Franklin city staff pitches 32¢ tax option to fund Invest Franklin 2, public safety hires and parks

City Administrator Eric Stuckey presented the Board of Mayor and Aldermen with a proposed fiscal 2026 budget that includes an ordinance for two property‑tax options and a planned increase in the hotel occupancy tax.

Stuckey told the board the all‑funds budget totals $243,300,000 and the general fund proposal is $128,100,000. He said the city’s recent county reappraisal increased the assessed base from $7,600,000,000 to $10,750,000,000 and that the reappraisal reduced the current rate from 32.61¢ to an adjusted equalized base of about 23.1¢ per $100 of assessed value.

Why it matters: Stuckey presented a proposed 32¢ rate that would: preserve existing operations (the 23.1¢ equalized base), dedicate 6.8¢ to a new Invest Franklin 2 capital component (including the Mack Hatcher Southeast widening), and direct roughly 2¢ toward operations and staffing. He said the Invest Franklin 2 component would provide roughly $100 million of 20‑year debt capacity as a baseline for capital partnerships and leverage. Stuckey said, “Invest Franklin 2 dedicates property tax capacity for critical, infrastructure needs and enhancing service over multiple years.”

Details: The budget document brought to the board shows that one penny of property tax now generates about $750,000 on the pre‑reappraisal base and will generate just over $1 million per penny after reappraisal. The staff proposal also includes increasing the city’s hotel occupancy tax from 4% to the permissive 5% allowed under state law; Stuckey said that change would generate roughly $1.2–$1.3 million annually and that the board’s guidance ties the revenue to tourism‑related projects.

Planned staffing and capital uses: Stuckey outlined eight new positions in the FY‑26 request — three patrol police officers, three firefighters assigned to shifts, one victim services counselor in the police department and one IT systems development position — and said Invest Franklin 2 helped make those hires possible. He also reiterated the budget’s support for the city’s 10‑year capital improvement program, which he said totals in excess of $500,000,000 and is weighted heavily toward transportation projects.

State partnership and risks: Stuckey said the widening of Mack Hatcher Southeast still has an unresolved $25,000,000 funding gap in the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 10‑year plan. He reported the city has pledged $50,000,000 toward the partnership and that TDOT currently shows $25,000,000 committed; the remaining $25,000,000 needs identification. Stuckey told aldermen staff will pursue MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) and other federal funding and make parts of the project shovel‑ready so the city can accelerate delivery if additional partnership dollars appear.

Board reaction and next steps: The board discussed two ordinance options Stuckey put forward: a 32¢ rate (staff recommendation) and a lower 29¢ alternative that reduces the dedicated capital component. Several aldermen said they prefer moving to public comment and hearing residents before finalizing a position; others said they favor the 32¢ option to preserve capacity for the Mack Hatcher projects and for long‑term capital planning.

Board schedule: Stuckey said the ordinance will be presented for first reading at the voting session that evening; a public hearing and second reading are scheduled for June 10, and a final (third) reading would be the June 24 meeting. No formal vote adopting a rate occurred at the work session.

Financial context and examples: Stuckey gave an example for scale: under the 32¢ plan, an owner of a $1,100,000 home would pay about $200–$210 more per year in additional tax capacity compared with current payments — roughly 63¢ per day — as a way to illustrate personal impact.

What remains unresolved: The city and board discussed whether to earmark the dedicated capital cents to specific TDOT partnership projects (for example, designating the 3.4¢ piece specifically for TDOT roadway partnerships). Several aldermen urged clear public communication on how any dedicated funds would be used; others said earmarks are unnecessary because the board ultimately determines spending.

Where the board left it: The item moved forward as a first reading of an ordinance that includes both the 32¢ and 29¢ options. The board requested public input ahead of the June public hearing and asked staff to prepare details on revenue uses, project prioritization and the schedule for capital delivery.