Council - Special Meeting

6:30 and I'm going to call to order the Village of Franklin Council special meeting of Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026. Can we do the pledge, please? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Trying not to step on these wires because I'm afraid I'll yank something out. You're running the meeting. Hello sir.

Hello. Chief, could you please uh do a roll call? Trusty King present. Trustee Salaka here. Trusty Hansen here. Trusty Ferris. Trusty Gates here. Trustee Sally here. President Goldberg here. Uh fairly simple agenda today. Anybody have any comments or anything they need to add to this?

Oh, I I would like to add something. Can we um add to have the new village attorney review the charter appointment process? So, we have a written opinion about whether Trusty Seltzer's seat is up for this November or the following November because I don't think we ever gotten a written opinion from Peter on it.

So, I think we did. I think the outstanding question which is is how they decide who takes that seat because my understanding is that whoever is voted into that seat has a two-year term compared to a four-year term. And so are people specifically running for that 2-year term? I don't know. Right. So the way essentially, let me provide a little bit of the backdrop of what so we had a trustee uh resign before the next election.

And so um what the charter then says is whoever gets appointed into that position has to run. That that position's backup. the appointment does not go for the duration of what he otherwise would have served. It comes up if there's an election within 40 days of the appointment. It was that's what the charter says. Yeah. Like you don't have to do a special election, but you have to run that seat. So now the question becomes we're going to have three seats up that will be up for a four-year term, but the for the position for the council member who resigned, they will only be filling two years whoever gets elected in. No. So would my guess would be that you would have to have separate things on the ballot, right? Yeah. And that means when people file their petitions, they have to decide are they running for a year

running for a two-year seat or four years without re looking at it. Yeah, that's I would Can someone run for both? I don't think so. I don't think you can have your name on the ballot in two places. Yeah. You would have to decide, do you want to run to finish out the two-year term and have to run again in two years or do you want to run for your own full four year term? You wouldn't do that. Yeah. Well, maybe someone only wants to do it for two years. Yeah. And then the question becomes if it weren't that way and the seat went through the full term then it could be that like one like every two years five five seats turn over and then every two years only two seats turn over and I think the intent of the charter was to have three and four turn over every two years so you don't have a full

seat is still a replacement seat of the of the trustee who resigned. So, I just think we need a written opinion on it before the July petitions come out. This is a November election. Correct. You need to file your petition in July. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, so people would need to start planning this spring. Sure. Do we need to have this answer tonight versus a motion that they that he can review it? Yeah. I mean certainly I can get an opinion to you for May to be honest with you.

So are you making a motion to adop to amend the agenda to do what? Yeah, I'll make a motion to amend this. Excuse me. Point of order, please. This the request was do we have approval of the agenda? You had a question. We got into a discussion. Are we going to act on an agenda item that doesn't exist or are we going to agree that the agenda's been changed and deal with it in the proper order? The motion is currently to amend the agenda. Yeah. All right. Then that should be the motion. Okay. I was about to make to amend the agenda. I didn't want to go into a big discussion about it before the meeting started.

I'll make a motion to amend the agenda to add um replacement council seat election term. You you want to request a legal opinion. Yeah.

To determine how the replacement seat is. It's handled 2026 Lux. I mean, this is why I prefer things not done this way. Uh so we have a motion to adopt the agenda with an amendment to include uh a request or a directive to have the village attorney write a legal opinion to determine how the replacement seat is to be handled at the 2026 November election. We have a motion and I got a second.

A second. Motion to second. Further discussion. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. Uh public comments. So, anybody that obviously tonight's meeting we're discussing the police millage. It's the only item on the agenda. If uh you're here to speak on that, then wait. Hey, thanks for coming here.

Uh if uh you're here to speak on that, please wait until that time. We will allow amidst our discussion a time for public comment. If you have another public comment on another matter, now's the time to please come to the podium. All right, see we have nobody. Move on from public comments to new business. So the new business item is written on the agenda is consideration of approval of a police mill uh ballot language. Uh I this is a continuation of an agenda item that our April meeting that we could not come to resolution on the time and needed more time for uh internal thought uh research and just uh additional discussion which are now carrying over to today. uh as a maybe a brief uh context for those that are watching on television and nice to have a full audience today, those that are actually joining us. What we're what we're trying to determine right now is whether or not to have a separate mill. When I say separate, we do have one right now, but it's a very small amount of money. but to have a separate mill to uh help fund or completely fund the police's budget on an annual basis and to make a determination whether how that the amount of the millillage and the amount of the millillage will be based upon two different schools of thought both of which have pros and cons as to how we get to the full amount of money necessary to fund the police. So to give

us some history, uh our charter was founded in the 50s. Um not many people here that from that time and we can we will have the research when this comes to vote so we know completely. uh in the 50s was the first time the charter was created that it established how much millillage the village council can uh levy against the residents in order to operate the village. The amount that it currently is right now is 3.5 mills. There were two amendments to the original 1950 charter in that section. One was in the 1970s at which time we added the ability to levy an additional 1.5 mills for fire services specifically. And then there was an amended in 2002 which we have to get some context on. I do not know if at that time the 3.5 was increased or whether the 3.5 is the same amount from the 1950s. Regardless, the last time that the village from a vote or from a charter standpoint looked at the amount of funds necessary to fund the village was in 2002 because that's the last time that section was amended. And the amount of millage to operate essentially everything in the in the village is 3.5 mills. We have separate millages for three specific things outside of the general millillage. that is we have a levy for trash, we have a levy for roads. Every time we improve them, we we we float a bond and we have a separate millage to fund the library. Outside of that, the 3.5 mills pay for everything other than fire, including the police. Although in the charter, the payment of using that money for police is not specifically enumerated.

Over the years, the budgets of the village have been approved and we've been operating with the ability to have the general fund pay for all the police services as well as fund all of the villages needs and still operate at in a positive. Uh over the last me five to six years that has not been the case. the amount of money that we've been able to levy particularly after the amount we can levy is uh reduced for those who understand how proposal A and Headley work but the amount that we can assess on a millillage reduces each year uh a specific small percentage but the amount that we can actually tax reduces every year it does not increase the amount of value that we're taxing against increases every year but not the amount that we can increase. uh in 2020 was I was not on council but in 2020 was the last time or I would say the first time that the village realized that the general fund and all the other ongoing expenses was not capable of funding the police department as well because we added a small 10-year millage of.3 3 mills in 2020 that expires in 2030. Since that time, the budget in as as as a whole has been greater than the revenues. And of the amount of revenue we bring in on an annual basis,

60% of that goes to pay for the police department. 20% goes to administration and then the balance goes to pay for everything else that we do less the other three items that I mentioned. So, we've come to the point where we have to go outside of the general fund to help fund the police department so that we don't essentially run ourselves bankrupt because based on forecasts and taking into consideration the increasing costs of whether it's the police or the administration, but health insurance, pension requirements, and then with regard to our pensions, funding the long-term pension liability ility that we have. So those are all items that we have to be addressing in the near future. And right now we've come to the conclusion that something needs to be done to assist in or supplement the revenues of the village and specifically to help cover the increased costs of the police department. chief often spent uh significant amount of time has provided us with a uh a long-term budget that takes the current budget out at least seven years, seven or eight years and gives us a real good snapshot of what our costs are going to be to run to continue to run the police department in the way, shape, and form that we've always been accustomed to. Uh we've also had Jod's been and Rachel have been providing us with data to show

how much revenue will be generated based upon different amounts of millages set aside for police or just millages in general. what that would generate on an annual basis and over that same 7-year period using current taxable values and like chief uh formulaic uh growth of a certain percentage to different costs. Uh there are when we when you hear our discussion today, there's going to be several different uh numbers bantered about with regard to the millillage that we are proposing that will be allocated only to police use and any millillage that is ultimately put to the voters and then approved. It is a maximum amount that can be levied in any given year. It is not the amount that is going to be levied. And that also goes into the school of thought of what you're going to hear in some of our discussions later and I'll kind of brief us on in a second. But essentially uh that's going to go to uh to to supplement. Uh there's really two ways that we're looking at it. We've asked the administration, Jody, Rachel to run numbers and show us what would be generated or what it would take to

have an available amount of mills for police services only over the next 10 years. So that at any point in the 10 years or when we get to essentially the 10th year, we are still generating enough revenue out of that mill to pay for police services without going into the general fund at all. And in doing that, that obviously would free up money in the general fund. That's one way. That's like the far extreme, which is and the number that we've been using and you're going to hear in this discussion is four mills. four mills based on anticipated revenues. I mean anticipated taxable values based upon she's anticipated budget in the last year. There would still be again like a $20,000 surplus, but there would actually be the millillage would completely fund the police department till the end. And then you can take that four mills and work it back down to any number you want. And that number that we've seen numbers working it down from four all the way to 1.75. As you ratchet it down from four, there will be some point in that millillage in the next 10 years that the mill alone will no longer be able to fund the police department and we will again begin to have to use the general fund to supplement. It'll be the reverse, but it'll be the general fund supplementing the millillage. And we've been crunching and looking at these numbers, and they've been, you know, we've seen various versions of them. Like I said, four, three and a half, three, two and a half, two, all the way down as low as 1.75. What you're going to hear us discussing today and the very there could be more

than one motion that gets profered is do we do the full extreme which is four or I guess to use the the the opposite the the the least extreme which is 1.75 where we're essentially within the second year already tapping into the general fund to assist. And if that's the way we want to operate in order to and you'll hear arguments both ways in order to help control the amount of money that can be drawn overall to limit the amount that can be drawn overall to limit the amount that can be spent on items other than the police department. That is is part of what we're going to discuss. So I'm going to I'm going to leave it at that. Uh we left the last meeting with a motion on the table that had been supported to do the to do the entire four mill request on the ballot which after discussion it looked like we were really not ready to vote. So, the motions were withdrawn and we decided to rescheduled this meeting to allow everybody time for internal reflection, an opportunity to speak to those residents that they speak with. Uh but we took a week and two days. So we're basically back 9 days later. And hopefully today we're in a position to come up with one plan to take to the village residents to

determine their desire to do what we're what we're requesting. So uh there's two ways we can proceed. Uh, I personally would like to I'm a believer that you you start at the top and you work your way back. So, I personally would ask Dan Ferris, who made the motion, if Dan would be willing to make a motion again to um levy for uh request a four the up to 4 mil levy for police services, which I had seconded. And then we can have discussion or if anybody really doesn't want to have any more discussion on that matter, then let's just go ahead and call the vote. Let's see where we stand on that item and then we'll know that we're not at the full-blown take care of it itself and we will debate and discuss which hybrid model we want to go with.

Real quick question. Um when do we want to take public comment on this on this one? We're not on this one. I just want to get it out there and see where we're at. Uh, I think when we get into our discussion piece, yes, we're gonna I thought we'd held public comment before.

All right. Let's All right. Well, before we do that, do when you say public comment, are you saying public comment for people to come up and give us their thoughts on the matter without generating discussion? because I'm not ready to open it to the floor for the people for us to have ongoing debate. Well, we still haven't completed our own discussion. So, if it's, hey, yeah, I've been thinking about this. I've been paying attention. I think it's a great idea to go this way. You'll still have an opportunity to speak again later on. But,

but if your motion passes, when would the public be able to talk? Fair. Very fair. All right, then. We'll withdraw them again. If you want to start at public comment, then then let's just do that thing. That's just let anybody who wants to speak on the matter before you've had an opportunity to hear what we're talking about if you want to address us and if whatever motion goes does not pass and dial discussions keep going on as to each motion I will still allow people to come up and have up to three minutes to speak. So you're not going to just get one shot by speaking now. But if you do have specific questions or opinions or anything that you want to address, please let's let's hear it now.

Nina Downing 30645 Bruce Lane. Nice to see you, Nina.

I was here at the 2002 request and it was overwhelmingly attended. I think that everybody here, those of you who were here at the time as well, everybody felt that one of the biggest draws to living in Franklin is the safety that we have. The men and women who serve us are exemplary. I think if you look at the police report, guess what? There just isn't much going on. And that's because of our police. They're able to hire qualified people that are exemplary in what it is that they do. They're at all our events keeping us safe. We know that times are going to get tougher in the next couple years. It's evident right now. And I feel as though it's our duty to provide them with what it is that they need to give us and maintain the safety and security. Most of our kids can go out and play and not worry about it. But how many times do you look in the news and all these terrible things are happening? It's not happening in Franklin. It's not happening in Franklin because of the safety and security that our police force provides to us. I strongly support the maximum amount that is requested. I do have a question though. Can the can the SAD amount be increased to help absorb some of that? I haven't heard that addressed.

Um but whatever it is, the technology is changing that costs. But that technology again helps support the police in keeping us safe, keeping us informed and knowing that Franklin will remain as it is, someplace where our kids can go out and play and not worry about it. Thank you.

Thank you, Nina. Um, my name is Rick Kazlowski. I live at 26480 Woodlor. Uh, council president, trustees, village representatives, Chief Blott, my neighbors and friends. Um, I'd like to read a statement I prepared. Um, I'm getting of age that I can't remember things off the cuff. So, uh, my wife and I are 42-year resident property owners here in the village of Franklin. We raised our family here, as um many of you currently are or have. Uh, like my neighbor Nina, I believe that the the highest priority that we enjoy as residents is our public safety. I firmly support the council's efforts to provide a separate millage for its police department to ensure our continued protection by in my opinion is probably the finest police department not only in the state but certainly in southeast Michigan. I also strongly support the millillage requirements of the fire department. In my view, public safety as provided by the police and fire departments protecting our lives and property are the most critical aspects of the quality of our lives here in Franklin. Thank you.

Thanks.

Good evening, council. Good to see you, sir.

My name is Dan Roberts. I live at 26620 Woodlor. Um, for those of you who may not know me, I was the chief of police here for about 12 years before Chief Lawson. Uh, I, uh, will echo just about everything Rick Kazowski just said. He said it very articulately and much better than I could have. And um I will say though from a chief's perspective, from my perspective, it will be much cleaner if the police department budget is taken out of the general fund and all of it is funded by a separate mill. From my perspected perspective, having done the police department budget for 12 years, I never knew what at the end of the year was going to be taken out of my budget and used for other B village functions. I'm not saying that that was wrong or inappropriate or anything like that. It was just very difficult to know that at some point during the year maybe you know um the village priority had a priority and needed to move money out of uh out of the police department fund budget and that is because as was mentioned earlier the police department controls vast the large largest portion of the general fund right uh and I think when I was here it was more like 70% I think somebody said tonight 60% uh something like that so that's that's interesting Uh but I from my perspective I think it's much cleaner if there is a separate millillage just for the police. I also think as a resident here and having been in and out of the village since 1965, um, villages tend to pass much cleaner if it's just the police or the fire department and nothing else attached to it because by and large, thanks to great residents like Nina, they vote to support the police and fire departments. And sometimes they don't vote for the other other aspects that are in the general fund uh because they become

political in nature. Maybe it's a sewer system problem or a sidewalk problem or whatever the hell it is. Uh but if it's just a clean police or fire or public safety type millage request, generally speaking, I think you're going to find widespread support for that. So, I would I would echo Rick Kazowski's statements that I would support having the millillage at the highest possible rate. Um and I will do anything I can to help in that regard in in getting the residents to see that. I'll take calls day and night to help with that. We do not want to lose our fantastic staff. Um we don't want to be seen as the ones that are, you know, have the lowest salaries or the worst benefits because we will lose our great officers to other communities. I mean, there is a fight every day. I'm still involved in this realm. I work for the Oakland Police Academy now and I see it where there is, you know, fights between police departments where they're stealing from Peter to pay Paul every day because officers will jump ship if they see that one department has better benefits or better salaries or something like that. So, we want to be able to hire and retain our good sal people like we have now. Um, and we want to be able to also be able to adjust that if we need to during contract negotiations to move it up or address all of those issues. So, I'm kind of rambling. I just wanted to put in my two cents worth. I'll be probably back with a few more questions technically about how this is going to work. Uh, but I just wanted to say that for the record unless you had some questions of me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dan. Good evening. I'm Linda Novak. I live at 273000 Scenic Highway and I am also pretty much a lifelong resident of Franklin. Um I'm also serving as a member of the planning commission and the zoning board and I am a realtor in Franklin and have been for many many years. I want to take a moment to express my complete support of the millage requirements for the police department. Personally, it has what's made Franklin wonderful for me. Um, and from a professional perspective, I can tell you that safety is really one of the primary reasons that people want to be in this community. Our police department is not only highly professional, but they really go above and beyond. They actively participate in all of our community and they're a true part of it. Uh that's something very very special especially at a time when across the country and even globally trust and connection between communities and law enforcement is very often strained is it's something very special that we have here. Um it is exceptional. we should be protecting it, supporting it and investing in it. For those reasons, I strongly support the millillage. And I would also mention that in the last meeting, you all very kindly um approved the master plan and our safety and the integrity of that community is a very important part of what you all approved. So, thank you. It's a great place to live.

Thanks, Linda.

Good evening. Heather Midlosski, 30585 Birchway Drive. Um, not only am I a resident, but my husband is lieutenant with the Franklin Bingham Farms Police Department. And I know all of you, you do a fantastic job. And I'm not going to be redundant. I wholeheartly agree with what everybody said. But I want you to know that I listened to the last meeting in its entirety. I couldn't physically be here. And what stuck out to me is the passion for this administration which you guys painstakingly specifically the hiring committee this team and it and also who I don't know everyone that was on the um finance committee but I know Rick David did a fantastic job bringing in layman's unbiased but I would suggest that you go with the recommendation of the team that you have enlisted because that's their professional opinion. I feel like they've the data speaks for itself and I would fully support the 4% or 4 mil. Thank you.

Thanks, Heather. Anybody else? Um, all right. Anybody want to have any discussion before I go and see if we call the vote or do you want to just

Yeah, I I want to have some discussion. Okay. just based off of responsiveness to all of the feedback that we received. Um, so a couple clarifying points, at least from my perspective, but I think it's shared by others as well, is that the discussion tonight is not whether or not we plan to fully fund the request of what chief has asked for for his police. it's how um I don't think that there's any request for numbers or proposals or to look at it in saying that we need to cut back on what the police is uh spending on. Um, so again, it's not a mechanism of the police are going to be here. The the services that you receive will continue. The incredibleness of the staff is the exact same. Um, regarding the consistency, I want to be clear that whatever we pass for a millillage, whether the police would receive the maximum amount, a future council could come in and not draw down that full amount. So, we're never going to get to a place of perfect precision where there is that guarantee. Um, it still comes down to policy considerations, which is why I personally stand uh and believe in a consistency um as much as we can have, which is to look at numbers with an expectation that full that we draw down the full amount of the millillage every single year. So I would like to see us say that the millillage that we're taking to the residents we can say with certainty will be drawn down every single year rather than an ambiguity of well we'll make the decision on whether or not to draw the full amount and we'll go through I think it's important that again we go through what

that means numerically um from an annual surplus uh when we do those type of approvals.

Can I say something? Yeah. Um I'm going to use the whiteboard just because easier for me visually because as we learned last meeting I'm not person. Um, so to the point that we were making last meeting is the what I think everyone agrees on, right? Fully fund PD.

Okay, that's not the question, right? We are I should put a check mark. We are going to do that. The question is how. Okay, you either do single source funding, right? Which is millillage only or general fund only. Or you do a hybrid. which is GF times police knowledge

plus okay so there's right and this is like imagine hybrid like diversifying your portfolio in stocks right you're not going to just put all your money into one stock if that stock fails you know you would be out of a lot of money hybrid is economic stability. Okay. So, does anyone know how many cities in Oakland County do you have police millage only funding? Zero. Okay. Um, so you're saying of all of the counties in Oakland County,

all the cities in Oakland County, how many single source fund just from a police mill to fund their police department? Yeah. Zero. Not a single one. And you can correct me if I'm on that desk. So general fund only, right? This is like being hybrid. This is Birmingham,

right? This is Royal Hope. This is Bloomfield Township. because this offers the best stability in a Headley amendment or a Henley roll back city because it protects the police against economic volatility. So the hybrid approach where you use both the general fund and the police millage to support the police department gives a political body less of a slush fund, which no one wants. Politicians have a slush fund, right? We could buy a fleet of luxury cars because we have all this extra money. And it also allows that money that's in a restrictive police fund to be used for other things if it needs to. So it's not whether we are going to fund the police, it's how best to fund the police to align with our priorities of governance, economic stability, financial transparency and um basically predictability to the voters and to the police chief. So all of these equal four ms, right? You can reach four mills any way you want. Right now, we're reaching it with a general fund and a very small 37 mills police millage. But you can get to four mills by doing 1 mil general fund, right? Plus three mills police millage. You can get to four what? Eight different ways. And that allows this council who's going

to flip four seats are going to flip next year and they'll have an extra if we pass the full four mills they'll have an extra $1.5 million to do whatever they want with it as long as it's not against the charter. So that kind of well I should say that lack of restriction on politicians is something that most communities do not like which is why they do the hybrid model and the hybrid model can be you know divided any way you want and it makes for good checks and balances because we want to give predictability to the police department. they will always be able to draw down that full amount. And usually what they do is they take the full mills and they put it towards salaries and they put it towards equipment and they put it towards things like Nina talked about which is you know integrity training right the exemplary stuff and they use the extra money to do what Joey talked about which is help build the pension, right? supplement these extra things. So, it's always going to keep staffing at full is keep full staffing. If you do the four mills and you could still have a council that decides to only draw down one mill, right? So, that's not predictability either. But this hybrid approach, it's the how. So, it's how do we get to four? That is the question tonight. Or how do we get to 3.7, whatever it is.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, you made some you made a couple of assumptions about future councils of what they could do and implying that they could become spend spend thrifts. uh those same four or five whatever it is new trustees could also be of the belief that having the best public safety in the village is not of the utmost important and as you mentioned having new luxury vehicles is and they just say sorry police you can live with the amount of money allocated to you we're not giving you anymore no different than if we allocate gave them a four full mills and they could say even though you need whatever it is two and a half we're only giving you one you you're making assumptions about people in the future which is not what we need to be focusing on. We need my my goal is to make it so that we have them in the best position possible in the future and we can debate what is the best way to get us there. So,

but I think that's point though is going to a full four and then introducing ambiguity could swing either way and we can't account hold on when we cannot account for that is the point. So, if we're operating from a point of based on your budget projections, if we pass something and draw down the entirety of that amount and give certainty now, we're ensuring that that obligation is met regardless. I think that's the point. But you're presuming that we're going to draw Hold on, David. I'm still I'm still talking. Thank you. Sorry. Actually, he was talking when you interrupted him. No, I was talking first, ma'am. Thanks. Well, no, I hadn't stopped, but go ahead. Finish. Thank you. Um, but we were still discussing.

But I think that's the point. My my biggest concern here is not whether we have a police department. I know it was something I introduced in a previous meeting because we're looking at budget projections and it's concerning how large that amount gets over time. So, I remember what I'd said was, is this something we can afford? And so my concern all along has been the certainty of can we do it and the ambiguity of taking a full four without having certainty on whether or not that amount is drawn down introduces ambiguity on both sides of that. So that's your point. The the the extreme views on either side of that could be we buy a fleet of luxury cars or we've got a council that wants to completely undercut the police department. Yeah. Because to that point,

um, you know,

sure, there will be assumptions made tonight because we're forecasting projections into the future which require certain assumptions to be made. But the truth is, if a council wanted to underfund or defund the police if we passed for for luxury vehicles or whatever you want to apply that to, right? what they could do is still make the decision not to draw down the police and fully draw down the 3.5, right? That has no amount going to the police. So, it doesn't it still doesn't solve the problem. If you have a council that doesn't support the police, they just will choose not to fund the police. They have that discretion when they set the budget allocation at the beginning of the year. So again, that's where I we're still at the point where it's a policy decision of whether we believe that the police should be solely funded by a police mill or whether it should be split between the general fund and the police uh the general fund and the police mill. My concern and why I support the split, which I do find compelling that the majority, if not all, municipalities in Oakland County follow the same model as we have historically followed this model, is that it allows us to have better to as much as the police deserve certainty, so do so do our residents. And if we say we're going to open up, we're going to pull the police out, that means the 3.5 is not going to residents or sorry, is not going to the police anymore. And then residents are basically at the discretion of saying, is that full 3.5 going to get drawn down or is this body going to decide not to pull down the full amount? That's why I really am of the position that whatever I take to the to uh residents at the

vote, I want to have a baseline assumption that we will be drawing the full amount every single year because the truth is is again voters have one opportunity to agree or disagree with drawing down that amount and it's at the time of the poll. So whatever we say we want to put the money to the future counts. I I will never see that, right? I will not be sitting here once we actually receive those funds. And so I can't make a commitment for where I think the fund should go. I absolutely know where I think any surpluses should go. It should go towards capital outlays is one. It should go towards paying down the pension. It should go down uh making sure that we have enough for merit-based increase for the excellent work of our employees. Like these are all things that we should do. But the question becomes, do we really need to open up the the full 3.5 ms and the potential of the full 3.5 ms in order to do that? And so for me, like I did ask questions around starting to look at baselines so that I can see how much of a surplus we have year-over-year to bring in the context. Um, so me it's really important that in this discussion we look at what are our reserves over uh over time. So like if we have four mills, if we levy four mills at the full amount, there's a potential that within the first year, and again these are all estimates, right? We can always assume that whatever surplus is being estimated, there's probably less of a surplus there just because things happen, but the first year would be 1.8 million. That would become discretionary for council to spend. The next year, again, this is annually, 1.9 million discretionary funds for the council. If we go to 2.5 mills, the discretionary funds are 1.1 million in the first year, 1.168

in the second year. If we go to 175, the surplus is 700 thou 730,000. Um, and so you can see that that's where I'm really looking at it is like how do we get to the outcome of making and these estimates are all based off of funding the police at what they requested and based off of the projections of the operating expenses for the village. So again for me the question is never about do we fund the police. It's about or do we increase taxes? We have to. I think that's the baseline that everybody needs to understand is we absolutely do need to increase taxes. The question we need to be focusing on is by how much comment? No, because I'm going to finish what I was talking.

Okay.

So, does your hybrid model have a formula to it? Is or is the formula just whatever the mill is whatever the current mill is at and capable of funding in any current year. And then all the rest just comes from the general fund whether it's 10% or 40%. It's just whatever the difference is is there or is there because that doesn't a lot still doesn't do great for long-term planning. It still isn't great as as chief or former chief said is understanding if at the end of the year his budget's going to be the same as it was at the beginning. But is that the general thought which is if we're going on this premise that one our successors are all going to be people that take not the village's best interest in place and not only draw the actual amount that's necessary or if there are other things that need to be done have available resources to do other things. But is that the general assumption that going into any budget season, we're going to start out by saying we have this many mills in the police millillage and this is the police budget. So the difference is going to the police department no matter what and we start from there. Is that what you guys are generally saying?

No, I'm saying we'd operate as we currently do. Like that's not that's not we're not because what the mill isn't helping at all. No, but but we are hybrid right now. So it's the through this process. Essentially what it is is when we set the millillage amount, we know that we can't go below that amount, right? So when we're doing the budgeting and so if I'm saying anything incorrect, by all means feel free to interject. I don't know what you were saying. below.

What I'm saying is that he what what he's saying is are we sitting there and doing a line item to say you only have.37 mills chief and my point is is no current state we're already taking into account we're taking that 3.7 applying it to the general fund and saying police how much like chief how much do you need and then we're allocating based off of that if we have an emergency and need it we'll take it back and we can and that's the difference of a police mill or not Right. We can't take it back. It's restricted funds. Yeah. Whatever goes to them from the police mill has to be spent first. Restricted dollars have to be spent first before unrestricted. So the first

right now 37 mills gets spent first. Anything that's left over there, if we have any emergency right now that we needed funding for, that's where it's at. That's where it's coming from. That's and and a police millage restricts that from happening that you can't go back and get it. You're on your own. Yeah. And your emergency funds become the available mills that you collaborate on annually of what you're doing.

So, is it fair to say, Jody, in that scenario, we're now encouraging it's it's an inherent check and a balance. So now you're encouraging collaboration between our village administrator and our police chief to say here is our entire operating fund if we're operating in a hybrid structure if something happens. Obviously we've done budgeting exercises. We have some idea generally where we'll need to be. It encourages that level of collaboration because it's an inherent check and balance instead of having two standalone funds that are restricted on like the police fund would be restricted could not carry over in case the need were on this side of the house.

I the way that you're saying it doesn't make sense to me like as if it's it. So like right now we have a fire millillage. Fire has over a million dollars in escrow. We have a cash flow problem. We can't touch any of that even though that money came from our taxpayers. So that's what we're saying that could technically happen again if it if it I mean that's kind of contradictory at the same time because if there's a cash flow problem that means that the levies weren't set accurately which is done by the council

and that's why we want to set a millage amount that allows an extra 700,000 in the general fund. It's not necessarily extra. It's I mean uh the first year it would have what would be a standard minimum of gazsby for fund balances. The second year we have from what we were told best practice is 15 to 20% of your should be in the slash fund

of yes of your annual revenues. So sorry. Um just so that I understand what what were you saying with regard to the two pieces between um that when you were talking about the first year and the second year for this we'll just use the 1.75 as the example. So the 737,000 what you're saying is that there's some things to consider within that. Yes. I'm saying that um as it starts you're starting without fund balances and so you have to first take care of just like basic so that that needs to be thought of and like that 700,000 is like

there's a lot of things that it needs to take care of already in the first year. Is that accurate? It's it gets to what I'm saying is yes that it takes care of nothing in the first year because those would establish fund balances that are not currently. So um and then the second year it's then you could talk about what happens with it depending on priorities or other things that come up. Yeah. we could put it towards like the extras that this council

I'm not sure though like the first part of the point that I wanted to make because it was said um in a way earlier that was backwards of um to to ensure that money is going to the police and that it is um that once it's allocated to them that it's restricted to it's theirs and that's not that's not accurate. Um it general fund money can wherever it's transferred it doesn't um it doesn't transfer ownership you can that money can go back at any time it can be reallocated to something else no I meant the police millage funds I restricted to the police correct

it yes just that portion the general fund money is not yeah so

so when you when you um but it was it was kind of said earlier as the former chief uh had said something about that part of it that, you know, was a was a um something that he liked about it is that it can't be touched by anybody else and it can't be funded and it's kind of um you know, you say that like if they may just give them less of it. You know, there's not a lot the only benefit to the board is their own personal property tax savings. That would be um a a motive on that. and with the fire to say that there's a surplus there. Like that's how that typically works is that they can't do anything with it, so they just give it to them and let them do what they want with it. Like it's not a it's not a um well, we're just going to defund you. Um nobody has defunded the the fire with, you know, they've built up a an account, but but in regards to that, they you know, they need an account um right now. And you know that'll that's not uh part of the discussion today. I mean that will be part of the budget discussions but um I don't see them reducing that amount.

It was more of saying of what's restricted and what's not and what can go to the police what has to go to the police and once it's there whether or not it can be taken back from them. Because when you're in a point where you don't have emergency funding, emergencies are coming out of the operating budgets and and it is the largest operating budget and it is where it's going to get pulled from first because there's a lot of it. It's the everything is minimal right now

and um so I just wanted that part to be clear of what is restricted and what's unrestricted. general operating money belongs to um the general fund and the uh council has authority over that money. Anything that is specified in a millillage belongs specifically there and it is restricted money and cannot be taken, moved or spent anywhere else. That was just the what I wanted to clarify. So yeah, Pam P. Well, do you have a question for Jody? Because I know you want to have the I'd actually like Jody to stay up there because I think you're going to be able to shed some light on this particular issue.

Okay. Um uh my my comment is buil building on a comment you made um David

um about surplus and there seems to be an underlying assumption that somehow if there's a surplus that it will be um misused or used questionably. two issues that were brought up was um uh you know the the integrity of the council when in fact it's really about the checks and balances in the system. So I'm going to ask you in a minute to comment on the checks and balances that are there. But before we do that um relative to the so-called surplus I think your comment was it it it could go to pension. Um the fact of the matter is if we um if if we're if voters approve a four mil police 4 mil police millillage that does free up some constraints that we currently have in the general fund to do things like um meet our legal obligations uh regarding the pension account. Right now we are funded at about 58% which is I believe the number that you presented to us a couple of weeks ago. I do not consider um uh 58% acceptable and I do not think it's good practice for us as stewards of the village money to look at pension contributions and achieving our legal obligation as surplus. It's we should be baking that into our annual operating budget and with um with a little bit more available to us each year we can do that. We can't do it right now. The way we got there, we got it up to 60% I think uh

funded a couple of years ago was due to a grant. It wasn't that we dug in our pockets. We were given money from the state to shore that up. We don't have a plan for recovery right now. So, something that's on my mind is um that we all are able to talk to each other about what our real expenses are right now. What is actually surplus? I have a feeling it's um uh considered um vanity projects. I don't really see it that way. I see it as p pension is one of them, but there are other ones, other long-term expenses. Do you have anything that you wanted to say to amplify that point?

You know, my perspective is is from a finance perspective and I I kind of try to do that because I don't have I'm not in the same position. Okay. Um, and in in my perspective, it there are when you like to talk about $700,000 to me that's just already gone from what I see is lacking already. and and and then I see other things that are needed and um the the costs of some of those things and I hear about different projects and there's still things that I'm learning about

um and that that we have um you know deficit in with with with the uh storm or the wastewater thing and you know somebody's coming in from WRC next week to meet with me to go through all of that stuff and and going to so that I have an understanding of not just how much is it this year, but what is this and what what are we looking at financially for that? I don't even have all of the answers that are none of that is accounted in that number.

It it occurs to me that maybe and this isn't yours. this is ours as as policy people here. But it occurs to me that we aren't being completely um uh uh open with each other about the what the real costs of running this village are. There has been so many years of deferred expenses and and we and and I see a lack of information honestly and I can't get mad at anybody about that but I I think we need to fix that problem. Um before we go on would you comment there was another comment made about checks and balances it and uh while that comment was being made I made a list of about eight of them that exist currently in the system. Would you talk about the checks and balances that occur are that that are put boundaries around our decision making uh uh that exist as parameters within which we make our decisions. right now.

That's that would be more of a of a question for an attorney. I mean, I I have a roundabout idea of the answer to that, but for mine I don't know if mine's correct on I give you mine and maybe other trustees have some of those as well. One is my experience is our residents pay attention to what we spend money on. That's a check. I believe that.

Um another one is that um this council reviews checks written every month and we approve them. Um we also have policies in place for how um money is to be spent in this village and we hold the village administrator accountable and she's questioned if she if we have any questions she is questioned openly in a meeting. Um another one is we um uh we have restricted and unrestricted funds and we count on you and the administrator to help us make sure that we're playing within the rules. Another check is that we do a budget every year. We we we spend months doing it. We use the finance committee to go through line items.

We've never done that in the last two years. Um excuse me. I'd just like to finish if you don't mind.

Um uh but we we have a budget and last year we had a couple of budget workshops with our previous administrator and she did go through line items and she informed us of some changes she'd made, etc. I thought it was I thought it was well done. Um uh we have um we have a planning process. I will be the first to say it's not adequate, but for the last four years we have had um uh a um our village president has listed out priorities. Our former president David hasn't had a chance to do that yet, but our former president listed them out by expensive and easy. That was fine. it would I I think it could be improved, but there is another stake in the in the ground on what we spend our what we think we might want to spend our money on to guide our budgeting process. Other cities like Birmingham do a formal strategic planning process. I wish we did that, but we don't. Um uh we have um we have a council manager form of government here which means that it's not this group's job to be a management council. Uh it's Rachel's job and we hold her accountable to do that. That is a check and a bal on the system. Uh and finally we have an annual millage and we have a rules state rule state laws about how we handle deficits and budgets here. That's to me is another check. Can you think of any more? I think that um when to to say that you know of a comment on like budget workshops and stuff for the last couple years um after what I had pointed out on the slides uh last week on the budget for last year and uh budget workshops

and process for this year um it's you know it's it's not it's not in a in a way of disrespect but it to me is I kind of chuck buckled about budget workshops because what what do we have to talk about? Here's our operating cut every like as go through everything and try to find out you know where can we reduce stuff and at the end we're at zero. So what is there to like we don't we can't talk about extra projects, extra things we need any of that kind of stuff that what should be a budget workshop about okay we have $500,000 we need this is 200,000 this is h 100,000 this is you know these projects um we could invest it we could put it here we can you know put it into our MS towards our pension those are the conversations that I'm used to at budget workshops um there's and and not only Are we not there now? But there the most I the most expensive thing in America is to be broke and we are. We're not. There's there's nothing except for what comes in from somewhere else is is what is going out. And if we're trying to net zero that without having any type of investments or cash to fall back on, um it's a it's a it's a scary place to live. And I think that part of my thing throughout this was um you know it it I was asked for different things. I kind of evaded a little bit of thing about giving like a a minimum. What what's the minimum we would need because I don't know what the minimum is. It's a gamble of finding out where the minimum is. It depends how much risk do you want to take to know where the minimum is. And so so it's not a and it it I'm the least educated after you know with I have 3

weeks of seniority now and so to say like this should be a comfortable minimum and and then it's if it's wrong it's you know well I Jod said it was okay you know to to be here and I like it's it's almost a part of a responsibility thing because I don't know all of I don't if I was confident in the numbers and and knew the things and knew the future and had all of that stuff and had had confidence in even that stuff. There's still so many moving parts of it. I've updated things, updated things. We um are I received from the county our millage reduction fraction for this year. um it is less than last year. The number that we've been talking about this year is lower, which means that our millage rate drops more than what it was. Our historical trends that we put in those, we used the number that we had yesterday. So those decrease now and like those numbers are constantly changing until you're set into a budget. So even when you have all of that comfort that's I'm not going to find out about something else tomorrow that is like oh we're guess we you know that needs to be on the radar too. It's it's still uncomfortable. Thank you. I my point was that there are many checks and balances in the system. We don't always execute all of them very well but this isn't a random um rogue process.

Right. Thank you.

Correct. So, I want to clarify uh something since you're following up on my comments, which was I never once said that we were going to do frivolous spending, right? I never accused the council of needlessly spending either. My point was is that whenever whatever we take to the residents, that will be their opportunity to speak or forever hold their peace because the second we pass that millillage, this council can choose to fund projects that people may or may not agree with. And that was the point. It was not to say that anybody's going to act nefariously, right? It was simply to point out that again, we have to put ourselves into the perspective of constituents. Um the other thing too is again uh I don't think anybody's expect to the point of chuckling about the budget workshop. I completely agree like our greatest financial control which is miserable is the fact that we haven't had money. Like that's the truth of it because just last meeting we hit cut a $4,000 check that we didn't know about. Our check runs is to approve funds we've already paid, right? Like these are a lot of the issues that we will clean up because we have an amazing staff now, right? to start to look at these things. And so um you know when I was so again raising my hand I was trying to educate myself as much as possible on this so that I could come in here and make an informed decision is that when I was requesting a baseline it wasn't through a perspective of I want to fund us at the minimum. It was trying to identify like okay as we start to assign numbers to it like what is our surplus because again it's like from a strategic standpoint whether we apply a 5year or 10 year we can start to pay off and bring these balances up and because again I we may just be going around in circles but it is one of those where it's like we're going to have to land on a number if we do four then by the end of a

10year Here we're looking at again $18 million that is not accounted for in the projections. Understanding that a lot of that needs to go to fund things, right? I don't know. Well, I don't know that 18 million does, but my point is is that it's a year overyear overyear compilation of that four mills or I guess it'd be the 3.5, right? Um and so that's where I go at. I don't want to lose track of and I hear you that I think the most material consideration in the policy of solely funding the police and I think this is really the the main thing is is that if there is an emergency for the village they can take the police funds. If there's an emergency for the police they can take like sorry let me rephrase that. So if there's a police mill yeah it's it's the opposite. So if there's a police millillage, we can't then pull the funds out of the police to fund our emergency.

Correct. The residents will have the police there. Correct. However, if the police with the with or without the millillage get an emergency, they can still pull in the general fund to keep the police there for the residents. Okay. if there was so what if the emergency comes in and the emergency says we need more money than was left for the police and you take the police's money away at that point. Dan is saying was his biggest fear is you get to the end of the year and you find out that you

need more money for something else and you didn't have it available in a police millillage and you can only go to the general fund and now I have to make a decision. Do I use it to continue funding the police for the rest of the year or satisfy the emergency? Yeah, that's what I was saying, right? That's not a great decision. It's not a great decision. Well, if we have I mean, maybe I I get the concern about it, but to the tune of a potential $18 million, where's $18 million coming from? I'm just curious what that Yeah, if you go to the last sheet that has the projections of the four mills at assuming that the full three and a half and full four would be levied every year. Correct. Well, we

every year, right? That was that the intention was what? Right. But I think that the the discussions were um that it would be which it is already decided annually how much of every millillage is levied and every year we do another check. We don't need and every year has been the maximum because the maximum has barely been enough. It has to be the maximum. never let the millillage cuz we have like $600,000 in the rubbish fund and we've never like gone down.

So we I'm just letting you know just I don't know if you watched the last budget meeting but we never were like now we're going to set the millages. It was just like now we approve.

Do you know why that it's because your charter actually says that your um your budgeted amount in your first budget process your um your revenues have to be greater than the appropriation. the appropriations can't be more. So you can't spend a full fund balance in a year. You still have to pull from that millillage to levy the enough to be able to operate and create a budget for that. Then a week later, well up to a week, at least a week later, however it says the charter is kind of odd with it, then you can amend that resolution to add other things. But your operating budget has to be able to be funded by revenues coming into it, not by the fund balance that's there. So it can't be spent. So it is reduced every year. Um it's not levied at the full amount, but you have to pull enough to be able to run the operations of it.

So that's why we don't have like two separate processes. Well, that's what I'm saying. I think that it hasn't I think it hasn't been understood of how the process works. And I was wrong last week um kind of that saying that it's it's okay to budget. It's not illegal to budget appropriations greater than the revenue. That's how you spend the fund balance. And um according to the laws, that's accurate. But according to the the Franklin charter, that's

can be accurate, but it's a two-step process. The initial the initial budget has to be presented balanced as the the minimum operating part of it has to be balanced. any of the other stuff, any other projects have to be an amended resolution to that to add to it. And then you can move money around or whatever from that point. Yeah. Thank you for looking into the charter. I'm going through like I said, I can only learn learn eight hours in a day. Jeff, do you have anything?

I guess the way Jody, you're kind of describing this is it's like a riskmanagement exercise. Yes, sorry.

Everyone up here, I think, agrees that we should fund the police and we want to have a staff and we want the staff to feel supported and we want the staff to feel like they're not just banging their heads. Wow, I have no money, so why why am I sitting here? Because there's nothing else to do other than just say like, okay, that's what we got. And try and claw a little bit here and there, right? The risk management comes from if you have fully, you know, you put this number over here for however many years, then all the all the exercise has to be on, okay, how much do we need in the general fund to run our business? And do we want to run that way or do we want to have like, oh, here's a little bit more risk. We we definitely, you know, the people up here think that the police should be funded and it's just like a little bit of accounting. Which way should it go? And then from there, you kind of have like I guess the way I've been thinking about it is if we have two sets of money, it's going to be very laser focused on priorities. We'll have the budget workshop and there will be a forcing function to say like, hey, okay, there's $2 million. The police, we didn't give them the full amount. We need to give them that amount and then we also need to think and I understand it creates uncertainty but I think to some level I think we can understand like a million to a million.5 that's the entire general fund historically right so like

I guess am I are there acts of god that I'm not considering that really put it at risk at those levels I I don't know h it's any act at this point when you when you I mean you personally if how would you feel right now with your would you could could you feel comfortable cancelelling your homeowners insurance, your car insurance, all of that if you had zero dollars in the bank right now? Yeah. Okay.

How comfortable would you feel with with how much? And then how much money do you need to make next year? Are you going to budget it out at exactly what all of your bills are and be like, "Yep, that's enough." It's that kind of it's it's it's the same thing in a in a larger scale. you you we don't have something to just dip back into. Y I guess you almost looked like you were going to talk.

No, cuz I get I definitely hear what you're saying. I think the thing that I struggle with is we're not landing at the four for any other reason than that that's the projection of a tenure from the police. Right. So, as we start to talk about the balanced budget, it's really kind of this weird dovetail between yes, we need funds, but our mechanism by doing it is by completely pulling out the police millage. And it's like that's where I guess I struggle is I think there's a number there that doesn't have to be a full four where we're looking at 15 million of just now that we're we don't know what we're doing. We don't know what we're going to do with it.

Well, it's really important though that you recognize that this community is behind right now. Yeah. Most communities like you've named Bloomfield and Birmingham, I'm sure they have millions of dollars invested and they are taking advantage of their investment income every month. We have zero. We have zero dollars in commercial districts. The B Bloomfield Township has a $5 billion taxable value. we have you're not focusing on the other number which is bigger than us like we're cherrypicking communities to be like look at how luxurious they are but the answer is zero but so that's anyways

so so let me ask a let me because at the end of the day what I'm hearing from those who are not supporting having available

the full amount is a some level of distrust in whether it's your ability or your successor's ability to not just do what's right and become spend thrifts. In any of these scenarios, we will now have enough money to pay for everything. Under the four mill scenario, you keep talking as if in the first year we're going to draw the full four mills. We don't need well, first of all, it never gets to four mills. By the time it gets to the seventh or eth or nth year when we need it, it's already down to 3.8 8 mills. But there's this presumption that because it's available, it's then going to be assessed and it's then going to be spent. All that means is it's available. And by having four mills all alone for police and still three and a half for the general fund, we now have more money available. And our residents have to trust us that we're going to do the right thing. Everything I hear everyone saying has this underlying presumption that we're not going to do that. And for the last 30 years, we have operated on budgets and drawn taxable amounts that barely get us by. That is why we do not have surpluses. That's why we do not have investments because we our predecessors have always made it to just be enough. I as president in my term want to try and set us up for a future wherein we now have a future and we have available money and our residents will trust us to do the right thing and if we become spend thrifts and we buy luxury cars then vote those people out sell the cars and do the right thing. So this whole underlying presumption that there's it's going to be wasted is what I'm struggling with. All what we're asking for is to make sure we have

enough available to be able to do whatever it is we want moving forward, which is what people who live in Franklin, Michigan should be able to expect. And if we're going to live in a community where we have to worry about the le whether we're going to tax our residents an extra $10 more in that year, then I I'm not even sure what we're doing up here. Let's do exactly what you said. Let's tell us what the budget is. Let's draw enough money to do that and let's work. We'll just keep kicking the can down the road every year. We'll just we'll just keep kicking it. But that's what we've done, David. I know. That's what I'm trying to avoid, you know. No, I'm saying my point is like we're here and my distrust is we're having this conversation now. Everything has gotten us to this point of existential crisis.

Show me one thing where we're wasting money. Pardon my distrust for we're here. We are having to make an existential decision because we've never drawn enough money over the years before. It's been mismanaged. No, we have never had enough. You're making a presumption that it's been mismanaged. I'm making a presumption that we've never had enough because our predecessors chose to not draw more when they could have to create

a balance. I think that one thing to to note is that we're also discussing it as a 3.5 charter levy which as just a couple how many years ago was it that it was 2.5 um before the Headley override maybe 2.59 or something but that was at 2.5. It it wasn't 3.5 and in another 15 years it will probably be back towards 2.5. Like that's what happens. It's not going to just stay there um you know forever and and a millage will know

and a millage has and that's that's kind of the point of renewals and votes of if it's being mismanaged it's going to it would be a one and done. I mean that's the accountability is from from I'm sure that the taxpayers will be voting. I agree. Um to Goldberg's President Goldberg's point, if me, you, and Abby all vote not to draw down the full amount because we're the only ones that are sure to sit here in November, the four new council members that are on here could outvote us and they could draw down the four new just like I sit here today and the four of you are going to vote us. So, what's the what's the difference? Because you said it's the same. You just said have trust in us.

It's going to be on the other side of the equation. You're not going to like it. have trust in us, but it's not going to be us. This money is not coming in until August of 2027 in general. Correct. That's what you get elected to do. The people choose you to go and sit in theirstead and make the decisions for them that they feel you would do in their best interest. Exactly. So, we're all policy makers. So, I'm hoping that the next four people will also get elected on that. It's just hope. And what we're focused on is risk management and where can we balance that risk and but what happens if they're all good people and we've now hamstring them again in four or five years.

We're putting enough money in both funding sources not to to fund the police projected amount at the full amount any significant No real quick though David. How do you how do you mean barely? We haven't set a number. Nobody's thrown out a number.

I I understand that. Well, no, because you're using very extreme terms. Like previously, you were saying you were making an assumption that we're just going to scrape by as we always have. Every one of us is at the table saying we know we need to increase the we need to increase taxes. That is without question. We don't need to lose sight of that. Have previous administrations mismanaged the funds? The answer is absolutely yes because they never went to the taxpayers to increase the taxes which is the conversation that we're having today. So like did they go out and nefariously spend? No. Did they do the prudent thing of raising taxes? No. And that is financial mismanagement. So that is again my point is like I understand that we have several needs for funding and that's where my question keeps coming. The only reason we arrived at four is not off of a calculation of what do we actually need for a healthy balance. It was pull the police out to give them their own fund. I completely understand what you're saying regarding the fact that you're saying there is clearly inherent mistrust to say that whoever comes in is going to draw down and spend frivolously. I personally don't think that anybody's going to spread spend frivolously, but when I look at projections, I want to make the assumption that the full amount is being drawn down because again, from a policy standpoint, the one opportunity to speak is when they go to the polls for the next 10 years. Dan.

Yeah. So, it was late at the end of the last meeting and I felt a bit awkward and rushed honestly when I made the motion when I did. And sorry if others weren't ready for the motion last time. And I'm glad that we've taken a pause and taken more time to think about this and continued the discussion. And I know I didn't get to say everything that was on my mind last time either. And first of all, raising taxes is definitely not something I take lightly. I absolutely respect the hesitation of other council members here and I think this is a good healthy discussion that we're having. Um but of course we're we're not raising taxes just to raise taxes. We're raising taxes because at current funding levels we cannot continue to afford our police department. It is not sustainable. And there is nothing more important than our safety. One of my favorite things about living in Franklin is our community events. And we can't enjoy our events if we don't feel safe. Um, when I bought my home here in Franklin, I looked up crime statistics and compared Franklin to other neighboring communities. Maybe some other people did that, too. And on the particular map I was looking at, we green represented the safest areas. And and we were this nice, healthy chunk of green. and and not all the surrounding communities are. Um, and that was something that was really important to me. And I think the the loss of our our police department would be a terrible thing for Franklin. I think it would be a very unpopular thing. Um, I'm concerned that that would make us a target for crime if we were to have to glob on to a to a neighbor to uh sustain a police force here. And relatedly, not as important as our safety, but something that I think is also important to a lot of residents are our property values and and our property values are

also um boosted by our excellent police department here. Um and so I I I've been listening to the conversation. I understand the concern that that some have have expressed here. Ultimately though, I think we need to have some amount of trust in ourselves and in future council members. Um they're going to be elected by the people and they're accountable to the people and council members have to be trusted to make all kinds of important decisions on behalf of the village and to set them up so that the police department is not on a sustainable path because we might disagree with how unknown future council members um who who of course are going to be chosen by the people in the first place. Let's not forget that. Um, but because we don't know what future council members may or might may not do with village funds, that just doesn't make sense to me that we set the police department up on a path that that isn't sustainable. And this police mill, this is a big ask of our neighbors. And if we don't levy enough now, I'm very concerned about going back in the future and asking a second time when we figure out what we actually need. Um, and I think we know already what we're going to actually need. It's not even a matter of figuring it out. Like we already know that if if we're asking for less than four, we're not asking for enough for this to have a sustainable future for the police department. And I'm very concerned about asking once this year and then in three or five years having to come back and ask again. I think it's human nature that some people will say, you know, they might vote yes the first time, but you come back in a few years and you're and you're asking again and and people are going to be like, "Wait a minute. I just wrote you a check for this. Why why are you asking me again?" And um I'm afraid that we could set up a

future council for a situation where they're not going to have enough funds to sustain our police department in its current form unless we get it right the first time. Um, so I think the more prudent course is to protect our police department and make sure we have enough with the millillage now to sustain it into the future to um defer to the excellent work of our our staff. And I I'm also concerned about this unfunded pension liability. Uh that's something of a ticking time bomb and I think we need to be working on that every year and not just putting that off. And ultimately in closing, this isn't our decision. It's up to the residents and they have the right to vote it down. If we put up four mills and they vote it down, that's absolutely our our neighbors decision. I would respect their decision. But I think we should give the villagers the option

to fully fund their police department with this millillage in August if that is what they choose to do. And if they don't, then we can take their feedback to heart and we can come back to them in November with a lesser amount. But I think we should give them that choice in the first place. And so for all these reasons, I think we should approve putting the language on the ballot to fully fund the police department at the four mills.

Thank you. All right. So, at this point, uh, let's there's been a motion. Dan, if you're willing to again make your motion to have the millillage be set and we'll deal with millillage language uh secondarily, but if the motion is still on the table to set the millillage for the police at a max of up to four years over a 10-year period. Yeah, up to four mills over a 10-year period. That's so your motion. Yes, sir. All right, I'll still second that.

So, let's just do a roll call vote on that right now. If that fails, then we know we're working in one of the hybrid arenas. And I will leave it to the floor for you guys to tell us what you believe is the appropriate hybrid. So, Chief, if you could do a roll call vote. Yes, sir. Trusty King, no. Trustee Salaka, no. Trusty Hansen, yes. Trusty Ferris, yes. Trusty Gates, no. Trusty Sally, no. President Goldberg. Yes.

Okay. So guys, tell us what it's going to be because I'm I'm I'm I'm done talking. Tell us what the amount's going to be. You for know what it's going to be. Tell us what it's going to be. Let's call make the motion and let's move on. So I'm going back over these priorities that we just set like 60 days ago. Yeah. Before you go, I just want to clarify something that what you just said inferred that four members of council came in with an opinion. Came in and essentially decided on what number we want.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying tell us what number you want. Whoever's going to make the motion make the motion. Tell us what it is. If someone supports it, supports it. And then we'll have a vote on it. But do we need to keep talking about like what what's best? Are we going to use two and a half? Are we going to use 1.75? What is the what is the one that you feel creates the least amount of spend thrift ability so that we can still run our police department, run our village, and not be in a deficit? Isn't that our job though? Yeah. Tell tell me what it is. I mean, isn't it our job to discuss and Yeah. discuss it and tell us what it is. We need to start with Yeah. We got to start somewhere. We got to start somewhere. discuss without emotion.

You're right. We can we can keep discussing and discussing what is it that needs discuss. I'm just saying that we spent like I think now 10 months and at least 3 hours of multiple council meetings discussing blight ordinances and we haven't even seen proposed language. And the first time police millillage came on the agenda was at the March council meeting. first time for any council in the last five years. It's never been discussed publicly. So like, forgive us if we just want to have a discussion on something that could potentially raise residents taxes 45%. Okay, continue the discussion. Why% part of the discussion?

So, I'm going back to the priorities we set because that's a framework that we just did 60 days ago. Not one of us put funding police pension on here. So if that's a new priority, we didn't think about it 60 days ago. So So I'm just saying that's an example of like things we could spend money on that we didn't previously say. So that just supports like we don't know what future councils are going to want to spend money on. I personally think it's important to at least be 70% funded in the pension. That was what we were told was the best practice. But all of us kind of forgot about that and we had like two months to do this including you. If

you think about the methodology that we used that document is a compilation that was done by combining individual input that was done by Evan. I do remember Can you find it cuz I have yours right here. Well I I I thought I did. No, you didn't. I did some other long range. I did waste water. What's the relevance? The relevance is that people's priorities can change.

Priorities change, needs change, money's changed. As a council, I personally like to have the most amount available so that we can serve our residents. And if our residents are supportive of making that available to us, great. As Dan said, if we take four to them and they say that's crazy, that's way too much money to have, then we know that's not going to work. But you're making presumptions for This goes back to what Trusty Sally said last about how like when someone has a different opinion, they become a them and they become a us and they become a villain. Like it's it's just not appropriate to gaslight policy makers like that. We are having hard conversations because they've never happened. So just because someone disagrees with you or brings up priorities we set 60 days ago and identifies that they've changed already and we're the same people we were here and our financial situation is the same thing it was 60 days ago. Doesn't mean you're my enemy or I'm not your friend. Like it's ridiculous. We all said we want to fully fund the police department and there's three ways to get there and we would be the only village to have a single source funding of a millillage. So,

Beverly Hills doesn't what? Beverly Hills doesn't have a public safety mill that covers police and fire. Still same thing. Dedicated funds for specific purpose, but whatever. So, and we were told continue your discussion. We were told that that model is actually continue your discussion last meeting. Tell me when you're ready to make a vote. Okay. So, and you you closed our discussion on this topic in the March meeting and your council had to override you because it's important to talk about this, but I'm done cuz you don't want to talk about it. I didn't know this was a meeting to talk about budget priorities. Is that what we're doing? If we're revisiting budget priorities, fine. We're trying to set a millage for police millage. I don't care because we we know we're going to

close the vote on whether we're going to use the maximum amount. Now, I said tell us what you feel. Is that the only option, David? It's not the only option. I'm asking you now to tell us about the highlight. We all showed up today to set a millillage. We didn't have to. We could have come back in May and we could have voted on a millage that would have gone on the November ballot. So, we're here for you. For me, we because you want this to be on the August ballot. And so, we are supporting you in that initiative. And if you didn't want, our administration doesn't want it on the August ballot either to see if we could get it through. And if it doesn't work to take a shot in November, you want to wait until November to find out whether it's going to work and then have to wait again.

Be aware that there's only a 20 to 30% voter turnout in August. Okay. The right people might come. That's unproductive. I'm just saying. Can we get back on track? We're here for you. Why are you looking at me while you're saying that, Pam? Me get back. Okay, you guys are here for me. I appreciate you being here for me. We talked about this in Jam. I'm calling the question.

I could have called the vote last meeting, but I didn't. I specifically said we'll come back so that you could think more and have more research and vet it out more and have all the dialogue we're having today. We went back to the beginning. I said can we try the four mills? It failed. Now all I'm saying is tell us where you want to go next. If we have to come out of here with something, what is what is the suggestion? Is there not another suggestion? And

my suggestion is going to be making a motion at 2.5. I think that is going to be what be I have six available. We've never had six available. I think that's plenty to run the village. I think that's going to give us plenty of runway to plan. You don't think so? I said earlier in my email to you guys when you asked me like that the the minimum to survive the next 10 year that the minimum combined millage to survive the next 10 years was six minimum

five years then then you're going to have to make it even higher the next time or the next board will will you trust them that they'll be stewards and go and ask the tough questions for a millillage. I mean, it's kind of like reversal the same way, but but it so if you this curve kind of goes like this on the the sheet for so if you get to five now you you stopped at five right before it starts going be before it decreases. So that means if you stop at five then five years you'll need seven. It's so I'll second trusty king's motion. Okay,

we a motion to second further discussion. Yeah. Um Jody, if you could stay up because to be honest, I shouldn't. I'm not supposed to. I think when there's a motion from the floor, but Oh, sorry. I thought we were in discussion. I haven't made up. No, there's a disc. We're in discussion. So, if someone has questions, you can stay up there. Yeah. Okay. Oh, maybe it wasn't. Yeah. No, I And again, the opinion that I care most about is yours and Rachel's, right? like I I am here today not of anybody else's opinion.

I have what I'm trying to work through and I'm trying to educate myself. And so when we talk about like projections of planning to me I feel more comfortable with the 5-year because I think that there's been the terminology kick the can down the road. The answer is is that the most problematic thing about this entire thing is our is our charter having a 3.5 limit. And so that's how you stop kicking the can down the road. So I think inevitably eventually a council will have to vote on this. What I think you've been put into uh an bit of an impossible situation is the short runway that you've had. You you've said it. There's a ton of unknowns that you're just not aware of. And so for me, as I look at like locking in on a 10-year with those unknowns compared to a five-year where we can start to really know what we're dealing with um and have 5 years to start to build that narrative out to residents of like here's truly how we're spending the funds and here's what's left over. You know, like this is really what we have to to use out for priorities. I'll just broadly say for priorities. um I think is helpful. So is there any major objection with five compared to 10 from I not objection because I would imagine you'd be like it's ultimately you all as policy but what are the what are your concerns with 5 years over 10.

I don't have a concern. It's not a matter of duration of five or 10 but I'm saying that if a if a minimum to to survive 10 is six. Yeah. Then that makes it the minimum at the beginning if it's the minimum overall. Meaning that total number has to be six or the police mill has to be six. The total number. So a total combined. Yeah. A 4 mil 10-year millage is the same as a 2.5 mil. I mean but it it gets the six mills like it fully funds your projected police budget. Not alone. That chief did. Yeah, but we're working on the hybrid model because we just

right the single source model failed fully funds. Yeah. operational when going through budgets of of needs and how much requirements that was not a surplus

and and when I the first week before our meeting last week um Rick David came in to meet with me once I came up with some information to talk about and to see what I came up with and he told me that what he came up with as a minimum was combined with that would be half needed is six mills which was the same exact number that I came up with. Yeah. And we're still talking minimum. So So can we can we do that? Will we survive on that?

Yes. Is it g you know can we pay towards other obligations? Maybe not. Maybe it those things. There's your risk. Depends on what really happens. Yeah. It's it's guessing and hypothetical right now. So if things happen like oh we got this. Oh we got this. Oh look we have we found there's a grant here. We got this. Like we can try to do all of those things, but if it No, sorry. I was saying that's keeping everything equal. Sorry. Every time. Yeah. That's without cutting anything like without changing um it's an unknown for her. She hasn't had enough time to be fairly answer that.

Yeah. Without cutting what what would what could be cut? Do you like without getting rid of plant moran without We already have. Okay. Okay. Well, in the projected budget that you gave us last week, it still had 100,000 in there for plantar. So, that's what I just used that because I figured let's have 100,000. Well, we told you when we gave you that budget that we were doing it because it is state law that we do that and that that is not in any way any kind of a final budget

in in the numbers that I provided you with today does not include anything to plant or the only outside service that it includes is our ADP payroll processing fees which are um this year so far we've spent $8,000 on. I would love to do that for not an additional cost. However, we would need the software to do it. Yeah.

And we're pretty far away from being able to have the software. We have BSNA. We have the .NET software. It's obsolete. You can't add modules anymore to it. Everyone is being um upgrading to the cloud. Their new um reps that are coming in are their new IT. They're only being trained in cloud services and within the within the next they've been saying for a couple years that within the next couple few years it's going to be stopped completely where it can't be used anymore. And I actually have an appointment tomorrow with the um rep from BSNA to find out how much the cloud costs for here to convert to the cloud. Um, and this is it is based on size and um, funding, the amount of there's a lot of factors in basing the cloud price, but I do know that the last place that I got a quote for for the cloud was over $100,000 to implement. And um, you know, so we can't even save money because we don't have the money to be where we need to be.

No. And that's super helpful, but I think it's so good for our residents to hear that because we need to raise taxes, not to fund the police, to fund everything else that we are lacking in our operating expenses. And so that's all that we want to be transparent about. We're move the the proposal is moving all this money to the police so we can have more money for operating expenses. And unless we come clean on that, it is not a fair vote. So that's why we're saying the hybrid is more transparent because it shows like hey we need more money in both funds.

But I'm going to withdraw my motion for a moment because I want to ask one more question if that's okay of Jody. So the sixth assumption is basically like you you do not believe that there is any wiggle room to have a budget workshop and talk about priorities. Is that accurate? It's it's about necessities and what's more important than something else. That is I I I do feel like that's where we're at. All right.

Um I think that I mean if you want full transparency I think that there's a risk of receiverhip happening right now. Um, I think that fund balances are projected to be nothing at the end of the year with some fund balances projected to be negatives. And um, I think that coming out of that looking at what's the least amount isn't again I'm the finance person, not the policy center, but that is that that to me that's crazy. Yeah. Like to

feel like that. It's like, wow, we won't ever catch up if that's where we are. It's it's to be able to even be in a position to have conversations about wants, you know, for for when residents come in and ask about certain things and it's like, well, that's not going to happen, you know. Um, you know, and everybody applauded and praised the chief and I completely second that. But but to know that he's like also the handyman and spider killer in the thing because we don't have all of these other things either. I guarantee you if you go in my office right now, you there's no trespassers. He they're eliminated on a daily basis. Pest control would probably be more prudent. I'm sure there's better things he could be doing, but but thankfully he is available and kind and at no extra cost to come and do those kinds of things. like things are really being like people people are working multiple things and they're like things are very stretched and and um you know I say that as an as an outsider

inside because I'm just just because I don't have the historical past here. I don't have anything to do with anything that's happened like I I'm an outsider in in that perspective and that that's how I see it. Um, so let me ask this question before I make a motion. Um, so based off of the police's projections, and again we landed on four over 10 years. If we go five and did 3.3, that would still pull them completely out based off of the projections. Does that put us in a good position?

If you did what? So the police so in the police's projections the way we landed on four was not that it immediately needed four. It was a progression up to four. And so what the goal of what we were trying to do is pull the police out of the mil out of the general fund. Um but if we take it to 10 years that's four. If we take it to uh if we take it to five years, then we can fully pull the police off based off of chief is chief's projections at 3.3 mills. So we'd be going back to the single source model. It would be a single source model, but just and you guys

I told you that we could like we can function with 25 the same way that we're functioning. I'll make a motion, but I'm saying that it's it's not a good or recommended way. Yeah, I'll make a motion uh to propose a 3.3 mil uh millage rate for 5 years. Second discussion.

Further discussion. would you explain? Um I I sort of saw the 10 years as equaling stability and predictability and I um agree with what Dan Daniel said about, you know, conveying to the voters that we're serious about this and being reluctant to go to go back after five years. Five years will go by really quickly. Um would you tell me what the advantage is of a five-year term instead of a 10-year term from your perspective?

A couple of things is one um hopefully we would plan better right where we had more of a runway because the first time that this was brought up was the March meeting. Um and so if we have a 5year we have a longer runway to say we know that we need to start planning. The other thing and to me the most material thing is Jody just got here and I don't feel and this is my opinion but I feel like we can go through countless examples where we didn't have a true grasp on what we owe, where it's owed, what we're spending on because Jod's uncovering it left and right. Like she can't come into the room and say I know exactly our position and where we're hurting and that's because there was a lack of foundation set. she will be doing that. So, in the next 5 years, it's going to be a more smooth process because Jod's going to know the entire story. We will be able to tell the story to the residents to say that yes, this is the right number. Um, so to me, I think giving the village an opportunity and the staff an opportunity to reset truly is going to be beneficial. And then when I sit here and again, I didn't come in with a position. I came here to get educated. And what I'm hearing is like one group believes that the risk is that funds could be stripped away from the police in an emergency situation. The other risk is we're providing too much uh unallocated as of right now expenses that are available. So by moving to a 5-year along with building up the the our narrative to the our story and our narrative to the consumers um we are also minimizing the total amount that

could be uh potentially drawn like that could go into that unallocated amount right so I think a 3.3 at 5 years achieves the common ground between all of us sitting here which is police are entirely funded on their own through this millillage And yet we're minimizing that overall mills number on our residents. And so uh the other benefit of it is 3.3 is a smaller number to get approved by the residents than a four. David, that's much closer to where I think we're if it's on a on a five-year term because based on the numbers we've been using at 3.3 covers it for definitely for the first couple years and might not require any hybriding at all depending on

3.5 might be totally safer. What was the What's the 3.3 versus 3.5? So that they're both at 3.5. There's some symmetry there. Curious because that's what Oh, was that in a number's projections? Yeah. Okay. Did you So, we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second on that? Yeah, I think we got Oh, Jeff. Yeah, sorry. Jeff seconded that. I apologize. Did Joey have something to say?

It was Yeah, it was just on that one. Um to to clarify the um the of what the mills were needed for the police um it in that last year is 3.4. It's three 3.1 um for this the the first year which will actually not be next year. Um we won't receive a new millage for next year yet. So it will be the a whole another following fiscal year would start at 3.1. It would then go to 3.3 until the last year of the millillage which it would be at 3.4 and that does not account for any overrides.

Yeah. So we could do 3.3 cuz we currently have a.37 ms. No, this replaces we're replacing it. It has to replace it. I think it's cleaner too. Mhm. Okay. If if we pull the whole amount can So is it always up to that amount? It'll be the max.

Okay. But I'm just saying like my position has been certainty. I want to know that I I want residents to be able to calculate this will be the impact to me personally on my tax bill. My issue with go the possibility of going to four is that it's a variable amount. I want people to be able to plan what it is that they can anticipate paying in taxes next year. So if we have if if this gives us a position to say that and gives you enough room to plan and we've got five years to stabilize and it gives us some some extra room. My position is I I want certainty as much certainty as we can give to residents to say this will be the impact for you next year or years following. That's

yeah. So four mills over 10 years is the same. It means that we fully fund the police department out of a police millage and that is restricted and every future council for the next five years can only use that money for the police department. So all the salaries, all the budget increases, the contracts, the you know overhead, the additional the training that fully funds the budget that we have. So I'll amend my motion to 3.4. Second. Any more discussion? For how many years? For five years.

That approach has us revisiting it in 5 years, which I can understand your concerns, particularly that all of our administration is within their first year and will know a lot more about the village in five years. And it does fully fund it. Huh. As much as four does.

No. No. No. No. I understand. I'm saying. So the bigger the So now the the the concern is just having to do it again in 5 years, which is going to be obviously another council's concern. Okay. So we have a motion in a second. Anyone else with discussion? Chief roll call. Trustee King, yes. Trustee Salaka, yes. Trustee Hansen, yes. Trusty Ferris, yes. Trusty Gates, yes. Trustee Sally, yes. President Goldberg, yes. Okay, one one little clarify. We have to adopt a resolution that effectively says the same thing.

Right. Right. So, there's a motion there. It allows the administration to put the number. want you want us to give comments to the ballot language right now as well. Right? If you've reviewed the language, um it's the same language that we had uh 9 days ago. Uh weren't we going to change that? President Goldberg, didn't you ask for the taxable value to be moved up to like 400,000?

I had and that was just a suggestion. X. Honestly, as I've thought about it more, I'm thinking maybe the 100,000 is better cuz it's just so simple and uniform. 400 is like I was just saying could be like the average whereas at 100 anybody could then take the math do the math. So I I I take that back. I think the way that at 100 is better. See it that way. You see 100 cuz people can do easy math. I I do I do I take back that comment. Okay. Um, we had discussed whether we were supposed to keep we wanted to keep in the words and public safety services um or police protection and police. I I just I have this I think we were going to limit it, right?

Yeah. I just have this concern that the term public safety implies more than police. What if we put police protection and and uh operations? Yeah. I don't care. Yeah. I don't care any other changes. I just think the words public safety together police operations. Can we ask the former chief? Yeah. If is public safety too broad a net? Yes. Public safety in our parliament usually means police and fire. I thought Okay. So if we put police protection and operations, does that go just to you? That would work. So it already has but not limited to police operations and personal. We'll just say providing police protection. If you want to say police services or police safety services, say services. We'll just

safety. Yeah. Okay. So, strike strike public safety. Right. Okay. That works. And then is council spelled right? Levied by the village council. No, it's not. No, it's an I. Yeah. And then um so we're saying 4 mills So that 3.711 number has to get fixed to whatever it's roll back whatever it is based on using 3.4 as the basis. Oh yeah cuz we already have police operations in here. Yeah. Okay. Mhm. Recruitment.

So you want to just say police services is that easiest providing police protection and services including but not limited to it. Do you have a copy of this? It's fine. I know. I think so. Yeah. Well, whatever they want. Okay, chief. Sorry. Do you have a copy of this? Is the language to your liking? You look at the Yes, I did see it. My liking. Okay. Do you just one small other thing? Um, so or maybe you already flagged that one when you were talking about village council. So on line three, the last mention of village council is felt like council as in you uh rather than village council. I think we

I think the same one we right

um this is a will this trigger a renegotiation with Bingham Farms? Um I haven't really looked at your contract with them. Um it might but it shouldn't. Yeah, I think they pay a percentage of the budget. It's they're what they pay is based on budget, not what we assess. Okay. I just didn't know if we had to like get consent or anything. Could I ask the jury what your decision was that's going to be on the ballot? Yeah. In order to adopt it, I think we have to read it into the record. We're just making sure there's no like misspellings. And can we circulate this language to residents before the Oh, it definitely will be. Yeah. Okay.

And what are you going to do if it doesn't voted in? come back and do this all over again in November. Maybe November. Yeah, we'll have a small window, but we will have a window. I mean, if the residents want to come and say that this isn't enough, the residents speak. You do not agree. I would hope that they would not say that it's not enough and not vote for it. They would still take it and let us figure it out. If people still think it's too much, that's a that's I could see being that's a different story. But I would hope someone that supports four would still support getting it to 3.3 instead of zero where it's at right now.

But to Nina's point, I believe there's a council meeting between now and the and the time the ballot language is due. So if people do want to speak with it there to it, there's pro there is one day. Grace. Um, right. I'm going to submit push back on that. Yeah, he's going to submit it because it does have to get Yeah, it has to get to the county. It's due the 12th and so you're talking the 11th, right? The 11th. Yeah. I I would strongly recommend. You're not encouraging that. All right. I wouldn't know that. You do need approval from the county. We just got one. It took 3 days. Okay. So give yourself

and this is actually really good because our police contract expires in um December 27. So if we need more money then we know that we need to go back for more money in 5 years right because like a 10-year millage locks us in at a rate. So this actually allows us to contemplate an enhanced police contract. Mhm.

So, you know, if if we end up, you know, being like, "Oh, we need more money for this new police contract that gets us through 2028, we can do that because this is only a 5-year millage." So, I think it's it's great. It takes the certainty and then it fully funds it and then it allows for a future council to um fund a new contract that may be more expensive than the one we have now. So, are we ready to read this? Have we filled out? I don't know. Yeah, I think I started to fill it out. Um I think there's total numbers. You're not We don't even know them yet. So there they have to be recal. Oh, great. I guess we do have numbers. There we go. You want to read it, David? We must have a wonderful staff.

That was quick. Did you just do that? You ready? I'm just curious if uh for some reason this effort were to fail in August. What's the timing to get the language on the ballot? You have about 10 days. 10 days before the election. No, following the failure. Maybe two weeks. It's really a matter of when the ballots are printed and and so the county can fluctuate that a little bit, but it's a pretty quick turnaround. So the election date is August 4th. So 10 days August 14th. Yeah. Some Yeah. Sometime mid mid August, I'm going to say. Yeah.

And either whether it passes in August or passes in November, we would still get the taxes the same time, right? Collections the following what? July. So doing it in August just gives us a buffer. Be careful. You got to look at both. It gives us a second chances. Yeah. So like what do people normally do? Like they if it doesn't pass in August, they like kind of go down a quarter mil or something. Usually. Yeah. Usually that's the approach. There's different numbers obviously higher turnout likely in November so that factors into it but yeah most communities will pull it back a little bit. So hopefully it passes fixed. All right. Right. Yeah.

Okay. So, this is the the proposed Village of Franklin Police Services Village language and then we will have a motion after I read it to approve it as as as read. Shall the village of Franklin be authorized to levy an increase of up to 3.4 mills parenthesis $3.40 40 cents per $1,000 of taxable value on parenthesis on all taxable property within the village for 5 years beginning in 2027 and expiring in 2031 which if fully levied by the village council changing the e to an I would raise up to an estimated 1,675,121 in the first year of the millillage. in the first year of the millillage.

First year of the millillage. Oh yeah, he's missing a of I think it's supposed to be 2032. Sorry. No, I think it is 31. 31 27 28 29 33 in the first. So I think we're missing an up in the first year I think of of the millillage. Yeah. Of

Yeah. First year of the millillage. That's right. for the purpose of providing police protection and services, including but not limited to police operations and personnel costs, recruitment and training, police vehicles and equipment, technology and communications systems, building and facility improvements, capital improvements, and payment of unfunded acred pension liabilities, and other post-employment benefit obligations related to police personnel. And that's a question. Next paragraph. If approved, this new additional millillage would be levied in lie of and in replacement of the village's existing police services mill originally authorized at 3802 mills and currently levied at 3711 mills after reduction as required by the Michigan Constitution. It is estimated that this proposal would result in the authorization to collect approximately 1,675,121 in the first year if approved and levied. For example, a property with a taxable value of $100,000 would be taxed up to $340 annually. If everybody's comfortable with that, we need a motion to approve the resolution to place on the August 4th, 2026 ballot a new police services mill of up to 3.4 mills for a period of 5 years and direct the administration to finalize and certify the resolution consistent with and any minor clarifications or re revisions deemed necessary by the village administrator and attorney. So moved.

I'll second. I think Jeff second. Oh, you did. No, no, this is No, it's fine. Yeah. Yeah, we already Yeah, your motion passed on the amount. Yeah. And then and I seconded David. Yep. We have a motion in a second. Do we have any further comments on this? So that gives us that that money that we normally transfer out to the police that like 1.4 million we won't have to transfer out anymore. No, we still I assume that the village is collecting it. I don't know. It's a budget decision. It's not really material. It requires a lot more discussion than Okay. Yeah. As long as you remember that we have to have that discussion. Any further discussion? Chief, let's do a roll call on this one, too.

Trusty King, yes. Trustee Salaka, yes. Trustee Hansen, yes. Trusty Ferris, yes. Trusty Gates, yes. Trustee Sally, yes. President Goldberg. Yes. All right, guys. Good job. We have come to a good resolution, a fair resolution with that we all compromised on. Um, there's one more agenda item. I think Angelina wanted.

So, our last item is we had discussed it briefly. Uh, we do uh Angelina raised a very good point. is one of the unique situations that we've had here in a while where we had a trustee resign in essentially the first two years of his or her term. Therefore, triggering the the section of the charter that requires the person's seat to be replaced by uh an election at the next available election. So, uh, we had a discussion initially and we're I guess we'll still need a motion to, uh, ask that the the village attorney determine how to how the replacement seat is to be handled at the 2026 election for Trustee Seltzer's former seat.

Didn't we already do that motion? No, we just put it on the agenda. Oh, yeah. You're right. So, now we got to vote on the actual motion itself. If we have if we need any further discussion, otherwise someone just say I I make that motion. Make that motion to have the village attorney prepare that opinion. So, we have a motion by King. Second. Second by Gates. All in favor? I opposed. Okay. Yeah. So, Dan, let us know how Okay.

That needs to be done and if it has to be a unique situation, although it doesn't have we won't have to worry about this until the November election, but it'll be unique for our our residents for the first time to see well maybe not for the first time, but to see two different seats available, a four-year and a two-year term. And that means whoever wants to run has to decide by July whether they're running for a two-year seat or a four-year seat. Right. It typically would just be the remainder of the existing term, not just happening with the same. So, if it's a 2-year seat and there's only one year left of it, you would run for a one year, right? It's a four-year seat and there and in that election there'll be two years. Then it goes back to four. Yeah. Yeah. Then it goes back to four. Yes.

So, you're concerned that it could become a five and two will never happen. Yeah. That's what I was thinking. It wasn't the intent of the drafters and the charter. It was. And you're right. The charter doesn't address the unique situation of how do you handle that election. Yeah. It doesn't change the terms. It just does the remainder of the term and then so like the point is to try to sync it back up. I guess the only other thing would be is you would have the four I guess the only other thing would be and we could make it that way when we the time comes is say it's the four highest winners the high four highest vote getters and the lowest vote getter gets the two-year term. But that would not allow people to know who they were voting. And that's against the charter. Yeah. This has happened before. It has. Oh, yeah.

And we had it where it was for two years and four years. We've had people resign in mid midterm and we filled them. I just don't remember what the process is, which I'm glad to support this, but I this is not unusual. So, Peter prepares an opinion about, you know, it being up or whatever. He did work on it. Just share it with him. first is to concur that we're reading the charter correctly that it does have to be voted on at the next election being that it could be sitting here for two years,

right? And then the question is then how do we effectuate that vote? And do we have to and I I think we all have to and would like to have it clear on the ballot as well as for those applying that you can either apply for the remainder of the 2-year term and have to run again in two years or apply for the the four-year term. That's that's pretty simple. Okay. Um I hate to do this. Is there any way that I can add a council or a uh planning commission has a question that I would like to see clarity on? Yeah, if it's just a liazison issue. Yeah.

Yeah. Um there was a one of the items around the nuisance ordinance was around commercial vehicles and I had raised that there is a discrepancy between how we choose to define a commercial vehicle which is do they have a commercial solicitation on a standard like a standard vehicle compared to something that requires a commercial license. And so again, that's really a policy decision for us rather than for the planning commission. Um, and so I want to be able to collect that feedback to take back further discussion. It's not like a legal definition thing.

Well, I think ultimately no, because legal definition is whatever we choose it to be, right? We're they are creating an ordinance to regulate this. They're commercial plates, but we can still make an ordinance that would describe commercial vehicle to mean a specific thing that we're regulating. I believe there is some language around that in the ordinance. Now, I remember talking to Stuart and his concern was basically discriminating against people who make their money. So, personally, Stuart and I have the same I believe Stuart and I have the same opinion. My opinion is I don't want to inhibit you. You don't have to. I agree with

Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. That was I had raised it because I was like I don't know that I really want to interfere with how somebody makes their living as far as like I I just for me I understand not wanting a commercially licensed vehicle hanging out in somebody's driveway or elsewhere. But to me, somebody who probably drives this vehicle in the dayto-day and it just happens to promote their business, I I personally know where I stand. I I so I wanted to bring it back to the rest of council. So, do you want to go vote on it? Uh, no. There's no vote to be taken. I just want to understand where everybody

I personally agree with you that just because a guy's got a van or or a woman, I want to discriminate in that regard, but somebody has a a truck and it's a a regular vehicle that the average person would drive on a day-to-day basis, but they just happen to have a sticker on it that advertise their business. I don't have a problem with that. And the ordinance seems to have focused on the language on the vehicle as opposed to the size of the vehicle. Now, if that same guy wants to do it in a fullblown FedEx size truck and park that in his driveway and says, "That's what I drive to work every day, right?" That's so maybe it gets tied into size and weight as opposed to just have because they're advertising.

Okay. Comment on that just of my experience with that. So, this has come up several times during my tenure as chief and probably during Curts as well. Where I saw this a lot was with landscaping businesses and snow plows in particular. Got a number of complaints from residents about uh individual people that ran snowplow businesses that would park their plows, have their have their entire staff park their plows in their driveway overnight during the winter. And so therefore, it looked like a giant parking lot of commercial vehicles parked out there. And so that's where I think a lot of this might be coming from is from those residents that live near that and have to look at it every day. So I just wanted to private citizen Roberts, are you going to come to more of our council meetings?

I will if you need me to if it's within my golf game. I think that was an issue there. We've got a couple of people who do that and that's caused consternation in their neighborhoods. That was some pressure on the other end of that. Got it. Yeah. So I think taking this away some things to evaluate is maybe restricting the number of vehicles to address that concern as well as the size. So I agree with that. Okay. Great. Um can I make one more comment?

I I feel it important. Um so just as a village as a member of the village council, I want to recognize April is autism awareness month. This is a time to increase understanding, celebrate the strengths and contributions of individuals on the autism spectrum, and reaffirm our commitment to building a more inclusive and supportive community for all. By working together with compassion and respect, we can ensure that every resident feels value, heard, empowered to thrive. Um it I just wanted to take the opportunity uh to make that statement because I know the last time that we had met during April, I think we were all exhausted by the end of it. It was a very long meeting. Um, and so, uh, wanted to make sure that we highlight the fact that it is autism awareness month.

Thank you for that, David. Appreciate that.

Can I say one more thing, too? I think if we are going to have four council seats up for election, our sign ordinance only permits three C three signs. And so, we might want to look into updating that number. So that way, I mean, I have four kids, so I can't even put a sign for each of my kid on my lawn, but I think that needs to be looked at because I know that it really only gets enforced during election season. Um, and if residents are voting for four council members, I see it a line that they're allowed to have four signs on their lawn.

Okay. Why don't we bring it to legal committee? Yeah. Is that legal or is it planning? Just as far as an agenda item. Oh yeah, just put it on an agenda item. You You're probably going to want me to look at I'm not How long has this ordinance been around? Oh, well, it got updated because the Supreme Court decision about content. Okay. As long as it's been updated. Yeah. Yeah. We're total uh non-content based. We're in line with SCOTUS, but we're not uh we're still at three. All right. So, it's just a policy to say, right? The three was theoretically an arbitrary number. Well, it's three unless you live on a corner and then it's four. So, it's like if you have a big lot, you can support four people. If you have a smaller lot, you can only support three. That's the issue. Yeah.

But again, it's you know the that I I was on planning when that was vetted out that the number was probably 3 months discussion to settle on that if not more start now if not more just to come to the number. So that's fine. It can certainly be revisited. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else? Motion to adjurnn. A second. All in favor? IO Thank you.