Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Franklin City Council reached a 4-2 consensus during a May 19 work session to reduce the proposed real estate tax rate that is part of the proposed fiscal year 2026 city budget.

In the FY26 city budget proposed by City Manager Rosylen Oglesby, there has been a proposal to increase the city’s real estate tax rate by 4 cents — from $1.03 to $1.07 per $100 of assessed value. This increase of 4 cents would bring in an additional $312,000.

Responding to the council’s interest to find ways to reduce or eliminate that potential tax rate increase, Oglesby presented five options at the May 19 session for consideration:

• No. 1: Across the board cuts: 1.5% = $324,089;
• No. 2: Combination: 1% increase in the food and beverage tax = $115,000, and 2.52-cent increase in real estate tax = $196,100;
• No. 3: Combination: 1% increase in the food and beverage tax = $115,000, and 1% across-the-board cuts = $216,065;
• No. 4: Eliminate employee compensation: No 3% wage increase = $390,547, and no living wage adjustment = $91,250; and
• No. 5: Reduce local match for non-Standards of Quality (SOQ) school programs = $1,892,062.

Most of the interest from council members centered around options No. 2 and No. 5. Several council members favored No. 2, and Ward 1 Councilman Mark R. Kitchen advocated for a combination of Nos. 2 and 5, which gained support as the council’s discussion progressed.

Ward 3 Councilman Gregory McLemore supported the idea of council members generating more options, and he advocated for finding ways to bring more money into the city to avoid any tax increases.

There was some talk about pulling the $312,000 needed solely from option No. 5, but it was noted that there was risk associated with that choice, because if Franklin City Public Schools’ final average daily membership came back at a high number, it may require the city to give back some of the money it pulled from there. And then the city may be short of what it needs.

Ward 4 Councilman Dr. Linwood Johnson, Ward 5 Councilwoman and Vice Mayor Wynndolyn H. Copeland and Mayor Paul Kaplan favored choosing option No. 2.

Favoring a combination of Nos. 2 and 5 were Kitchen, Ward 6 Councilwoman Jessica G. Banks and Ward 2 Councilman Richard Grizzard.

McLemore argued for No. 5 as a way to avoid any tax increases but did not gain support. 

“Since y’all are determined to raise taxes, I support raising 2 cents rather than 4 cents, but I don’t want to raise taxes on our citizens,” he said.

He ultimately abstained from contributing a vote toward a consensus, creating the possibility of a 3-3 tie.

Banks suggested using option No. 2 and drawing $200,000 — rather than a previously suggested $400,000 — from option No. 5.

“I think that would give us some buffer,” Kaplan said.

Johnson later said, “Bottom line, I’ve said this — if you’re not dealing with four pennies (more on the tax rate), we’re not getting it done.”

“That’s right,” Kaplan said. “Really and truly we probably need to be voting for eight or 10 cents, but we can’t afford to do that.”

“Yeah, yeah, it should be 12,” Johnson said.

McLemore said, “No, it should be — bring more money into the city.”

In her presentation of the five options to avoid/reduce a real estate tax rate increase, Oglesby opened with a summary of how the city got to a point where the increase was being proposed:

• Prior councils were informed about the increase in debt payment obligations – no gradual increase to real estate tax;
• Employed unsustainable methods to balance the budget:

-Reduction in department funds;

-Elimination of positions;

-Reliance on additional/increased transfers from Enterprise Funds;

-Use of Fund Balance for recurring expenditures

• Kicking the “proverbial can” down the road.

Near the end of the May 19 work session, council members again cast votes, seeking a consensus on which they preferred of Oglesby’s five options to reduce/avoid the proposed increase.

Kitchen indicated he was set on a combination of options No. 2 and 5.

Johnson said, “I say (No.) 2, and we move forward.”

“I go with (No.) 2,” Kaplan said.

Banks said, “(No.) 2 and we reduce (No.) 5 by $200,000 — final answer for me.”

“(No.) 2,” Copeland said.

McLemore abstained.

“I like Ms. Banks’ idea,” Grizzard said. 

Kaplan noted that this put the vote at 3-3, and Oglesby added, “which means we don’t have a consensus.”

“Somebody’s got to change,” Banks said.

“OK, I’ll change,” Copeland said, giving the consensus to the utilization of options No. 2 and 5.

McLemore was critical of the change, but Copeland emphasized the need for the city to have a budget.