|
High
court gives bond plan OK
Decision
for case in Colleton County
might bode well for District 50
as well
December
12, 2006
By BOBBY
HARRELL
Index-Journal
staff writer
A
South Carolina Supreme Court decision might have a lasting
impact on Greenwood School District 50’s bond plan and other
school districts across the state.
Several Colleton citizen
and taxpayer associations sued the Colleton County school
district in August over its installment purchase bond plan,
which the groups alleged would negatively affect the
district’s outstanding general obligation bonds, among other
charges.
The district wants to create a non-profit
corporation to fund the renovation and construction of
district schools.
State justices decided Monday afternoon
in favor of the school district, which upholds the
constitutionality of Colleton’s bond resolution, according to
the court’s opinion.
District 50 has suggested it would
create a non-profit organization to help manage its bond plan
and that the bond plan is legal.
The district has been
plagued with mistrust and questions about the legality of the
bond plan by public officials, including Greenwood County
councilmen Dee Compton and Bob Jennings and state Rep. Mike
Pitts.
The district’s bond plan would leverage as much as
$145 million over a 25-year period to pay for construction of
three elementary schools, and renovations and modifications to
the rest of the schools in the district. Bonds are typically
sold by government agencies to the public and investors to pay
for large projects, where the money gained from the bond sale
is given to the issuing agency and paid back over an
established amount of time.
District 50 Superintendent
Darrell Johnson was unavailable for comment Monday.
Board
of trustees chairwoman Debrah Miller said she was pleased to
hear the court’s decision, as District 50’s position all along
has been that the bond plan is right for Greenwood.
“This
decision proves that,” she said.
Miller said the decision
also clears up the bond plan’s legality as part of the
accusations Henry Johnson made in his lawsuit. “We’re
continuing to defend ourselves from other allegations in the
lawsuit,” she said.
District 50’s attorneys Childs &
Halligan countersued Henry Johnson on Dec. 4 for $50 million,
after Johnson, former owner of the Rental Center, and the
South Carolina Public Interest Foundation sued District 50,
its bond plan, superintendent Darrell Johnson and former
chairwoman Dru James Nov. 3.
The countersuit asks for $50
million as that’s the amount the district and taxpayers will
pay if the district can’t close on its bond plan in 2006,
according to Childs & Halligan.
District 50’s attorneys
also deny the majority of Johnson’s claims, including that the
district has violated South Carolina’s 8 percent bonded
indebtedness limit. The attorneys also claim Johnson and the
foundation began the lawsuit to disrupt the bond
plan.
Childs & Halligan is making an effort to discuss
the Colleton County case with Jim Carpenter, attorney for both
Henry Johnson and Colleton County’s cases, said Keith Powell,
attorney for Childs & Halligan.
Carpenter declined to
comment about the decision, only saying his team is reviewing
the decision and considering their options.
Henry Johnson
said he found most of the decision “disappointing” but noticed
areas that were different between the Colleton and Greenwood
cases. He declined to discuss those differences until he spoke
to Carpenter.
Board member and former chairwoman Dru James,
who was an important part of the initial bond process, said
she was glad the court upheld the rulings of previous
courts.
Board member Dan Richardson said he hadn’t heard
the decision was made, but wasn’t surprised at the outcome
because Colleton’s plan was modeled after Greenville County
School District’s, where the board of trustees is divorced
from the non-profit corporation. District 50’s plan has
strings attached, in that the board has some say within the
corporate body, Richardson said.
“I just think it’s wrong,”
he said.
Board secretary Frank Coyle was pleased the way
the decision came out.
“Truth be told, we expected it to be
constitutional,” he said, referring to installment purchase
bonds.
Board member James Williams said he didn’t know
about the decision, but didn’t understand why people in
Colleton County were making a big deal, considering the poor
shape of the schools there.
“I can’t understand why they
don’t want things better,” he said.
Board member Tony
Pritchard said ‘thank goodness’ about the decision and that he
hoped it would allow the district to move forward with the
bond plan.
Board member Tony Bowers had no comment, while
LeVerne Fuller was unavailable for comment. Board member Lary
Davis said he didn’t want to talk about the decision until
he’d had a chance to read it.
| |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
