Shutting down the Perkins police department

Every job at the police department now depends upon the levy's approval.
Andy Ouriel
Mar 21, 2013

"This levy is important for the safety of your community and the safety of our officers," Perkins police Chief Ken Klamar said.

Without new money, the department would be gutted — all 17 full-time officers, commanders, and a detective.

"We are a proud township and we deserve a police department," said township resident Baranda Adams, wife of Perkins police Officer Brent Adams.

Read a Q&A in today's Register about township finances and the plan to slim down if voters defeat the tax levy on the May ballot. Click here to subscribe to the ePaper, for home delivery or buy a Register at a newsstand near you every day.  

Perkins police replacement levy proposal

MILLAGE: 5.5

LENGTH: Five years through 2018.

• WOULD GENERATE: $1.9 million a year, up from $1 million the department presently gets.

COST: Annual cost to owner of $100,000 home equals $168.44

USE: To fund daily police operations, including patrols, investigations and other related services.

Read a Q&A in today's Register about township finances and the plan to slim down if voters defeat the tax levy on the May ballot. Click here to subscribe to the ePaper, for home delivery or buy a Register at a newsstand near you every day. 

 

 

Comments

samiam

don't forget to subtract the cost of the expiring levy

Dont Worry Be Happy

The general levy fund expires at the end of the year it is being replaced by the Police levy fund. There will be NO general levy fund any more if the police levy passes. If you would go to the meetings you would understand this better.

Darkhorse

Perkins is bluffing. What a waste to build a brand new police station and then threaten to close it up because people didn't pass the levy, that in itself is a waste of taxdollars. Not very good smarts at all. It doesn't sound like Perkins knows what they are doing half the time. They take for granted that the Sheriff's office and Sandusky will take care of their problems when the people vote no, not unless all of this was well planned ahead of time with the county and Sandusky. Voters are tired of the mismanagement and the threats and deception if this or that doesn't pass.

BW1's picture
BW1

It's important to note that this is a fixed term replacement levy - the only new taxes are the difference in millage from the one it replaces. It's not the same as the school levy, which is all new millage, and is permanent. Too many people here are conflating the two levies.

As for merging, it's a losing proposition for Perkins. Perkins taxpayers will be net donors to net dependents of Sandusky. The higher density of Sandusky means that the underclass of Sanduaky will outvote the productive taxpayers of Perkins to bleed them dry. Call a merger what it really is - wealth redistribution achieved by denying Perkins residents any self-determination.

Cowboy

You got the trustees and the BOE playing shell games with our money and then threatening us with lack of services! WELL WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF IT! Most of us educated voters in Perkins see right through it all! VOTE NO ON BOTH!

BW1's picture
BW1

That you see these two levies as the same demonstrates that you are NOT an educated voter.

donutshopguy

BWI,

Do you believe the burden of this tax levy will ever go away? Do you believe the township will not ask for more money in the future?

Just like the millage that is being replace and added to, this levy will only go away in name only. The tax burden is not going away.

I don't care how people vote. Just understand some basic facts to make your best decision.

I do agree in your assessment of the merger question.

BW1's picture
BW1

No, the burden of paying for a police department will not go away, and as the policing needs of the township change, that burden may increase slightly.
However, fixed term levies represent the highest accountability way to fund such things.

If residents feel that the police department is doing its job, i.e. keeping crime down in the community, then they should renew the levy. Given the number of shootings right next door in Sandusky, they seem to have done a good job of keeping that mayhem from spreading to Perkins, and again, the amount of crime right on the township's northern doorstep is a good reason for the slight increase in millage.

Now, the schools, on the other hand, are just looking for a way to fund Gunner's edifice complex.

SamAdams

"Wealth distribution?" But wait, isn't that what the current political climate is all about? Come on, Obama voters, step up to the plate and get distributing!

The truth is that I agree with BW1, and I oppose "wealth redistribution." But then, I didn't vote for Obama, either. Time to pay the piper, majority Dems!

donutshopguy

Sam,

Isn't that what is also going on in the Perkins schools? Perkins needs more operating funds to support the open enrollment students from Sandusky. Or Perkins needs a new school to house the open enrollment students. Perkins pays more money from their property taxes to redistribute to support the Sandusky kids.

Super Judge

blah blah blah I just want to know what are you trying to do to that little bird?

beepx22

Does that mean they'll be putting their SHO taurus up for sale...

samiam

You mean the one the PPD won for the township?

beepx22

That's exactly the one i mean.

greenteam

Townships and Villages can contract out for their Police and Fire. So Darkhorse yes they can contract with Sandusky or the County. This levy is a new levy for Police only, not for the general fund. If this levy does not pass there will be no Police for Perkins Township. The Township is not forced to have a police department. The County is obligated to provide services to all the villages and townships in thier respectable county that does not have a police department. It is up to the residents of Perkins to vote yes for the Police Levy if they want thier own Police Department. If it is voted down you will probably see the county in Perkins providing services and hiring some of the officer who lose thier lose jobs in Perkins if the levy fails.

samiam

And if it's voted down and the sheriff takes over policing the township, they can't afford to hire some of the officers who lose their jobs in Perkins without coming back to the taxpayer and asking for money. So do you want to pay the county or do you want to pay the township? I also feel the property values will go down without our own police force.

nobodyfromnowhere

Remember the Sheriff is only obligated to respond to and investigate criminal incident. There is NO REQUIREMENT TO PATROL any where in the county. There also is no time limit on that response or how it is classified. IE most serious first. Minor crimes could have very long wait times as in several hours. I also don't see the county hiring extra deputies as the are running very lean already.

bobshumway92

Yes to the po po. No no to the schools.

Doody

A new stadium = no teachers
A new township building = no police

Maybe we should run credit checks on anyone running for office to see if they even know how to manage their own money--as a start.

Doody

and to make it clear, I really am leaning towards voting yes to anything for the police and just the police

BW1's picture
BW1

Which is what this levy is - it has nothing to do with the new building.

Hmmm...

Something to remember. Chief Klamar and the trustees are not asking for more money for police as some are saying, just the same amount they had before the property devaluation of the past 5 years and the change in state funding took over a million out of the police budget. It is not a matter of do we pay for our services, it is only who we pay it to - county, Sandusky or our own police force.

EZOB

I said, "Vote No on the Fire Levy". We need emergency and police, consider the roads and the Fire levy should have come in last.
Now the Fact! Read today's SR article on the unpaid prpoerty taxes. Pass more levies, raise taxes and you'll see more unpaid taxes and the weekly foreclosures will increase another page or two. Wait, doesn't this sound just like what's coming out of D.C.? We have to spend more and tax more to rejuvenate the economy. One central office under Sigsworth sounds good to me. They answer each other's calls anyway.

GhostlyManor's picture
GhostlyManor

Donut, if you want to make sure people get the facts, make sure you give the CORRECT facts. The new police levy will add aprx $86/yr per $100,000. So using your math of 1.75 = aprx $150/yr. This also assumes property values from 3-5 years ago. I won't argue with your opinion on how funds were spent in the past but my decision will be simple. Is the safety of my family, friends and business worth an additional $150 per year?

Hmmm...

I agree and vote yes!

donutshopguy

Ghostly,

The article state " $168.44 per year on a 100,000 home. Either you are mistaken or the article is wrong.

So what's more important, the safety or education of your children?

GhostlyManor's picture
GhostlyManor

No Donut, my numbers are correct and and so is the article. The aprx $86/yr represents the ADDITIONAL amount you would pay as a Perkins homeowner. Currently, Perkins homeowners are already paying aprx $83 per year on a $100,000 home.

donutshopguy

Thanks for the correct information.

BW1's picture
BW1

I tried to point that mistake out to you once already

deertracker

Too much sugar from all those donuts maybe?

Pages