The Reynoldsburg City School District has fired another shot at Licking Heights in a battle almost a decade old.

The Reynoldsburg City School District has fired another shot at Licking Heights in a battle almost a decade old.

Licking Heights Superintendent Thomas Tucker said the dispute stems from a 1991 agreement the districts made to share property tax revenue. Since 2000, they've disagreed over the formula used to calculate how that revenue is divided.

An arbitrator awarded Licking Heights $1.2-million for 2001-05 at a hearing July 21, 2010, and now Reynoldsburg is disputing the award, said board member Matthew Satterwhite.

"Reynoldsburg seems to always have questions," Satterwhite said. "They're challenging the arbitration award in court, and we intend to respond."

The Licking Heights Board of Education on Nov. 16 voted 5-0 to allow Tucker to authorize district lawyers from Bricker & Eckler to respond to Reynoldsburg's motion, which asks the court to void the July 21 award.

Reynoldsburg claims the hearing officer who made the award overstepped his limits in making it.

"(He) exceeded his powers and executed them so imperfectly that a mutual, final definite award was not made," according to a motion filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Oct. 21.

Licking Heights disagrees.

"The hearing officer acted appropriately and within the grant of the authority agreed to by the parties," the district responded in a motion filed by its lawyers Nov. 19.

"Reynoldsburg has engaged in a lengthy pattern of repeated and unwarranted delay in paying amounts it owes Licking Heights."

"They haven't wanted to pay what they owe us for many years," Satterwhite said. "It's a pretty desperate plea."

Satterwhite said Licking Heights had renewed its efforts to get the tax money when he, Chuck Seeright and Sharon Cochrum were elected to the board three years ago.

"They just don't want to give us what they owe us, in our opinion," he said. "We think it's important to go ahead and say 'Enough is enough.' They're stalling it even more. It's our money that Reynoldsburg is holding, and we're going to get it back."

The Nov. 19 motion also requests that the court award Licking Heights attorney fees associated with the money the district has spent trying to collect from Reynoldsburg.

"I asked for an accounting of what we've spent so far," Satterwhite said. "It will be significantly less than we stand to gain. We're watching the bills very closely."

Tucker said Licking Heights will keep the public updated on the status of the suit.

He said the 1991 agreement deals with a parcel of land that forms a "shared growth district" between the two school systems.

Satterwhite said he couldn't identify the district's specific location.