Circuit Judge Victor Rawl's recommendation said the cap "unfairly distributes the burdens and benefits of tax relief without a rational basis."

Rawl's recommendation does not bind the Supreme Court but may tip the scales in favor of North Charleston as the controversial issue heads into its final round. No date has been set for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

"I think it was a justified decision," said Mayor Keith Summey. "It adds a lot of credibility to what we had said as a city all along."

County leaders interviewed late Thursday took Rawl's recommendation in stride. "It's not the last word," said Councilman Leon Stavrinakis. "The Supreme Court has to decide it, ultimately. This is one step along that road."

Property taxes are based on the value of property. The cap limits property value increases to 15 percent in a reassessment year. As a result, owners of properties that increased most in value, including commercial property, pay less in taxes with the cap than they would without it. Since those property owners pay less, owners of properties that did not increase as much in value pay more.

North Charleston sued the county, arguing that the 15 percent cap raised taxes for 93 percent of North Charleston homeowners while giving a break to sea island residents who don't need it.

Attorneys for the city, who argued that the cap conflicts with the South Carolina Constitution on how property is valued, used Summey as an example of how the cap affects residents. Summey's property taxes, which are about $890 a year on his Park Circle house, would increase 25 percent under the cap to $1,119.

This case comes after County Council's first attempt to set a cap, one that applied only to owner-occupied homes, was rejected by the state Supreme Court. As a result, the county might have to send out new bills or refund more than $10 million.

County Council Chairman Barrett Lawrimore said the county is in the position of waiting on the courts. Council has been delaying implementation of the cap until the legal questions are resolved. "We don't want to do anything else that's not legal," he said.

After the first cap was shot down, the county created the new cap, which applied to houses as well as hotels, office buildings and other commercial property.

Since the city and the county argued before Rawl two months ago, the state Legislature passed a 20 percent reassessment cap statewide. That measure has yet to be signed into law by Gov. Mark Sanford.

North Charleston City Council members, who learned of the recommendation Thursday night during the City Council meeting, said it was the right call. "Everybody knows it is unconstitutional," said Councilwoman Phoebe Miller. "I am thrilled. That is the best good news I've had lately."

"A lot of times we need to take things to court to get justice," said Councilman Bob King. "This is a good example of it."

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/072304/loc_23cap.shtml