COLUMBIA--North Charleston City Councilman Sam Hart's three-bedroom, one-bath house was the center of debate Tuesday in the state Supreme Court as lawyers for North Charleston and Charleston County battled over what a proposed tax reassessment cap might mean for his Liberty Hill home.

North Charleston attorneys argued that if the 15 percent reassessment cap County Council approved in 2003 were implemented, Hart's property taxes would go up 28 percent, despite the fact that the actual value of his 2,000-square-foot home has declined. City lawyers said Hart was among 93 percent of North Charleston residents who would face a similar negative effect if the cap were implemented.

Charleston County lawyers argued that Hart pays less than many property owners on the Sea Islands, such as Kiawah, yet all residents receive the same services, from access to public parks and schools to fire protection. County lawyers also said North Charleston residents would benefit from the cap as home values continue to appreciate.

The five Supreme Court justices listened to the roughly hour-long oral arguments, at times interrupting lawyers with questions. Some of the more pointed questions, many fired off by Chief Justice Jean Toal, involved whether the cap was constitutional. As part of that, justices questioned if the cap provided equal treatment to similar people, which is required by state and federal law.

It could be months before the court rules on the case.

The arguments are the final chapter in the debate over the reassessment cap, which limits property-value appreciation to 15 percent during an assessment year. 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.

County Council first implemented a cap in 2001 that applied only to owner-occupied houses, prompting a lawsuit by several residents that went all the way to the Supreme Court, which rejected it. Charleston County is issuing $11.5 million in refunds to residents who overpaid.

In 2003, County Council approved a second cap, one that applied to all businesses and homes. Council has waited to implement that cap until after the courts decide whether it is legal. North Charles-ton's suit, many hope, will provide a final answer to the question.

Charleston County Council Chairman Leon Stavrinakis said the county is eager to know if the Supreme Court will uphold the cap or decide that the state must amend its constitution first.

If the cap is legal, County Council's current plans are to use it to help limit tax increases for those taxpayers whose property rises most in value. Stavrinakis noted, however, that council has several new faces and could change course.

"That ruling is probably the key and all-important first step in deciding which direction we're going in," he said. "I think the Legislature needs to know, too, because there's a lot of push and desire to have some kind of property-tax reform."