- 1 of 1 Photos | View More Photos
Kent City Council decided Wednesday to renew its push for funding a new Safety Administration Building in November.
Council unanimously approved submitting a 0.25-percent income tax increase that would fund construction of the new facility on Day Street.
Kent voters rejected the same increase in last November's election by a vote of 5,490 to 4,486 according to official results from the Portage County Board of Elections. The tax, which had no sunset provision, would have raised an estimated $1.3 million per year to replace the 88-year-old police building at the corner of Water Street and Haymaker Parkway.
Police officials estimated the cost of a new safety building at $18 million. Kent architecture firm David Sommers and Associates has reviewed the current facility and deemed it outdated and potentially unsafe, and in a condition where renovation would likely near $12 million without solving all of the building's problems.
Studies of the building have found it to be deficient in areas that include jail compliance, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, plumbing, electrical system compliance, evidence storage, fire safety compliance and heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.
During council's discussion, City Manager Dave Ruller emphasized the need to clarify the language of the initiative that, per feedback from council and the community, may have been confusing to some.
Ruller also emphasized inserting a sunset clause into the tax, meaning the corresponding income tax would expire after a set amount of time.
The cost of the station, Ruller said, is about "dead center" of the average cost that neighboring municipalities have paid for new stations.
Contact this reporter at 330-298-1126 or firstname.lastname@example.org
When are the voters going to get a TAX ABATEMENT??? Like the levy people say, if you can afford to go out and eat once a month, you can afford a couple bucks for these levies....Welcome to OZ
High cost school levys and tax hikes in the City of Kent. Just where does the City "Ruller" think this money comes from? I'm sorry, but I don't have a majic money tree in my back yard. Those of us on fixed incomes cannot pay more and more to the Government be it city, state, or federal. If the "Ruller" had taxed Acorn Alley I and II instead of giving them a 10 year exemption, there would probably not be a need to dig in to the pockets of the fixed income citizans to finance the City Councel dream town they are developing.
Only 0.25%? Why not go for 2.5%? The sheeple will love it.