Public Comment

Kent County voters will consider renewing and increasing the county's Corrections and Detention Millage through 2045. The current voter authorization was 0.84 mill but has been reduced by Headlee rollbacks to a 2026 certified rate of 0.7332 mill. The proposal would authorize 0.98 mill and is estimated to raise about $37.33 million in its first year. Revenue supports adult and juvenile custody, centralized booking, transport, medical and behavioral-health care, substance-use treatment, programming, maintenance, capital improvements, and debt service. Current millage revenue covers only part of the corrections system's total cost. The jail and juvenile system operates every day whether the county funds it through a dedicated millage or the General Fund. The question is how much tax capacity should be locked into this function for twenty years and what services residents expect that commitment to buy.

What level of dedicated property-tax support should Kent County provide for corrections and detention over the next 20 years?

Overall results

1
56% support · excluded by 7%
7

Booking, custody, transport, medical care, and facility maintenance are continuous countywide functions serving dozens of agencies; stable dedicated funding reduces operational risk.

7

Treatment and mental-health capacity inside detention facilities can improve safety and address needs that otherwise worsen while people are incarcerated.

2
52% support · excluded by 7%
7

A shorter authorization would preserve funding while giving voters another opportunity to review population trends and capital plans sooner than 2045.

7

A targeted increase could prioritize medical, mental-health, and substance-use spaces where correctional facilities face particularly difficult needs.

3
46% support · excluded by 4%
6

Ordinary county budgeting forces corrections to compete transparently with other priorities instead of reserving an increasing share of property-tax capacity for one system.

4
44% support · excluded by 9%
7

The county should distinguish inflation and unavoidable operating costs from optional facility expansions before setting a twenty-year rate.

7

Renewal and an increase are separate choices; preserving the current system does not automatically justify increasing the rate above today's rolled-back level.

About the author