Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homestead Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Kingstown reviews homestead‑exemption options as staff warns of multimillion‑dollar revenue impacts
Summary
Town staff presented multiple homestead‑exemption models — capped exemptions, percentage relief, and a flat senior credit — and warned the most generous options could reduce town revenue by roughly $1.1M–$2.5M depending on the model. Council agreed to continue the discussion at a public meeting May 26.
Town Manager Jim Manny presented the Town Council with detailed modeling of several homestead‑exemption approaches at a May 11 work session, including percentage exemptions with caps and a flat credit for residents age 65 and older.
"We've been talking about this for over a year and a half," Manny told the council as he ran through parcel counts and assessed‑value totals. Staff reported roughly 14,302 parcels on the tax roll and a gross assessed value near $9 billion; the total taxable levy is about $80 million.
Manny said staff modeled a 5% exemption and also tested caps on the assessable value — $400,000, $500,000 and $600,000 — and estimated the town would lose approximately $1.5 million, $1.8 million and nearly $2.0 million in revenue for those caps respectively. He also summarized three flat credits for seniors (about $150, $175 and $200), with projected revenue shortfalls of roughly $1.1 million, $1.3 million and $1.5 million.
On program participation, staff said 168 households currently receive an income‑based exemption. Using census and HUD thresholds produced a higher pool of potentially eligible households — staff gave an estimate of about 1,258 households under one HUD‑aligned scenario — but cautioned that eligibility does not guarantee enrollment. Manny emphasized the council was reviewing worst‑case estimates so it could see the budgetary tradeoffs.
Council members asked staff to produce more empirical participation history, including enrollment and drop‑off counts over recent years, household composition (single‑ vs. two‑person households) and how changing COLA or income brackets has affected real enrollment. Several council members said they prefer incremental changes tied to observed enrollment rather than immediately adopting the most costly options.
Next steps: the council agreed to carry the item to a public business meeting on May 26 for further deliberation and potential formal action.
Sources: staff presentation and council discussion at the May 11 work session. No final ordinance or vote occurred at this meeting.
