Sen. Scott Richardson, R-Hilton Head Island, said he would like Port Royal to own the valuable waterfront property rather than have the S.C. Ports Authority keep control over it when the shipping terminal closes as Gov. Mark Sanford suggested in July.

"My preference would be to let the Town of Port Royal have it," Richardson said Tuesday. "That community certainly has the biggest stake in saying what's going on with it."

The land should be turned over or sold to the town, he said.

One option that has been discussed as legislators and Ports Authority officials work to close the port has been for the authority to retain the land and lease it to Port Royal.

Richardson doesn't think that's the best option because Port Royal would not be able to reap the property tax benefits from future development if the Ports Authority still owned the land, he said.

State-owned land, like the Port of Port Royal, is not taxed, regardless of whether private businesses lease it from a state agency.

Sanford spokesman Will Folks said the governor wants the port land to benefit Port Royal and Beaufort County's economy. He said the governor favors turning the land over to Port Royal once the terminal is shuttered.

"The governor's idea, in addition to saving taxpayer money by closing down a port that was losing thousands of dollars every year, was to free up that land for the local community to use for their economy," Folks said Tuesday.

The port's future is moving toward its next stop -- the General Assembly.

Richardson said he expects lawmakers to address the issue early next year.

State Rep. Catherine Ceips, R-Beaufort, already has completed an "early draft" of a bill to close the Port of Port Royal.

The Ports Authority has a number of contracts concerning operations that must be honored, adding to a complex situation, she said.

"What we can do is vote to close the port," Ceips said. "What I did was just write the legislation."

Closing the port might be too simplistic a way of addressing the situation, said Byron Miller, spokesman for the S.C. Ports Authority.

"It's not as simple as flipping a switch," Miller said. "That's a simple term and I don't think this is a simple process."

Because of six private contracts the Ports Authority must honor, some land might be available for redevelopment while other portions of the port property might still be encumbered, he said.

"It's not quite as cut and dried that the authority would walk away from the property," Miller said.

The first step that must be taken is to change the current legislation so that redevelopment can begin, he said.

"We need to remove the requirement that is in place that we have a port facility in Port Royal," Miller said.

Miller wouldn't comment on whether the Ports Authority would be willing to turn the land over to the town.

Port Royal Town Manager Van Willis said the town would love to gain control of the land, but that he doesn't expect that to happen.

"I think that would be a best-case scenario," Willis said. "I don't think (the Ports Authority) turning it over to us is very likely, but I'd like them too."

The town has not asked local legislators to include language in their bills requiring the authority to turn the port property over to Port Royal, he said.

The town's primary concern right now is having the current legislation modified to shut down port operations so officials can "pursue other opportunities for the land," Willis said.