EASLEY — School district officials are moving forward in their efforts to find out if the district has the right to be reimbursed for some property tax funds used to pay for its building plan.

Superintendent Henry Hunt recently wrote a letter to S.C. Department of Revenue officials requesting that they advise him of their “position as to the district’s right to seek reimbursement” from the Homestead Exemption Fund for the real property taxes levied on owner-occupied property in connection with the district’s lease-purchase program.

Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court ruled that payments made through the lease-purchase plan fall under school operating expenses, which are covered by state sales taxes, not county property taxes.

The 3-2 decision came in July as the result of a lawsuit filed by six school districts in the state against the DOR. And although the School District of Pickens County was not part of that legal action, they may also be eligible to have those funds reimbursed, according to Sen. Larry Martin.

Martin previously told The Progress that the justices incorrectly interpreted the state Legislature’s intent regarding the issue and that he planed to work on clarifying the law.

Since then, he has pre-filed a bill that would “essentially reverse” the state Supreme Court’s decision.

However, the Legislature does not reconvene until next month, and unless the bill can be attached to another piece of legislation, it could be March before it could be put on the governor’s desk, Martin said.

Meanwhile, in his letter to the DOR, Hunt said the school district has been informed and believes that about 35 percent of the property within the district is owner-occupied residential property that qualifies for the exemption from school operating taxes.

He said that based on that percentage, the school district could be entitled to reimbursement of $5,360,000 for the base year, which was the 2007/2008 school year.

“This amount also would become part of the base reimbursement in subsequent years,” he said.

Hunt also advised the DOR that when the case between six school districts and the DOR was taken to the state Supreme Court, the School District of Pickens County was used as an example of a district that could possibly seek reimbursement from the fund.

Hunt asked that the DOR review the facts “specific to the installment-purchase program” for the school district. He also offered to submit any needed documents or information for them to evaluate his request.

Martin noted, however, that any refunds made for this type of debt service would only take away state funds for operating expenses of all school districts, and may even affect other departments in the state.

Right now, sales tax collections are down about 20 percent, he said.

“With the budget hemorrhaging the way it is, the money is not there to pay it,” he said.

Martin also said that while he disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision and is trying to fix state law, he also thinks that if the six school districts who filed suite ultimately get the money, then the School District of Pickens County should be eligible for the refund too.

“If that’s going to be the way it plays out, then I hope Pickens County does make a successful claim,” he said. “They would be just as entitled as those districts.”

Martin noted, however, that if the funds are refunded, they have to be reimbursed to the taxpayers.

He said any districts that received a refund would be held accountable for the funds.

“If they don’t reimburse the taxpayers, I’m afraid they’re going to find themselves in quick sand on several fronts from a legal aspect,” Martin said.