However, it is important to note that a majority of the larger municipalities reported providing all three
services.
% Counties
Community and Economic Development
Community Development
Economic Development
Housing
% Muni.
50.0
96.4
10.7
60.9
37.9
23.1
29
Appearance: The counties are more likely (67.9% to 39.6%) to undertake rights-of-way maintenance than are the
municipalities. On the other hand, the municipalities are significantly more involved in beautification/appearance
efforts. Once again the larger municipalities are much more likely to provide these services than their smaller
counterparts: rights-of –way maintenance, 80.9% to 23.8%; and beautification/appearance efforts, 97.9% to 77.9%.
% Counties
Appearance
Rights-of-Way Maintenance
Beautification/Appearance
% Muni.
67.9
57.1
39.6
83.4
Conclusions
The State Constitution and statutes specify the basic governance structure and the general powers, duties, and
authorities of counties and municipalities. The Constitution and statutes also grant significant and broad latitude and
authority to these general-purpose local governments to provide services based on the needs and expectations of its
citizens. To a large extent municipalities enjoyed this broad service authority prior to home rule. This was not the
case relative to the counties who were constrained by the “county purpose doctrine” which limited counties to the
provision of a small number of services. While both municipalities and counties are seeing increased demand for
services this is particularly true for counties as they transition from limited service to comprehensive service local
governments. The pressure on county government to expand the scope and breadth of the services they offer is the
result of at least two factors: (1) the urbanization and suburbanization of a growing number of counties; and (2) the
restrictive annexation laws in place in South Carolina. The ability of counties and municipalities to effectively
respond to these demands for services is some times problematic as the General Assembly has not extended “fiscal”
home rule to them.
Local governments have certainly exercised the latitude and flexibility granted to them in the Constitution and state
statutes relative to the provision of services. The services and the manner in which they are provided by local
governments vary greatly based on local demand, expectations, need, the vision of the community and its governing
body, and the nature of the relationships between the local governments. The quality and cost of these services also
varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This is predictable and perhaps appropriate given the fact local
governments in South Carolina exist and function within the context of “home-rule” which grants significant selfdetermination.
Although counties and municipalities are the primary providers of services at the local government level, they are
not the only ones. The private and non-profit sectors and special purpose districts are also significant players in the
provision of certain services. The state is a major provider of some services; in particular transportation related
services. The fact that there are multiple providers of local services is a mixed blessing. In some instances this
results in a more efficient, cost-effective system while in others it results in confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary
competition and duplication of services. The existing system is without doubt fragmented and lacks coordination but
there is increasing cooperation between general-purpose local governments as they deliver services to a growing and
more demanding population. Where competition for service territory occurs it often arises between the generalpurpose governments and the special purpose districts and the public utilities. This is certainly not always the case
and there are some signs of increasing competition between municipalities and counties as counties begin to provide
“municipal” services such as recreation and water and sewer. Special purpose districts and the role they play in the
local service delivery system will be examined more fully in a separate report.
The question of what services a particular individual may have access to and who provides those services has to be
answered on a case by case basis. The answer depends on the service, the jurisdiction in which they live, where they
live in the jurisdiction, and the population of the jurisdiction. To truly understand the local government service
delivery system in South Carolina one would need to look at all 46 counties and 269 municipalities on an individual
basis. There is not one service delivery system but rather multiple ones.
30
The population of the local government, particularly in the case of municipalities, is a significant determinant in the
services provided and the manner in which the services are delivered. South Carolina is a state of predominantly
small local governments. A large number of the small municipalities in this state can best be described as limited
service local governments and as such are dependent on other entities to provide many services to their citizens and
businesses.
Although rooted in the same Constitutional and statutory ground, perhaps local governments are best characterized
by the great variety they display when it comes to the services they provide and the manner in which they are
provided.
References:
Acts and Joint Resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, various years.
Andrews, C. (1983). Administrative County Government in South Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Black, Richard L. (1981). "The Efficacy and Condition of Home Rule in South Carolina." Columbia, S. C.
(unpublished paper).
Blough, William J., “Local Government in South Carolina,” in Government in the Palmetto State. Luther F. Carter
and David S. Mann, Eds. USC Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, 1984.
Brown v. Horry County, State of South Carolina Supreme Court, Opinion No. 23633.
Caraley, Demetrios (1977). City Governments and Urban Problems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Chudacoff, Howard P. (1975). The Evolution of American Urban Society. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976)
Dillon, John F. (1911). Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Corporations. Boston, MA: J. Cockcroft.
Easterwood, Michael, “The Municipality and South Carolina Government,” in Local Government in South Carolina.
Cole Blease Graham, Jr. and Charlie Tyer, Eds., USC Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of
South Carolina. 1984.
Evening Herald (Rock Hill, S. C.) (1972). February 15.
Graham, Jr., Cole Blease and Charlie Tyer. Eds., Local Government in South Carolina, Bureau of Governmental
Research and Service, University of South Carolina. 1984.
Knight v. Salisbury. 262 S.C. 562; 206 S.E. 2d 875 (1974).
Mackey, Dan B. and Jeffrey R. Clements, Local Intergovernmental Cooperation: The State of the Art in South
Carolina, Columbia: South Carolina Advisory Commission of Intergovernmental Relations, 1987.
Martin, David L. (1982) Running City Hall: Municipal Administration in America. The University of Alabama
Press.
Pierce, Jon B., A survey of 46 counties on intergovernmental relations, Center for Governance, Institute of Public
Affairs, University of South Carolina, 1997.
31
Pierce, Jon B. and Andrew, Chapter 13, A Handbook for South Carolina County Officials published by the South
Carolina Association of Counties, 1998.
Pierce, Jon B., Chapter 2, A Handbook for South Carolina County Officials published by the South Carolina
Association of Counties, 1998.
Pomeroy, Robert (1979). Municipal Government in South Carolina. Clemson, S.C.: Clemson University
Cooperative Extension Service.
Sherrill, George R. and Robert H. Stoudemire (1950). Municipal Government in South Carolina. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
South Carolina State Constitution of 1895 (as amended)
State Superintendent of Education of the State of South Carolina (1900). 32nd Annual Report. Columbia, S.C.:
Department of Education.
State Superintendent of Education of the State of South Carolina (1949). 81st Annual Report. Columbia, S.C.:
Department of Education.
State Superintendent of Education of the State of South Carolina (1980). 112th Annual Report. Columbia, S.C.:
Department of Education.
State Superintendent of Education of the State of South Carolina (1982). School districts of South Carolina
Organization and Administration (revised). Columbia, S.C.: Department of Education.
Stoudemire, Robert H. and V.H. Ascolillo (1969). “Reorganization of county Government in South Carolina.”
University of South Carolina Governmental Review. 11(1)(February).
Tyer, Charlie, Chapter 1, A Handbook for South Carolina County Officials published by the South Carolina
Association of Counties, 1998.
Wallace, D.D. (1927). The South Carolina Constitution of 1895. Columbia: Bureau of Publications, University of
South Carolina.
Wallace, D.D. (1934). The History of South Carolina (Vol.3) New York: The American Historical Society.
Wallace, Sue G. and Charlie B. Tyer (1979a). South Carolina Local Government Reform. Columbia: Bureau of
Governmental Research and Service, University of South Carolina.
Wickwar, W.H. (1970). 300 Years of Development Administration in South Carolina. Columbia: Bureau of
Governmental Research and Service, University of South Carolina.
Williams v. Town of Hilton Head Island, State of South Carolina Supreme Court, Opinion No. 23839 (heard
November 4, 1992, filed April 12, 1993).
Zimmerman, Joseph F. (1970). State and Local Government. New York: Barnes and Noble.
32