Board debates $91.5 million in proposed additions to Franklin’s 10‑year capital plan, questions $40 million Goose Creek allocation

Lede City staff presented a law‑approved version of draft Resolution 2025‑85 to update Franklin’s 10‑year Capital Investment Plan on Tuesday, and aldermen spent substantial time questioning priorities, timing and whether a proposed $40 million Goose Creek Bypass allocation should be held in the plan or deferred in favor of smaller, faster “micro” projects.

Nut graf The draft resolution would add seven projects totaling about $91.5 million to roughly $456 million of committed projects against a projected $460 million in revenues over the next decade. Staff said about $95.6 million would remain as non‑committed revenue if the additions are approved; aldermen emphasized the need for quarterly updates, prioritization and flexibility to free funds for smaller projects that produce more immediate neighborhood benefits.

Key points and board comments Michael Walters Young, chief budget and performance officer, summarized the CIP projection: roughly $460 million over 10 years, of which $139 million is projected debt and $321 million in cash. He said about $3.64 million is already committed and nearly a quarter‑billion dollars are currently under way in capital projects across the city.

Paul Holson, city engineer, and staff recommended seven additional projects for planning purposes and emphasized that the most expensive versions of some projects (Eddie Lane sidewalk and Boyd Mill Avenue improvements) were shown for planning conservatism and could be refined to lower costs.

Aldermen pressed on multiple topics: - Goose Creek Bypass: Several aldermen said the $40 million allocation is large and likely to increase over time; Alderman Colin Blanton cautioned that prices will rise over a 10‑year horizon and said the city should pin the project to the plan but expect costs to change. Alderman Owen Barnhill urged caution about removing funds from the project because it has consistently ranked high in prior prioritizations. - Micro projects and prioritization: Aldermen Carmen Baggett, Owen Barnhill and Owen Caesar repeatedly argued for setting aside staff capacity and funding to deliver smaller, high‑impact projects (sidewalks, intersection fixes) more quickly. Staff said there is some unprogrammed capacity (about $4 million) and that operating funds or outside consultants could be used to speed up micro projects. - Home‑raising program funds: Aldermen asked when an $11 million home‑raising allocation would clear; staff said the Army Corps is finalizing commitments on a handful of remaining properties and that a clearer accounting should be available by year‑end.

Staff response and next steps Staff said the CIP is a 10‑year planning document and many projects would likely be paced into the later years of the plan. They committed quarterly updates that will include schedules and priorities so the board can reassess allocations and project sequencing. Staff also said design‑phase amounts in the draft may be reduced as project options are refined.

Ending Aldermen asked staff to return with more detailed project schedules and traffic‑analysis data (anticipated travel volumes and feeder‑road impacts) for priority projects. Staff said they will present a CIP re‑ranking exercise in about 12–24 months and continue quarterly updates to inform board prioritization decisions.