The mailer claimed that over the period from 2011 to 2016, the median property tax bill had risen by 51%, an unsustainable rate.

The actual increase was 14%, but graphs like the one to the left made the 51% number seem plausiible.

There appears to be:

• A big jump from 2011 to 2012
• Another from 2012 to 2013
• Smaller but steady increases in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Assessed property values are adjusted in a three year revaluation cycle. The graph is color coded by revaluation cycle.

The 2012 rate did not include the Fire District, but the 2013 rate does include the new Fire Department.

When you adjust the 2012 rate to include the Fire District, the increase in 2013 no longer appears to be abnormally large.

The change from 2012 to 2013 still appears to be very large.

Note that it is the only bar on this graph in the 2009 revaluation cycle.

Let's examine the full 2009 cycle and others.

• Within a rating cycle, there is usually a small increase from year to year.
• Large changes in the tax rate occur only at revaluation cycle boundaries. These reflect changes in the real estate market, not changes in operating expenses.

• During the 2005-2006 real estate bubble, property values nearly doubled. As a result, the tax rate was cut in half between 2002 and 2006.
• Operating expenses rose every year during this period.

A fairly typical 2.26% increase in school funding was mostly paid for by a transfer from the school fund balance.

A small tax rate cut, unusual within a revaluation cycle, was enacted, even though operating expenses increased.

By law, the appropriation cannot be less than the previous year, so this was the minimum allowed.

The school department had no choice but to implement some very damaging cuts:

• East Greenwich became the only public school district in the state without a librarian at the high school. The accreditation body took notice of this and advised the district to remedy the situation.
• Popular activities such a chorus had to be eliminated. In some cases these continued with unfunded student volunteer leadership.
• A performance audit the following year stated that the district was $1.2 million dollars below the minimum required to meet its statutory requirements.

That year the appropriation was increased by 3.89%, very close to the statutory cap of 4%.

Note the heights of the 2018 and 2019 bars:

• The 2018 bar represents a year with the minimum appropriation allowed by law.

• The 2019 bar represents a year with very close to the maximum appropriation allowed by law.

Conclusion: It is not possible to significantly change the tax rate by adjusting the school appropriation within the ranges allowed by law.

The Town Council will decide on the final appropriations and tax rate in early June, so these may change a bit.

• A $23 per thousand tax rate means we pay 2.3% of our property value per year.
• Big changes in the tax rate are driven by the real estate market, not expenses.
• Differences between communities are mostly due to differences in the size of the tax base, not efficiency.