City Council and Mayor

07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 1 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Wednesday, July 29, 2026 – 6:00 p.m. Franklin Elks Lodge, 125 S Main St ATTENDANCE Present: Councilor Susan Hallett-Cook, Councilor Al Warner, Councilor Ben Forge, Councilor Sam Jacobson, Councilor Ed Prive, Mayor Glenn Morrill, Councilor Tim Johnston, Councilor Justine Hoppe, Councilor Tom Boyce, and Councilor Delaney Carrier. Absent: None. Others Present: City Manager Mitch Kloewer, School Superintendent Dan LeGallo, School Business Administrator Jefferson Brauman, School Board Chair Liz Cote, and members of the public. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrill called the City Council workshop meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. SALUTE TO FLAG Led T by Councilor Forge. PUBLIC HEARING AF Public Hearing on the FY2027 Combined City and School Budget R The public hearing was opened at 6:01 p.m. The Mayor invited members of the public to sign up and to address the Council with their name and ward. The following individuals spoke: Name Abby Dillon Ward 1 D Position Spoke in support of funding the school department's proposed budget rather than the school's tax-cap budget, describing the role of youth sports and extracurricular activities in building confidence, friendship, and a sense of belonging among Franklin's children, and thanking the Council for its time on the budget process. Liz Cote, 2 Read a letter, authorized by an 8–1 vote of the School Chair, Board, on behalf of the Board. The letter stated that the Franklin budget before the Council balances the city's budget but School Board is not the Board-approved budget, does not meet the state minimum Ed 306 requirements enforced under RSA 186:8, and is insufficient for the district's students and staff. The Board had requested $21.5 million (up  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 2 from $19.9 million the prior year); the Council's proposed budget provides the district $19.3 million, a reduction of over $600,000 from the prior year. The letter described the Board's multi-month budget process, including workshops on February 18, March 3, and April 16, and outlined the specific city-side funding motions that had previously failed. A copy of her statement is included in these minutes. Kaitlyn Nash 1 Spoke in favor of funding the school department's proposed budget. Sean Ray Unknown Spoke in favor of funding the school's proposed budget for sports, sharing personal accounts of the positive impact of athletics and extracurricular activities on students. Mike 3 Spoke in favor of funding the school's proposed budget Lombardo T and asked for a show of hands on the idea of merging school districts. City Manager Kloewer stated he was not AF aware of any studies on the feasibility of such a merger. Councilor Warner noted the idea is raised frequently and has not gained traction. Councilor Prive spoke to both advantages and disadvantages of the concept. Mr. Lombardo discussed his research on district mergers, Rnoting that each community would need its own board's approval and that a merged district would take on the cost of Franklin's IEP population (over 40%), and stated D it made more sense to fund Franklin's schools than to send students elsewhere. Councilor Jacobson asked about a potential merger timeline. Werner Horn 2 Spoke in favor of funding the school's proposed budget and spoke to the limitations the tax cap places on the City. Mike 3 Returned to the podium and spoke further to district Lombardo cost- and power-sharing structures in the context of a potential merger. Briana 1 A teacher in the Franklin School District, spoke in Vandell support of the schools. Caitlin Reed 1 Spoke in support of the schools and the funding crisis facing Franklin. Kelly Napier 2 Spoke in support of the schools.  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 3 Desiree 2 Compared Franklin's roughly 9,000 residents to its McLaughlin approximately 800 students, and spoke to the tax cap's language and its impact on residents on fixed incomes and other marginalized demographics, citing 2025 census figures of 17.8% of residents under 18 and 21.3% over 65, and just under 40% earning below the median income. She stated the tax cap was developed by authors who had themselves experienced a significant one-year tax increase and was intended to be equitable. She asked what items are currently funded outside the tax cap; City Manager Kloewer stated that certain additional costs begin in Fiscal Year 2028, and she confirmed her understanding that the ambulance is presently the only item over the cap; the City Manager added that trash collection is as well. Discussion followed regarding the trash collection program, the City's responsibility for school debt, the City's use of fund balance, and keeping payment of the ambulance funded via expiring debt as originally intended, which led to T further discussion of expiring debt and the upcoming fire truck purchase; Councilor Jacobson clarified that the fire AF truck is not part of the FY2027 budget. Ms. McLaughlin asked about funding for special education; the Mayor asked School Business Administrator Jefferson Brauman to come forward, and Mr. Brauman offered to follow up with her by email. Ms. McLaughlin referenced a Kathy Rago 3 R legal opinion she had obtained from the City Attorney. Asked about trash pickup. City Manager Kloewer stated D that funding for trash services is insufficient, and described a proposed fee-per-can program that residents may opt into, with no requirement to enroll; a fee would apply whether Casella collects the trash or a resident brings it to the transfer station themselves. Councilor Warner asked for the proposed barrel fees; City Manager Kloewer cited annual fees of approximately $125 for a 96-gallon can, $90 for a 64- gallon can, and $65 for a 48-gallon can. Kaitlyn Nash 1 Returned to the podium. Asked whether all debt service may be moved outside the tax cap under the charter. City Manager Kloewer confirmed debt service and capital purchases can be moved outside the tax cap and discussed debt service lines that could be shifted outside the cap under Charter Section 32(B). She noted that the amount of debt service available to move corresponds to the amount the school needs to avoid a Rule 306  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 4 violation, citing a figure of approximately $576,000. Mr. Kloewer estimated the impact at roughly 40 cents per $1,000 of property value on the December tax bill, and identified the relevant lines as the principal debt-service line, 01-7-111-40980-000, and the interest debt-service line, cited in the notes at points as both 01-7-112-40981- 000 and 01-7-111-40981-000. Gerry 3 Spoke to issues Franklin has faced over the past 50 Desrochers years, including school district merger discussions and trash pickup. The Mayor then asked whether any Councilors had received letters or written statements to be read into the record. Letters and Written Statements Read into the Record Councilor Warner read a letter from Valerie Blake (Ward 3), who was unable to attend and asked that her remarks be entered into the record. The letter stated that revenue, T not staff or service reductions, is needed to adequately fund the schools, police, fire, and municipal services departments; that the tax cap has not been reevaluated in over AF 30 years; and requested that the Council prioritize revisiting the tax cap provision, including a proposal to require review every five years. Councilor Warner added his own remarks referencing the June 1 minutes' discussion of a tax-cap revision, stating that Charter Section 32(B) and Section 34 warrant legal review and further work, and encouraging residents to read RSA 49. R A copy of Valerie Blake’s letter is included in the minutes. D Councilor Boyce read a letter from Carol Gumbart (Ward 2), asking the Council to approve the school budget and stating she is willing to pay additional tax to achieve an adequate budget. A copy of Carol Gumbart’s letter is included in the minutes. Councilor Johnston read the following statement into the record: “I want to be very clear for the record and for the public watching tonight: The city council is providing a total budget that fully supports our schools. Under state law, this council appropriates a total dollar figure, while the school board retains full control over every single dollar is spent inside that budget. If the school board is signaling tonight that it intends not to meet state-mandated Ed 306 and violate state RSA 186:8 requirements, that is a choice of internal prioritization. State mandates are not optional line items to be funded last. They are the core legal obligation of the board and must be funded first before any discretionary spending. To pre-emptively blame the City Council for potential noncompliance, while holding total authority over the district's line-item budgets, is an attempt to shift accountability. The money is there. The responsibility to allocate it legally and wisely rests entirely with the school board.”  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 5 Councilor Hoppe read a letter from Janet Johnston (Ward 1), which asked the Council to honor the tax cap, cited concerns about rising fees such as the proposed trash-barrel fee alongside reduced services, urged the City to pursue collection of unpaid water, sewer, and tax bills and unfulfilled sign-on bonus repayments before considering new fees or an override of the tax cap, and to complete a previously voted independent audit. A copy of Janet Johnston’s letter is included in the minutes. Brenda Demers (Ward 3), Executive Secretary: Spoke regarding difficulty hearing certain speakers and Zoom participants, and asked speakers to slow down and speak closer to the microphone. Councilor Boyce: Referenced comments from members of the public about a willingness to pay more in taxes, and noted that a school-funding trust fund established in 2022 held a balance of only $265.81, questioning whether residents would in fact contribute to it. Councilor Prive: Spoke to the transfer station as a potential revenue source for the City, citing a neighboring community's pay-per-load model, and noted that trash brought to the transfer station currently generates no revenue for the City despite the tipping fees the City must pay. T AF The Mayor noted that the City's online public-comment tool had been used by seven residents in advance of the hearing. Councilor Jacobson noted that one of the online comments was also separately read into the record as Councilor Boyce's letter from Carol Gumbart. There being no further speakers, the public hearing on the FY2027 combined city and R school budget was closed at 8:02 p.m. WORKSHOP ITEMS FY2027 Budget Summary Five-Minute Recess D Motion: Councilor Carrier moved: “to take a five-minute recess.” Seconded by Councilor Hoppe. Discussion: None. Vote: Show of hands. Result: All in favor. Motion to recess carried. The Council recessed at approximately 8:03 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:09 p.m. Councilor Jacobson observed that the Council had found roughly $450,000 in anticipated revenue for trash collection but had been unable to find comparable funding for the schools. Councilor Warner clarified that the $450,000 figure represents anticipated fee revenue, not funds already collected.  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 6 Debt Service Transfer - Charter Section 32(B) ($618,269) Motion: Councilor Jacobson moved: “I move that we move $510,509 from line 01-7- 111-40980-000 (Debt Service) and $107,760 from line 01-7-111-40981-000 (Interest Debt Service) outside the tax cap pursuant to Chapter 32 of the City Charter, and increase the number by the sum of these two, which is $618,269.” Seconded by Councilor Forge. Discussion: City Manager Kloewer recommended legal review before acting on the motion, noting the approach was novel. Councilors Forge and Warner both voiced general support for the concept while Councilor Warner urged caution pending legal review. Councilor Carrier read Charter Section 32(B), “Exception to Budget Limitation,” which permits the total or any part of principal and interest payments on a municipal bond to be moved outside the tax cap upon a two-thirds vote of the Council. Councilor Boyce and others asked about the resulting tax impact; City Manager Kloewer stated he did not have exact figures on hand. Using the previously cited ambulance-resolution figures ($466,289; approximately 37 cents per $1,000 of value) for comparison, Councilor Jacobson estimated the debt-service transfer at approximately $147 in additional December tax on a $300,000 home, for a combined estimated impact of approximately $258 with the ambulance assessment. Councilor Warner cautioned that T the math on a prior resolution (the Soldiers Memorial Hall resolution, from September 2024) had not worked out as initially described; City Manager Kloewer distinguished AF that resolution, a multi-year bond, from the one-time assessment proposed here. Councilor Hoppe stated support for the funding but asked for legal review and hard financial figures before a final vote. City Manager Kloewer cautioned that if the motion failed that night it could not be reintroduced by the dissenting side under Robert's Rules, and recommended postponing the vote rather than tabling the motion. Motion to Postpone the Vote R D Motion: Councilor Hallett-Cook moved to postpone the vote on Councilor Jacobson's pending motion. Seconded by Councilor Prive. Friendly Amendment: Councilor Hallett-Cook amended her motion, at City Manager Kloewer's suggestion, to postpone the vote specifically until the Council's regular meeting on Monday, August 3, 2026. Discussion: Councilor Jacobson asked that the postponement be as short as practical. City Manager Kloewer committed to obtaining a legal opinion on the transfer mechanism and hard tax-impact figures, covering both the ambulance resolution and the debt-service transfer, from the finance department and the City Attorney before the August 3 meeting, and to forward that information to the Council as soon as available. Vote: Roll call vote. Councilor Vote Johnston Yea Boyce Yea Prive Yea Carrier Nay  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 7 Councilor Vote Hallett-Cook Yea Warner Yea Forge Nay Jacobson Nay Hoppe Yea Result: 6 yeas, 3 nays. Motion to postpone the vote on Councilor Jacobson's debt- service transfer motion until the August 3, 2026 Council meeting carried. No vote was taken on the underlying motion, which remains pending before the Council. Postponement of Resolutions 02-27, 03-27, and 04-27 Following the vote above, City Manager Kloewer suggested that the remaining resolutions on the agenda would also need to be moved to the August 3 meeting. Motion: Councilor Forge moved to postpone the remainder of the resolutions — identified in discussion as Resolutions 02-27, 03-27, and 04-27 — until the Council's August 3, 2026 meeting. Seconded by Councilor Hoppe. T Discussion: A Councilor noted that Resolutions 03-27 and 04-27 could affect the figures in Resolution 02-27, and suggested addressing 03-27 and 04-27 that night to AF avoid revisiting the same issue on Monday. City Manager Kloewer agreed with the concern but stated he did not have exact figures on hand and that the Council could discharge the resolutions that night if it wished; the resolutions were postponed instead. Vote: Roll call vote. Councilor Prive R Vote Yea Boyce Hallett-Cook Carrier Hoppe D Yea Yea Yea Yea Jacobson Yea Forge Yea Johnston Yea Warner Yea Result: 9 yeas, 0 nays. Motion to postpone Resolutions 02-27, 03-27, and 04-27 until the August 3, 2026 Council meeting carried. School Board Budget Timeline City Manager Kloewer asked School Board Chair Cote whether the School Board could provide an updated budget reflecting the postponed transfer by Monday. Chair Cote stated the Board could potentially meet Wednesday, July 31 (its already-scheduled monthly meeting date), to develop updated figures, but that a quorum and final Board  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 8 approval were not guaranteed by Monday, August 3; a rough draft may be available sooner. City Manager Kloewer clarified that a full budget vote is not expected on August 3, and that a date would instead be set once the School Board's figures are finalized. Draft Minutes for Approval City Manager Kloewer noted that several sets of draft meeting minutes are posted and ready for Council review and approval on Monday, August 3, and asked Councilors and members of the public to send any corrections to the Executive Secretary administratively in advance so they may be approved without separate motions at that meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Councilor Johnston moved: “to adjourn.” Seconded by Councilor Hoppe. Vote: Voice vote. Result: All in favor. Motion to adjourn carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, T Brenda Demers Executive Secretary AF With AI Assistance R D  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 9 Submitted Documents Liz Cote, School Board Chair Statement 10 Valerie Blake Letter 13 Carol Gumbart Letter 14 Janet Johnston Letter 15 T AF R D Last week, the School Board voted during an emergency meeting to allow our Business Administrator and Superintendent to send a $19,351,084 budget to the City Council, Mayor, and City Manager to be added to the total City budget for tonight’s hearing. The School Board also voted last week to have me speak tonight on behalf of the Board, and to share this letter with the same stakeholders, which I have done. The Board voted this way, 8 in favor, with 1 abstention, to highlight the following points and summarize how we got here. The school budget before you tonight balances the City's budget. However, it: -​ is not the School Board Approved budget. -​ does not meet the state minimum ED 306 Rules, enforced by RSA 186:8. -​ is deficient in providing for the students and teachers of the Franklin School District. Last year, the district received $19.9 million. For next year, the School board approved a $21.5 million budget. The City Council rejected this budget. Now, the district is budgeted to receive only $19.3 million. This means that while the cost of everything is going up, the Franklin School District is being asked to operate with over $600,000 dollars less next year. T We asked for $2.25 million more than we got last year. We ended up with $600,000 less. How did we get here? AF The answer is a series of calculated choices. On the School Board side, we first recognized that the teachers in our district are among the R lowest paid in the state. Some are not earning living wages. We believe that no teacher should have to rely on food stamps. So we chose to negotiate an agreement with the teachers’ union to D try to level the playing field a little bit. To be clear, our teachers are still among the lowest paid in the state. But it’s movement in the right direction. And the City Council agreed and approved that contract unanimously on April 6th. The School Board also chose to answer the Joint Finance committee’s question of “How much do we need to fix the issues in the district?” as our starting budget point. That number came first directly from teachers and administrators, and it was over $5.5 million more than last year. We recognized that $5.5 million was too large a portion of the combined City budget, so in our first budget workshop, we directed the Superintendent and district leadership to find efficiencies. We then chose to painstakingly, over the course of three months, hold budget workshop meetings in which we reviewed every. Line. Of. The. Budget. We met on February 18th, March 3rd, and April 16th. Multiple City Councilors were in attendance and received copies of all documents we worked off of. The School Board got to a place, after cutting more than half of what was originally requested, where we agreed unanimously that there is nothing more to cut: legally, morally, ethically, logically. There were no ‘wants’ left. $2.25 million dollars is needed to provide an adequate education for the students of this community. And this is what we chose to present to the City Council. We even had a dedicated meeting with this Council on April 13th about how to read the School District’s budget. On June 8th, we presented the full budget, along with a presentation explaining the process, how we got to our decision, why we approved what we did, and what would be lost if we didn’t get the funding. We have been clear for over a year now about this. We disclosed an unanticipated six-figure insurance cost we had to shoulder the burden of. We spoke months ago, based on state-calculated and distributed data, about how we were going to experience an over half a million dollar loss in state funding aid. I have stood before the Council for months, talking about state-level legislation that is actively working to defund public schools and shift increasing financial responsibility onto local municipalities. We have talked for years about special education costs, which are rising for medical, socio-economic, and other reasons. We have talked for years about temporary and inconsistent grant funding that the city has been happy to have the district rely on, mostly due to COVID, that has run out and no longer exists. We clearly outlined the factors that led to the budget we approved. Requesting more money does not mean that there is corruption. It does not mean that there is a lack of transparency. It T does not mean that there is mis-management. This was never a surprise, and for members of this Council to have acted like it is and assume the worst is disappointing, unprofessional, and unproductive. AF Despite this, the School Board chose to move forward and act in good faith. We answered questions about line items, which lies outside of the purview of the City Council. We provided valid, legally-vetted avenues through which this funding could be achieved. We provided R additional line-item lists of positions and lines that would be cut, highlighting both special education and the ED 306 rules. D We also chose, in a second vote, this time 7-2, to reaffirm that the budget we approved is the budget that the children, teachers, and schools of Franklin deserve to have. Those were our choices. The City Council also made choices. And the City Council chose to vote no on, among others, the following motions: ●​ $2.5 million outside of the tax cap for state/federally mandated services (according to the charter) ●​ $1 million outside of the tax cap for state/federally mandated services (according to the charter) ●​ Shifting the percentage allocation of funds to be more equitable between the city and the schools ●​ Shifting an amount in the range of $250,000, unofficially stated for the cost of athletics ●​ Funding the 2%+ line item loss of state adequacy aid (according to the charter)  ●​ Shifting $58,000 from the city budget to the district budget, unofficially for the cost of adult education The Council chose to ask the district to provide a list of special education items that add up to $2.25 million to prove that we could and would fund it outside the tax cap transparently; the Council then chose to use that list to suggest that we were trying to not fund special education fully under the tax cap, in order to force the City Council to vote for our budget. By doing this, the City Council chose to assert that funding public education in Franklin schools is a choice between funding special education or funding general education – a dangerous dichotomy. The Council also chose to ignore the over 40 people who came out on June 29th to advocate for athletics, voting instead in the next session against the specific amount needed for athletics. The Council did choose to give the district $52,300 through this budget process. $52,300 does not do much to fill a $2.25 million hole. And, as I stated earlier, the district still has to budget for over $600,000 less in projected revenues than last year. T Mind you, this is not the choice of the whole City Council. But it is enough to make their choice, AF everyone’s choice – a choice that leaves the Franklin School District having to find the absolute limits of doing more with less. And that is why I’m here tonight. To speak on behalf of the Board to say that these choices are not okay. The district portion of the City budget is an amount that a supermajority of an elected R body, the School Board, feels is insufficient to fund our schools, and it is not officially endorsed or approved by the Franklin School Board. Thank you. Liz Cote D Ward II School Board Chair  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 13 From: Valerie Blake Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 1:00 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@Franklinnh.gov>; SH Cook <Shcook@Franklinnh.gov>; Al Warner <Awarner@Franklinnh.gov>; E Prive <Eprive@Franklinnh.gov>; Justine Hoppe <JHoppe@Franklinnh.gov>; Samuel Jacobson <SJacobson@Franklinnh.gov>; Thomas Boyce <Tboyce@Franklinnh.gov>; T Johnston <Tjohnston@Franklinnh.gov>; Delaney Carrier <Dcarrier@Franklinnh.gov>; Benjamin Forge <BForge@Franklinnh.gov> Cc: City Manager <citymgr@Franklinnh.gov> Subject: Budget Good evening Mayor, City Councilors and City Manager, I regret I am unable to attend the meeting this evening and request my remarks be read and entered into the record. After months of meetings, hundreds of budget lines scrutinized and explained by the City Manager and department heads, you have failed. T Moving revenue and expense lines on a tax cap, needs based budget is just grandstanding by a few city councilors for special interest groups. Our schools, police AF department, fire department and municipal services department are dangerously underfunded and the solution lies not in reducing staff or cutting services but in revenue - you all know that. Kudos to those councilors who actually understand this and offer potential solutions. Those councilors who chose to say no to tax increases clearly have no understanding of the dynamics of a municipal budget. Property taxes are determined R by the value of a home or property not expense lines in a budget. If your taxes are higher, your home or property has increased in value. Higher property values are a benefit to a city, attracting future citizens and businesses, creating a community we all D want to live in and be proud of. What is disappointing is the elephant in the room wasn't addressed during this budget cycle again - the tax cap. Everyone knows the tax cap hasn't been evaluated in over 30 years. This is irresponsible and not sustainable. I know a few councilors have attempted to bring this forward for discussion but have been quashed. A good step forward would be to edit the tax cap provision and add language that would require the tax cap be reevaluated every five years or when there is a city wide evaluation. This doesn't trigger any adjustments but raises awareness of potential funding shortfalls. This allows the Council time to be proactive in solving the problem rather than turning a blind eye hoping the problem will go away or resorting to draconian reductions that put our students, citizens and community at risk. I would ask that as you wrap up this budget cycle you set a goal to immediately prioritize a total review of the tax cap provision as soon as possible - it's time. Thank you,  07/29/2026 Minutes – Page 14 Valerie Blake, Ward Three Franklin NH 03235 Valerie Blake Franklin, NH 03235 From: Carol Gumbart Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2026 11:31:30 To: Thomas Boyce <Tboyce@Franklinnh.gov> Subject: City Council Budget FY27 You don't often get email from Hi Tom, T Learn why this is important AF As a representative of Ward 2, I'm asking you to represent my opinion that the city's budget should adequately fund the schools, roads, public safety departments and city government employees. I am willing to pay more tax to achieve an adequate budget. Carol Gumbart 56 Daniell Point Rd, Franklin Ward 2 R D D R AF T