Why not use the increased income tax collected from construction workers, as well as from the new revenue from the new jobs being created from their efforts? Seems there are also other companies moving here (record courier) and whomever moves in to the old amtek building. Do we really need the increase? Seems it may be already flowing with more to come.

Matt, I can understand the issues presented by the article you referenced. If new jobs will not generate sufficient revenue then so be it. If we must have a new police building, why must it be paid for based on income. I assume police services are provided equally throughout the community? Why not have an equal assessment per property parcel? Not property value. Parcel. Value , again does not equate to police services.

Ohio law requires a flat rate that cannot exceed 1%, unless it is approved by the voters.

Time to vote NO!

Also, will these just be the yellow signs springing up around Kent touting "For our safety"? They should at least inform everyone they'll be voting yes to an income tax increase, rather than playing on the safety issue. The supposed new police station won't come into being for several years at the earliest. Asking millions of dollars from Kentites with a tax increase that doesn't end is fishy. Especially since there don't seem to be many, if any, concrete plans for this facility.

I wonder if the average homeowner knows exactly how much more their taxes will be. I would hope so, so this wont even make the ballot.
NO NEW TAXES, NO NEW TAXES. Use what you have.

This is NOT about safety! This is about milking the citizens that work and live in Kent for more money at a time when most families personal economies are just being to heal! At 2.5% kent would be among the highest rates in the state, so in most cases citizens would either have to make arrangements to have the extra money withheld or owe at tax time?
And with Kent recently joining with RITA they would have a very "efficient" method of collecting these monies. (How convenient, almost as though this was all part of the plan!)
I love Kent but there are other ways to afford things you want or need. Learning to prioitize is something your citizens have had to struggle with but apparently this "safety issue" has not yet been a priority!
VOTE NO!!!!!!!
http://www.ritaohio.com/faqs/liveworkexamples.htm

Ruller says we have potential financial problems staring us in the face. No surprise there, huh? The city blew millions on a bridge complete with hike and bike trails. Why? Because council wouldn't approve an excellent plan produced by the county engineer, and put it in the hands of an unelected citizens' committee. A great way to duck and be able to say that this is what the citizens want. You just can't give them money.
We have a lot of junkies and other undesirables floating around Kent preying on the permanent citizenry and students. If anything, we need more police to get them off the streets.
You can run a police department out of a well-equipped barn. I would rather see a few more well-trained police officers doing that than have an inadequately staffed department, such as we have now, in an 18.5 million dollar building.
If Kent can't operate on a 2% income tax, then we need new blood at City Hall and a new city manager.
What are we getting for that 18.5 million dollars? We don't really know, do we. It's not about public safety, it's about a building; a monument built on the backs of citizens, many of whom struggle daily to put food on the table in these uncertain times.
DEFEAT THIS TAX INCREASE! DO NOT GIVE THEM MONEY!

I am voting NO to issue 11--I cannot loose any more money due to taxes. I know for a fact most people think they will see a new police station, not an increase in income tax. With all the new money coming in from all the new businesses downtown there should not be an increase. So everyone wake up and vote NO. OH I do not appreciate my taxes being used for their unfriendly officers going door to door handing out flyers either--I paid for those flyers too.