Judge hears arguments on city's reassessment cap lawsuit

Charleston County's proposed reassessment cap would drive up taxes for 93 percent of North Charleston homeowners while giving a break to sea island residents who don't need it, city attorneys argued Wednesday. "The tax cap solves a problem for people who don't have a problem," said City Attorney Brady Hair. "It exacerbates a problem for people who have a problem." Hair's arguments came during a two-hour hearing before Circuit Judge Victor Rawl on the city's lawsuit to test the legality of the county's reassessment cap. It is uncertain when Rawl will rule, but no matter what he decides, his findings will go to the state Supreme Court for final review. While North Charleston officials said the cap would hurt the city's residents, county attorneys argued that any shift in the tax burden would be temporary. As property values increase in North Charleston, they said, residents in the state's third-largest city would benefit. County attorneys also said the cap would allow homeowners to predict more accurately increases in the value of their homes and in their taxes if property values continue to climb. "North Charleston will get the benefits just like everyone else," said Alvin Hammer, an attorney for the town of Kiawah Island. Attorneys for the city used North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey and six other City Council members as examples. They said Summey pays about $890 a year in property taxes on his Park Circle house. With the cap, they said, his taxes would rise 25 percent to $1,119. Underscoring Wednesday's hearing is the question of whether the reassessment cap could be done by the Legislature or must be done through a constitutional amendment. City attorneys argued that the cap mechanism, which was created by the Legislature, conflicts with the state constitution in determining how property is valued. County attorneys, however, argued that a constitutional amendment is not needed. They said the Legislature has the authority under the constitution to pass the act. The 14-month case comes after County Council's first attempt at a cap, one that involved only owner-occupied homes, was rejected by the S.C. Supreme Court. As a result, the county might have to send out new bills or refund more than $10 million. If Charleston County wins this case before the Supreme Court, it's unclear whether County Council will try again to enact a cap. "If we prevail, I think we'll have to sit down and look at the numbers," said Council Chairman Barrett Lawrimore, who attended the hearing Wednesday. While a majority of current council members have favored a cap, Lawrimore said that all council's previous cap discussion involved only owner-occupied homes. This new cap also would apply to hotels, office buildings and other commercial property, and it's unclear how popular it would be. Also, the county is changing to single-member districts with this year's elections, so the faces -- and politics -- of council members could change. The issue is unlikely to go away: Charleston County's next property reassessment is expected to take place within a few years.

Web site created by My Scribe