Boma - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to call the Board of Mayor and Alderman meeting for June the 9th, 2026 to order. We're going to call the roll. Alderman Barnhill. Here. Alderman Blanton. Here. Alderman Caesar. Here. Alderman Peterson.

Here.

Alderman Berger.

Present.

Alderman Brown, he's somewhere. Here he is. Alderman Potts. And Vice Mayor Baggett. President Mayer is here. Okay, we're going to begin with the invocation by Alderman Barnhill. Then I'll lead the Pledge of Allegiance. So please stand. Alderman Barnhill.

Would you bow, please? Heavenly Father, we come to you tonight in prayer. Thank you for this opportunity, and we know that it is a freedom that we have. We give you thanks for this freedom of being able to meet, being able to discuss issues. We know that there are many places in this world where this type of assembly is not allowed. We also ask that you be with our world leaders, with our local leaders, We know that there are many issues coming up and there are many issues that we need to settle. We ask that you be with each of us, the alderman, as we make decisions tonight and as we go forward with those decisions. Give us spiritual wisdom and guidance. In Christ's name we pray. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance.

under God and indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Be seated. Tonight we do have a proclamation concerning Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month. I'm not sure if we have anybody here tonight to receive that, but in the past we've had Laura Musgrave, who's been a big advocate for Alzheimer's research. She's recently had some illness and also moved from the area, but I know this would touch her to know that we continue to promote alzheimer's and brain awareness so whereas alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative brain disorder tragically robs individuals of their memories and leads to progressive mental and physical impairments and whereas there are no known treatments to prevent or cure alzheimer's an estimated 74 million people age 65 and over are living with alzheimer's and whereas alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the united states And whereas according to the Alzheimer's Association 2026 Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures, the cost of caring for those living with Alzheimer's were reported to be $446.3 billion in 2025, nearly 13 million caregivers providing unpaid care. And whereas in Tennessee, nearly 393,000 family members and friends care for people living with Alzheimer's and other dementias, providing 686 million hours of unpaid care valued at $13.1 million. It is the fifth leading cause of death in Williamson County, whereas in recognition of the individuals, family, friends, and caregivers dealing with Alzheimer's disease and the researchers who are seeking a cure, and whereas the city of Franklin recognizing the efforts of Alzheimer's Association in accelerating global research, driving risk reduction and early detection, and maximizing quality care and support. Now, therefore, I, Dr. Ken Moore, Mayor of the City of Franklin, proclaim the month of June 2026 as Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month. Next are citizen comments for items not on the agenda. I have no speaker cards, so we'll go straight on to the consent agenda. And tonight we're considering item number 21. Consider a motion. Second. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We will now go to setting the agenda. Is there any changes that need to be considered on the agenda? If not, I'll entertain a motion to set the agenda as published.

So moved. Second.

Appropriate motion by Alderman Burger, seconded by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Blanton? Yes. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Burger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. Passes unanimously. I do know we have a county commissioner tonight who plans to speak, and we recognize Greg Lawrence. And are there any other miscellaneous reports?

Mr. Mayor, I have three miscellaneous items I want to touch on real quick. First of all, just to give people a reminder, we're doing a downtown parking plan and study, and there's a survey that's part of that. So we'd love to have people take that, give us their feedback as we look at the best way to Utilize and serve parking needs in our very vibrant, active downtown. Just go to our website, franklintn.gov, and be part of that survey and also see the other information that's available about that work. So check that out. A week from Friday will be the Juneteenth celebration. It will be in Bicentennial Park this year. We're excited to host it in that facility. It'll be at 11 a.m. on Friday, June 19th, and the African American Heritage Society of Williamson County is the lead sponsor on that. and should be a great event. And then finally, I want to recognize our team. Last week we received a recognition from the Tennessean as a top workplace in Middle Tennessee. There are over 2,900 eligible employers. We are one of 101 recognized and one of 45 in the large employer category. There are only two local governments we know of in the state of Tennessee that have received this We're the top ranked of those two. But it's an important recognition. We don't do it for the award. We do it as a way to reach our team members and make sure we're serving and supporting them as best we can. Because our philosophy is the better we serve and support our team, the better they serve and support the community. And we think this is a great way to do it. We had over 90% of our employees participate in our employee engagement survey, give us feedback. track our progress and how we're doing. One of the interesting pieces of information shared when this award was given last week was a long-term tracking of top workplaces across the country, those that receive this type of award. It's in the private sector, but when you look at them compared to the S&P 500, they perform over the last 14 years 70 percent better than that benchmark. So top workplaces translates into high performance and delivery. And that's what we want to do, and that's why we do it, because we want to be focused on building a strong, healthy culture that supports a high-performing organization. So share that with you. I want to congratulate our team. Join me in.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any other reports?

Alderman Cesar. I just had a question as we talk about things like Juneteenth and we talk about the upcoming July 4th event. I don't know how many, we'll have one more meeting prior to that. But I'm also curious because I've been approached by numerous citizens about what other than the July 4th enhanced firework experience our city is organizing for the 250th anniversary of our country's founding. So I know that I've spoken with Monique and Communications Department and I would ask just to ask Eric to make sure that as we're thinking about comms going out, Let's make sure that we're communicating that clearly to the city because there's people out there that I think are hungry for an opportunity to celebrate.

Sure, yeah. We have done a number of them throughout the year, throughout the earlier part of this year. There is a website from the CDB that is collecting all those events, not just City of Franklin events, but in the broader community. So you can go to Visit Franklin's website, and there's a dedicated page on the 250th that talks about local events that help highlight it. But we've done a lot of things. Some of them have already passed, like we had our first drone show as part of Touch a Truck. That was dedicated specifically to the 250th. Some of the displays relate to that. You referenced it already. We'll have Franklin on the 4th, as we always do. But this will be the largest and longest fireworks that we've ever had that evening. So both the length of it, but also larger shells throughout the display. So folks can really make the most of that event. But there are several. We've done a number throughout the year. Franklin tomorrow is working with us on the mosaic that will be a dedication around the 250th. And folks have been able to paint those individual tiles. Contact Franklin tomorrow. They still may have a few. I know I did a few myself over the weekend a couple weeks ago. So that's a great thing that individually people can tie into and have a piece of that part of our history.

Thank you. Thanks. Okay, we're now going to go to... Approval of the minutes. This is the work session of May 26, 2026, and the Board of Mayor and Alderman meeting is the same day. Thank you, Alderman Peterson. Second. Second by Alderman Barnhill. Any discussion? Any additions? Seeing none, ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Bagley. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number five. This is a public hearing. Consideration ordinance 2026-06. An ordinance to rezone 204.34 acres from Plan PD 1.26 district to Plan PD 1.27 district and to rezone .55 acres from Plan PD 1.26 to residential R1 district for the property located south of Murfreesboro Road and east of South Carruthers Road, including the property located at 1005 Copley Road, Coletta Park PUD subdivision.

Thank you.

With some public hearing. Hang on just a second.

I should have looked up.

Arielle?

Thank you. The property is located south of Murfreesboro Road and east of South Carothers Road. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the 204.34 acre Coletta Park PUD subdivision from planned PD 1.26 district to planned PD 1.27 district and a rezoning of the 0.55 acre parcel being removed from the Coletta Park PUD subdivision from sorry, to residential one R1 district. This rezoning is associated with revision two of the Coletta Park PUD subdivision development plan, resolution 202625. Envision Franklin recommends the single family residential design concept for the majority of the project including the 0.55 acre parcel requested R1 zoning and a smaller portion of the existing development plan recommends the mixed residential design concept. Envision Franklin's single family residential design concept states that the single family residential design concept consists of single family residential neighborhoods which provide a range of single family dwellings and lot sizes. The plan, as approved, incorporates the recommendations and guiding principles of the single-family residential design concept by providing different lot sizes within the plan to provide the range of single-family homes as suggested within the Envision Franklin plan. Part of the development lies within the mixed residential design concept, which states that the mixed residential design concept contains residential neighborhoods with a combination of single-family dwellings duplexes, multiplexes, and townhomes. The defined character across the design concept may vary by neighborhood, but new development shall transition from existing development patterns in by neighborhood, but sorry, patterns in adjacent neighborhoods. The approved plan has townhomes on this parcel to add to the existing single-family development. They are achieving a transition by providing open spaces between the townhomes and the adjacent neighborhoods. The development plan revision and this rezoning request are not proposed to change any of these features. The 0.55 acre property proposed to be removed is currently designated as open space in Coletta Park PUD subdivision. The acreage of designated open space in the development plan currently exceeds the required amount and would still exceed the required amount with the parcel removed from the development. While the 0.55 acre parcel alone does not meet R1 zoning ordinance requirements for lot size, the neighboring property intends to consolidate this lot with his parcel and develop in accordance with R1 zoning. As far as the Coleto development is concerned, the number of units and the uses are not changing but the decrease in acreage causes the density of the development to go up slightly. The accompanying development plan, along with this proposed rezoning, meets the intent of Envision Franklin. The FNPC, by a vote of 7-0, as well as staff, recommend that the BOMA, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, approve Ordinance 202606 on second reading. Thank you.

This is a public hearing. Does anyone want to speak to this body on this issue? Seeing none, I will declare the public hearing closed. I'll entertain a motion. Excuse me just a second. Did you want to address anything on it, Mr. Gamble? Thank you. Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Thank you. Second. Second all. Any discussion?

This is not a... The way this reads and has read is that it's approving 229 units. The only comment I would make would be for our development report, we make these periodically, these PUD changes that don't affect density. When we do the development report, it might look like we approved a PUD that included 229 units. That was already approved. So with the asterisk that we take note of these types of approvals. Thank you.

Ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill.

Yes.

Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Bayhead. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number six. This is a public hearing. Consideration of Resolution 2026-25. Resolution approving a revised development plan for Coletta Park PUD subdivision for the property located south of Murfreesboro Road, east of South Carruthers Road. How can you say much more than that?

I'll add just a little bit more.

Okay.

The applicant has submitted a development plan revision for Coletta Park PUD subdivision. The sole intent of the proposed revision is to remove a 0.55 acre parcel from the development. I think I can skip most of this as I just stated it. The number of units and the uses are not changing, but the decrease in acreage causes the density of the development to go up slightly. For this reason, there's an associated rezoning request to change the density of Coletta Park PUD subdivision. Since the density of the development is changing, this plan triggers approval from the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. recommendation. The Franklin Municipal Planning Commission, by a vote of 7-0, as well as staff, recommend that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen approve Resolution 2026-25 with conditions.

Okay, this is public hearing. Does anybody want to address this body on this issue? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Sir, I move to approve. Thank you, Alderman Scott. Second. Seconded by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Oliver and Barnhill. Yes. Oliver and Blanton. Yes. Oliver and Caesar. Yes. Oliver and Peterson. Yes. Oliver and Berger. Yes. Oliver and Brown. Yes. Oliver and Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Begg. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number seven. This is a public hearing consideration of resolution 2026-24, resolution approving a revised development plan for ovation. PUD subdivision with 15 modifications of development standards, building type, on-street parking, loading zones, and signs for the property located at the southeast corner of East McEwen Drive and Carothers Parkway. Chelsea.

Good evening. As stated, Ovation PUD subdivision is requesting an additional 15 modifications of standards to update their vesting to the current standards, but those are the only two changes tonight. The vesting update does not change the plan in any way. It just allows some additional signs by right. This revision, again, does not propose any changes in density or entitlement. As stated, there are 15 additional modifications of standard request for this plan to add to the eight that were approved with revision two. I've provided a cheat sheet for you. Hopefully it's helpful. I'll try to be a little bit more concise since there's only a few that staff aren't supporting. So we'll start with MOS number one, which is this request to allow angled parking along internal private streets. Angled parking creates the feeling of a parking lot in front of a building and the proposed configuration does not meet the city's engineering standards. It raises additional concerns relating to safety, maneuverability, and operational consistency within the street network. For these reasons, standard parallel parking or other compliant configuration should be utilized. Staff recommends disapproval of MOS number one. FNPC by a six to one vote recommended approval. I will read that it was requested by, I believe, Alderman Baggett to provide on May 12, 2026, to provide at this meeting a possible condition of approval for MOS number one. So we provided some language staff drafted regarding angled parking on one side of the street. Um, that language, just for your reference, and I'm, I'm, it should be, it's in the staff report. I didn't include it on my cheat sheet, but it is in the staff report that, um, you would need to make a motion to approve MOS number one with the condition of approval that at any point along an internal private street angle parking shall be only, shall only be constructed on one side and the MOS exhibit shall be updated to show this parking configuration with the one-stop submittal of the development plan. Um, so that's just another option for you when you get ready to consider this first MOS. MOS No. 2 is a request to allow a loading zone in the front of a building. The intent of the zoning ordinance is that the loading area would not be visible from the road. The proposed loading zone while in front of the building will be screened from view of the road with a screening wall and a grade change. Staff, along with the FMPC by a 7-0 vote, recommend approval of MOS No. 2 with the condition that the brick screening wall will be integrated into the facade and meet the requirements of the building type. MOS number three is a request to allow variation in the multifamily building facade presentation by adding the following language. Accept where the building pulls back from being parallel to the street to allow for activated and usable open space that is well connected to the pedestrian network. The intent of the zoning ordinance is to require buildings to be parallel to ensure that developments are pedestrian focused and friendly. The language proposed, while it allows for deviation, From buildings being parallel to the frontage, it still ensures the intent of the zoning ordinance. Staff and FNPC by seven to zero vote, recommend approval of MOS number three. MOS number four, very similar to MOS number three, request to allow variation in the commercial mixed use building facade presentation by adding the following language, except where the building pulls back from being parallel to the street to allow for activated and usable open space that's well connected to pedestrian network. As I stated that the intent of the zoning ordinance is to require buildings to be parallel to ensure that developments are pedestrian-focused and friendly. The language that has been proposed, while it does allow for a deviation from buildings being parallel to the frontage, it still ensures the intent of the zoning ordinance. Staff and FMTC by a seven to zero vote recommend approval of MOS number four. MOS number five. This is a request to permit irregularly shaped signage. Staff recommends approval of MOS number five, supported by recent approvals by BOMA of similar requests. If you have additional questions about any of these MOSs that I didn't go into detail about, I'm happy to go back, but I thought you guys would appreciate that I didn't read every single word written on your page. So MOS number six is a request to permit neon and LED internal illumination when the sign has three-dimensional depth and is being used within a channel or used to reinforce the design of the sign as letters, numbers, logos, and accent signs. This standard will apply to the following sign types, band signs, development entry signs, monument signs, vertical blade signs, and wall signs. Staff, as well as FNPC, by a vote of seven to zero, recommend approval of MOS number six. MOS number seven, this is a request to permit LED electronic message centers. Our assessment was based off of a submittal that has now been updated by the applicant on the floor at FNPC, so I won't go into the details about... We recommend disapproval of this MOS, but they were asking for 15 signs. They were asking for... them to be at least 10 feet in height. They have now updated that request to 12 pedestrian scale interactive displays that are wayfinding or advertising. These signs will be a maximum square footage of 50 total square feet per sign with a maximum of two sides and a maximum height of 8 feet. These signs are to be located on internal drives only and located within the frontage of commercial mixed-use building types or within formal open space out of view of Carruthers Parkway, McEwen Drive, and Ovation Parkway. While staff did recommend disapproval of MOS number 7 at the FNPC meeting, FNPC recommended approval with the following changes that I just read by a 7-0 vote. MLS number eight is a request to permit LED display screens. The applicant has requested a large format digital display screen mounted to the facade of a building for on-site advertising and events. The sign is to be located on the ground floor of a commercial mixed-use building that's out of view from Carothers Parkway, McEwen Drive, and Ovation Parkway. The maximum square footage of this sign will be 400 square feet. The type of sign is prohibited within our zoning ordinance, and the proposed locations are facing towards the park. They're also facing towards a commercial mixed-use building that will have a commercial on the bottom floor, and multifamily is proposed on the upper floors. The applicant's request is the first request of its kind, and since the sign type is prohibited, there are no standards for the type of sign. The size proposed by the applicant is too substantial for staff to support. Therefore, staff recommends disapproval of MOS number 8, FNPC, by a 7-0 vote, recommended approval. MOS number 9 is a request to permit band signs above the entrance to a paseo or alleyway. The applicant's requesting to add language to allow for band signs to be located above the entrance of a paseo or alleyway with the existing sign area requirements for band signs, which staff can support. Staff and FNPC, by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval of MOS number 9. MOS number 10 is a request to allow a canopy sign to project above the canopy roof line and allow for internal illumination. The applicant's requesting to add language to allow that canopy sign to be located above the canopy roof line and allow for both external and internal illumination. It won't be visible from McEwen Drive or Carothers Parkway and the canopy and it will be located when the canopy is located on a ground floor entrance. Staff, along with FNPC by a 7-0 vote, recommended approval of MOS number 10. MOS number 11 is a request to allow a directory sign on the building facade or freestanding adjacent to the primary entrance to the building with a maximum of 10 square feet per building facade in addition to other permitted signage on the building and with exterior and interior illumination. While the request does deviate from what's allowed within the zoning ordinance, it's similar to requests made with other plans that were approved and supported by BOMA. Therefore, staff and FNPC, by a 7-0 vote, recommend approval of MOS number 11. MOS number 12 is a request to permit external and internal illumination for small hanging and projecting signs. Our zoning ordinance does not allow for this. It only allows external illumination. Staff does recommend disapproval of MLS number 12. This type of request has not been approved or requested anywhere else, so there's no precedent for this request. Small hanging and projecting signs are meant to be on a pedestrian scale and aimed at the pedestrian realm, and internal illumination doesn't aid in achieving this intent. FNPC, by a six to one vote, recommended approval. MOS number 13. We're almost there. Request to allow a maximum of one vertical blade sign per commercial mixed-use building where residential is on upper floors over commercial, a maximum of one per multifamily building, and a maximum of one per parking structure. Vertical blade signs shall not project below the window header of the first floor and shall not project above the parapet of the building facade. Vertical blade signs shall be a maximum of four feet from the building facade inclusive of bracket depth. Again, I'm happy to go into our standard, but I think I'll sum it up by just saying that staff was not overly concerned with the proposal for the language changes. And staff and FNPC by a 7-0 vote recommended approval of MOS number 13. MOS number 14 is a request to permit painted wall signs and add language to the quantity placement and materials. The proposed, the applicant's proposed language to allow for painted wall signs not concerning to staff and staff along with FNPC by a seven to zero vote recommend approval of MOS number 14 based on positive feedback from everyone at the joint conceptual workshop. MOS number 15 is a request to permit 20% coverage on windows, signs, and the materials to include white, frosted, or gold leaf vinyl. Staff's not overly concerned with the language updates requested by the applicant for this type of sign. Staff and FNPC by a seven to zero vote recommend approval of MOS number 15. Staff and the FNPC recommend approval of resolution 2026-24 with conditions. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Chelsea. Good job. I do have one speaker. Mr. Gamble would like to speak. He's the applicant.

Hi, my name is Greg Gamble, and I'm representing Highwoods and Center Cal. There were three questions that were asked of us at the BOMA work session. The first was, would we be able to provide angled parking on one side of the street in parallel on the other? And coming to you tonight to let you know, yes, we can do that. We are happy with that. We were asked for the digital way finding signs, modification of number seven. Will you have the type of screens where you can't see the screen unless you're standing in front of it? CenterCal let us know that the digital displays have built-in ambient light sensors, anti-reflective glass to reduce glare and scattered light, and contrast and content design so the screen stays readable without having to increase the brightness. So I think that's starting to get to answering some of that question. And then the third question that we had was, is there a policy for content regarding the movie screen, for lack of a better word? And the answer there is yes. The public content display policy is established, and it governs the visual content shown on the LED screens, limiting programming to G and PG-related films. They do have some select PG-13 films that they show kind of later in the evenings. Which modification is that, Mr. Campbell? This is for modification of standards number eight.

That's what I thought, okay.

And they strictly prohibit any explicit, violent, non-family friendly material. The content is licensed through swank motion pictures in compliance with public performance rights requirements And final approval for all programming is granted by CenterCal Property Management. I can also pass along to you that the leases that are in this development are as concerned at the city about content and maybe even more so concerned about content. So it's something that they do take very seriously and just wanted to pass that information along to you all. Happy to answer any questions that you may have about these requests. Thank you.

Does anybody else want to speak to this body? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'd entertain a motion.

For all of them?

We're going to get a motion to get it on the floor, then we'll vote on each individual modification.

Move for approval.

Second. Seconded by the Vice Mayor. Now open for discussion. Alden Potts, you're recognized. Thank you, sir.

I do have a question for Mr. Gamble, if he can take the podium for just a moment. All right. First, thank you for bringing this to us and working with staff. I'll jump down to number seven. My question, and you've addressed it, and I appreciate the detail that you provided, especially from the manufacturers, because that's key when it comes to how those lumens are actually projected. So thank you for doing that. If you go down to number eight. I did have a follow-up. We're actually also here. You addressed it as it was put together. Thank you for the details of out of view regarding Carothers Parkway, McEwen, and Ovation Parkway. So it has restricted view, and I think that's important for the public to see. It's not going to be old school when you see an outdoor drive-in movie theater. You're not seeing that type of experience. That's true. And it's only 400 square feet or 20 by 20. I did have a question that didn't come up last time, and I apologize for not presenting it last time, and that is the maximum volume or audio and then also the directional audio usage, since it is going to be internal to the space, sometimes when you get that, maybe this is just going to be something you're going to have to manage to, is that echo effective? As it comes out of the buildings and starts to, if you will, rainbow outside of the development, I've got some concern about that to make sure that you're not hearing it all the way in the parking lot when you're leaving at night, all right?

So the maximum square footage of this screen is 400 square feet which is a fraction of the size of a movie theater screen that you would see in a movie theater. It's maybe 20 by 20. This sits on a one story building and right at the corner of the main streets It's really just to kind of entertain in this small little pocket park side here building G Ranges between five and seven stories and heights. It's much bigger building J's a bigger building, but really the focus of this 20 by 20 screen is just the small little corner of of the main park.

And I was speaking more to the audio as it kind of amplifies going out.

I would expect just like at Avalon and Alpharetta, as you're walking down the street, they're playing music as you're going down the street. I think that there's a kind of a normalcy of the amount of volume that you have in a space like that or in a kind of an outdoor shopping environment. Okay.

And then the last question that I had here is on number 12. But if it's like a Tennessee Vols football game that they're showing out there on a Saturday, I mean, no telling. All right. Question 12. This is about the small hanging and projection signs. I've seen these in use in different cities. The projection distance, has the applicant given you any idea? I've seen these projected down onto the pedestrian area, both inside of a commercial business as well as outside.

Okay.

Have they talked about is it just going to be just outside their storefront or expecting it to go in a different direction?

Outside the storefront, and it must clear eight feet from the ground. Okay.

Okay. That answers that question. And then the last one, I would just say on 14, this is on walls and sides, allows for painted-on wall signs. And I've said this multiple times on other applicants, and that is my concern about here in Middle Tennessee is if you're not using the correct outdoor paint, then it's going to paint, it's going to flake or peel, and the maintenance that's required with that. And I just want to go on record and make sure that whether it's now or in 10 years or however long, however many years out, that it's always being maintained.

Well, thank you for the advice. I'll pass it along.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm ready to go to the modification of standards, if you are. And the first modification of standard we're looking at is parking type. All of them in baggage are recognized.

I'd like to make a motion to approve with a condition of approval that any Point along at an internal private street. Angle parking shall only be constructed on one side, and the MOS exhibit shall be abated to show this parking configuration with the one-stop submittal of the development plan.

I'll second that. Appropriate motion. Second Alderman Berger.

Second.

Yes, that's his motion with the change that he mentioned. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, let's... Let's vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blatney. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. And Vice Mayor. Yes. That passes unanimously. We'll now go to Modification Standard Number 2, which has to do with loading zone location as described by Chelsea. Is there a motion?

Motion for approval. Second.

Second by Alderman Peterson. Any discussion?

Pardon? Is that with Peter Sheets or not?

As I said, recommended approval with the condition that the brick screening will be integrated into the facade and meet the requirement of the building type as discussed by Chelsea.

Yeah, I'm good with the way you read it.

Okay, I got confused. Was there a motion on that one? Yes. Alderman Berger had that. Was there a second?

Second from me, I think.

Alderman Peterson. Right. I got it now.

I remember.

Okay. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Cesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Burke. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard number three, building placement of multifamily building types as described in the cheat sheet offered by Chelsea. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Second. Second by Alderman Caesar. Thank you. Any discussion on that one? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Next, we'll go to building placement as far as commercial mixed-use buildings, and the description is outlined by Chelsea in the cheat sheet. Is there a motion? So moved. Thank you, Alderman Caesar. Is there a second? Second. Second, Alderman Peterson. Any discussion? Seeing none, ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson.

Yes.

Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard number five is to description of signage shape. Is there a motion?

Move for approval.

Second. Second by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard number six is illumination allowing neon and LED internal illumination in the additional description in the cheat sheet you have from Chelsea. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Thank you, Alderman Potts. Second. Second by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification, bless you. Modification number seven is prohibited signs LED message center. And the description is listed on your cheat sheet and described by Chelsea. Is there a motion?

I recommend approval with conditions from the Franklin Planning Commission.

Second. And the conditions that you're referring to are the conditions provided at the meeting by the applicant allow 12 signs at a maximum of 8 feet in height with all the other existing stipulations listed above. Are those the conditions that you refer to, Alderman Berger?

Yes.

Is that the condition you understand on the second? Okay, any further discussion on modification seven? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blackmon. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Pott. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard number seven is prohibited signs, LED display screen. I'm sorry, number eight.

It's eight.

Prohibited signs. LED display screen allows large format digital display screen mounted to the side of the building for an on-site advertising and events. I move to approve. Appropriate motion by Alderman Potts. Second. Second by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blackmon. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard number nine, band sign. Is there a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

Second by Alderman Berger. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard ten, canopy signs. allowing canopy signs to be located above the canopy roofline and allow for both external and internal illumination when not visible from McEwen Drive or Brothers Parkway and the canopies located at the ground floor entrance. Is there a motion?

Move for approval.

Second. Second by Alderman Caesar. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peters. Yes. Alderman Burke. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number, modification standard number 11 is directory signs. Allow directory signs on the building beside it or freestanding adjacent to the primary entrances to the building. The further description is outlined in your cheat sheet. Is there a motion? Move for approval. Thank you. Second. Seconded by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard number 12, small hanging and projecting signs allow external and internal illumination for small hanging and projected signs.

Move for approval.

Second. Appropriate motion. Second by Alderman Blanton. Any discussion?

It says must be eight feet from the ground. Yes.

Thank you. Any other discussion or comments or questions? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Cesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. And Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item 3, Modification Standard 13, Vertical Blade Signs. Is there a motion?

Second.

Seconded by Alderman Brown. Any discussion on vertical blade sign modification standards? Seeing none, ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard number 14 is wall signs. Sir, I move to approve.

Second.

Appropriate motion. Seconded by Alderman Burger. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Burger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Modification standard 15, window signs. Allow 20% coverage on window signs that allow white, frosted, or gold leaf vinyl as a material. Move for approval.

Second.

Second by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. I'll go back to the original motion.

I have a comment on the original motion there.

And go ahead now.

And this is why we need to... Look at our sign ordinance again. And I know we got this brought back earlier, another joint conceptual, but we get to a point where we're approving these, both FNPC and here. We're just... They're getting creative here, and our sign ordinance doesn't allow for it. And the creativity that you see here is what I think, obviously, we all agree with.

Thank you. Okay. We're back to the original motion with all the modification standards. Any other discussion on that? If not, be ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Byrd. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Item number seven passes unanimously with all those modifications. Standards will now go to item number eight. This is a public hearing consideration resolution 2026-22 resolution to initiate a study at the request of the property owner for a plan of services for potential future annexation of 79.05 acres located at 402, 406, 408, 4022, and 4030 and 4066 Arno Road and 4261, 4251, and 4231 Murfreesboro Road, as well as the property east of Arno Road and south of Terry Parkway. Golly, that's good.

You did great.

Go ahead, I argue.

Thank you. The property owner has submitted a request for annexation. The City of Franklin has a two-stage procedure to consider annexation requests. At this stage, no final resolution for annexation of this property is being considered. This initial stage in the process is a study of whether it is feasible and what improvements are necessary for the City to serve the properties with infrastructure and the City services with the possibility of annexation in the future. The properties being studied with this request total 79.505 acres and are located east and north of Arno Road and south of Murfreesboro Road. These properties are contiguous to the city limits and are within the city's urban growth boundary. Envision Franklin places eight of the subject properties within the single-family design concept, which promotes new single-family residential neighborhoods that promote a range of single-family dwelling and lot sizes. The remainder of the subject properties are within the neighborhood commercial design concept. This design concept promotes a mix of active uses at key intersections, primarily local, commercial, institutional, and transitional office uses. Any future development concepts that vary from the single-family and neighborhood commercial design concepts would first require an amendment to the Envision Franklin Land Use Plan. Additionally, the following overlay districts have been identified for this property and will affect future development. Cena Corridor Overlay, Hillside Hillcrest Overlay, and the 500-foot buffer of the Hillside Hillcrest Overlay. While the applicant has not submitted anything formal at this point, it is the intention of the applicant to develop in accordance with the single family residential design concept. The majority of these properties are within the single family design concept, but Envision Franklin would not support single family residential uses for the two properties that are within the neighborhood commercial design concept. A draft plan of services is included as an attachment. This draft considers the uses supported for the site, provides guidance for how the city would serve the properties being studied, and notes any additional infrastructure that would be required for new development. The majority of these properties are in the northeast limits of the Goose Creek Basin, which was identified as a short-term priority growth area per the annexation capability study and was updated and presented at several BOMA work sessions during fall of 2024. As outlined in Envision Franklin, the continued build-out and approval of projects in the heart of this basin has shown this is a desirable area to live and work, which contributes to its designation of short-term annexation capabilities. However, Envision Franklin also states that the outlying areas of the basin are likely more long-term growth areas due to the timing of future infrastructure improvements to support development. A large portion of the easternmost parcel is in the Mays Creek Basin, which was identified as mid-term growth area. Envision Franklin states that previous county developments and growth complications severely limit the feasibility of the city annexing large portions of this basin, which contributes to its mid-term annexation capabilities. Seeing as this parcel is partially designated as short-term and partially mid-term, bordering both the Goose Creek Basin and Mays Creek Basin, development of this parcel may be more feasible than the majority of the Mays Creek Basin to the east that is not within the UGB. Regarding capacity for growth at the local schools, staff reached out to Williamson County Schools, or WCS, to ask for any concerns or feedback on how this annexation would impact their student projections and school capacities. Based on what we know thus far about the proposed development, WCS used a student projection calculation similar to what was used on Amelia Park. The schools zoned for this property are Trinity Elementary, Page Middle, and Page High. WCS feels that the additional projected students could be easily absorbed into Page High without hitting capacity. For Page Middle and Trinity Elementary, the projected students would contribute to capacity issues that WCS has already anticipated from previous development approvals within these two school zones. This property is located within the Milcrofton Utility District service area, and water availability will be needed to be approved and provided through Milcrofton Utility District prior to annexation. The planned South Clean Water facility is not currently funded, and annexation of this property into the City of Franklin will drive the need for the South Clean Water facility to be online at a quicker rate. Additional annexations reduce available treatment capacities at the current Claudetes facility. Staff urges that potential annexations be thoroughly considered in regard to ensuring that adequate treatment capacity is maintained. Goose Creek Basin construction will be started at the top of the treatment base, or sorry, at the top of the basin building out the sanitary sewer interceptor in reverse. The lift station will be required to be relocated multiple times as the Goose Creek Basin is constructed from top of basin to bottom. The cost of relocating the lift station will be greater over time as the size of the lift station will grow each time a relocation occurs. The force main termination point has not been fully vetted as limited infrastructure in this area requires lengthy force main alignments and flow direction must terminate sending flows to the south clean water facility. Long force main lines may be required to flow to meet flow paths for the south clean water facility, aligning with current planning and design of the new clean water facility. The draft plan of services identifies the access will be provided to the properties from Arno Road and any other connection to surrounding roadways will be studied as a part of the traffic impact analysis. Street improvements will be needed in the area and a traffic impact study is required to be submitted for review prior to submitting a development plan for approval. Required streets improvements shall be determined as part of the traffic impact study and development plan and any road improvements to roadways maintained by the Williamson County by Williamson County shall be presented to the Williamson County Highway Commission for approval. This plan includes roadways listed on the major thoroughfare plan, including Arno Road and Highway 96. Because this property is east of Highway 96 and I-65 interchange, it is important to note that there are significant delays during peak hours at this location. Additional development shall be required to study it in detail, and additional density on these properties may not be supported until the interchange is improved. Additionally, SES will need to reassess the current routes in the subdivisions and areas surrounding this development to consider if adding a route, equipment, or personnel is necessary. In staff's analysis, there are many considerations to annexation of the properties being studied. There are both public and private investments that would need to be made to provide city infrastructure for the properties and to provide an equitable level of city services as outlined in this report and in the draft plan of services. Development of this property reduces capacity in our current water treatment facility, compounds capacity issues for schools in the area, and may compound the interchange delays at I-65. The challenges and hurdles created by development of these properties at this time seem to outweigh the value to the city to provide additional single-family homes and extend the city limits. Staff recommends that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen approve Resolution 2026-22 if BOMA would like to see these properties be further studied with the intent of potentially annexing them into the city in the future. I'm now going to hand it over to Michael Walters-Young to go over the annexation cost analysis calculator.

Thank you, Ariella. Good evening again, Mr. Mayor, members of the board. So as Ariel indicated, this is at the most or one of the most preliminary stages. And we have to make that note because the calculations that we're going to walk through on the annexation cost analysis calculator are based upon information that we solicited from the developer. But it is what they know at this time. It is subject to further refinement should you vote to move this forward this evening. And it's designed to be a snapshot. So as Ariella said, the cost calculator is in your packet. It is the full 13 pages, all details, all assumptions rolling up really onto pages one through four. And so one, again, identifies everything that Ariella covered with design concepts to utility districts to estimated road miles and sewer lines created. 220 expected single-family housing units at a market value of $950,000 each or an assessed value of $237,500. There is an expected population of this development of 605 people and an expected school-age population is provided by the developer of 99. Ariella walked you through WCS's estimate of the impacts of adding those children depending upon where they are in the pipeline. From a commercial standpoint at this time, there are no anticipated commercial developments, so therefore there's been no information provided for commercial retail, hotel, motel keys, or additional office. So as we go to page three, Your overall financial summary shows that recurring revenues from all funds, key point, would be slightly more than $100,000 a year. Your one-time surplus, assuming all offsets that could be granted are taken back by the developer based upon work that they would complete, is roughly $1.5 million. But as we detail a little bit deeper, you see that the general fund actually would not quite break even per year. If you look at the amount of maintenance, the amount of service that would be necessary, and this is what you would expect to see in a solely residential development. Commercial, not surprisingly, generates more income per square footage than do residences in this community. Now the details are there. We account for property tax generated. We make an assumption for local sales tax generated per household. The population estimate is critical because we assume the additional state shared sales tax that comes back to us. So we think we've accounted for every possible revenue generating aspect of of single-family homes. But it costs to provide services to those homes. Sanitation has more net revenues that would be added because with only 605 population and only 200 odd units, we wouldn't necessarily trigger adding that additional unit. We try to average around 900 to 1,000 new collection points before we have to add a truck. So we are not assuming that with this development. But again, the more we refine it, the more we would get to know and hone in on that. Stormwater also shows a deficit. Please note that depending upon your actions later this evening, this may be much closer to breaking even because this assumes current fees, which are not adequate to meet ongoing expenses. And then water management recurring revenues for sewer would outpace recurring expenses. In the one-time revenues, you see that the road impact fees would be potentially fully offset. Parkland dedication would be offset to approximately 75% at maximum. We would net $685,000 for city facilities and $85,000 for county facilities. It's important to note in that context that The city facilities monies, of course, can only be used, as you well know, for police, fire, sanitation, and parks. So should the need be, and this is not for this development, but the further out you go and the triggers for when you need to build, let's say, a new station, Station 9 for fire, The last time we built one was roughly $8.4 million. So this would be their proportional share, but it would no way pay for an engine company or the cost of a new fire station, just to kind of put that into context. Ariella, did you have anything else? All right.

Mr. Mayor, that's staff's presentation. Thank you. Before I start calling speakers up, I want to get some clarification if I could. This item is before you. The applicant has requested a deferral, but this board can... approve a deferral or it can deny consideration for annexation study of annexation tonight if they want to also so just for clarification for the board so I'm going to call up Commissioner Lawrence to speak followed by Cleve Graw followed by Karen Smith followed by Janet Curtis and then Mr. Gamble who's the applicant will speak last

Okay, thank you, Mayor and Alderman. It's great to see all of you tonight. I want to start by congratulating you on your award. That speaks volumes for how well you're treating your employees. And you're not even in your new building yet, so it'll probably go up a little bit more when you get there. Just don't take any of our employees with you when you leave here. All right. I'm here to talk about Arno Village. Second time I've been here to talk about this. And once again, Commissioner Clifford is not here, so I'm kind of standing in for him. It's his district, actually, but my district is right next door to this. So I have a lot of constituents who are equally concerned about it. And you got an email from Commissioner Clifford this afternoon saying, I'm going to read a portion of that just for the record tonight. But basically he and I are in agreement that we oppose this development for all the reasons you just heard. And there's three main points that you just heard made. And one is, you know, you've got road infrastructure choke points, Highway 96. You've got Arno Road. You've got no other way to get to Highway 96 but Arno Road off of this development. Secondly, you've got school infrastructure. We're not even halfway through popular farms, and Trinity's already 95% full, and so is Page Middle. Page High has capacity, but those two schools don't. And then your own sewer infrastructure, I tried to find out exactly where you are on that, but you could find that out more easily than I could about where you are on that. But admittedly, by your staff's recommendation, that could be a major concern here. So I'm going to read a few lines from Commissioner Clifford's email for the record tonight. He says, this requests conflicts with the city's own long-range planning framework. work. Envision Franklin clearly identifies portion of this area as midterm or long-term growth dependent on infrastructure that simply does not yet exist. The report itself states that the challenges and hurdles outweigh the value to the city at this time. And that should end the discussion. Approving this resolution even as a study would send the wrong signal that the city is prepared to move forward despite unresolved infrastructure capacity and safety concerns. That is not responsible growth. That is growth outpacing reality. And that's a sentiment that I concur with. So collectively, I guess, as two commissioners tonight, we are asking you to vote no on this. The last meeting I was in, city manager Stuckey said, you have a process. And the purpose of this process and the purpose of your staff going through this process is to save time and money. It saves you time and money, saves your staff time and money. It saves the developer time and money. And so we would just ask that you save that time tonight by voting no on this development. Thank you. Thank you.

Also, we are going to add Commissioner Clifford's full comments in the public comments like we have submitted by citizens. So in addition to what Commissioner Lawrence provided.

Respectfully, I'd like to request my full two minutes since there's only a few of us and I've got some technical stuff to present. My name's, I'm Clive Graw, retired L.A. traffic engineer and a nearby resident. First, I want to thank Commissioner Clifford and all the aldermen who expressed concern over the annexation of Arno Village. To many in the past, the proposition has been, how do we annex this development? Collada Park was denied annexation until a connector road to Murphysboro was found. Harlan acquired a farm to make it contiguous with the city and avoid an interlocal agreement. I commend Alderman Caesar for voting against the Harlan development, citing the current traffic congestion on Columbia as a reason. The traffic congestion argument against Arno Village is even clearer. Why have to guess like Alderman Caesar and risk millions of dollars installing water, sewage, and storm drains when a traffic study costing a few thousand dollars paid by the developers will give you a clear picture? Video simulations using software such as Transmodeler can show a clear approximation of what traffic will look like in the future. My educated guess based on the 2,000 to 3,000 additional trips of cars of Ovation and Orium will dump onto Murfreesboro along with nearby Coletta Park, Novara, and Arno Village. The traffic will look like this in the morning. Murfreesboro westbound queue will lengthen from Clovercroft to Arno Road. Arno Road queue will lengthen from Cedarmont to Albany Drive, resulting in quarter mile queues on Cedarmont, 500 foot queues on Albany, costing these residents an additional 15 to 30 minutes of delay every morning. Can you live with that scenario? If not, vote no on the annexation of Arno Village and allow the land to be developed at county standards. 60 single-family homes rather than 220 multi-family homes to a city would allow. Even city staff said the risks outweigh the benefits to the city and further studies would be expensive. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Karen Smith and I've made this comment before and I think it bears repeating that I very much appreciate y'all's thoughtful comments and thoughtful discussions and I especially appreciate the city staff and all the hard work that they do even before we get into this room and a great job to your team. Chelsea, wherever she is, where she went. But anyways, I'm hopeful that you consider us more than just red shirts or yellow shirts with anecdotal comments. We're here tonight because we are concerned citizens and we want to be engaged in the process. Commissioner Clifford, he outlined seven points why this proposed Arnaud Village development doesn't make sense right now. Commissioner Lawrence has spoke twice on why this is not the right time for this. And we're here tonight too to say, hey, let's table this. Let's not vote to move the process forward. It's a terrible waste of resources and time. And I would just ask that you all consider what everybody is saying here, the city government, the county government, and the citizens. We're all a team. We all sit in the same traffic, right? So we want to work together with making this the right thing. Thank you.

Good evening, Janet Curtis, Franklin, Tennessee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I urge you to deny resolution 2026-27, the proposal to annex 79.05 acres for Arno Village and 200 high density homes. This density is far too aggressive. Surrounding homes sit on half acre to one acre plus lots. It will permanently destroy our rural character and quality of life. This project threatens our community in four critical ways. Places high density homes directly behind existing large lot properties, erasing the rural character of the area. Dramatically worsens dangerous traffic on Highway 96, growing 18% per year. over 3,900 cars an hour at peak. And Arno rode over 7,500 cars daily at unsafe speeds, including school hours. Compounds the impact of the already approved Coletta Park development, 200 homes in the same corridor. Coletta Park's own traffic impact study requires off-site roadway improvements, yet staff has raised concerns about adding even more traffic before the 9565 interchange upgrades are complete. PUSH has already overcrowded Trinity Elementary and Page Middle well beyond capacity. Educational impact fees are regulated by the state. for the county can only be increased by the state and may only be used for building new schools and specific capital improvements. Merritt Hartome has a poor reputation in Columbia's tail landings. Over 70% of their homes failed state HVAC inspections after a house fire. You cannot legally annex Arno Road. The residents along there own the dirt under the road. School rezoning is not routine. The last rezoning was in 2022 to open new schools and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. Rerouting students an extra six and a half miles each way for this one development is unfair. We saw this with Poplar Farms, a decision some board members later called one of the worst decisions. We cannot repeat this mistake. I strongly urge you to deny Resolution 2026-27 and protect our community. Thank you.

Mr. Gamble. Thank you, Mayor Nolderman. My name is Greg Gamble, and I'm representing Meritage Homes. And we're asking for a pause tonight if you would grant us a deferral of one month. After the BOMA work session, we heard staff's report. We heard your concerns about offsite traffic and infrastructure, and we have started to answer some infrastructure questions that staff have posed. One specifically, Meritage Homes hired a traffic engineer at Kimley Horn, and they released them the day after BOMA work sessions to start running the traffic study. We're going to be showing that traffic study to Paul Holson and his team next Wednesday morning. We'd love an opportunity for us to bring you solutions instead of problems. And we're asking for that one month deferral tonight. I don't want to waste your time. We don't want to drag this out for months. But I do want the opportunity, if you wouldn't mind, give us one more month so that we can bring you solutions instead of problems. Thank you.

Okay. Does anybody else want to speak to this body? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion.

I'll move for approval for, move for deferral for one month. I'd like to hear with...

Appropriate motion.

With comment.

Second. Seconded by the Vice Mayor. Go ahead, Alderman Byrd.

I'd like to hear what you have to say. I would like to hear what you have to say in a month. I have a lot of concerns about this area. A lot of extending concerns, but then I look at and You know, the water treatment plant, there's a ton of problems that we are needing to line up to make sure things are in order, in order to improve more development in that area. It's going to be difficult, very difficult, but I'd still like to hear what you have to say. But I also want to go on record and say, hey, you know, We are contending not only with traffic coming in from out of the county, but from the county, we have the county is got 750 homes in Triune, and the new neighborhood around College Grove, around over 1,500 homes that are yet to be built and approved by the county. It's a whole lot more houses than we've approved. It's a whole lot more development than the city's approved. County continues to approve development. They've had it in the pipeline for a long time. They've got a lot of homes coming on board all the way out in 96. Good thing we have a new highway to handle that traffic. But when we get into the city, that's where the county residents are impacting our city and our infrastructure. And so I just want to make sure that we're aware of that. But again, I would like to hear what you have to bring back. Thank you.

I need some clarification on your motion originally. Did you mention the date that you want that deferred to?

One month. July 14th? Yes.

Is that it?

Is that one month from today? Yes. So the meeting...

So is that okay with you also, Vice Mayor? Okay. Alderman Brown, you're recognized.

I normally am quick to approve a study. Why not get the learnings? But I'm not going to support the deferral. I'm not going to support the study. And I'll tell you why, and it's going to be based entirely on staff comments. I wasn't at the last meeting. I watched the work session. Probably the strongest comments I've heard from staff in six years. And I think at some point we can't go in all directions. stretching resources. And this is an example of where I do feel like this does stretch and where I think if we're going to spend some staff time, it wouldn't be on studying this. What I would say is we keep talking about having a predictable process and trying to be predictable. And I think that's not just predictable to our developers, but I think we need to be predictable to landowners. I think we need to be predictable to the community. And I think just saying this area is you know, short-term, and this area is mid-term, we know we're eight years from a water treatment plant. We know that we have a major highway that the state has put in in 96. We have the state's putting in McEwen. We have major infrastructure. Clearly, the state even agrees that going east is where we want to go, and you're absolutely right about the county. I really appreciate our commissioners. I think the world of Commissioner Clifford and Commissioner Lawrence, but The county has built a ton of homes and no commercial, and so it's all coming into the city. And that's a ton of development out there. Y'all own some of the responsibility out there too for the development that's happening out there. And I would just say, I would rather have a better understanding about what is reality that's happening out there? What is our real term East growth. Are we saying it's six years? Are we saying it's eight years? What are we really saying we can do going in that direction based on sewer capacity? Because that was a very strong remarks regarding this development. And if staff feels that strongly about this one, I would imagine you feel pretty strongly about the other ones in that area. And I think it'd be better off spending our time from a staff perspective being really clear with property owners, developers, everybody else and saying, look, these are going to continue to be really strong recommendations against from staff until we get down the path, I would feel a whole lot better knowing that instead of constantly sitting here on this Dyess having the community and everybody else coming in here knowing full well that we're going to have a very strong reaction again. So I would rather have staff spend their time really telling us what does the east growth timing look like based on all of that. That seems to me a better use of staff time. But let's not kid ourselves. New treatment plan on the east, major highways being built on the east, the growth is going to end up going there. It's just a matter of time. But what is that time? So I'm going to vote against the deferral. It's not the time now, but I would love to have the staff spend their time thinking about what that looks like.

Alderman Barnhill. Most of the things that Alderman Brown has said is some of the things that I wanted to cover. I do want to say this. I will also vote against the deferral, but I want to make sure that anyone who hears that understands that that is not a vote for the Resolution 2026-22. It is a motion to be able to vote on that particular consideration. So if I look at the comments that staff has made, the one sentence that stands out to me is the challenges and hurdles created by development of these properties at this time seem to outweigh the value to the city to provide additional single-family homes and extend the city limits. So I'm looking at staff comments. I've heard what staff has said on these things right here. And I see no real reason to defer for a month on this. I'm willing to vote. I know how I'm going to vote on this item, but I'm not going to vote for a deferral.

Then I had Alderman Caesar and then Vice Mayor and then Alderman Potts. Go ahead, Alderman Caesar.

Thank you. Similar to Alderman Brown and Alderman Barnhill, I'm not going to support the deferral. The exclusive reasoning behind that is I don't want to see anybody waste time, whether it's the developer, whether it's you, Greg, or whether it's our city staff. I think staff has been pretty clear. Now, we don't always coincide with staff's opinions. That should be noted. And that's the reason you have an electorate here, so that we can listen and we can hear and we can make decisions. And while I do appreciate staff communicating with the county to understand school count and impact on school count, that's a problem that the school board and that the county will have to solve as development goes. We've also heard about these other developments that are happening in the county, and those are impacting that school count as well. So it's not unilateral in the responsibility of growth here. I don't think this project, for a lot of reasons that have already been discussed, but I don't think this project is going to be able to solve itself for us in the near term. I would stop short of saying that I don't think there's other projects on the eastern side of the city that may come before this project, that have more merit, that offer new or different ideas that would be more than just residential. Because I think if... It's been said a couple of times tonight. I think if you believe that 96 is going to stay rural all the way to Murfreesboro, you're probably a little bit misguided. That's not meant to be a flippant statement, but the reality is it's going to come. And our intent, my intent, is that we do that in a way that feels harmonious with the environment out there. Now, does that mean that you're going to continue to look over that big open field that someone else owns? Probably not. But does that mean that we can hear you and we can be more projecting to the folks who own land out there? Because at some point, you all may want to sell your land and you may need the information from the city or other entities that gives you a timeline on when it will be likely or when it will be available for you to potentially sell. return on that investment of your land. I think there's too many things that put this much further out that make it not a good investment of our city's time, the property owner's time, or the others that will be involved in it. And for that reason, I'm going to vote no on the deferral.

I think Alderman Potts next. Or is it Vice Mayor?

Go ahead. So the thing about this is I also have concerns on this piece of property. What I've said pretty regularly on this particular vote is that what you have is a property owner comes to us and asks to have a plan of services only. What is different about this is that the staff is, I would argue, has really studied this almost all, has put 80% of the lug work in this already based on that report. I mean, that's the most exhaustive report I've seen. Very specific, very meticulous, very good planning staff has put a lot of that legwork in it. Now, the second thing we have different here is the ACAC report. Isn't that the acronym? Yeah. You know, anyway, that's the acronym. So I think, and if you'll give me a little bit of liberty, like there's some education here. That is our, you've heard every politician running for office saying we need a cost of services study before annexation. Guess what? Just look at this right here. We got it. The county doesn't. We're waiting on the county to step up and give us their portion of this. What we have here is a financial impact analysis of annexation, that actually frankly says this is $60,000 to the net negative on a residential. I think we'll be able to see very clearly over time that residential only is not going to deliver like we saw Armistead did, which is a mixed use. I think also the sales tax figures are really, really, really conservative, as they should be. So we've got this piece of information, which is new, which is fantastic. So we have these two pieces of things, and we have the staff report. And then we have the property owners say, but wait, we didn't get to speak into this. That's what you heard. That's why they're asking for the deferral. But wait, what if they disagree? What if that analysis, what if it's just you and you own parcel G and you didn't get to put your two cents in? Just to have the study. That's what we have here. What we have is staff has given us an opinion, which I don't think is necessarily wrong. I don't think it's wrong, actually. We have the financial impact analysis. We don't have that property owner. The property owner has not had a chance to speak to it. Now, is it worth it with this mountain of staff comment against it? Maybe it is, maybe it didn't. Regardless of how this goes, We're going to have to figure this piece out because I do think property owners, if they're standing up for your property owner rights, You don't want to be stonewalled by a staff report. Not that this is a stonewall. Probably should use a different descriptor. You don't want to be faced with a board of mayor, alderman, and a heavy-handed, heavily worded, it may all be true issues. You want to be able to have your voice be heard as well. And yes, it's going to take staff time. Maybe this is largely overwhelming that we shouldn't do it. But that's... The bigger issue we have here, and we may end up in the same spot tonight, but I want this board and the people to know we're actually doing what we said we would do.

Thank you, sir. And I'll just provide a little context there. As Alderman Baggett references, the ACAC, for those following along at home, this is the last attachment, and that is the Annexation Cost Analysis Calculator. And tip of the hat to Michael Walters-Young and the entire team for putting this together because this is what... the constituents, Franklin residents asked for. And we are giving it our best approach. And the data doesn't lie here. So, again, with this and other... other tools that are coming out of that department. I just wanted to say thank you. Also, thanks to Commissioner Lawrence for speaking and then also for quoting Commissioner Clifford and also for the speakers that came out tonight. As I'm looking at this, I agree. Alderman Barnhill kind of beat me to the punch here. He was quoting the study as well. This is the most comprehensive staff recommendation I think I've probably seen in the better part of at least two years. And the fact that it reads here in the last paragraph, it says, development of the property reduces capacity in our current water treatment facility, compounds capacity issues for schools in the area, and may compound the interchange delays at I-65. Those are very strong words that are listed here in the staff analysis. You can go back up to the top, and it talks about the Goose Creek Basin construction will be starting at the top of the basin, building out the sanitary sewer interceptor in reverse. And so when I see that, I would ask Michelle and for the rest of the team that if we can get more planning when we see staff making this recommendation to help us to say, okay, if we're building this in reverse, this is our starting point here, and we're working in this direction. I think that would be of really good use. I know the applicant spoke a few moments ago and said that Kimberly Horn was offering to do the traffic study. I think, you know, great offer, but I think the traffic study, we know what the traffic study is going to show us right now. It's not necessary. I think give it a few years, give it some additional opportunity here. Maybe that changes, but I'm not going to vote for the deferral at this stage. I think that there needs to be some time. There needs to be some additional planning and information from staff.

Anybody else? Ready to vote on deferral of Resolution 2026-22 to July the 14th. Alderman Barnhill? No. Alderman Blanton? No. Alderman Caesar? No. Alderman Peterson? No. Alderman Berger?

I have to vote yes because I did it. Yes.

Alderman Brown? No. Alderman Potts? No. And Vice Mayor?

Yes.

The motion fails 6-2.

I move to deny.

Second. Appropriate motion to deny. Any discussion on the motion to deny? You ready to vote? Mr. Mayor?

I apologize. I think I misspoke because I said no, that I was not voting for the deferral, but I just want to make sure that was captured. You said it was 6-2?

Yes, sir. And Alderman Berger and... Alderman and Vice Mayor Baggett voted... No to defer. Yes. They voted yes. They voted yes to defer.

Yes to defer. All right. Thank you for the clarification.

And you voted no.

Correct. Mayor, I got a point to make. I voted for to not or to defer this because I do think that people have the right, property owners have the right to bring this forward. But given what we have in front of us, I'm going to be voting against it. I do think we need to think about this moving forward largely with property owner rights in mind. Ready to vote?

To deny? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. passes to deny continuation of initiating a study. Item 9, this is a public hearing consideration. Ordinance 2026-09, an ordinance to amend the budget of the City of Franklin for fiscal year 2025-26. Mr. Mayor?

So we're into the budget section of the meeting, the next several items. Actually, items 9 through 17 will all deal with, in some way or form, aspects of either the existing budget or the budget that's been proposed for fiscal 27. So Michael's going to start us off. Item 9 is the final amendment package for fiscal 26. He'll take you through that, and then I will do the overall presentation of the proposed fiscal 27 budget. And here I thought the crowd was here to hear about the budget.

And I think the plan would be to have the complete presentations as far as the budget amendment and the budget and all the other things that go along with the budget, and then we'll go through each public hearing on each particular item.

Good evening again, Mr. Mayor, members of the Board. Welcome to Budget Night here at the Board of Mayor and Alderman, the City of Franklin. Before we can present a new spending plan, new funding plan, we need to amend the one we have. At your places, you have handouts. We've made for you a one-page cheat sheet, because that seems to be the bingo word of the night. Items 9 through 17, as Eric said, in order, just to kind of keep track in addition to your agenda. You also have Eric's presentation, which he will get to on item 10, and then the budget summary, because if you don't want to read 504 pages, we try to give it to you in two. So, like I said, Ordinance 2026-09 is the final budget amendment of the year to amend the fiscal 26 operating budget. It consists of three parts, operations and equipment increases, land acquisitions, and some minor accounting corrections. There are six funds which are affected. We'll do this briefly. The start we need with the general fund, an increase of $2,262,000. There's a series of increases and decreases. Largest decreases include lower hotel liquor sacks tax, building permit and property tax estimates compared to what we had originally budgeted, but higher franchise fees, interest income, call performance bonds, use of fund balance, and obviously the one that stands out is a higher than originally budgeted local option sales tax. As you know, we try to be appropriately conservative when forecasting our single largest revenue source. We generally did about 2.5% to 3% increase when we built this budget in 26. A little foreshadowing, 2.8 in 27. Through eight months of the fiscal year that we had collections for when this amendment was put forward last month at budget and finance, we've averaged 5.5% year over year in sales tax collections. We try to amend it to be as truthful as we can, but not try to count our chickens before our eggs hatch and the sales tax is actually collected. On the expense side, we have a matching $2.26 million in increases that consists of several categories. First of all is $980,000 increases in personnel. The majority of this increase is attributable, as it is every final budget amendment, to vacancy adjustments. It is a budgeting tool that we have used to good success over the years, over about the last two decades here in the city, that every single budget has an assumed three and a half percent vacancy adjustment built into the budget on day one, assuming for actual vacancies. But not all departments have vacancies. And so when you add together the departments that do and don't, we need to transfer funds and recognize additional expenses. Almost $900,000 in other operations. The majority, over half a million dollars, matches the revenue we looked at in the previous page for called performance bonds. We've had to call some of the ones that were due, and so therefore we are doing that work in lieu of the original developer. And we also have increased facilities maintenance and repair costs, and we've accounted for costs incurred with additional cleanup as a result of the January ice storm. $269,000 is the second part of the transfer for the purchase of the Pearl and the piece of the Pearl that is currently owned by the Water Management Fund. If you remember Amendment 2, we had put in $2.5 million. This is the finishing of that accounting, so the total cost of the general fund acquiring the land that the Pearl will be on from the Water Management Fund is $2,769,443. And then finally, a small amount of accounting corrections, including the net neutral reduction between finance and capital projects for the implementation of a new ERP system, and some small changes moving things that were budgeted in capital up into operations because they actually came in cheaper than we had originally budgeted. Switching to the sanitation fund, we have an increase for equipment of $67,000. There's $50,000 in vacancy adjustments, as well as $20,000 for the maintenance of the detention pond at Century Court, and some very small amounts of reallocations for vehicles. In the Road Impact Fund, we have an increase of $5.5 million budgeted for offset agreements. This guarantees that we have enough money to pay out any offset agreements which have been received. We have formally requested that no further offset agreements be received and notified people that they won't be paid in the month of June, that it follows state practice, because we have to close our books. We have to have a general idea of how much expense we're going to incur. Transit Fund has higher revenues of $450,000 and higher expenses of $400,000 based upon higher than anticipated state grants, as well as expenses that were higher than we'd originally budgeted, but that matches itself out. Capital Projects Fund is an even transfer of $1 million in transfers in and expenses as for the aforementioned replacement of Microsoft Great Plains. And finally, in the Water Management Fund, we have the receipt from the General Fund of $269,000 for the Pearl and a sale of surplus assets partially offset by the purchase of new equipment for the water plant and contractual services for the development of the future south plant. Fund balance changes are on the board. You have decreases in general funds, sanitation and road impact, increases in transit and water management, and an even net neutral in the capital projects fund. Thus completeth, hopefully, Fiscal 26. Mr. Mayor, happy to stand for any questions.

And this is a public hearing. Yes, sir. On Ordinance 2026-09, and it is now opportunity for public to speak to this item. If not, I'm going to oppose the public hearing and then entertain a motion to approve the amendment to the budget in the city of Franklin.

So moved.

Thank you. Second. Second, Alderman Barnhill. discussion, ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Blanton? No, I'm sorry, she's left. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Burger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. Passes unanimously. Now we'll get Mr. Stuckey to talk about a lot of items, and then we'll have each individual public hearing on each particular aspect of that.

So this next presentation will really cover the remainder of your budget items in some form or another, so I'll roll through this. It is much shorter than the 500-page budget, so I'll give you that, and I'll roll through these fairly quickly, but it's an important component, and I'm proud to present the recommended fiscal 27 budget to you this evening. It really continues the clear and strong direction the board provided in last year's budget process. You remember that process involved updating our tax rate, providing significant additional capacity dedicated to infrastructure funding and operations. And so you'll see those key components continued in this budget that we have tonight. So overall, you provided a series of budget goals, and I kind of grouped them into four broad components. senses of direction, if you will, overall. We want to stay focused on providing high quality services. We want to preserve capacity to meet future needs and both opportunities and challenges that may come our way. We want to be focused on investing in the future and being a highly competitive community. The top line numbers, the whole all funds budget collectively is at $273.4 million. That's a total increase from where we are today in the budget at 2.7%, and that increases largely contributed to capital investment dollars where we're putting cash resources into delivering infrastructure projects that you've put in the 10-year capital plan. The general fund, our primary operating fund, is at $134.3 million, an under 2%, 1.8% increase over where we are today. The property tax itself remains unchanged at 29.6 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, one of the very lowest in the state and the lowest for a city our size. And then we do have some targeted position increases in the budget overall, a net of about seven positions in the general fund in police, parks and recreation, and our fire department establishing the district captain position and program. All right, so I wanted to touch on a key component that your budget helped fund last year that we're continuing to work on, and there's been additional information that helps advance this as well, the widening of Mack Hatcher Southeast. That was an important initiative last year. We stepped up and provided capacity, and the state met us. We were one of only nine partnership programs funded across the state of Tennessee. Put that in context, there are 95 counties. There are 345 cities. There are nine partnership projects funded with local governments in that ten-year TDOT plan. So we're one of those. The state has added additional capacity to their funding commitment. We're now collectively only ten million dollars away from full funding. We've continued to work since last year on identifying some of those funds from other places, but we're very much ready to have that project. ready to go. Our teams work to make it shovel-ready. Right now it's in 2032. If the opportunity comes to move it forward, we'll be able to do that. Overall, your CIP, your Capital Investment Plan, the 10-year plan has $458 million. The Invest Franklin initiative, both what was done in 2016 and what you updated and did in this current budget and continued into the proposed budget, is the backbone of that CIP. 82% of that CIP is transportation projects. It is also a conservative, thoughtful financial plan that supports it. 66% of that CIP is funded through cash resources. So we are not getting in front of ourselves in terms of committing to overextending ourselves, but we are also strategically using debt the right way. 34% is funded through long-term debt. So we're proud of that plan. This budget helps support delivery on those projects. So let's hit some key highlights of the budget itself. It's balanced. Ongoing revenues, ongoing expenses are in sync. We comply with the board policies on debt, on fund reserves, etc. Service levels are maintained, if not enhanced, across the budget itself. We have continued that low property tax I referred to before, but also it continues the key investment, Invest Franklin initiatives that provide for additional capacity towards infrastructure, specifically transportation investments, but also targeted enhancements in terms of operating capacity as we meet the needs of our community going forward. When you look at what we do for our people, a key component in this budget, we provide a base market adjustment of 2.5%, along with an additional up to another 2.5% based on merit, based on performance by our team members. This continues our positioning. You may remember last year we did a full compensation plan update. This continues us at a highly competitive position, targeted at 90th percentile or better within the market. We did make an adjustment in health insurance premiums, 2.5%, first adjustment of that kind in four years. We have an out-of-pocket adjustment the first time since 2014 that we've made within that that keeps our health insurance highly competitive, a great benefit to our team, but we also have to make some adjustments and a mix of adjustments that help us keep where we need to be financially. So let me touch on some key things that also your investment in operations makes possible. We're adding eight new positions. We reduced one in administration, so there's a net of seven new positions across the general fund. There are three new police officers on patrol. There's a sergeant in police for additional training needs, so that's four positions in the police department. We're restoring the position of contract specialist within finance. We're also restoring two grounds worker positions in parks and recreation. We're adding an organizational development specialist position in human resources. And then we are fully implementing the fire district captain program that really enhances our operational capabilities and effectiveness. And then like I said, we've reduced a full-time position in administration. There are a few targeted fee adjustments within the budget itself, sanitation and environmental services, $1 adjustment per month in the fiscal 27 budget. Commercial tip fees are also increased by $5 a ton for folks using our transfer station directly. And then we've also fully updated the five-year cost of service and operational plan and have a rate plan that supports that and keeps it self-sufficient throughout the five-year planning horizon. The stormwater fee is also increased for the first time since 2018. We have also a five-year plan to support that, approximately a $2 a month increase for most of our residential customers and does make that fund, just like sanitation funds, self-sufficient. We're not taking away from our general fund operation capacity to subsidize those operations as well. Throughout the budget you'll see performance measures, you'll see ties to your strategic plan. Our Office of Budget and Performance has worked with every department to develop Franklin performance indicators, FIT-5 measures we call them, that get at key measures of effectiveness. It's not just about what you spend, it's about what we deliver to the community. This chart on the next page, I won't go in great detail, but these are about five of your agenda items tonight, talk about adjustments to the fee review, plan review fees. We've established some new fees in the fire protection and residential area. We've enhanced or updated for the first time in a significant period of time the non-residential review fees to better collect some of those fees from those using the system. Sanitation, again, $1 increase in fiscal 27, a $2 fiscal increase in fiscal 28. You also see transfer station fees going up $5 per ton. It will continue to keep a close eye on that to make sure we're taking what the market will allow us there to maximize revenue production from those commercial haulers that use the transfer station. And as I said, around a $2 increase in the stormwater fee, first increase since 2018. And that also has a companion five-year plan with it. You'll see the water management fees and water and sewer have already been approved, but just noting that those will take place. And all of these fee adjustments go in to place January 1 of 2027. The organizational chart on this slide is essentially unchanged from what we're operating today, but just wanted to show you that, how we're set up to operate. When you look at the general fund from a revenue standpoint, nearly 53% comes from local option sales tax, so that continues to be a primary driver of our revenue. You'll see both our state shared tax that comes back to us based on population projections, and then property tax after we have paid for our debt service. Our general obligation debt service is paid first by our property tax, and then the remaining balance goes in to support a general fund operations. And then you'll see various fees, permit revenue, interest income, et cetera, that make up the balance of the rest of our revenue sources. When you look at it another way, nearly 72% of our revenue in the general fund is consumption based. That's why we maintain a higher than typical reserve to make sure we can absorb any economic impacts which show up in the consumption revenues a little quicker, quite a bit quicker than you see from property tax and that type of revenue source. So let's look at where we spend our dollars. First, when you look at it from a functional area, 44% in the public safety realm, so police and fire. And then it's a pretty equal balance between our public works. Of course, that excludes water management and sanitation because they're in separate funds for operations. But you also look at our community and economic development, our finance and administration, all pretty equal components making up that function. those functional areas. So when you look at the other way to slice it, nearly 70% of our expenses go into personnel. So wages, benefits, pension expenses are the primary driver of how we deliver our services within the general fund. This is an important performance. You see how we consistently live within our means. We've contributed every year to our fund balance because we live within our means. We spend less than we take in. We have a responsible, strong fund balance that helps us absorb any impacts if they come our way and also enables us, in part, to have that strong amount of cash resources supporting your 10-year capital investment program. So overall you see the general fund, again, a 1.8% increase overall. You see a breakdown by detail in all those various revenue sources. Then you look at the different, again, this is a more detailed description by the expense categories, both by type of service, but also then the category of expenditure. And then the next slide I just want to highlight, it continues to be an important component. The board's taken decisive action over a number of years to better manage this expense, but it's an important component. And it grew by a million dollars in this budget. And that's our overall pension contribution. That's $16 million within the general fund. And about 20.5% of our payroll goes to those pension components. The outside agencies that we provide partnership funding for, that remains fairly minimal. fairly close to where we are today. We have not added any agencies. It's a largely inflationary increase, about 2.6% that we've provided in terms of additional capacity to those partner agencies. You just look at then the juxtaposition of property tax to sales tax. Here's the 10-year trend. It's over a 2.2 to 1 ratio of sales tax to property tax. We are very fortunate that we have strong sales tax generation in the community. You look at Cool Springs, you look at a very vibrant downtown, it enables us to have a lower than typical property tax burden on our citizens. You'll look at the next slide, kind of gives you that sense over history from the late 80s where we were over $2 per $100 of assessed valuation to today where we're under $0.30 per $100 of assessed valuation. Then when you turn to all funds, again, that shows a growth of 2.7%. We're at $273 million. almost .5 million in total expenditures. A significant component of that is driven by we're putting more and more cash into capital projects as major capital projects move along. I think you'll see that as I give you some very quick hit summaries of the other funds. Stormwater's at a slight, a little bit of a decrease at 3.7 million. That's largely because we don't have to buy the large piece of equipment we had to buy in the current year budget. And we do have the first fee increase since 2018 in that category, in that structure. And it is a self-sufficient fund over the next five years with what is recommended in this budget. Sanitation shows a 7.7% increase. A lot of that driven by tip fees and some other expenses that we're having to absorb. $14.4 million. There's a $1 per month increase in our residential fee from $33 a month to $34 a month. And again, a significant increase in the commercial tip fee at the transfer station. Hotel motel tax, $7.6 million in that. You see our ongoing commitment to the Convention and Visitors Bureau promoting us as a top visitor destination. You also see within this, we're contributing to the parking study. We're contributing to the debt service for the acquisition of Harlinsdale and Eastern Flank. We're putting synthetic turf fields in a partnership with Franklin Baseball Club at Jim Warren Park. We're doing a sports economic assessment plan for our facilities so that we can update and think a little differently about how we use our facilities to both meet community needs but also be a potential revenue source moving forward. We have a final contribution to the Merrill Williams home, the African American Heritage Society project, $25,000. You've got $4 million coming out of Hotel Motel to help with the Liberty Park enhancement project. Within the development funds, you see a lot of activity and, again, cash going out to important projects that are moving forward as we speak. McEwen Phase 4 and also some preliminary work for McEwen Phase 5, $5 million out of road impact fees. You've got $5.7 million going to the Pearl and to Robinson Lake, and Robinson Lake will open by the end of this year. You've got $1 million from county facilities taxed to help with the design work at the Liberty Mallory, North Royal Oaks intersection. You've got 1.9 million out of parkland project dollars from the parkland quadrant funds going into Liberty Park as well. Within wastewater and water, the overall water management utility, you've got 50.6 million dollars, 19.4 in water, 30.5 in the wastewater water reclamation component, and about 650,000 in your reclaimed system. There you've continued to have a significant commitment in terms of the enhancements we made to the Claude Yates facility in terms of both capacity and treatment improvements. And you've got to see that debt service going down a little bit, but it's a long-term commitment out to 2053. We're well on track with meeting our coverage requirements projected there, and we do have some cash outlays to help continue to work on the large fiberglass pipe repair that are needed across the system. So in summary, you have a budget that supports the decisive direction provided by the board in the last year plus. We continue to focus on being in a strong competitive position delivering high quality services. We're focused on balanced growth, investing in infrastructure, and high quality development overall. You see the delivery on the capital investment program of $458 million. focused primarily in transportation but other key facilities as well and you see us in a strong financial position with strong reserve balances and you see that was very evident in what we saw earlier this year and a reaffirmation of our AAA bond rating from both Standard & Poor's and Moody's. I'll stop there. There's a lot of content. It's an important effort. I want to thank the board for their guidance and direction, especially those of you that serve on the Budget and Finance Committee. It's been many months going through a lot of detail. This is a strong spending plan, a strong work plan that will continue to support the community well. I want to thank the Assistant City Administrators for their work and input in this process. the Office of Budget and Performance, Human Resources, our department leadership across the organization. This is clearly a team effort, and I'm proud to work with the team that has produced it and to recommend it to you tonight. Glad to take any questions you have.

And we're going to start with item 10, which is a public hearing consideration. Ordinance 2026-10, an ordinance to the city of Franklin, Tennessee, adopting a budget for FY 2026-27, providing effective date. Does anyone want to address this body? If not, I'll entertain a motion from the board.

Second.

Seconded by the vice mayor. Any discussion?

Can I ask a question? Absolutely. Okay. My question really is on the CIP budget. And what inflationary protection do we build into that? You know, $100 million in five years on Mack Hatcher is not going to be $100 million. 450 million, applaud that we are being so aggressive, but 10 years from now, it won't be. What do we bake into that?

We have inflationary factors in every project. So within the 10-year window, we look at when it's going to land, when we're going to bid it, when we're going to build it. We make the best assumptions we can about when those projects are ready for bidding and delivery. And we factored in a cost that we could project today, but with significant inflationary factors out to the delivery dates themselves. You know, we do also look very much so at being very conservative. There are a number of projects we assumed the highest cost possible for those knowing that you will look at other options and it's very likely they will come in a little lower because you're going to pick probably maybe a little more efficient option to deliver it. But we picked essentially a worst-case scenario on what we thought the option could be to deliver the project.

On the revenue side, we also bake in conservatism. So we assume a small increase based upon time and the value of money on collections. But for the vast majority of development funds, we put a decrement in that assumption moving forward, especially with the fee increases that we've initiated in a few of them. You know, we expect to see more, but it is, you know, as if you think about road impact funds, that was a six-year phase-in with grandfathering built in. So that does not, a CIP for the first five years does not assume large growth necessarily in the road impact funding. But years six through ten do, because the assumption would be that developments as they come in would be paying higher fees.

But it's very conservative. It's very much a believe it when we see it kind of assumption around especially the development cash resources. So we're largely relying on balances we have now and very conservative assumptions about what else will come into those.

Alderman Caesar.

Appreciate, as a new member of the Finance and Budget Committee, the hours of time that you all have spent in the past and that I've been able to fast forward through on YouTube. But this time was different. I got to sit through most of it. And so thank you for the time that not only Eric you put in and Michael, but all of our directors. It was a very interesting experience to watch them come and present their requests and then for us to provide some feedback. I do have two questions. And while our city is growing, certainly, so are the costs to maintain the level of service that we have grown accustomed to. One of the hardest exercises I ever did professionally was not asking for headcount. That was something that we did kind of every year. You always asked for headcount and then expected to get that pared back. And I had a manager once tell me that the easiest solution to a project is to hire more people. And sometimes the hardest solution to a project is to think about what would you do with the folks that you have on board. And I think we've done a pretty good job about that, Eric. I do have one question. You mentioned that there was a reduction in FTE in the admin administrative department, but I couldn't find other than a half pink, half gray org chart line for the court clerk.

Is that the role that we reduced or is there another role? It was within the recorder's office, the recorder's function. We had three full-time positions, and we're now going to operate with two. Now, we're also going to use a small part-time temporary position to see how that helps us with some of the administrative duties, but that's where we had had three people full-time working in that function, and now we have two, two of whom are in the room right now working diligently. Okay. Thank you for that.

Thank you. You're welcome. Nice to meet you. A couple of questions. The Invest 2.0, the cash being – so 2032 is Mack Hatcher Southeast, I guess, expected construction. We're collecting on that now. Yes. I'm kind of curious if we're modeling out that cash reserve – Because just doing some simple math of $3 to $4 million, I can't remember what it was, per year over the next six years. Have we modeled that out? And I'm sure we have.

We have, yeah. That timeframe gives us a chance to accumulate cash and issue less debt. So whenever that timing happens, we'll fill the void with some debt that we'll issue. We've already looked through our capability to do that for state infrastructure, and that's good to go. We've talked to bond counsel. We're ready to go. If we get the go-ahead to do it sooner, we have the capacity to do it. When we originally built this, we largely assumed that we would need to be ready to go as soon as possible. So we have the ability to meet that. The longer we, the upside of waiting longer to do the project is we have more cash and we borrow less. But we are at the ready to go. If they told us they were ready to go next year, we could make it happen.

And the other very, very important thing to note is that the money for Mack Hatcher Southeast, our commitment, is not part of the $458 million. It is outside of the $458 million. It was part of Invest Franklin 2.0 and the property tax increase last year, but it is not part of the $458 million. It is segregated. over here and not part of the CIP. Thank you.

Also, you know, we've been I'm sure been seeing some discussions around the 2472 on the fire department. And so I'd like to Look, I know that's a big decision. It's a huge decision and definitely not baked into this budget. But I do think, you know, looking at that analysis over the next year, I think it's probably on everybody.

Yeah, let me comment on that. I made this commitment at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting when we talked about some various personnel-related items. That's going to be part of our work plan is to assess that and some other scheduling options within that. So our goal will be to provide you overall as a board with an objective assessment analysis of what that looks like. What I've told the team as this has come up, I look at three things. I look at the impact on service to the community. I look at the impact on our people. And I look at the financial impact. And that's what we'll give you on both whether it's 24-72 or some other variation of scheduling that might be looked at. But it's a significant undertaking, and it would be a significant thing to consider. So we want to make sure we give it its due and look at it carefully and give you as an objective review as we possibly can.

And that's what I think we'll be looking for. The hotel, motel tax, a lot going into Liberty Park. Some of that, which is, you know, love Liberty Park. But I wanted to also make sure that the budget is... to some degree, actually to a full degree, kind of not permanently reserving that increase for any projects yet. I don't want to get that to get... I know we decided to do that last year and finally got it approved through the state, but I want to make sure that we're

Yeah, we really have not programmed that additional capacity. What we've been working on is both what you have in reserves and the base 4%. That's kind of how we built this plan. So you've got some capacity that can help you down the line, and that's what we wanted to do when we built that out.

Thank you.

Ready to vote? Item 10, Ordinance 2026-10. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Packer. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item 11, this is a public hearing consideration of Ordinance 2026-11, an ordinance of the City of Franklin, Tennessee, establishing the municipal property tax levy for the fiscal year 2020-26-7, providing an effective date. Does anyone want to speak to this body? I see most people have left. So I'm going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Move to approve. Second. Second by Alderman Potts. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Blanton. I'm sorry, Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggins. Yes. Item 12, this is a public hearing consideration of Ordinance 2026-08, an ordinance to amend Appendix A, comprehensive fees and penalties, Chapter 17, refuse and trash disposal, to increase the fees for collection of garbage and refuse. Does anyone want to speak to this body? I see no one coming forward. I'm going to close the public hearing. Is there a motion? Move for approval. Thank you. Alderman Berger? Second. Second. Alderman Brown? Any discussion?

Alderman Caesar. Thank you, Mayor. I've said this before. I'll probably say it again until I'm removed from this budget. I'm glad to see Nate running that department. What I do hope is that as new blood comes in, we think differently about doing things. I fully understand that the cost of getting a truck to someone's house, whether they put a single bag in the trash bin or 100 bags in the trash bin, is a fixed cost and we have to absorb that. What I'm suggesting is maybe we don't reduce the lower end costs for the town homes, but I get too good of a value on the service that our solid waste department provides us. As a matter of fact, I want to share this one story. I sometimes work from home and I sometimes get distracted as I look out of the office while I'm on a conference call out of the office window and I saw the street sweeper coming around and One of my kids had parked a car in the street, which is legal, but maybe not the most considerate. We'll have a conversation about that later. But as the street sweeper went by, there was kind of a clump of grass that had accumulated in front of the sewer. And I watched the street sweeper go past it, and I thought, oh no, I'm going to have to go out there and pick that up myself. Like I should, as a resident of a city that has grass in the street. But no, I heard a beep. And then I saw the street sweeper reverse, realizing that he had missed this small clump of grass in the street, and pull back over and clean it up fully. So for that, Nate, thank you to your team, and it's probably not your team, it's somebody else in the streets. I don't see Jerry here, but the streets team, thank you guys for doing that. Thank you for picking up the trash. That might have started as a lawn bag that kind of evaporated a little bit. And so thank you for doing that good job. And as we look at this, I guess my point and the reason I'm delaying this vote is I think we need to look at some of the larger homes. I'm not for raising taxes, but when we do a darn good job on picking up trash, I think we can ask a little bit more for some of those folks in a bigger house. So that's my thoughts, Mayor.

Any other comments? Ready to vote? On Ordinance 2026-08, Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item 13, this is a public hearing consideration. Ordinance 2026-12, an ordinance to amend Appendix A, Comprehensive Fees and Penalties, Chapter 23, Stormwater Management. Anyone want to speak to this body? Nobody coming up? Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? So moved. Moved to approve. Thank you, Alderman Caesar. Second. Seconded by Alderman Potts. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. Passes unanimously. Item 14, this is a public hearing. Consideration of Ordinance 2026-13, an ordinance to amend the City of Franklin Municipal Code Title 12, Chapter 1, and Appendix A, comprehensive fees and penalties, Chapter 12, building, utility, et cetera, codes to increase maximum non-residential plan review fees and establish a residential and fire protection plan review fee. Does anyone want to speak to this body? I see no one coming up. I'm going to close the public hearing, entertain a motion.

Moved to approve.

Thank you. Alderman Brown, is there a second?

Second.

Second by Alderman Berger. Any discussion?

Alderman Caesar. When we discussed this, there was also a discussion about putting in some exception for exceptional situations. I don't know that I see that in this. The first review may be waived at the Director of Building and Neighborhood Services, but I don't know if that's comprehensive enough or explicit enough.

Do you want us to address it?

Tom's ready? Somebody's ready. Tom's ready.

We need to hear a different voice.

Michael's pretty shy. This was about the plan review fee, additional charges that is currently in the ordinance that The plan review fee is for the first and the subsequent second review, and there's the option to charge an additional 50% of the original fee for third and subsequent reviews. There was discussion at the last meeting about having a staff option to waive that additional plan review fee, and in your staff report for tonight's meeting, There is proposed language for that amendment that would amend the proposed Section 109.8 with the language that's in your statute. I have a motion to amend.

Okay, and the amendment is?

I move to amend Ordinance 2026-13 to add the following sentence at the end of the newly proposed Section 109.8, fees for additional plan review cycles after initial and first re-review may be waived by the Director of Building and Neighborhood Services or their designee in appropriate circumstances. Second.

Appropriate amendment and second. Any discussion on the amendment?

Can I just ask? I thought there was something that came through that said we couldn't do this.

There's new state legislation that limits plan reviews actually to two review cycles. Right. And then there's a disapproval action after that, and it affects all development plans, so everything from development plans, submittals, all the way through building permit plan review fees. That becomes effective January the 1st of next year. So... Unless there's a change to that legislation between now and January the 1st, this is not likely to come into play.

This actually makes this mute. Yeah, that's what I thought. Moot, not mute. Moot, yes.

That's what I thought. Okay, you ready to vote on the amendment?

It could be mute, too.

Alderman Barnhill? No. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Okay, we're back to the original motion as amended. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. I can't believe we're not having another public hearing. 15 is Resolution 2026-41, Resolution of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen for the City of Franklin adopting the Estimate of Revenues and Extended Years for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund for FY 2026-27, providing an effective date. Is there a motion? Thank you, Alderman Caesar. Second. Second, Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Did you say yes? I did say yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. And Vice Mayor. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number 16 is Resolution 2026-45, adopting a five-year rate plan for the Sanitation and Environmental Services Department. Is there a motion? Sir, I move to approve. Thank you. Second. Second by Vice Mayor. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger.

Yes.

Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item 17 is Resolution 2026-46, Adopting a Five-Year Rate Plan for the Stormwater Fund. Is there a motion? Move to approve.

Second.

Broker, motion second. Any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown.

Yes.

Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item 18. This is Consideration Resolution 2026-55 to reject all bids received for procurement solicitation 2026-028 for stop-loss insurance for group health and prescription drug programs for employees and retirees. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Second. I would ask that you move to reject.

Excuse me. Sir, I move to reject as currently stated on 2026-55. Thank you for making sure we clarify that.

I still second. Seconded by Alderman Brown. Any discussion? Ready to vote? Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson? Yes. Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. Passes unanimously. Item 19, consideration of Amendment 5 contract. Number 2023-0126 with blue cross blue shield of Tennessee and the total amount of $928,463 for stop loss gap coverage for the city of Franklin self-insured medical and pharmacy benefit plan. Is there a motion?

Move to approve.

Second. Second by Alderman Potts. Any discussion? Seeing none, ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill. Yes. Alderman Caesar. Yes. Alderman Peterson. Yes. Alderman Berger. Yes. Alderman Brown. Yes. Alderman Potts. Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett. Yes. Passes unanimously. Item number 20 is procurement award to ADSLLC, the amount of $426,812 for procurement. years one through three for wastewater flow monitoring services for the wastewater general division of the water management department purchasing office procurement solicitation number 2026-010 the city of franklin contract 2026-0195 i would entertain a motion Move for approval. Second. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Second. Alderman Potts, any discussion? Ready to vote. Alderman Barnhill? Yes. Alderman Caesar? Yes. Alderman Peterson?

Yes.

Alderman Berger? Yes. Alderman Brown? Yes. Alderman Potts? Yes. Vice Mayor Baggett? Yes. Passes unanimously. Any other business come before this body? Is there a motion to adjourn then? So moved. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye.