Phillips, 041185 SCAGO, AGO 1985-31

Case DateApril 11, 1985
CourtSouth Carolina
J. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esquire
AGO 1985-31
No. 1985-31
South Carolina Attorney General Opinion
State of South Carolina Office of the Attorney General
April 11, 1985
         J. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esquire          Attorney for Greenville Airport Commission Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann          Post Office Box 87 Greenville, South Carolina 29602          Dear Mr. Phillips:          By- your letter to Attorney General Medlock dated January 8, 1985, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to a proposed agreement between the City of Greenville and Greenville County concerning appointment powers over members of the Greenville (Downtown) Airport Commission. This Office has sought legal input in the form of memoranda from all of the concerned parties. It would appear that your question is answered by prior opinions of this Office which indicate that the City and the County may not, by contract, ordinance., or agreement, alter appointment procedures for members of the Greenville Airport Commission.          The proposed agreement is entitled "City-County Agreement, Airport Facility Management." The provision in question is part A, providing in pertinent part:
Mutual contractual exchange of voting interests for a four year term with options to renew such that the City and the County shall each defer to the preferences of each other in making appointments Co the Donaldson Commission and the Downtown Airport Commission during the term of the agreement. Under the terms of this agreement, Mayor and City Council would defer to the preference of County Council in its appointments to the Donaldson Commission, and County Council would similarly defer to the preferences of Mayor and City Council in its appointments to the Downtown Airport Commission. The net effect will tend to place primary responsibility for Donaldson Center decisions with the County and Downtown Airport decisions with the City.
         Before discussing the proposed agreement, some comments concerning the Greenville (Downtown) Airport Commission and its relationship to the City and County are in order.          GREENVILLE AIRPORT COMMISSION          The Greenville Airport Commission for the City and County of Greenville was created by Act No. 919, 1928 Acts and Joint Resolutions, as amended by Act No. 440 of 1929, Act No. 844 of 1954, and Act Mo. 1418 of 1974. The most recent act amended that portion of Act No. 919 pertaining to appointment of Commission members; that provision now reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1, of those successors to the members currently serving, one each shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Greenville and the County Council of Greenville County for an initial term of one year, and one each shall be likewise appointed for an initial term of two years.
         The fifth member is to be selected by majority vote of the other four members. Clearly, the General Assembly contemplated action by both City and County Councils in appointing members; but what is not clear is whether the Commission is a municipal entity, a county entity, an entity of both, or a separate political subdivision and/or special purpose district.          This Office has advised previously by an opinion dated September 29, 1981, that neither the City" Council nor the County Council was authorized under the Home Rule Act to alter or abolish such a commission, since the Commission was not an agency of the City or the County; rather, concluded the opinion, any alteration or abolition should be accomplished by a general act of the General Assembly.          Based upon the opinion referenced above, as well as statutes governing the Greenville Airport Commission, it would appear that the Commission was established to be an entity separate from the City and County, while at the same time serving both the City and the County. In short, while no authority of which we are aware characterizes the Commission as a special purpose district or political subdivision, for the reasons that follow, strong arguments can be made that the Commission is a separate political subdivision or special purpose district. Thus, statutes governing those entities must be considered together with the powers granted to cities and counties under the Home Rule Act.          The attributes of special purpose districts and political subdivisions were discussed in an Opinion of the Attorney General dated November 15, 1984, with several attachments, copies of which are enclosed. While the Greenville Airport Commission does not possess all of the attributes of a political subdivision or special purpose district, the opinion and authority cited therein stated that a lack of some attributes did not prevent an entity from being a political subdivision or special purpose district. A discussion of the various attributes of the Commission follows.          The purpose for which the Greenville Airport Commission was established is special, as opposed to general governmental purpose; operation of airports has been determined to be an appropriate purpose for special purpose districts. Klecklev v. Pulliam, 265 S.C. 177, 217 S.E.2d 217 (1975); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976). The fact that the Commission has been given certain corporate powers and duties is also significant; powers necessarily implied from those granted and also those specified in the Uniform Airports Act, Section 55-9-10 et seq., Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), are also important considerations. The fact that the Commission was created by an act of the legislature rather...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT