Why Did Franklin Call Two Special Meetings for Zimmerman-Associated Rack City?

Why Did Franklin Call Two Special Meetings for Zimmerman-Associated Rack City?

Ballpark Commons venue had already announced its Saturday opening when Franklin convened special Friday-evening License Committee and Common Council meetings—just four days before the regularly scheduled Council meeting

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Why did the City of Franklin call elected officials to City Hall on a Friday evening for two special meetings involving a single Ballpark Commons business when the next regularly scheduled Common Council meeting was only four days away?

That question arises from the unusual sequence surrounding the opening of Rack City, the new Sports & Social Club at Ballpark Commons associated with developer Mike Zimmerman.

The documented timeline raises questions about why expedited governmental action was necessary, who requested it, and what standards Franklin uses when deciding that a private business matter warrants special meetings rather than waiting for the regular meeting schedule.

Opening Announced Before Council Approval

On September 30, Rack City publicly announced that it would open Saturday, October 3, at 11 a.m.

The announcement appeared on Franklin Today at approximately 8:19 p.m. and promoted the opening around postseason baseball and football:

“THE GAME IS ON.”

The announcement acknowledged that work on the new Sports & Social Club was still being completed but said that, with postseason baseball and football season underway, the business was moving forward with its weekend opening.

Later that evening, at approximately 10:46 p.m., Common Council President Michelle Eichmann posted the Rack City opening announcement on her alderwoman Facebook page.

That means Eichmann was publicly sharing Rack City's planned October 3 opening approximately two days before participating in the special Council meeting—and before making the motion approving the Rack City licensing matter.

There is no evidence that Eichmann's Facebook post caused or influenced the scheduling of the special meetings. It does establish, however, that the announced Saturday opening was publicly known before the Council acted Friday evening.

Two Special Meetings—One Ballpark Commons Business Matter

On Friday, October 2, Franklin scheduled a Special License Committee meeting for 5:50 p.m.

The committee had only one substantive matter on its agenda:

BPC Golf Entertainment, LLC — Name Change: Brick Pizzeria to Rack City — Agent: Tom Johns — 7075 S. Ballpark Drive.

The matter concerned a change in the premise description and doing-business-as name for the licensed alcohol premises.

That distinction is important. The City was not issuing a new alcohol license personally to Zimmerman. The City's records identify BPC Golf Entertainment LLC as the licensed entity and Tom Johns as its agent.

Johns has also served as an agent on other Zimmerman-associated Ballpark Commons matters. The appearance of Johns's name on the Rack City licensing documents therefore should not be confused with ownership of the underlying Ballpark Commons business.

Franklin also scheduled a Special Common Council meeting for 5:50 p.m. that same Friday.

Again, there was only one substantive business item: approval of the BPC Golf Entertainment licensed-premises change from Brick Pizzeria to Rack City.

A Two-Minute Common Council Meeting

Although the Council meeting was scheduled for 5:50 p.m., Mayor John Nelson actually called it to order at 5:54 p.m.

No one spoke during citizen comment.

When Nelson reached the Rack City item, he initially sought a motion before suggesting an opportunity for discussion because some Council members might not have been present previously.

There was essentially no substantive discussion.

Eichmann moved approval.

The motion was seconded, and the Council approved the Rack City matter 5–0, with one alderperson absent.

The Council then adjourned.

The time?

5:56 p.m.

The entire Special Common Council meeting had lasted approximately two minutes.

After adjournment, Nelson made a noteworthy comment to the officials who had come to City Hall:

“Before you guys leave, I just want to say thank you so much for coming. This is a pain in the butt, I realize.”

The mayor's remark acknowledged the inconvenience of assembling officials for the special Friday-evening meeting.

What the meeting did not explain was why doing so was necessary.

Rack City Opens the Next Morning

Less than 18 hours later, Rack City opened at 11 a.m. Saturday, October 3, as its September 30 promotion had announced.

The sequence was:

• September 30, 8:19 p.m. — Franklin Today posts Rack City's October 3 opening announcement.
• September 30, 10:46 p.m. — Eichmann posts the opening announcement on her alderwoman Facebook page.
• October 2, 5:50 p.m. — Special License Committee scheduled with the Rack City licensing matter as its only substantive agenda item.
• October 2, 5:54 p.m. — Special Common Council actually convenes.
• October 2, 5:56 p.m. — Council has approved the Rack City matter and adjourned.
• October 3, 11 a.m. — Rack City opens.
• October 6 — Franklin's regularly scheduled Common Council meeting.

Why Couldn't It Wait Four Days?

That is the central unanswered question.

The issue is not whether Franklin possessed the legal authority to hold special meetings. FCN is not alleging that the meetings violated Wisconsin's notice requirements.

Nor do the available records establish that Zimmerman personally asked Franklin to expedite the matter so Rack City could open that weekend.

But City government nevertheless determined that the matter warranted convening both its License Committee and Common Council specially on a Friday evening rather than waiting four days.

That decision deserves an explanation.

Who requested the October 2 special meetings?

When were they requested?

Who authorized or determined that special meetings were necessary?

Why couldn't the Rack City matter wait until the regularly scheduled meetings?

Was the City aware of Rack City's already-announced October 3 opening when the special meetings were scheduled?

Was the October 3 opening dependent upon receiving the October 2 approval?

What criteria does Franklin use to determine when an individual business licensing matter warrants expedited consideration?

Would the same accommodation be available to any Franklin business facing an opening deadline?

Rack City Was Not the First—But the Comparison Raises Another Question

There is an important qualification.

Franklin has provided similarly expedited consideration to at least one other business during the Nelson administration.

On March 16, 2026, Franklin convened a Special License Committee involving Tail Spin LLC/Tail Spin Pub & Pizza for an entertainment/amusement license.

A Special Common Council meeting followed, approved the matter and adjourned within minutes—even though regularly scheduled meetings were set for the following day.

Tail Spin is located in the aldermanic district represented by Common Council President Michelle Eichmann.

Eichmann also moved approval of the Tail Spin licensing matter.

That means the Tail Spin example demonstrates that Rack City was not the only business to receive expedited consideration.

But it does not necessarily answer the broader question of how widely that accommodation is available.

Instead, the two examples identified so far share several characteristics: both occurred during Mayor John Nelson's administration; both involved paired special licensing and Council action shortly before regularly scheduled meetings; and Eichmann played a role in both matters. Tail Spin is also located within Eichmann's district.

The relevant question therefore is no longer simply:

“Has Franklin ever done this for another business?”

The more important questions are:

“What businesses are eligible for this type of expedited consideration, who decides when it will be provided, and what objective criteria are used?”

The two examples identified by FCN show that Franklin has provided expedited consideration to more than one business. What remains unclear is whether this reflects a defined citywide policy available to all similarly situated businesses or discretionary decisions made on a case-by-case basis.

Rack City Replaces the Former Brick Pizzeria

Rack City is not an entirely new Ballpark Commons location.

It occupies the space previously used by Brick Pizzeria & Ristorante, which opened at Ballpark Commons in June 2023 and closed in July 2026 after approximately three years in operation.

When Brick opened, Ballpark Commons developer Mike Zimmerman publicly promoted the restaurant's arrival. Zimmerman said his family had visited the original Brick restaurant in Steamboat Springs, Colorado and that they were “beyond thrilled” to bring the concept to Franklin.

By July 2026, however, the Franklin restaurant had closed.

Ballpark Commons announced Brick's departure while also signaling that the space would not remain vacant. The development said “an exciting new entertainment experience” would be coming to the former restaurant space.

That replacement became Rack City Sports & Social Club.

The history is particularly relevant to the October 2 special meetings because the City's licensing action did not involve an unrelated business suddenly seeking approval for a new location. The matter before the License Committee and Common Council specifically changed the licensed premises from Brick Pizzeria to Rack City, with BPC Golf Entertainment LLC as the licensed entity and Tom Johns as its agent.

In other words, the October 2 special meetings completed the licensing transition from the former Brick concept to its Rack City replacement immediately before Rack City's publicly announced Saturday opening.

That timing raises another question.

If Brick had closed in July and Ballpark Commons had already announced that a new entertainment concept was coming to the space, how long had Rack City been planned—and why did the necessary licensing change ultimately require two special meetings on the evening before the new concept opened?

The question does not presume that anything improper occurred. But the timeline is relevant: replacement of Brick had been contemplated months before the October 2 special meetings, yet the licensing matter reached City officials through an expedited process immediately before Rack City's opening.

Rack City Is Part of a Much Larger Zimmerman–Ballpark Commons Relationship

The October 2 action also did not occur in isolation.

Zimmerman and Zimmerman-associated entities have had an extensive relationship with Franklin government through the development of Ballpark Commons.

The City's own economic-development materials have described municipal assistance associated with the development, including TIF financing, environmental exceptions, facilitation of special-use permits and other support.

Over the years, Franklin has considered or approved development agreements, zoning changes, special uses, development requirements and other measures affecting Ballpark Commons.

Some of these actions represent conventional municipal economic-development policy and should not automatically be characterized as preferential treatment. Communities routinely use development agreements and incentives when elected officials conclude that a project will generate economic or public benefits.

But several actions provide relevant historical context.

Franklin entered into development arrangements involving Zimmerman-associated entities as Ballpark Commons was developed.

The Council amended development requirements and considered special uses and exceptions associated with the project.

There have also been arrangements involving the timing or deferral of financial obligations.

And in December 2019, Franklin held another Special Common Council meeting involving BPC Golf Entertainment LLC—the same corporate entity appearing in the October 2 Rack City licensing matter.

That earlier matter involved agreements associated with deferred impact fees for the Ballpark Commons golf-entertainment development, with Zimmerman personally appearing in the related documentation.

That does not prove that the October 2 Rack City meeting represented favoritism.

It does demonstrate that BPC Golf Entertainment LLC and Zimmerman-associated Ballpark Commons interests have previously been the subject of special Council action.

Eichmann's Ballpark Commons Record

Eichmann's involvement also extends beyond the October 2 Rack City vote.

During her Council tenure, she has supported multiple governmental actions involving Ballpark Commons, including motions or votes involving development and zoning matters.

She also serves on City bodies with significant roles in business and development matters, including the License Committee, Plan Commission and Economic Development Commission.

On October 2, it was Eichmann who made the motion approving the Rack City matter.

And two days earlier, she had publicly posted Rack City's October 3 opening announcement on her alderwoman Facebook page.

Those facts do not establish that Eichmann arranged the special meetings or provided preferential treatment to Zimmerman.

But her documented support for Ballpark Commons-related matters and her involvement in the Rack City action are relevant context when examining the City's relationship with the development.

Special Access—or a Service Available to Every Business?

There is nothing inherently improper about a municipality helping a business navigate government requirements or responding quickly when circumstances warrant it.

A City interested in economic development arguably should help businesses efficiently navigate its processes.

The public-interest question is whether that assistance is provided according to consistent standards.

If Franklin has an established practice of calling special meetings to help businesses meet legitimate licensing or opening deadlines, then the Rack City and Tail Spin meetings may simply be examples of that policy.

But if there is no defined policy, the City should explain how these decisions are made.

For Rack City, the questions remain straightforward:

Who requested the special meetings?

Why couldn't the matter wait four days?

Did Rack City's publicly announced October 3 opening create the urgency?

Who decided that urgency justified calling elected officials to City Hall on a Friday evening?

What criteria were applied?

And would Franklin provide the same expedited process to another business under comparable circumstances?

Mayor Nelson's own words demonstrate that assembling officials specially was not regarded as insignificant:

“This is a pain in the butt, I realize.”

If calling officials together was inconvenient enough for the mayor to acknowledge it publicly, Franklin residents—and Franklin's other business owners—are entitled to ask:

What Made It Necessary?

Left to Right:  Steve Taylor, John Nelson, Mike Zimmerman

 

What Changed? Taylor and Vincent Cast Only No Votes on Further Review of County Board Conduct Code

Vincent voted for the original Code of Conduct initiative while Taylor voted against it; both later supported the final county budget containing the measure

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

What changed for Milwaukee County Supervisors Steve Taylor and Kathleen Vincent?

That question emerged from the October 1 County Board meeting when Supervisor Patti Logsdon, author of File 26-610, asked that her proposed County Board Code of Conduct be referred back to committee to incorporate additional information from Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel and the Ethics Board.

The Board agreed.

Taylor and Vincent cast the only votes against the referral.

The vote did not adopt or reject the Code. It returned the proposal to the Committee on Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services for further consideration.

What makes those two no votes particularly noteworthy is the history behind the proposal.

Vincent Supported Amendment 29; Taylor Voted Against It

The official voting record shows an important distinction between Taylor and Vincent.

On November 6, 2025, the County Board considered Amendment 29, which initiated development of a County Board Code of Conduct. Vincent voted in favor of Amendment 29. Taylor voted against it—the only supervisor to do so. The amendment passed 16–1.     

Later that same meeting, however, both Taylor and Vincent voted to adopt the complete 2026 County budget as amended, which included Amendment 29. The final budget passed 17–1, with Supervisor Deanna Alexander casting the only no vote.    

The voting history can be summarized this way:

Vincent: A29 — YES → Final amended budget — YES → Oct. 1, 2026 referral — NO

Taylor: A29 — NO → Final amended budget — YES → Oct. 1, 2026 referral — NO

Nearly a year later, on October 1, Logsdon asked that File 26-610—the subsequent proposal implementing the Code of Conduct—be returned to committee for additional consideration.

Taylor and Vincent cast the only votes against that referral.

Their October 1 votes do not establish that either supervisor opposes every possible Code of Conduct. But their voting histories are different. Vincent supported Amendment 29 in 2025, while Taylor opposed it. Both subsequently voted for the final budget containing the amendment.

That distinction raises different questions about each supervisor's position as File 26-610 has developed.

Their votes do not establish that either supervisor opposes every possible Code of Conduct.

But they raise an obvious question:

What changed?

Their October 1 votes do not establish that either supervisor opposes every possible Code of Conduct.

But their voting histories are different. Vincent supported Amendment 29 in 2025, while Taylor opposed it. Both later supported the final budget containing the amendment.

That distinction raises different questions about each supervisor's position as File 26-610 has developed.

Vincent Previously Questioned the Need

During the September 22 committee discussion, Vincent suggested the proposal appeared connected to a dispute between individual supervisors.

“The timing and circumstances around this proposal create the appearance that it arose from a conflict between individual supervisors. If that is the case, I do not believe an interpersonal dispute between two elected officials should come before this board.”

She added:

“Legislation should address demonstrated institutional problems, not individual relationships or disagreements.”

There are two important pieces of context.

Vincent's comments are particularly notable because she voted in favor of Amendment 29 when the County Board approved the original Code of Conduct initiative in November 2025.

First, the legislative history shows that the effort to develop a Code of Conduct predates the dispute Vincent referenced.

Second, concerns previously examined by Franklin Community News extend well beyond one disagreement between two supervisors.

Concerns Involving Both Taylor and Vincent

FCN previously examined allegations and documented events involving both Taylor and Vincent, including questions involving retaliation, employment interference, contacts with other public officials and the use of taxpayer-funded County staff in matters outside ordinary County Board business.

A sworn affidavit from Logsdon described conversations she said she had with Vincent concerning Taylor, MATC, prosecutors and other public officials. FCN also reported allegations concerning a County legislative aide shared by Logsdon, Vincent and Taylor attending court proceedings unrelated to County Board business.

Those allegations are not findings of misconduct.

But they illustrate the broader institutional question raised by File 26-610:

What process exists when concerns about an elected supervisor's conduct or use of County resources extend beyond the County Board chamber?

Read FCN's earlier investigation: “When County Supervisors Step Outside Their Role, Who Holds Them Accountable?”

Concerns About Taylor Span Decades

The concerns involving Taylor also predate the current County Board debate.

FCN's previous reporting identified a number of elected officials and community members who over the years publicly raised concerns or made allegations concerning Taylor's conduct, including former Milwaukee County Supervisors Deanna Alexander and Dan Sebring, and community members Sally Ann Chadwick, Mary Draginis, Gianfranco Zingales, Joy Draginis-Zingales and Bryan Maersch.

Their accounts involved different circumstances and should not collectively be treated as proof of misconduct.

Alexander publicly accused Taylor of bullying, retaliation and employment interference and later named him in federal litigation. Taylor disputed the allegations, and the litigation did not result in a judicial finding that Taylor caused Alexander's termination or unlawfully interfered with her employment.

Sebring publicly accused Taylor of attempting to intimidate him and criticized Taylor's conduct toward colleagues.

Maersch alleged that Taylor contacted his employer in an effort to have him fired over political criticism and separately contacted Franklin officials concerning Maersch's appointment to a City commission. Those allegations were not judicially established.

Taylor's record extends even further back.

Taylor, who has recently highlighted approximately 25 years of public service, began his elected career on the La Crosse Common Council in 1997.

During that period, a former girlfriend obtained a harassment injunction against him. A subsequent investigation eventually produced a separate obstruction prosecution after another individual alleged Taylor encouraged him to take responsibility for prohibited contact.

Taylor denied the allegation.

A jury convicted Taylor of misdemeanor obstruction in 2000.

Unlike the later allegations, that conviction is an established part of Taylor's public record.

Read FCN's examination: “The Steve Taylor Files: From Harassment Injunction to Obstruction Conviction”

More recently, the Milwaukee County Ethics Board reviewed Taylor's “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor” Facebook page. The Board did not find an Ethics Code violation but unanimously found a “strong reasonable appearance” that the page was County-affiliated and directed Taylor to deactivate it as a condition of dismissal.

Read the Proposed Code Yourself

File 26-610 would establish conduct standards and a complaint process while expressly protecting legitimate political disagreement and policy advocacy.

Readers can review the proposal directly:

Read File 26-610 and the current proposed Code of Conduct

Read the February 2026 Draft Code of Conduct Report — File 26-326

So What Changed?

The official record shows that Taylor and Vincent arrived at the current debate from different starting points.

Vincent voted in favor of Amendment 29 in November 2025, when the County Board approved the initiative to develop a Code of Conduct. Taylor cast the sole vote against that amendment.

Later that same day, both supervisors voted to adopt the complete 2026 County budget as amended, which included Amendment 29.     Minutes (1)

Vincent subsequently questioned whether the later proposal was being driven by an interpersonal dispute and argued that legislation should address demonstrated institutional problems.

Then, on October 1, Taylor and Vincent were the only supervisors voting against Logsdon's request to return File 26-610 to committee for additional consideration.

The record therefore presents different questions for the two supervisors.

Their votes do not tell us why.

Taylor and Vincent can.

For Vincent, what changed between her vote supporting Amendment 29 in November 2025 and her October 1 vote against returning File 26-610 to committee for further consideration?

For Taylor, who cast the sole vote against Amendment 29 in 2025, what objections does he have to the current File 26-610 proposal?

Why did both supervisors oppose Logsdon's request for additional committee consideration before the Board takes final action?

And considering the concerns that have been raised over many years involving the conduct of elected supervisors:

What process do Taylor and Vincent believe Milwaukee County should have to address legitimate complaints about the official conduct of its own County supervisors?

 

Franklin's 2027 Budget Is Balanced — But at What Cost?

Finance Committee review raises questions about taxes, debt, staffing and what residents may ultimately pay to maintain City services and quality of life

FRANKLIN — Mayor John Nelson's proposed 2027 budget is balanced on paper. But after multiple Finance Committee budget-review meetings, a larger question is emerging: At what cost—to taxpayers, City services and Franklin's quality of life?

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

The Mayor's proposal increases the City's property-tax levy and debt-service levy while relying on borrowing and other revenue sources for millions of dollars in capital spending.

At the same time, some requested positions remain unfunded, some costs could potentially be shifted elsewhere, and Franklin is paying its former Finance Director to provide consulting assistance to the current Finance Department.

The Finance Committee is still reviewing the proposal. It is expected to submit its recommendations and proposed changes to the Common Council on October 20, with a public hearing and final adoption scheduled for November 17.

READ THE BUDGET:

2027 Mayor's Recommended Budget — City of Franklin

2026 Mayor's Recommended Budget — City of Franklin

The budget debate increasingly comes down to three things:

Taxes. Services. Quality of life.

City Levy Would Increase Nearly $900,000

Under Nelson's proposal, Franklin's total City property-tax levy before personal-property-tax aid would increase from approximately $24.33 million to $25.22 million—an increase of about $892,000.

The General Fund levy would increase approximately $917,000, or 4.3%.

That does not mean an individual homeowner's total property-tax bill will increase by the same percentage. Franklin is only one taxing jurisdiction on the property-tax bill, and the effect on an individual property depends on valuation and the final tax rate.

But it does mean the City proposes collecting more property-tax revenue.

Debt-Service Levy Jumps 24%

Franklin's debt-service levy would increase from approximately $1.14 million in 2026 to $1.415 million in 2027—an increase of $275,000, or roughly 24%.

Meanwhile, the separate $300,000 Street Improvement levy included in 2026 falls to zero.

The need for street improvements doesn't disappear. To the extent future projects are financed through borrowing rather than a current levy, those costs are instead paid over time through principal and interest.

A cost can be postponed or financed differently without being eliminated.

$26 Million in Capital Spending With No Capital Levy

That issue surfaced directly during the September 22 Finance Committee meeting when a member questioned how Franklin could undertake approximately $26 million in capital spending while putting $0 of the current property-tax levy directly into the capital fund.

Finance officials explained that the capital program uses multiple funding sources, including borrowing authorized in 2026, TID borrowing, landfill-siting revenue, grants, interest income and other resources.

Review the City's 2027 Capital Fund Budget

Borrowing can allow Franklin to complete long-lived infrastructure without requiring current taxpayers to pay the entire cost immediately.

But borrowing also creates future obligations—and Franklin's increasing debt-service levy demonstrates how those obligations eventually reach future budgets.

Review the City's 2027 Debt Service Fund Budget

Fire Staffing Shows the Tradeoff

The budget's effect on services becomes particularly clear in the Fire Department.

The department has identified a need for additional firefighter/paramedics as emergency calls and overlapping calls increase.

The Mayor's 2027 recommendation does not fund the requested additional firefighter/paramedic.

The Fire Chief estimated one firefighter/paramedic costs approximately $150,000 annually with benefits. During the same discussion, committee members cited approximately $167,000 in additional levy capacity.

Funding one position could therefore consume most of that additional recurring capacity.

That illustrates Franklin's fundamental budget dilemma:

Maintaining or expanding services costs money. Controlling spending requires deciding which needs get funded and which wait.

Health Position Also Left Unfunded

The same issue arose during the September 29 review.

Nelson's budget leaves the vacant Public Health Strategist position unfunded.

Health Department staff told the committee the position assists with emergency preparedness, community-health planning, grant writing and other responsibilities.

Restoring the position was estimated at approximately $115,000 including benefits.

Leaving it unfunded saves money. Health staff, however, told the committee that absorbing those responsibilities without the position would be difficult.

City Paying Former Finance Director as Consultant

Another expenditure surfaced during review of the Finance Department budget.

Former Franklin Finance Director Paul Rotzenberg, who now serves as a citizen member of the Finance Committee, publicly disclosed that he has been providing paid consulting assistance to current Finance Director Danielle Brown.

“I've been helping Danielle out on a consulting basis because I was the finance director, and I have a lot of knowledge,” Rotzenberg told the committee.

He also made clear that the work is paid:

“I'm charging for the consulting work.”

The proposed Finance Department budget contains a new $30,000 professional-services appropriation. During the discussion, that appropriation was connected to anticipated consulting assistance, although Rotzenberg said he did not expect to personally spend enough time working for the City to use the entire amount.

Rotzenberg also clarified that he does not charge the City for his participation on the Finance Committee. His paid consulting work is separate from his committee service.

The arrangement does not by itself establish anything improper, and Rotzenberg publicly disclosed it during the meeting.

It does, however, add another consideration as Franklin determines how to allocate limited resources: the City is paying its former Finance Director to provide assistance to its current Finance Department while other requested positions remain unfunded.

The issue also relates to questions FCN previously examined about Franklin's executive staffing, administrative costs and the additional resources that may be required during leadership transitions.

RELATED: Can Franklin Afford Another Executive? — FCN Wisconsin

Senior Programs Accidentally Left Out

The committee also discovered that two established senior programs were listed at $0 in Nelson's proposal.

Administration acknowledged September 22 that the omission was an “oversight.”

The committee discussed potentially restoring approximately $22,000 for Senior Travel and $12,000 for the senior luncheon/activity program.

That's potentially another $34,000 that must be accommodated somewhere in a budget already presented as balanced.

Could Residents Pay Through Other Bills?

Property taxes aren't the only way residents can bear City costs.

The Finance Committee discussed potentially moving approximately $270,000 in public-fire-protection costs from the property-tax levy to the Water Utility.

Such a move could create additional room under the property-tax levy.

But the expense wouldn't disappear. More of it would instead be recovered from water customers.

For residents, the distinction matters:

A cost removed from the property-tax levy isn't necessarily a cost removed from the household budget.

The Longer-Term Landfill Question

Franklin also receives millions of dollars in landfill-related revenue that currently helps support capital projects and other City expenses.

During the September 29 meeting, committee discussion described Franklin's broader landfill-related revenues as approaching $4 million annually across different sources and funds.

That revenue will not necessarily continue indefinitely.

If it eventually declines substantially, Franklin will face choices: replace the revenue through taxes or fees, find other revenue, reduce spending or services—or use some combination of those approaches.

That is a longer-term issue, not a proposed 2027 tax increase.

But it demonstrates why balancing one year's budget does not resolve Franklin's longer-term financial challenges.

What Does This Mean for Residents?

The debate isn't simply about whether taxes rise or fall.

It's also about what residents receive for what they pay.

Fire and emergency response, snowplowing, roads, public health, parks, recreation and other municipal services all contribute to Franklin's quality of life.

Reducing or postponing spending can control taxes and fees. But postponing positions, equipment and infrastructure can also affect services.

Conversely, funding every departmental request would require additional money from somewhere.

The Bottom Line

Mayor Nelson's 2027 budget balances. But balance doesn't make the underlying costs disappear.

Some costs are paid through today's property-tax levy.

Some are borrowed and paid tomorrow.

Some can potentially be shifted to fees or utility bills.

Some positions and projects can be postponed or left unfunded.

And some expenses—such as the senior programs—may have to be put back into a budget that initially left them out.

Franklin's challenge therefore isn't simply balancing the columns.

It is determining what residents are willing to pay—and what level of services and quality of life the City can sustainably provide in return.

The Finance Committee has not finished answering that question, and the Mayor's Recommended Budget is not yet Franklin's final 2027 budget.

What Happens Next? Franklin's 2027 Budget Timeline

September 15 — Mayor's Budget Presented
Mayor John Nelson presented his 2027 Recommended Budget to the Common Council, which received it and forwarded it to the Finance Committee.

September 22 — Finance Committee Review Begins
The Mayor's Recommended Budget was formally introduced to the Finance Committee.

September 29 — Finance Committee Review Continues
The committee continued its department-by-department examination of the proposed budget.

October 1 — Finance Committee Review
The committee continued reviewing and discussing the Mayor's Recommended Budget.

October 13 — Finance Committee Review Continues
The committee is scheduled to meet again at 5 p.m.

October 20 — Recommendations Go to Common Council
The Finance Committee is scheduled to submit its recommendations and proposed changes to the Common Council.

November 17 — Public Hearing and Final Adoption
The Common Council is scheduled to hold the public hearing and consider final adoption of Franklin's 2027 budget.

Follow the 2027 Budget Process and Review the City's Budget Documents

Between now and November 17, the numbers can still change. The decisions made during that process will determine not only what Franklin collects in taxes, but which services, positions and projects residents ultimately pay for—and which ones they don't.

 

Crystal Ridge to Pay $20,000 to Settle Federal Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Former Rock Snowpark employee was fired after posting Bible verses on personal social media; Franklin ski operation will be subject to two-year EEOC consent decree

FRANKLIN, Wis. — Crystal Ridge Ski Area, formerly known as The Rock Snowpark at Ballpark Commons in Franklin, has agreed to pay $20,000 to settle a federal religious-discrimination lawsuit alleging that an employee was fired after posting Bible verses and other religious messages on his personal social-media account.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

The settlement, announced September 28 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), resolves a lawsuit filed by the federal agency in 2025 against Crystal Ridge Ski Area, LLC, formerly Rock Snow Park, LLC.

Under the settlement, the former employee will receive $10,000 in back pay and $10,000 in compensatory damages.

The settlement also places Crystal Ridge under a two-year federal consent decree requiring employment-policy protections, employee training and reporting of future religious-discrimination complaints to the EEOC.

The settlement resolves the litigation without a court finding that Crystal Ridge violated federal law.

EEOC: Employee Fired Following Personal Social-Media Posts

According to the EEOC, the employee identifies as Christian and most recently worked as a lift operations manager at the Franklin ski area.

The federal agency alleged that the employee regularly posted religious messages, scripture and Bible verses on his personal social-media accounts.

According to the EEOC, the posts did not mention his employer or coworkers, and the company had received no complaints from customers, vendors or employees about the posts.

In June 2023, the EEOC alleges, the employee's supervisor expressed concern that some of the social-media posts were discriminatory toward gay people and asked the employee to refrain from posting discriminatory statements.

The employee then asked whether he could continue posting scripture and Bible verses and was told that he could, according to the EEOC.

Several days later, after the employee posted another Bible verse, he was terminated.

The EEOC alleged that the termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees because of religion.

“Our country's workplace discrimination laws protect everyone, including people whose religious views an employer may disagree with,” EEOC spokesperson Victor Chen said in announcing the settlement. “An employer cannot fire an employee simply because it finds an employee's religious beliefs objectionable.”

Crystal Ridge Denies Allegations

Crystal Ridge has denied the EEOC's allegations.

In a statement provided to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Crystal Ridge noted that the settlement provides that the court has not made findings regarding the claims or defenses of either party.

“We chose to settle to avoid the cost and distraction of continued litigation,” Crystal Ridge told the Journal Sentinel. “Crystal Ridge respects the religious beliefs of all of its employees and is committed to a workplace where everyone is treated fairly.”

The company declined further comment on the personnel matter, according to the Journal Sentinel.

Who Owns the Crystal Ridge Ski Hill?

The ownership and operating arrangement surrounding the Franklin ski hill involves several separate entities.

The ski hill itself sits on Milwaukee County-owned parkland.

Milwaukee County retained the ski-hill property as part of the transactions associated with development of what became Ballpark Commons. County records describe a long-term lease involving The Rock Sports Complex, LLC, an entity associated with developer Mike Zimmerman and development of The Rock/Ballpark Commons.

The ski operation was subsequently subleased to Rock Snow Park, LLC, the company associated with the Schmitz group that operated The Rock Snowpark and later changed its legal name to Crystal Ridge Ski Area, LLC.

The arrangement therefore separates ownership of the land from operation of the ski business:

Milwaukee County owns the ski-hill property; The Rock Sports Complex holds the underlying County lease; and Crystal Ridge Ski Area operates the ski business under the sublease arrangement.

Public records filed with the City of Franklin further document the distinction. A 2020 filing identified Michael Schmitz as owner of Rock Snow Park, LLC, while Mike Zimmerman/ROC Ventures was identified in connection with the underlying property interest.

The Schmitz family, which also operates Little Switzerland and Nordic Mountain, took over operation of The Rock Snowpark in 2017.

In 2024, the ski operation returned to its original Crystal Ridge name.

Zimmerman, ROC Ventures and Milwaukee County Not Accused in EEOC Case

The distinction between ownership of the property and operation of the ski business is important in understanding the federal lawsuit.

The employer sued by the EEOC was Crystal Ridge Ski Area, LLC, formerly Rock Snow Park, LLC.

Although Mike Zimmerman and entities associated with The Rock and Ballpark Commons have a documented relationship to the property and its development, the EEOC's federal complaint does not identify Zimmerman, ROC Ventures, Ballpark Commons or Milwaukee County as participating in the June 2023 decision to terminate the employee.

Instead, the EEOC's allegations concern actions attributed to the employee's supervisor and management of the ski operation.

Settlement Includes Two Years of Federal Oversight

The settlement involves more than the $20,000 payment.

For the next two years, Crystal Ridge must comply with the federal consent decree and EEOC monitoring.

Among its requirements, Crystal Ridge must:

• maintain employment policies providing equal employment opportunities regardless of religion;

• provide employees with training concerning federal anti-discrimination laws and protections against religious discrimination; and

• report future complaints of religious discrimination to the EEOC.

The consent decree resolves the federal litigation but does not constitute an admission of liability by Crystal Ridge or a judicial determination that the company violated Title VII.

The case is U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Crystal Ridge Ski Area, LLC d/b/a The Rock Snowpark, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Sources: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin; Milwaukee County records; City of Franklin records; Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions. Crystal Ridge's response to the lawsuit is attributed to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Milwaukee County Ethics Board Orders Steve Taylor to Deactivate His Supervisor Facebook Page

Milwaukee County Ethics Board Orders Steve Taylor to Deactivate His Supervisor Facebook Page

Board votes 6–0, finds “strong reasonable appearance” page is County-affiliated; dismissal of ethics complaint conditioned on Taylor’s compliance

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

The Milwaukee County Ethics Board has unanimously directed County Supervisor Steve F. Taylor (Oak Creek/Franklin) to deactivate and stop using his existing “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor” Facebook page following its review of a verified ethics complaint concerning the intersection of a County-aligned social-media presence and Taylor’s political campaign information.

The six-member Ethics Board voted 6–0 following a September 11 closed-session review of the verified complaint filed by Dr. Richard Busalacchi, publisher of Franklin Community News, and Kevin Fischer, a Franklin Community News contributor, along with two subsequent supplemental submissions.

The Board did not find that Taylor violated the Milwaukee County Ethics Code and determined that several allegations lacked sufficient supporting evidence.

However, the Board found a “strong reasonable appearance” that Taylor’s Supervisor Facebook page was County-affiliated and identified links to his campaign website and campaign email address as a potential ethics issue. Rather than simply requiring removal of those links, the Board directed Taylor to deactivate the page and encouraged creation of a new County-affiliated Facebook page for the District 17 Supervisor’s office.

The dismissal of the verified complaint is conditioned on Taylor’s compliance with that directive.

Taylor Holds Key County Board Positions

Taylor represents Milwaukee County’s 17th Supervisory District, which includes all of Oak Creek and portions of Franklin. He currently serves as Chairman of the County Board’s Finance Committee and Chairman of the Capital Improvements Committee, and is also a member of the Community, Environment and Economic Development Committee and the Parks and Culture Committee. The Finance Committee reviews County budget matters, taxation and insurance and leads the Board’s deliberations on the annual County budget, while the Capital Improvements Committee evaluates and prioritizes major County capital projects.

Complaint Focused on Government and Campaign Lines

The original verified complaint focused on the Facebook page titled “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor.”

The complaint documented that the page identified Taylor as a government official, described itself as addressing matters facing Milwaukee County and was used to communicate about County government.

At the same time, the page directed visitors to Taylor’s political campaign website and displayed a campaign-branded email address. The linked website was associated with Friends of Steve F. Taylor and contained campaign information and a mechanism for political contributions.

The complaint alleged potential violations of Milwaukee County General Ordinances §§9.05(2)(a), 9.05(2)(c)(2), 9.06(1)(c) and 9.06(1)(d).

It also asked the Ethics Board to examine who administered the page and whether County employees, work time, equipment, networks or other County resources were involved.

The complaint did not contend that Taylor was prohibited from criticizing Franklin Community News, Fischer or Busalacchi. Rather, it questioned whether political and campaign activity was being mixed with a social-media presence appearing to represent a County elected office.

Comparison With Other County Supervisors

The complaint included a comparative review of social-media pages maintained by Milwaukee County supervisors, documenting how other supervisors identified their government-facing Facebook pages and what contact information those pages provided.

The Ethics Board specifically addressed that evidence.

While the Board said simply removing Taylor’s campaign website and email references could resolve the immediate issue, it took “particular interest” in the comparison with other supervisors.

That evidence contributed to the Board’s decision to “go a step further” and require deactivation of Taylor’s existing page.

Two Supplements Added Evidence

Additional information was submitted to the Ethics Board on August 31 and September 7.

The August 31 submission documented changes to Taylor’s Facebook page after the original complaint, including the subsequent addition of a link to his official Milwaukee County webpage.

The September 7 supplement documented activity involving the separate Facebook accounts “Steve F. Taylor” and “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor.”

Among the material submitted was evidence that the Supervisor-branded account had accessed Busalacchi’s personal Facebook content as a non-follower and left an emoji reaction.

The information was submitted as additional evidence concerning the identity, operation and use of the Supervisor-branded account rather than as a stand-alone Ethics Code violation.

Board Finds “Strong Reasonable Appearance” of County Affiliation

Following release of the matter by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, the Ethics Board considered the complaint during its September 11 closed session.

According to the Board’s September 25 correspondence, all six members agreed that there had historically been a distinction between Taylor’s “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor” page and his separate “Steve F. Taylor” personal page.

Based on the current presentation of the Supervisor page and the existence of the separate personal page, the Board concluded there was a:

“strong reasonable appearance”

that the Supervisor page was a County-affiliated social-media profile.

The Board characterized the campaign links appearing on the page as a “potential issue” and said their presence could create an “appearance of a violation” of §9.06(1)(d).

The Board did not, however, conclude that an Ethics Code violation had occurred.

Board Orders Page Deactivated

The Ethics Board directed Taylor to deactivate the existing Supervisor page and encouraged him to work with Milwaukee County Board and County Clerk staff to establish a new County-affiliated Facebook page for the District 17 Supervisor’s office.

The replacement page is expected to be managed similarly to those of other County supervisors in the interest of “consistency, conformity, and transparency.”

In separate correspondence to Taylor, the Board said the new page should contain no links or history of links to political campaign websites and should be considered an asset of the office rather than an asset of the individual holding the office.

Countywide Social-Media Policy May Follow

The Ethics Board also said it intends to develop a countywide formal opinion concerning County-affiliated social-media profiles.

According to the Board, representative social-media profiles should be County-provided and managed as representations of the governmental office or department. Individuals should not convert personal or private accounts into County-affiliated pages or retain access to those accounts after leaving office or employment.

The forthcoming opinion could therefore establish broader guidance governing County-affiliated social media throughout Milwaukee County government.

What the Board Did Not Find

The Ethics Board determined that the remaining allegations lacked sufficient evidence to establish additional potential Ethics Code violations.

Regarding §§9.05(2)(a) and 9.05(2)(c)(2), the Board said the evidence did not establish a private or substantial tangible benefit received by Taylor.

The Board also distinguished political contributions from other things of value under the County Ethics Code and rejected the argument that intangible political benefits such as exposure or goodwill constituted the type of “substantial value” contemplated by those provisions.

It further found no example during the period examined in which the Supervisor page was actively used to post about Taylor’s own election campaigns or directly solicit campaign contributions.

August 27 Post Was Not Found to Violate Ethics Code

The original complaint also challenged an August 27 post published on Taylor’s Supervisor page responding to criticism from Fischer and Busalacchi.

The Board unanimously determined that the content of the August 27 post itself did not present a potential Ethics Code violation and said it would not otherwise have compelled Taylor to remove it.

Because Taylor has been directed to deactivate the entire page, however, the post will also be removed with the page.

Board Declines to Investigate County Staff Involvement

The complaint also asked the Ethics Board to determine whether County employees or County resources had been involved in administering, maintaining, creating, editing, moderating or publishing material on Taylor’s Facebook page.

The Board declined to undertake that investigation, saying complainants must provide an evidentiary foundation identifying potential staff involvement. It said the evidence before it instead appeared to support Taylor being the only individual managing the page.

For matters requiring independent investigation into County employees or resources, the Board recommended Milwaukee County’s Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline, administered through Audit Services.

The Board noted that Audit Services investigators can seek materials, interview employees, conduct research and compile findings. Evidence of potential Ethics Code violations developed through such an investigation could subsequently be brought before the Ethics Board.

Board Considered—but Did Not Make—Harassment Determination

The Ethics Board also considered whether MCGO §9.09(4)(k), which permits it to determine whether a verified complaint was brought for harassment purposes, applied.

It did not make such a determination.

Instead, the Board explained that the verified complaint had “gave cause to the Board to issue Supv. Taylor guidance and direction related to the Code.”

Dismissal Conditioned on Taylor’s Compliance

The Board’s disposition is expressly tied to Taylor carrying out its directive.

The Board wrote:

“pending Supv. Taylor’s compliance with the Board’s directive in a timely manner, the Board dismisses the VC and will take no further action on said claims.”

In its separate memorandum to Taylor, the Board directed him to confirm that the existing Facebook page had been deactivated by 4 p.m. Wednesday, September 30.

The memorandum further states that failure to follow the directive will result in the Board reconvening to continue its consideration of the verified complaint.

FCN Received Both Board Correspondences Directly

Franklin Community News received both the Ethics Board’s correspondence to the complainants and its separate memorandum to Taylor directly from Ethics Board Executive Director Adam Gilmore.

At 5:36 p.m. September 25, Gilmore emailed Busalacchi and Fischer what he described as “copies of correspondence from the Milwaukee County Ethics Board.” Attached were the Board’s “Taylor Verified Complaint Decision Memo” and the notification letter addressed to Busalacchi and Fischer.

The findings, directives and September 30 compliance deadline reported by FCN are therefore based on correspondence provided directly by the Milwaukee County Ethics Board’s executive director.

Taylor’s compliance with the Board’s directive is due by 4 p.m. September 30.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.

Taylor Questions 2021 Redistricting—But What About His Own Role?

Taylor Questions 2021 Redistricting—But What About His Own Role?

Taylor now warns against changing district lines for politicians’ benefit. In 2021, he advocated keeping Franklin whole—then supported Map M, which split Franklin. The final map put Oak Creek in a district represented by a Franklin resident.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor (RINO) has a credibility question to answer on redistricting.

At the September 22 meeting of the Milwaukee County Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services Committee, Taylor called for greater transparency in the next round of redistricting and criticized what he says occurred when Milwaukee County drew its current supervisory districts in 2021.

The committee was considering File 26-675, an official review of Milwaukee County's independent redistricting process and recommendations for the next cycle following the 2030 Census. Milwaukee County Legistar

Taylor's message was direct:

“This is not about us.”

He criticized supervisors for “changing district numbers” and “changing lines,” saying those decisions were not necessarily in voters' best interests. 

Then Taylor went further.

He said greater transparency, an earlier process and public hearings might prevent supervisors from:

“play[ing] around with lines to benefit them personally”

Taylor then added:

“that is exactly what happened and frankly that's why I'm here”

Those are Taylor's words—and Taylor's characterization of what occurred in 2021.

But if politicians' conduct during that redistricting deserves scrutiny, Taylor's own participation is also part of the record.

And his own words raise a straightforward question:

Does the standard Taylor applies to others match the position he took when Milwaukee County's current districts were actually being drawn?

Taylor's 2021 Message: Don't Draw Maps Around Politicians

Five years ago, Taylor sounded remarkably similar to how he sounds today.

On September 17, 2021, while no longer serving on the County Board, Taylor appeared before Milwaukee County's Independent Redistricting Committee.

Taylor praised the independent process and told the committee:

“let's not focus on where elected officials live”

He warned against creating districts because politicians were attempting to:

“protect somebody or write someone out”

Taylor said he believed voters should determine who represents them rather than elected officials shaping districts around political considerations. 

Taylor even said he did not know whether the independent maps might place existing supervisors in the same district—and that he did not think it mattered.

His stated principle was clear:

Where politicians lived shouldn't determine the lines.

Taylor Specifically Said Keeping Franklin Whole Was Important

Taylor didn't speak only in generalities.

He specifically discussed Franklin.

Taylor criticized an earlier state legislative configuration that carved a “sliver of Franklin” into a district with Oak Creek and South Milwaukee.

He attributed that earlier arrangement to political considerations involving the seats of then-state representatives Mark Honadel and Jeff Stone and identified himself as someone who might eventually have sought Stone's office.

Those were Taylor's allegations about the motives behind that earlier map—not an independently established finding about why those boundaries were drawn. 

Taylor also described the administrative complications created by dividing Franklin among multiple districts. 

Then he praised the municipality-whole approach.

Taylor said Franklin and Hales Corners would:

“remain whole”

and added:

“I think that's important”

Taylor explained that keeping a community together could mean having one supervisor representing it rather than dividing the municipality among several. 

Taylor even offered what now sounds like a warning about what could happen when the independent map reached the County Board:

“if it starts getting chopped up, you'll know why it gets chopped.”

Taylor Was Out of Office—But He Was Participating

There is an important distinction in Taylor's role during 2021.

Taylor was not a Milwaukee County supervisor when the current districts were being drawn.

Taylor had left the County Board following the 2018 election defeat from Patti Logsdon and would not return until 2022. Milwaukee County confirms Taylor had a four-year absence from the Board before being elected again in 2022. Milwaukee County

But Taylor wasn't sitting on the sidelines.

He appeared before the Independent Redistricting Committee.

And weeks later, he was directly advocating a particular map to the elected officials who would decide which boundaries to adopt.

Six Weeks Later: “Please Support Map M”

On October 27, 2021, Taylor emailed Milwaukee County supervisors and municipal officials.

The subject line was unmistakable:

“Please Support Map M.”

Taylor told the recipients:

“I have been closely following and participating in the redistricting process.”

Map M wasn't an informal proposal. Milwaukee County's legislative record identifies it as one of six alternatives—J, K, L, K1, K2 and M—formally presented by Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), the regional planning agency that provided the technical map-drawing work for Milwaukee County's 2021 redistricting process to the County Board for consideration. Milwaukee County Legistar

But Map M did not keep Franklin whole.

It divided Franklin between proposed supervisory districts.

That creates the first TAYLOR credibility question:

Why did Taylor tell the Independent Redistricting Committee that keeping Franklin whole was important—and then, only weeks later, actively advocate a map that divided Franklin?

Taylor's October email does not answer that question.

Map M Wasn't Simply Adopted as the Final Map

An important distinction should be made.

The original Map M Taylor advocated was not simply adopted unchanged as Milwaukee County's final supervisory map.

After the Independent Redistricting Committee's Map L was rejected on October 22, the County Board proceeded to consider additional alternatives. The official legislative record shows that on October 29 the Board worked from Map K1 and approved multiple amendments in developing its tentative supervisory plan. Milwaukee County Legistar

So it would be inaccurate to say Taylor's Map M simply became the current map.

But that does not eliminate the credibility question.

The relevant fact is simpler:

The specific map Taylor asked supervisors to support divided Franklin—despite Taylor having said only weeks earlier that keeping Franklin whole was important.

Taylor Warned Against Protecting Incumbents—Then Incumbency Became Part of the Process

There is another part of the 2021 redistricting record that provides important context for Taylor's criticism today.

When Taylor appeared before the Independent Redistricting Committee in September 2021, he was explicit about incumbency.

Taylor said:

“let's not focus on where elected officials live”

and warned against creating districts because politicians were attempting to:

“protect somebody or write someone out”

Taylor said voters should determine who represents them—not elected officials shaping districts around political considerations.

Taylor had expressed essentially the same principle years earlier. In discussing the independent redistricting ordinance he helped advance, Taylor said the process was designed far enough ahead of the next redistricting that there would be “no self interest to protect.” Urban Milwaukee

But by October 2021, the process Taylor had championed had changed substantially.

After the County Board rejected the Independent Redistricting Committee's final recommended map, supervisors assumed greater control over the process. SEWRPC produced additional alternatives, including Map M—the map Taylor personally urged supervisors to support on October 27. Contemporary reporting shows Map M was favored by several supervisors but ultimately failed before the full County Board on an 8-10 vote. Urban Milwaukee

The Board then moved forward with Map K1 and began considering amendments.

That is when the very issue Taylor had warned about—where individual politicians lived—became unmistakably part of the mapmaking discussion.

Supervisor Sylvia Ortiz-Velez introduced an amendment specifically designed to place then-County Board Chairwoman Marcelia Nicholson in District 10 without another incumbent in that district. Ortiz-Velez told her colleagues that Nicholson would still have to face the voters regardless of where she was placed and that voters should decide whether to reelect her. Urban Milwaukee

The amendment passed.

Importantly, Nicholson said she had not requested the amendment or asked that her incumbency be protected, and she voted against it. Urban Milwaukee

The episode is directly relevant to Taylor's current criticism of the 2021 process.

Taylor was actively participating in that process while out of office. He appeared before the Independent Redistricting Committee, communicated directly with County supervisors and municipal officials, and described himself in his October 27 email as having been “closely following and participating in the redistricting process.” 

And Taylor's own standard had been unequivocal:

Don't focus on where elected officials live. Don't draw districts to protect somebody or write somebody out.

Yet the process ultimately included an amendment expressly drawn around the placement of the sitting County Board chairwoman, Marcelia Nicholson-Bovell.

Five years later, Taylor is criticizing supervisors for “changing district numbers” and “changing lines” and warning against supervisors playing with boundaries “to benefit them personally.” 

That makes Taylor's own 2021 warning especially relevant today:

If protecting incumbents and considering politicians' addresses violated the principles Taylor advocated, how does he assess a 2021 process in which incumbent placement became an explicit consideration—and what did he say or do about it while he was actively participating in that process?

That question becomes even more significant when considered alongside Taylor's own Map M advocacy and the eventual Franklin configuration that placed Taylor and Patti Logsdon in separate supervisory districts.

And Where Did Taylor Ultimately Land?

The redistricting process ultimately left Franklin divided.

Taylor resides in Franklin, and the current District 17 includes eastern Franklin along with Oak Creek. Milwaukee County's official Board materials confirm Taylor represents District 17 and that district numbers changed as a result of the decennial redistricting. Milwaukee County

Patti Logsdon represents District 9, which includes western Franklin and Hales Corners. Milwaukee County

The result was that Taylor and Logsdon were no longer in the same supervisory district.

The final configuration also created an unusual representational dynamic. District 17 includes all of Oak Creek along with a portion of eastern Franklin, yet its supervisor, Steve Taylor, resides in Franklin. Oak Creek is now the more populous of the two cities—an estimated 38,296 residents in 2025 compared with Franklin's 36,687—although Franklin is geographically larger by land area. The result is that all of Oak Creek is represented on the County Board by a Franklin resident, while Franklin itself is divided between supervisory districts.

That history is particularly noteworthy because Logsdon had been elected to Taylor's former District 9 seat in 2018. The County identifies Logsdon as first elected in April 2018 and Taylor as returning to the Board after a four-year absence in 2022. Milwaukee County

Taylor subsequently ran for District 17.

He had no named opponent.

Milwaukee County's 2022 election results show Taylor receiving 3,066 votes, with another 64 write-in votes cast. Milwaukee County

Coincidence? The available records do not answer that question.

Nor do the records reviewed by FCN establish that Taylor drew the Franklin boundary, requested that his residence be placed in District 17 or supported Map M because of its potential electoral consequences.

But the geography is relevant when Taylor himself now says politicians' personal interests should not influence district lines.

Taylor Is Now Criticizing What Happened in 2021

That makes Taylor's September 2026 comments particularly noteworthy.

The County is now conducting an official review of the independent redistricting process. File 26-675 examines lessons from the previous cycle and possible changes before the redistricting following the 2030 Census. Milwaukee County Legistar

The review itself originated with a 2026 budget amendment sponsored by Taylor along with Supervisors Sequanna Taylor, Shawn Rolland and Deanna Alexander. The amendment specifically requested an evaluation of the independent process used for the 2022 supervisory elections. Milwaukee County Legistar

Corporation Counsel Scott Brown told the committee that County officials had met with Taylor and others while conducting what Brown described as a “postmortem” of the previous process. Preliminary recommendations included earlier stakeholder involvement, establishing the sequence of operations in advance and continuing to use SEWRPC as the technical map-drawing entity. 

County Clerk George Christenson likewise said the 2021 process demonstrated the value of an independent body but identified several areas for improvement, including greater stakeholder participation, greater diversity on the Independent Redistricting Committee and clearer separation between SEWRPC's technical map preparation and policy deliberations. 

Then Taylor spoke.

And once again, he specifically discussed keeping municipalities together.

Taylor referenced the municipality-whole approach involving:

Oak Creek, South Milwaukee, Franklin, Hales Corners, Greendale, Greenfield and the North Shore.

He discussed the benefit of having one supervisor representing a community rather than splitting it among several. He also acknowledged that Voting Rights Act considerations can complicate a municipality-whole approach. 

That sounds remarkably similar to what Taylor told the Independent Redistricting Committee in 2021.

Taylor's Principles Have Remained Consistent. What About the Map He Supported?

Taylor's publicly stated principles in 2021 and 2026 are largely consistent:

Keep communities together.

Don't focus on where politicians live.

Don't manipulate district lines for politicians' personal benefit.

Let voters determine who represents them.

Make the process transparent.

The credibility question arises from what Taylor advocated between those statements.

The chronology is straightforward:

2018 — Taylor leaves the County Board; defeated by Logsdon, Patti Logsdon is first elected to District 9. Milwaukee County

September 17, 2021 — Taylor tells the Independent Redistricting Committee not to focus on politicians' residences, opposes drawing districts to protect or eliminate politicians and says keeping Franklin whole is important. 

October 27, 2021 — While still out of office, Taylor says he has been “closely following and participating” in redistricting and urges supervisors to “Please Support Map M.” 

Map M — The proposal Taylor advocated divides Franklin. It is formally among the maps considered by the County Board. Milwaukee County Legistar

Late 2021 — The County Board makes additional changes. Map M itself is not simply adopted unchanged. Milwaukee County Legistar

Final configuration — Franklin remains divided, with Taylor and Logsdon in different supervisory districts.

2022 — Taylor runs in District 17 without a named opponent and returns to the County Board after four years away. Milwaukee County

September 2026 — Taylor again advocates transparency and keeping communities together and says safeguards are needed so supervisors don't “play around with lines to benefit them personally,” adding:

“that is exactly what happened and frankly that's why I'm here”

A Question of Credibility

That chronology does not establish that Steve Taylor manipulated Milwaukee County's district boundaries (well maybe).

It does something different.

It puts Taylor's current criticism of the 2021 process beside Taylor's own participation in that same process.

Taylor says today that politicians shouldn't manipulate lines for personal benefit.

Taylor said in 2021 that politicians' addresses shouldn't matter.

Taylor said keeping Franklin whole was important.

Taylor warned that if the independent map were chopped up, people would know why.

Then Taylor urged supervisors to support a map that split Franklin.

When redistricting was finished, Taylor and the supervisor elected to his former seat were in different districts.

Taylor then returned to the County Board from District 17 without a named opponent.

Now Taylor says politicians manipulated district lines for personal benefit during that same 2021 process.

That is Taylor's allegation.

The available evidence does not establish that Taylor personally engineered the Franklin split or that his support for Map M was motivated by a future candidacy.

But if Taylor expects the public to scrutinize what other politicians did during the 2021 redistricting process, his own participation deserves scrutiny under the same factual standard.

That leaves Taylor with two questions raised by his own record:

Why did Steve Taylor advocate Map M after publicly saying that keeping Franklin whole was important?

And when Taylor says today that politicians manipulated district lines for their personal benefit in 2021:

Does he believe his own participation in that process should be examined under the same standard?

Those questions do not require speculation about Taylor's motives.

They require Taylor to explain how the map he supported fits the redistricting principles he advocated before it—and is advocating again today.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.