ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF YORK

York County,
C.A. No. 2021-CP-46-03037
Plaintiff,

v. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Fort Mill School District, a/k/a York County

School District 4,

Defendant.

Defendant Fort Mill School District, a/k/a York County School District 4 (“District” or

“Defendant”) answers the allegations of the Complaint as follows:

FOR A FIRST DEFENSE

GENERAL DENIAL

The District denies each and every allegation of the Complaint not herein admitted,

qualified, or explained.

1. With respect to Paragraph 1, Defendant admits there is an active and genuine

dispute as to the interpretation of, and the parties’ respective rights and obligations under, the

parties’ intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”), the County’s ordinances, and the applicable

statutory provisions regarding the suitability of the District’s stated intention to use assessed

impact fee monies collected and held by York County (the “County”). Defendant denies the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 1.

2. Paragraph 2 appears to be a recitation of the relief sought by the Plaintiff.

Defendant admits that a declaration as to the parties’ rights and obligations under the IGA, the

applicable ordinances, and the South Carolina Development Impact Fee Act (“Act”) is

appropriate. Defendant further admits that equitable tolling should be applied as to the
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
expenditure of the collected impact fees. Defendant denies that Plaintiff has stated a claim for an

accounting, but agrees to provide the requested information to the Plaintiff. To the extent

Paragraph 2 contains any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

3. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 3-6, but avers that the District is

correctly identified as Fort Mill School District No. 4 of York County. The District further avers

that it is a division of the County “for taxation for all school purposes.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-73-

20.

4. With respect to Paragraph 7, Defendant admits that the Act was originally passed

as Act No. 118 in 1999 (“Act 118”). Defendant further admits that the Act authorizes counties

and municipalities to impose impact fees to be used “toward the increased cost of serving new

growth and development.” (See Preamble to Act 118). To the extent Paragraph 7 contains any

additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

5. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 and submits that the referenced

statute speaks for itself.

6. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 9-14 and submits that the

referenced statute speaks for itself.

7. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 15 as quotes S.C. Code Ann. §§ 6-1-300

and -320 and submits that the referenced statutes speak for themselves. To the extent Paragraph

15 contains any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

8. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 16.

9. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 17 as alleges that the County and the

Town of Fort Mill have both seen tremendous population growth over the last decade. A

comparison of the 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census data shows that the County’s population has

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
increased more than 24% and Fort Mill’s population has increased by more than 125% in the last

ten years. Over roughly the same period, Fort Mill was the second fastest growing municipality

in the state. To the extent Paragraph 17 contains any additional or different allegations, those

allegations are denied.

10. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 18-21 and submits that the

referenced ordinance speaks for itself.

11. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 22 as stated and submits that the

Act speaks for itself.

12. With respect to Paragraph 23, Defendant admits Linda H. Short introduced Senate

Bill 989 in December 2005. Defendant submits that Senate Bill 989 and S.C. Code Ann. § 6-1-

920 speak for themselves. To the extent Paragraph 23 contains any additional or different

allegations, those allegations are denied.

13. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 24 and submits that its disclosures

issued in connection with the Series 2017 bonds speak for themselves. By statute, general

obligation bonds are “obligations expressly secured by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of

the operating school unit that issues the bonds.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-71-155. Moreover, “[f]or

the payment of the principal and interest on such bonds as they respectively mature and for the

creation of such sinking fund as may be necessary therefor the full faith, credit and resources of

the operating school unit are irrevocably pledged and there shall be levied annually by the

auditor of each county wherein such operating school unit is located, and collected by the

treasurer of such county in the same manner as county taxes are levied and collected, a tax,

without limit, on all taxable property in such operating school unit sufficient to pay the principal

and interest of such bonds as they respectively mature and to create such sinking fund as may be

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
necessary therefor.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-71-150. To the extent Paragraph 24 contains any

additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

14. With respect to Paragraph 25, Defendant admits that it did not seek the County’s

authorization or consent to issue the Series 2017 Bonds. To the extent Paragraph 25 contains

any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

15. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 26 and submits that its disclosures

issued in connection with the Series 2017B bonds speak for themselves. By statute, general

obligation bonds are “obligations expressly secured by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of

the operating school unit that issues the bonds.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-71-155. Moreover, “[f]or

the payment of the principal and interest on such bonds as they respectively mature and for the

creation of such sinking fund as may be necessary therefor the full faith, credit and resources of

the operating school unit are irrevocably pledged and there shall be levied annually by the

auditor of each county wherein such operating school unit is located, and collected by the

treasurer of such county in the same manner as county taxes are levied and collected, a tax,

without limit, on all taxable property in such operating school unit sufficient to pay the principal

and interest of such bonds as they respectively mature and to create such sinking fund as may be

necessary therefor.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-71-150. To the extent Paragraph 26 contains any

additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

16. With respect to Paragraph 27, Defendant admits that it did not seek the County’s

authorization or consent to issue the Series 2017B Bonds. To the extent Paragraph 27 contains

any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

17. With respect to Paragraph 28, Defendant admits the first two sentences.

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 28. The Tischler Bise study (“Study”)

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
commissioned by the County, incorporated by reference into County Ordinance 2818, and setting

out the Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) and providing the basis for the calculation of the

impact fee and the amount of the impact fee, contemplates that impact fee funds will be used to

offset bonded indebtedness and applies credit in the calculation of the maximum supportable

school impact fee as a result.

18. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 29. The District attaches its

presentation to County Council’s Finance and Operations Committee on October 16, 2017 as

Exhibit 1.

19. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 30 as alleges County Council directed the

“Planning Commission to conduct the studies relating to the imposition of a development impact

fee applicable within the geographic area of the Fort Mill School District and associated with the

public education facilities for grades k-12 considered necessary for the proper education of the

school district’s children and recommend a resulting impact fee ordinance related thereto.”

Defendant submits that the resolution speaks for itself. To the extent Paragraph 30 contains any

additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

20. Defendant admits the first sentence of Paragraph 31. With respect to the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 31, Defendant admits the final version of the Study dated

June 14, 2018 is attached as part of Exhibit R to the Complaint and that the Study includes a CIP

that considers, among other things, past and expected growth in the area.1 Per the Study, the

“maximum supportable school impact fees” totaled $18,158 for single family homes and $12,020

for multifamily units. Defendant denies that the Study takes a position on the amount of the

1
Exhibit G to the Complaint is an earlier draft of the Study.

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
impact fees to be imposed by the County. To the extent Paragraph 31 contains any additional or

different allegations, those allegations are denied.

21. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 32 and attaches an executed copy

of the resolution as Exhibit 2. Defendant further avers that the timing of the resolution coincides

with the Planning Commission’s consideration of an early draft of the Study. Planning

Commission minutes attached as Exhibit 3. The Planning Commission issued resolutions

“recommending the amended procedures for the imposition, calculation, collection, expenditure,

and administration of impact fees” and “recommending the public education facilities impact fee

to be imposed on all new residential development in the [District]” on May 14, 2018.

Resolutions attached as Exhibit 4.

22. Defendant denies the first sentence of Paragraph 33. Defendant would instead

aver that County Council considered the Planning Commission resolutions and gave first reading

to what would become Ordinances 2718 and 2818 on May 21, 2108. At that time, County

Council considered a draft of the Study and a summary showing, among other things, “Debt

Service Tax Savings Due to Increase in Impact Fees.” Summary attached as Exhibit 5. County

Council took second reading and held a public hearing on June 27, 2018. At that time, Council

considered the final version of the Study. Defendant admits the remainder of Paragraph 33.

23. With respect to Paragraphs 34-37, Defendant submits that the IGA speaks for

itself. To the extent Paragraphs 34-37 contain any additional or different allegations, those

allegations are denied.

24. With respect to Paragraph 38, Defendant admits that Ordinance 2718 received

third reading and was adopted on July 16, 2018 and was codified as §§ 153.55-.62 in the York

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
County Code of Ordinances. Defendant submits that the ordinance speaks for itself. To the

extent Paragraph 38 contains any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

25. With respect to Paragraph 39, Defendant admits that Ordinance 2818 received

third reading and was adopted on July 16, 2018 and was codified as §§ 153.75-.82 in the York

County Code of Ordinances. Defendant submits that the ordinance speaks for itself. To the

extent Paragraph 39 contains any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

26. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 40.

27. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 41 as quotes Ordinance 2818. Defendant

further admits that the words “financing costs” are not included in the quotation found in

Paragraph 41. To the extent Paragraph 41 contains any additional or different allegations, those

allegations are denied.

28. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 42 as quotes Ordinance 2818. To the

extent Paragraph 42 contains any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

29. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 43-44.

30. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 45 and submits that its disclosures

issued in connection with the Series 2018B bonds speak for themselves. By statute, general

obligation bonds are “obligations expressly secured by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of

the operating school unit that issues the bonds.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-71-155. Moreover, “[f]or

the payment of the principal and interest on such bonds as they respectively mature and for the

creation of such sinking fund as may be necessary therefor the full faith, credit and resources of

the operating school unit are irrevocably pledged and there shall be levied annually by the

auditor of each county wherein such operating school unit is located, and collected by the

treasurer of such county in the same manner as county taxes are levied and collected, a tax,

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
without limit, on all taxable property in such operating school unit sufficient to pay the principal

and interest of such bonds as they respectively mature and to create such sinking fund as may be

necessary therefor.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-71-150. To the extent Paragraph 45 contains any

additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

31. With respect to Paragraph 46, Defendant admits that it did not seek the County’s

authorization or consent to issue the Series 2018B Bonds. To the extent Paragraph 46 contains

any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

32. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 47-48.

33. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 49 and submits that the trial court’s

order speaks for itself. Among other things, the trial court found that Ordinance 2818 and the

incorporated Study substantially complied with the Act’s requirements, including the Study’s

calculation of the maximum allowable impact fee.

34. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 50.

35. The District admits so much of Paragraph 51 as alleges that it requested and

supported these efforts. To the extent Paragraph 51 contains any additional or different

allegations, those allegations are denied.

36. Defendant admits the first three sentences of Paragraph 52. Defendant denies the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 52 and submits that the IGA speaks for itself as to the parties’

obligations.

37. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 53 and submits that its disclosures

issued in connection with the Series 2020B bonds speak for themselves. By statute, general

obligation bonds are “obligations expressly secured by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of

the operating school unit that issues the bonds.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-71-155. Moreover, “[f]or

8
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
the payment of the principal and interest on such bonds as they respectively mature and for the

creation of such sinking fund as may be necessary therefor the full faith, credit and resources of

the operating school unit are irrevocably pledged and there shall be levied annually by the

auditor of each county wherein such operating school unit is located, and collected by the

treasurer of such county in the same manner as county taxes are levied and collected, a tax,

without limit, on all taxable property in such operating school unit sufficient to pay the principal

and interest of such bonds as they respectively mature and to create such sinking fund as may be

necessary therefor.” S.C. Code Ann. § 59-71-150. To the extent Paragraph 53 contains any

additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

38. With respect to Paragraph 54, Defendant admits that it did not seek the County’s

authorization or consent to issue the Series 2020B Bonds. To the extent Paragraph 54 contains

any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

39. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 55. Defendant further avers that

one of the issues on appeal was whether Ordinance 2818 and the incorporated Study

substantially complied with the Act.

40. With respect to Paragraphs 56-57, Defendant admits its school board passed the

2021 Resolution. Defendant submits the 2021 Resolution speaks for itself. To the extent

Paragraphs 56-57 contain any additional or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

41. With respect to Paragraph 58, Defendant admits its attorney sent the referenced

letter and submits the letter speaks for itself. To the extent Paragraph 58 contains any additional

or different allegations, those allegations are denied.

9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
42. Defendant admits the first two sentences of Paragraph 59. Defendant denies the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 59 and submits that the IGA speaks for itself as to the parties’

obligations.

43. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 60.

44. With respect to Paragraph 61, Defendant admits that a meeting took place on

September 8, 2021 and that the County and Defendant disagree about whether the collected

impact fee funds may be transferred to Defendant based on Defendant’s previous requests. To

the extent Paragraph 61 contains any additional or different allegations, those allegations are

denied.

45. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 62.

46. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 63 as alleges that the County will not

transfer the requested funds. Defendant lacks information or belief as to the remaining

allegations of Paragraph 63, and therefore denies those allegations.

47. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 64 as alleges there is a genuine dispute

between the parties. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 64.

48. Paragraph 65 does not contain any allegations and therefore does not require a

response. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant incorporates its foregoing

responses as if restated verbatim.

49. The allegations of Paragraphs 66-75 (and all subparagraphs) contain conclusions

of law to which no response is required; however, to the extent a response is required,

Paragraphs 66-75 (and all subparagraphs) are denied.

10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
50. Paragraph 76 does not contain any allegations and therefore does not require a

response. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant incorporates its foregoing

responses as if restated verbatim.

51. The allegations of Paragraph 77 (and all subparagraphs) contains conclusions of

law to which no response is required; however, to the extent a response is required, Paragraphs

77 (and all subparagraphs) is denied.

52. Paragraph 78 does not contain any allegations and therefore does not require a

response. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant incorporates its foregoing

responses as if restated verbatim.

53. The allegations of Paragraphs 79-83 contain conclusions of law to which no

response is required; however, Defendant admits that equitable tolling of the Act’s expenditure

requirement and any refund or disposition deadlines is appropriate for the pendency of this

litigation. To the extent any additional response is required, Paragraphs 79-83 are denied.

54. With respect to Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief following Paragraph 83, including its

subparagraphs “a” through “v” and “vii” through “viii,” Defendants aver that Plaintiff is not

entitled to the requested relief. With respect to subparagraph “vi,” Defendant consents to the

request for equitable tolling as set forth in Paragraph 53 of this Answer.

AS ADDITIONAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant incorporates its responses to the above numbered paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

55. The allegations of the Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted against Defendant and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP.

56. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver, and estoppel.

11
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
57. Plaintiff may not recover attorney’s fees in this action.

58. By way of affirmative defense to the relief sought in Plaintiff’s declaratory

judgment claim, the District avers as follows:

(a) The IGA recites that “the School District and the County agree that all
public education facilities impact fees collected shall, within a reasonable time, be
transferred to the School District for the purpose of funding public education
facilities whose need results from new residential growth.”

(b) Section 6, ¶ 5 of the IGA requires the County to “effectuate impact fee
fund transfers upon the request of the School District.” Quite simply, “[u]pon
request, the County shall transfer the fees to the District.”

(c) The District’s prior requests have included all of the information required
by Section 6, ¶ 5.

(d) The County has failed to comply with Section 6, ¶ 5 of the IGA.

(e) The District disagrees with the County’s construction of S.C. Code Ann. §
6-1-920(22)(f).

(f) The District further disagrees with the County’s construction of

Ordinances 2718 and 2818 and avers that Ordinance 2818 incorporates by
reference the Study, which establishes the CIP and contemplates that impact fee
funds will be used to offset bonded indebtedness and applies credit in the
calculation of the maximum supportable school impact fee as a result.

(g) As set forth in the IGA, the County and the District agree as to the
calculation of the impact fee, which would include the credits that are part of the
calculation in the Study.

(h) The District seeks a declaration of this Court that the Act does not prohibit
the reimbursement of funds expended for system improvements identified in the
CIP or payments of principal and interest on bonded indebtedness incurred to
finance capital improvements identified in the CIP.

(i) The District further seeks a declaration of this Court that Ordinances 2718
and 2818 do not prohibit the reimbursement of funds expended for system
improvements identified in the CIP or payments of principal and interest on
bonded indebtedness incurred to finance capital improvements identified in the
CIP.

(j) In addition, the District seeks a declaration that the County must advance
impact fee funds to the District as required by the IGA, including directing an
advance as to the District’s prior applications.

12
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
(k) Lastly, to the extent available, the District seeks an award of costs
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-100, including attorney’s fees, and any relief
available under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-120.

59. Defendant intends to rely on any and all other available defenses as may be

developed through discovery and the evidence.

WHEREFORE having fully answered the Complaint, the District prays that the Court

grant the following relief, as applicable:

(a) An order dismissing the first two claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice;

(b) An order granting equitable tolling as to the Act’s expenditure requirement and any
refund or disposition deadlines;

(c) An order declaring that the impact fee funds may be expended by the District for all
purposes authorized by the Act and Ordinances 2718 and 2818, including the
reimbursement of funds expended for system improvements identified in the CIP
and payments of principal and interest on bonded indebtedness incurred to finance
capital improvements identified in the CIP;

(d) An order declaring that the County must advance impact fee funds to the District as
required by the IGA, including directing an advance as to the District’s prior
applications;

(e) An order requiring the County pay the District’s attorney’s fees; and

(f) Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

13
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 2:01 PM - YORK - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4603037
Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Sarah P. Spruill

Sarah P. Spruill, SC Bar #68337

HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A.

ONE North Main, 2nd Floor
Greenville, SC 29601-2772
(864) 240-3200
[email protected]

Attorneys for Fort Mill School District, a/k/a

York County School District 4

December 7, 2021
Greenville, South Carolina

14