Countywide reassessments in August left some residents with sticker shock, but local officials are more concerned about an expected hole in local operating budgets if a cap on those new tax values is adopted.
Approved by the legislature in June, a 20 percent cap on reassessments would mean a property valued at $100,000 last year could only be taxed up to $120,000, regardless of how high the market value climbed.
The governor has three choices: He can approve the bill, veto the bill or do nothing, allowing the cap to become law five days into the 2005 legislative session.
"It's my assumption that the governor is going to turn it down," said County Councilman Mark Generales, chairman of the council's Finance Committee.
The governor said last month that the voice vote by the Senate approving the measure and some constitutional questions were among his concerns.
"If he's got problems with it, then let's take care of them and make sure it's done right," Generales said.
Detractors have questioned the validity of a voice vote in assuring two-thirds support in the Senate, and the state's constitution requires properties be taxed at the market value.
Spokesman Will Folks said Friday that the governor also is considering a flood of studies analyzing the impact of a cap.
"There seems to be new data coming out wherever you look on this," Folks said.
Studies by the S.C. Chamber of Commerce and Clemson University's Strom Thurmond Institute have stated an assessment cap is a shift in the tax burden.
If the cap is approved, county officials have said they'd be forced to refund taxpayers who overpaid, but would not be able to retrieve those tax dollars from other taxpayers.
"We're concerned about how it would impact our cash flow," said County Administrator Gary Kubic.
County estimates are that the refunds would put tax revenues short $10 million in the county's budget, $20 million for the school district and $10 million for the various municipalities and public service districts.
It's expected that the local governments would have to borrow money to fulfill budget needs this year and add those costs to tax bills next year.
Though he's supported the reassessment cap, Generales said it would be to the county's advantage if the cap wasn't approved or replaced with an alternative plan next year.
"As a taxpayer, I would much prefer to see it pass," he said. "For the county, it's probably better that nothing change at this point.
With tax bills sent out in October, the county has developed a parallel system to calculate tax bills under a cap.
Aside from that, unknowns like the effective date of a cap and whether any legal challenge would delay it have left the county with little opportunity to prepare, Kubic said.
"We're conducting our business as usual," he said.