Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Investment Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Franklin updates 10-year capital investment model, shows $134.3M new capacity; board asked to re-check priorities

2115141 · January 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff presented an updated financial model for Franklin’s 10-year Capital Investment Program showing about $525 million in forecasted revenues and a net $134.3 million in additional capacity for projects; staff recommended the board refine prioritization and consider a phased debt plan.

City of Franklin officials reviewed an updated 10-year financial model for the capital investment program at the Jan. 14 work session, showing roughly $525 million in forecasted revenue and a net $134.3 million of additional capacity for future projects.

The presentation matters because it recalculates how much the city can spend in cash and borrow for roads, parks, facilities and other large projects, potentially changing which projects are funded in the near term.

Michael Walters Young, the city’s chief budget and performance officer, told the Board of Mayor and Aldermen the model covers fiscal 2025–2034 and reflects updated revenue forecasts, revised debt scenarios and the projects approved in Resolution 2024-46. Walters Young said the update incorporates higher expected receipts from the city’s half-percent local option sales tax and revised road impact fee expectations. “We would forecast roughly $112,000,000 in cash over the next 10-year period,” he said, adding the model is conservative on development-dependent revenues.

The model groups revenue sources into internal funds (general fund, sanitation, road impact, facilities tax, stormwater, hotel/motel and parkland dedication) plus external funds (federal/state grants, private and utility contributions). Walters Young highlighted that of the roughly $525 million forecasted revenues, the general fund and the revised road impact fee scenario account for the largest increases since the board last saw the plan: road impact fee assumptions contributed about $77 million of the additional capacity and general fund cash added about $20 million.

Staff also outlined a debt plan that would reduce the previously projected borrowing from about $195 million to roughly $176 million over the 10-year window, with potential bond issuances across fiscal years 2025–2028 for major projects (Southeast Park phase 1, East McEwen Drive phase 4, a new city hall and Long Lane/Patonsville work among others). Walters Young said the city’s current annual debt service of about $15.8 million would peak at about $28.2 million in fiscal 2029 under the proposed schedule.

Aldermen pressed staff on assumptions. Alderman Barnhill noted the selected 60% factor applied to the previously modeled $170–$230 million road-impact scenario and said the number could be more aggressive; Walters Young and staff said the 60% assumption intentionally errs on the conservative side and can be adjusted for alternate scenarios. Vice Mayor Potts and other members asked staff to bring back a prioritized list of projects from the board’s prior rankings updated to the new capacity target so aldermen could re-assign funds among projects.

Staff flagged several projects already in active phases: roughly $447.1 million of expense across 36 approved projects (14 completed), with Southeast Park phase 1, East McEwen Drive phase 4 and Robinson Lake among the largest near-term construction efforts. East McEwen’s total project cost shown in the model incorporates an estimated $30 million in federal grants included as external funding. Walters Young said total remaining projects in the CIP gross to about $390.2 million after accounting for existing resources and prior commitments.

Next steps outlined by city staff included returning with: (a) a prioritized list of projects reflecting the updated capacity, (b) options for phasing and financing (cash vs. debt), and (c) additional detail on projects staff recommended reconsidering for the 10-year window (for example, replacement of Fire Station 3, which staff noted could fall outside the current decade and cannot be funded with facilities tax). Eric Stuckey, city manager, said staff will “identify where there appears to be consensus on the prioritization” and present a revised number and options for the board to weigh.

The board did not take a final funding vote on Jan. 14; staff were directed to return with more detailed, prioritized scenarios for aldermanic consideration and possible future action.