Wright v. Proffitt, 19671

• Decision Date: 02 August 1973
• Docket Number: No. 19671,19671
• Citation: 198 S.E.2d 275,261 S.C. 68
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Herbert J. WRIGHT, Individually and representing all other taxpayers and property owners within the Metropolitan Sewer Subdistrict of the Greenville County Sewer Authority, similarly situated, Appellant, v. M. Graham PROFFITT, III et al., Respondents.

Page 275

198 S.E.2d 275

261 S.C. 68

Herbert J. WRIGHT, Individually and representing all other taxpayers and property owners within the Metropolitan Sewer Subdistrict of the Greenville County Sewer Authority similarly situated, Appellant, v. M. Graham PROFFITT, III et al., Respondents.

No. 19671.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 2, 1973.

Ashmore & Haas, Greenville, for appellant.

Mann, Foster, Richardson & Fisher, Greenville, Sinkler, Gibbs, Simons & Guerard, Charleston, and Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Columbia, for respondents.

BRAILSFORD, Justice:

This taxpayer's action challenges the constitutionality of Act No. 687 of the Acts of 1969, which created the Metropolitan Sewer Subdistrict (hereinafter called 'the subdistrict') of the Greenville County Sewer Authority, and Act No. 1842 of the Acts of 1972, which authorized the issuance of up to $10,000,000.00 in bonds by the subdistrict. The members of the subdistrict's governing board (the Commission) and the Attorney General are defendants.

The Greenville County Sewer Authority (formerly the Greater Greenville Sewer District) is a special taxing district of almost fifty years' standing. From its inception the Authority has only been authorized to construct trunk sewer lines and disposal plants; the construction of lateral, or collector, sewer lines has always been left to municipalities or subdistricts within the Authority's territory. Over the years, a number of such systems were installed by such municipalities and by sewer subdistricts which were organized for that purpose. Finally, the 1969 Act created the Metropolitan Sewer Subdistrict, composed of substantially all of the area within the boundaries of the Authority not already included in a municipality or subdistrict. After engineering studies authorized by the 1969 Act were carried out, the 1972 Act was passed, authorizing the bond financing and spelling out in much greater detail the boundaries and powers of the subdistrict.

Shortly after passage of the 1972 Act, the Commission adopted a plan to sell bonds in five annual issues aggregating the authorized $10,000,000.00, the first issue of $2,200,000.00 to finance initial construction in Piedmont Park. The proceeds of the remaining annual issues will be used to construct sewer lines in nine other heavily populated areas of the subdistrict which, with Piedmont Park, are scattered throughout the subdistrict but constitute a relatively small part of its area. The General Assembly made the following finding with respect to benefits to the whole subdistrict which will result from installing sewer lines in the proposed area:

'(T)he General Assembly recognizes that the areas within the Subdistrict which the Commission proposes to serve initially constitute a relatively small portion of the Subdistrict and are widely scattered throughout the Subdistrict. Nevertheless, the General Assembly has determined that the entire Subdistrict will benefit from, and the public health throughout the Subdistrict requires, the installation of sewage collection facilities in populated areas as they develop. On this basis the General Assembly has concluded that ad valorem taxes should be imposed throughout the Subdistrict to finance the construction program which the Commission now purposes to undertake.' 1972 Statutes at Large, p. 3663.

It is estimated that debt service on the bond issue will require a districtwide eight mills ad valorem tax, a $400.00 tap fee and a $4.00 monthly service charge, the latter two to be paid by persons receiving sewer service.

The plaintiff is the owner of property within the subdistrict, situate about a mile from the nearest area to be sewered under the five-year program. In this class action, he seeks to enjoin the issuance of the $2,200,000.00 in bonds, contending (1) that the imposition of the districtwide ad valorem tax to finance sewer construction in the heavily populated areas throughout the subdistrict will constitute a taking of his property without due process of law and a denial of equal protection of the laws; and (2) that the $2,200,000.00 bond issue to finance sewer construction in an area thirteen miles away from his property is invalid on the same grounds. The circuit court overruled both contentions, and plaintiff has appealed.

It is settled law in this and other jurisdictions that the foundation of the power to lay a special assessment for a local improvement is the benefit which the improvement confers on the owners of property in the special assessment district, which benefit is different from the general benefit enjoyed by those outside the district. E.g., Evans v. Beattie, 137 S.C. 496,...