Franklin council votes to place 3.4‑mill police services measure on August ballot after days of debate

The Village of Franklin Council voted on April 22, 2026, to place a proposed police services millage of up to 3.4 mills for five years on the Aug. 4 ballot, directing the administration to finalize ballot language and submit it to the county. On a roll call taken after debate, the motion passed unanimously.

The measure would, if fully levied, amount to $3.40 per $1,000 of taxable value and is estimated in the first year to raise about $1,675,121. The ballot language the council approved specifies the levy is "for the purpose of providing police protection and services, including but not limited to police operations and personnel costs, recruitment and training, police vehicles and equipment, technology and communications systems, building and facility improvements, capital improvements, and payment of unfunded accrued pension liabilities and other post‑employment benefit obligations related to police personnel." The council directed the village administrator and attorney to finalize and certify the resolution consistent with minor clarifications.

Why it mattered: Council members and residents said the village’s general fund has not generated enough revenue to sustain police services without repeating supplemental actions year to year. President Goldberg told the council the village has been operating near or below sustainable revenue levels for several years and that a dedicated funding mechanism was necessary to avoid recurring budget shortfalls. "We have to go outside of the general fund to help fund the police department," Goldberg said, framing the discussion as a choice between ensuring long‑term stability and preserving flexibility in other village services.

What happened in the meeting: Dozens of residents spoke during public comment; several urged the council to support a robust, stand‑alone police millage. Resident Nina Downing said, "I strongly support the maximum amount that is requested," and former Chief Dan Roberts said it would be "much cleaner if the police department budget is taken out of the general fund and all of it is funded by a separate millage." Council members then debated the policy tradeoffs at length: some pushed for the full 4‑mill projection that staff had modeled earlier, while others favored a lower, shorter measure or a hybrid model that leaves some police funding in the general fund to minimize the political risk of future councils redirecting resources.

Votes at a glance: A motion to place a ballot question authorizing up to 4 mills (earlier in the meeting) failed on roll call (three yes, four no). After further discussion, the council adopted a compromise motion to place a 3.4‑mill measure on the Aug. 4 ballot for a five‑year period; the subsequent roll call on that motion recorded unanimous yes votes from trustees present. The council also approved the ballot language and directed staff to submit it to the county (county submittal deadlines were discussed during the meeting).

Fiscal and policy context: Staff and trustees discussed projections showing different revenue and reserve outcomes depending on millage level and duration; staff warned current fund balances were thin and that pushing some costs into a restricted police fund would change how the village manages emergencies and priorities. Trustees raised pension funding and long‑term reserve goals as drivers of the preferred millage level, and administration staff noted that millage rates are subject to the constitutional roll‑back calculations that affect taxable levies.

Next steps: The council directed the administration to finalize and certify the resolution and ballot language for county submission. Council members also asked the village attorney to prepare a written opinion on a separate agenda item — how to handle a midterm trustee replacement seat on the November ballot — and set a schedule for further public outreach. If the August measure fails, council members discussed returning in November with a revised proposal.

The council adjourned after brief additional business on nuisance ordinance language and election sign limits.