Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Canton council debates timing and structure of street levy and options to fund fire/EMS facility
Summary
Council heard presentations on a proposed street‑paving levy (current replacement rate ≈53 years; 2‑mill proposal estimated to raise ~$1.365M) and three funding options for a consolidated fire/EMS facility (property bond, income‑tax increase, or reduced reciprocity credit). Members debated timing (May vs. November ballot), outreach and trade‑offs; council continued discussions and scheduled follow‑up.
City staff presented a technical briefing and policy options on Dec. 2 about how to pay for residential street paving and for a consolidated fire/EMS facility after two levies failed in November.
Paving: Staff reported the city manages roughly 94.5 miles of roadway; about 15 miles are grant‑eligible and the remaining ~79.5 miles are grant‑ineligible residential streets. Under the city’s expired one‑mill levy, the current replacement rate for residential streets is roughly once every 53 years. Using updated valuations, staff estimated that a 2‑mill levy placed on a spring ballot would raise about $1.365 million and could fund approximately 6 miles of residential paving annually, reducing the replacement cycle to about 13 years.
Fire/EMS facility: The administration outlined three funding options to replace a failed bond levy that sought a consolidated fire/EMS station: (1) a property‑tax bond (example used: $16M over 25 years at about 1.5 mills, roughly $53.75 per $100,000 of valuation under new revaluations), (2) an increase in the city’s income tax rate (a 0.25 percentage‑point increase estimated to raise just under $1.4M annually), or (3) reducing the city’s 100% reciprocity credit to capture additional revenue from workers who live elsewhere (reducing reciprocity by 0.5 percentage points estimated to raise about $900K). Staff noted legal constraints on how each revenue source can be used and who bears the burden.
Council members were split on strategy. Some urged a home‑front, voter‑education campaign and argued that waiting until November (to avoid asking residents twice in a year or competing with school levies) could produce a stronger result; others warned that delaying would leave the city with no street paving funds in 2026 and urged a May ballot. Several members emphasized that prior campaign communications were unclear to voters and called for a better outreach effort before repeating any levy. The council did not adopt a final ballot measure that night but voted to continue the discussion and to place the street‑levy/fire‑funding items on future agendas for further consideration.
Key procedural notes: Staff highlighted statutory deadlines for May ballot certification (Feb. 5 filing deadline and committee/council schedule), meaning council would need to make decisions in January if a May measure is pursued. Council directed staff to return with more analysis and recommended forming focused outreach or stakeholder groups to develop clearer voter materials.
Representative quotes: "We will pave every one mile of residential streets once every 53 years." — (staff presentation) "A quarter of a percentage point would build you a fire station." — (staff presentation)
What happens next: Council placed continued discussion on upcoming agendas and instructed staff to develop fiscal options, outreach plans and timelines aligned with ballot deadlines.
