Before a jeering and cheering crowd of more than 100 county residents, Greenville County Council struck down a measure Tuesday night that would have implemented new tax values on local property this year.

It means that the fall's tax bills will be based on 2001 property values, and it means that the poor and middle class could eventually pay more to make up for a cap on high-value properties, according to county finance officials.

Some council members agonized this week that they were caught between hard facts and the perception of constituents, who crowded into council chambers to equate reassessment this year with a tax hike.

Finance experts told the council Tuesday that a delay in reassessment could make the owner of a slow-growing $90,000 property pay more next year, while a rapidly appreciating $306,000 home would pay less.

Advertisement

Opponents in the audience would have none of it and pushed for a yearlong delay because they said those numbers only pertained to the county portion of the tax bill -- about 25 percent currently.

Reassessment this year could allow other agencies such as the school district to secure a revenue windfall, they said.

In the end, despite an amendment that would have required the cooperation of the school board, the council ensured that this year's tax bills will remain comparable to last year's.

The vote was 6-6, just short of the majority needed to advance the issue.

Going forward, a proposed cap on the increase in property values each reassessment cycle will likely protect owners of rapidly appreciating properties from having to pay about $5.75 million in county taxes, said John Hansley, deputy county administrator for finance.

That would force owners of lower-value commercial and residential properties to pick up the slack, he said, because by state law county revenues remain the same regardless of where the money comes from.

County Administrator Joe Kernell said 62 percent of all residential property owners -- 107,000 -- would be charged more.

Taxpayer activist Butch Taylor said Tuesday that his nonprofit group had targeted 3,600 county residents with automatic phone calls before the council meeting, urging them to attend in opposition to reassessment this year.

Add to sweltering outside temperatures a near-capacity crowd and heated emotions over the tax value of local property, and you got a decidedly antitax group that practically dared the council to move forward this year.

"We don't want it," said Grady Miller, a principal in the group that funded the phone calls. "If you want to do what citizens want, you won't vote for reassessment."

Resident Ray Denny said, "The bottom line is the people of this state and county don't want exorbitant, unlimited reassessment."

Councilman Bob Taylor told The Greenville News this week he wanted to vote for reassessment this year because he believes it would save most taxpayers money.

But he said he didn't know if he could because all of his constituents think otherwise.

"Many homeowners would find their taxes actually going down," Taylor said. "It's hard to get that message out."

Xanthene Norris had also said she was undecided, although she indicated she was leaning toward approval.

Normally the question would be whether to delay reassessment, which council did last year. But special state legislation drafted by Sen. David Thomas reversed the tables, delaying Greenville County's reassessment until next year unless the council votes to move it up.

The difference between this year or next is that voters can approve this fall a 15 percent cap on the amount that their property values can increase each reassessment cycle.

Hansley said he expects that to pass. With reassessment delayed, the cap would use 2001 property values as a baseline, preventing the county from harnessing robust commercial growth and shifting the biggest portion of the tax burden away from residential property owners.

"The cap's going to hurt them even worse -- the average person," Councilman Taylor said.

Mark Kingsbury, who voted for reassessment this year, put it in more stark terms, saying the state Legislature has "fooled" taxpayers into likely voting for a cap this fall that would protect the rich.

If reassessment were done this year, County Administrator Joe Kernell has said nearly two-thirds of residential property owners would see no increase or a decrease on the county portion of their tax bill.

However, that doesn't take into account the other portions of the bill, which is what concerns Councilman Scott Case.

Percolating beneath the night's debate was some council members' distrust of the school district, which Councilman Joe Dill said is because "we have to send the tax bill out."

So even though the county hasn't raised its property tax in years, Dill said increases by the school board affect the bottom-line bill and council members often take the blame.

School board Chairman Chuck Saylors disagreed, saying tax bills are broken out by taxing agency for all residents to see.

But Case spoke to applause Tuesday night when he noted that although the county hasn't increased property taxes in 14 years, the school board did it again recently.

That, he said, is the "bigger gorilla" that could likely use reassessment to effect a bigger tax bill.

Kingsbury agreed but noted the school board has ways of doing that regardless of when the county does reassessment.

Saylors said Tuesday the council was trying to shift the onus of reassessment onto another body.

In an effort to get enough votes in favor of reassessment this year, Kingsbury offered an amendment that would have made reassessment this year contingent on the school board's cooperation in rolling back tax millage. He offered another that pledged the county would forego the cost-of-living revenue increase it is allowed in a reassessment year.

The amendments passed 10-2.

Taylor said one man who has called, e-mailed and attended meetings illustrates the dilemma of council members. The man clearly supports a delay in reassessment, Taylor said, but a look at his property records shows his bill would probably go down if it were done this year.

Resident Mike Cubelo was a lone voice supporting reassessment among spectators, and was met with boos.

"To delay reassessment is to ignore reality," he said.

But Judy Gilstrap, who faces re-election this fall, said constituents left her no doubt about how they wanted her to vote.

"They're adamantly opposing," she said. "My phone calls are running rampant."

Still, if reassessment next year turns out to cost taxpayers more, she said that could hurt council members as well.

Taylor, Tony Trout, Gilstrap, Dill, Case and Eric Bedingfield voted to delay reassessment.

Burns, Norris, Kingsbury, Lottie Gibson, Butch Kirven and Cort Flint voted for this year.