PHOENIX — Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed permanent repeal of the state’s property tax, calling it “untimely, untenable and unwise.’’

 In her fifth veto of the session, Napolitano said there is no need to do anything now. She said the levy, suspended in 2006, does not return until late next year, meaning there is time next session to consider the issue.

 But the governor balked at questions of whether she would be willing to support repeal next year, — or ever. She said that that’s “always a possibility’’ — as long as lawmakers enact budgets for the balance of this year and next that fund the things she believe are necessary. “They should be balanced, should protect education, and should protect safety-net services because more and more people are needing them in this down economy,’’ Napolitano said. “And it should invest for the future because Arizona has, in the long term, a very, very bright future.’’

 She also chided lawmakers for approving a tax cut before there is a budget deal.

 But Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, said the governor is just trying to divert public attention from her action, an action he said will mean a huge tax increase next year for Arizona businesses and homeowners. “She’s not interested in economic incentives,’’ Verschoor said. “She’s interested in expanding government,’’ he continued. “And I don’t think it’s what the people of Arizona want.’’

 The veto sent business lobbyists and Republicans who support permanent repeal scurrying to figure out what to do next.

 One option suggested by Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, would be for lawmakers to see if they could cut a deal with the governor: Give her some of what she wants in the current budget negotiations in exchange for signing the repeal.

 That idea, however, was nixed by Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger, D-Willcox. She said the state can’t afford to forego $250 million a year — the amount that would be raised if the levy returns next year — with a $1.2 billion deficit this year and revenue shortfalls approaching $2 billion next year.

 But Sen. Jorge Garcia, D-Tucson, acknowledged the governor may decide to cut her own deal, as she did in 2006 when she agreed to not only the suspension of the property tax but a 10 percent reduction in individual income tax rates. He said that was done “to the shafting of her Democratic caucus.’’

 The other possibility would be for Republicans to try to put the issue on the November ballot, a move that bypasses the governor. House Minority Leader Phil Lopes, D-Tucson, said he sees the threat of a ballot measure as hollow. He said most of his constituents would be willing to have their taxes go up again in 2009.

 Estimates put the burden of the returning tax at about $95 on a home valued at $250,000. “They invest the $95 in roads, in other things that this state needs,’’ Lopes said. “And I think people understand that.’’ Garcia also predicted voters will see through the lobbying of “self-serving business groups who want to just rob fro government.’’ He said voters are more likely to believe groups that support funding for education and health care.

 But figures prepared by Arizona Tax Research Association, a business lobbying group, show that fully half of the burden of a reinstated property would fall on homeowners. Another 35 percent would be borne by commercial and industrial users, with the balance split largely between rental properties and vacant and agricultural land.

 Verschoor this isn’t a question of businesses versus individuals. He said a property tax cut is “the smart thing to do.’’ “It sends a message out to businesses in the country that Arizona is the place to come and do business, that we’re going to do what it takes to create a business-friendly atmosphere,’’ he said.

 Verschoor said the veto shows “we’re more interested in expanding government and taking care of the needs of government rather than taking care of the needs of our citizens.’’

 At the same time, he said, homeowners “are struggling with their house payments’’ because of the economic downturn. “Now they’re facing down the barrel of a gun of their property taxes going up,’’ Verschoor said.  Farrell Quinlan, who lobbies for the West Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance, said there is another factor at work: Two separate groups are circulating initiative petitions to put strict constitutional caps on property taxes. Quinlan said they are playing off public frustration with property tax bills that rose over the last few years as the value of their homes increased, values that mean nothing until they sell the property. “There’s a real danger that if the Legislature does not go forward and recognize the building property tax revolt out there, there’s going to be something on the ballot that’s going to be infinitely worse,’’ said Quinlan whose business groups also want permanent repeal.

 The measures are two variants of California’s Proposition 13, enacted in the 1970s, which roll back property values and cap year-over-year increases.