Meeting Observed: Kent City Cooncil

Date of Meeting: 5/6/2026

Format: Meeting held in person, but the observer was virtual

Meeting Summary:

This is a report of the May 6, 2026, Kent City Council meeting. The MEAT OF THE MEETING WAS A DISCUSSION OF REPURPOSING part of the INCOME TAX that was for the safety building construction. It is nearly paid. See the END of this report for details.

Discussion of the building of a safety town in the South End by the Rotary Club of Kent on property owned by Kent City Schools. Jim Bowling, the city engineer, said maintenance would be the subject of an agreement between the city and the school district. Ownership would be Kent City Schools, and it would be open year-round. It will be used as an actual training area for the youngest schoolchildren. Parking would be provided. It would be more of a neighborhood park.
Melanie Knowles of the Service Department – reminders that both brush collection and other “junk” are being collected in separate sweeps. Please consult the city’s website for your area. New water tower coming online. Deer control within the City v. Country deer. Lots of data being evaluated. Deer travel 50 miles for food, but return to their birthplace to give birth to babies, or deer learn where the best food is! Pointed out that bird food or corn for squirrels is attractive to deer. May have an educational program on deer habits. Compost heaps are yummy. Birth control is $20k a deer due to the meds lasting 6-9 months! Some used hysterectomies: $12,000-$20,000 per deer. Natural selection is difficult and removes too many? If “wasting” disease can spread.
Community Development Committee – tax incentive review update.
CRA and Enterprise breaks. After 1994 rules. 2 Klaben… under construction; Davey Tree expansion on third wing… all in compliance with the Tax Incentive Review Committee. City Manager Dave Ruller: Tool is good; payback is good in the long run.
Main Street Kent DORA discussion, led by Bridget Susel. 36 DORA businesses. 24 responses. 75% want a slightly reduced time frame. Want next year to next year - open from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Director of MSK Heather Malarcik says her group read surveys, and that some said the city doesn’t care. The businesses asked us to negotiate for them. MSK may shift some of the tables around town. Mostly weather-driven. Decided to get a shorter survey.
The 2026, social service $ awards totaled. $100,000
Coleman, startup, SSDI, but this covers utilities and rent. Very successful.
Kent legal aid, foreclosures, domestic violence… pro bono
Access family services, emergency for the homeless, support surrounds, case management
Portage recovery facility, substance tested, GED, mostly women
Safer Futures (domestic violence) shelter. Case managers. Work with Pros
Lovelight – low-income summer programs, including lunches
PMHA new summer program. Assist 5-12; two in city – Heritage Knolls and Athena and Sec.8 with – 9 weeks, 4 days a week. 179 kids
Food Pantry: $ 5,000 used for direct food assistance. App. Required. Cuts in SNAP make this impt.
Agencies have to provide data to reimburse. Eric Dreger? $ new? Susel – same applicants but with increased total, so we can cover them better.
Ruller – we rely on no staff, but we are small enough that we can get that support out. Proud to do programming as we have a population in need. With the funding increase
Warming Center? We support Shepherd House during cold spells. Couldn’t provide warming center but Shepherd helps – we pay the Kent portion as persons are brought there by police..
CAC has done programs before and with a new director, but rejected property tax support for poverty situations.
On the tax referenda issue. This will be an important issue. Ruller says asking voters follows election cycles. May or November to ask for a tax increase if approved by the council. By the end of this year, Kent may be close to paying off the debt from the safety building. With the intervening years, there have been increasing demands on city services.
Kent has a 2.5% income tax on all work performed in the city. If a resident is taxed in their “home” area, the Regional Income Tax Agency balances the totals so they aren’t taxed twice.
The question is – continue the tax – with voter approval- meaning no tax increase. Or raise it to 2.5% for all, but give city residents essentially a rebate of.35%, essentially leaving the tax rate unchanged for residents here.
It’s complicated. But will attach a few info sheets. Discussion ensued, but the council agreed to have a few work sessions to analyze it.
As the city is facing a major downtown sewer project that will force many road changes and alter some spaces’ uses, there’s a lot on the table that could improve “living” and shopping spaces downtown. A decision will be made over the summer months.

City of Kent – Tax Repurposing Options (Pros & Cons)
Council Committee Packet | May 6, 2026 | Summary of pp. 15–18

Options Comparison (At-a-Glance)

Option 1 Replace 0.25% tax
for staffing only
• No tax increase
• Easy to explain
• Supports essential staffing
• No funding for projects
• Limited staffing expansion
Minimal visible impact

Option 2
2.50% tax + 0.25%
But residents get.25% refund
• No net tax increase for residents
• Funds staffing AND new projects
• Shifts cost to non-residents
• Most impactful long term
• Requires residents to file for refund
• More complex to communicate
communicate

Option 3 0.25% tax + 0.25%
resident refund
• Reduces resident tax burden
• Provides some staffing funding
• Insufficient funding overall
• No new projects
• Least impactful option

Detailed Pros and Cons Matrix
Option
Key Advantages/Disadvantages

Option 1 • Maintains current tax rate
• Quick implementation
• Focused on essential
staffing
• No visible infrastructure
improvements
• Does not address broader
city needs

Option 2 • Maintains resident tax
neutrality
• Enables staffing + capital
projects
• Improves service levels
• Strong long-term sustainability
• Administrative burden (refund process)
• Public understanding may be harder

Option 3 • Politically attractive (tax
reduction)
• Provides limited staffing
capacity
• Fails to meet most service needs
• No investment in community improvements
• Weak long-term solution

Timeline Options /Approach Details
1. Fast-Track Ballot Nov 2026 → Implementation 2027
2. Deliberate Additional review → Ballot likely 2027
3. Extended Flexible timeline → 2028 or later possible

Tax Impact Overview
Group Current Rate Proposed Rate
Residents 2.25% ~2.25% (no net increase
after refund)
Non-Residents 2.25% ~2.50%

Key Takeaway
Option 2 provides the most comprehensive benefits, supporting both staffing and
community improvements while maintaining a no-net-tax increase for residents.

Members Present: All

Absent: All except Chris Hook (business trip) and Robin Turner (illness)

Media: Unknown

Public Notice: Yes

Agenda: Yes

Minutes: Yes

Observer: Barb Hipsman Springer