Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin council opens wide-ranging debate on 10-year police millage; decision deferred
Summary
At its April 13 meeting the Franklin Village Council heard a multi-hour presentation on police funding and a proposed 10-year millage of up to 4 mills. Council members probed pension liabilities, Headlee/Proposal A effects and budget assumptions and agreed to reconvene for a follow-up vote rather than approve the measure that night.
The Village of Franklin Council on April 13 began a lengthy budget and public-safety discussion about a proposed 10-year police millage of up to 4 mills but stopped short of placing it on the ballot.
The presentation, led by the police chief and finance staff, described staffing and training gains and projected future costs. The chief said the department is budgeted for 12 officers and "we currently have 11," noting recent gains in accreditation and expanded EMS transports. Finance staff laid out a 10-year forecast that factored in taxable-value growth, the Headlee/Proposal A caps on revenue growth and the village's large unfunded pension liability.
Why it matters: Council members said the village is operating with tightening finances, calling out recurring years where expenditures have outpaced revenues and a pension obligation that exceeds several million dollars. Supporters of a voter-approved, time-limited police millage argued that a separate police levy would provide more transparent, predictable funding for public safety and free up some general-fund capacity for other village priorities. Skeptics warned that the village needs stronger internal budget controls and public buy-in before asking residents to increase taxes.
During the discussion the finance presentation emphasized how Michigan's revenue rules interact: a voted police millage would be limited to the ballot language (police services), while a charter change would alter the village's broader levy limits. The presenter advised council that a voted millage can be structured with an expiring term (for example 10 years) to ensure voters periodically reauthorize the funding.
Council members exchanged technical questions about taxable-value growth, the value of one mill in future years, assumptions used in the 10-year forecast, and how a millage would change the village's ability to make pension payments. Several trustees recommended additional modeling and time for public outreach before finalizing ballot language.
A motion was introduced to place a resolution on the August ballot authorizing up to 4 mills for police services in replacement of the current smaller police millage. The motion was seconded, then withdrawn by its seconder while the council agreed to reconvene within days for further review. No binding vote was taken that evening.
Next steps: Council members asked staff to run alternate scenarios (smaller initial levies, hybrid approaches that split funding between the general fund and a voter-approved levy, and projections that allocate additional payments toward the pension obligation). A special follow-up meeting was proposed in the coming 7— days so the council could settle language and timing for a potential ballot question and do additional public education.
The conversation underscored two competing priorities: some trustees urged a conservative ask to reduce immediate tax shock, while others favored a larger, up-front ask to avoid repeated requests and to begin addressing long-term pension and capital shortfalls. The council did not adopt a final millage amount or ballot language at the April 13 meeting and will return to the issue at a near-term special session.
