South Kingstown proposes FY 2025–26 budget with $9 tax rate as debt service nearly doubles for new high school

South Kingstown officials presented the town's proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget at a second public hearing April 17, 2025, projecting a combined budget of about $111.6 million, a proposed property tax rate of $9 per $1,000 of assessed value and a sharp increase in debt service tied to the new high school project.

The proposal shows the school operating fund at $63,262,304 (an increase the presentation described as roughly $803,000 or 1.29%) and the town general fund at about $33.95 million (up roughly 3.7%). Town Manager Jim Manny said the debt service fund is proposed at $3.5 million for FY26—“an increase of 1.7 million or 97%,” which he attributed to additional school debt for the new high school and the first-year costs of bond anticipation notes.

The presentation also said the town's estimated net assessed value rose by roughly $1.8 billion, to about $8.7–$8.75 billion, a gain the presenters described as roughly 26% year over year. That assessment growth, Manny and Finance Director Brian Sylvia said, is why the council can propose a $9 tax rate while still generating the levy increase the town needs; the proposed tax levy is roughly $78.99 million, an increase of about $2.3 million or 3.03%.

Why it matters: the debt-service jump and higher assessed values together determine how much of the town’s overall levy goes to schools and to municipal operations. Manny and staff said the proposed levy would allocate about 72.64% to schools and 27.36% to town operations. The council's presentation noted the final adoption process and petition deadlines that remain in April and May.

Key facts and drivers

- Debt service: Finance staff said the debt service fund is proposed to increase to $3.5 million (a roughly $1.7 million, or 97%, increase), driven by the new high school and associated bond anticipation notes (BANs).

- Levy, tax rate and assessed value: The proposed tax levy is roughly $78.99 million (+$2.3 million). The presenters stated an estimated net assessed value of about $8.7–$8.75 billion (up roughly $1.8 billion, or ~26%) and a proposed tax rate of $9 per $1,000 of assessed value (down from prior-year figures presented as $11.05). Finance staff emphasized that the lower rate reflects the larger base of assessed value.

- Allocation: The presentation shows a distribution of roughly 72.64% of property-tax revenue to the school appropriation and 27.36% to town operations; the town manager repeatedly emphasized that the apparent “0%” change in school local appropriation results partly from internal accounting moves (for example, use of a healthcare management fund for some school costs and a debt-service component within the school line).

- Personnel changes: The town manager summarized position and compensation changes included in the budget. Examples called out in the presentation: a parks maintenance technician (wages ~ $62,000; benefits ~ $34,000; total ~$96,000); two paramedic hires (wages ~$134,000; benefits ~$49,000; total ~$183,000) to staff a planned new EMS station; elimination of two clerk positions (records clerk and office clerk) and creation of a public-safety data/technology technician; overall, staff characterized the net change as two new FTEs for the year. The presentation said the paramedic positions will be fully funded by EMS billing and that hiring is expected to reduce overtime costs.

- Labor and pay: Staff said union and nonunion pay adjustments differ by group: most unions were budgeted at 2% in negotiated years, while nonunion positions were budgeted at 3%. The presentation explained the gap by noting that some unions received retention and skill-based incentives that nonunion employees do not receive.

- Revenue and balancing choices: Finance staff explained that each 1¢ on the tax rate equals roughly $78,000 in levy revenue and that the council set $9 per $1,000 as the rate needed to balance the preliminary budget; staff said a one-cent reduction (to $8.99) would leave the town roughly $30,000 short. The proposed budget uses modestly higher allowances for abatements/uncollectibles and some designated fund balance to balance the numbers.

- Bond timeline: Staff said the town plans to present an authorization for BANs related to the new high school at the April 28 meeting; the presentation listed Moody’s calls and a competitive sale timeline with expected final funding late June (dates in the presentation include Moody’s call in early May, rating results later in May and a competitive sale in June).

Questions and discussion

Tax assessor Wendy (presenting as the town tax assessor) described how assessment changes vary by class: she said residential assessments rose substantially in the revaluation window while some large commercial accounts changed by appeals, and that the department is still finalizing figures during an ongoing revaluation certification. “It is extremely difficult for me to basically know the winning Powerball numbers,” Wendy said, describing the uncertainty of projecting final assessed values during an active reval process.

Council members asked about the town’s collection-rate assumption (the finance presentation used a 98.75% collection rate); staff said they would bring five-year historical collection statistics to the next meeting. Council members also asked staff to prepare a one-page “top-line” or FAQ slide for the April 28 meeting summarizing the most important budget impacts (for example, how the tax rate compares year to year, what the levy transfer to schools means, and positions reduced or not funded).

What the town will do next

Town staff said the council will accept final petitions and consider any submitted petitions during the April 28 meeting; final adoption of the budget must occur on or before May 1 as noted in the presentation. Staff also said they plan to return in mid- to late-May with finalized assessment numbers after certification of the revaluation and updated year-end projections for FY25.

Ending

Council President MacIntee closed the hearing by noting the next steps on the budget calendar and reminding the public of the April 28 meeting when petitions will be considered and when the council is scheduled to act on issuance authorization for the BANs. The presentation and discussion will continue at that meeting.