Franklin Joint Review Board Approves Controversial TID 10 Amid Legal Objections, Open Meetings Questions, and Growing Scrutiny

 

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Franklin’s Joint Review Board voted May 7 to approve the controversial TID 10 redevelopment proposal tied to the Poth’s General project, advancing one of the largest proposed Tax Increment Financing districts in the City’s recent history despite mounting legal objections, procedural concerns, and growing criticism over whether Wisconsin law was properly followed.

The approval came after weeks of escalating public controversy involving:

• Formal legal objections
• Competing legal memorandums
• Allegations of materially misleading public statements
• Disputes over blight eligibility
• Questions surrounding the statutory “but-for” requirement
• Concerns regarding procedural irregularities
• And now, possible Open Meetings Law issues

What initially began as a redevelopment proposal has rapidly evolved into a broader legal and governance dispute over the limits of public subsidy and the role of oversight bodies charged with protecting taxpayer interests.

Last-Minute Appointment Change Before Vote

Before the Joint Review Board meeting began, Mayor John Nelson withdrew his nomination of Cathy Richard to fill a vacant seat on the Board following public criticism regarding past social media posts attributed to Richard.

Nelson instead nominated former Franklin Alderman Mike Barber.

Two additional individuals also expressed interest in the position:

• Darrell Mallak
• N.J. Mathwig

During the meeting:

• School District representative Andy Chromy nominated Barber
• Franklin Economic Development Director John Regetz seconded the nomination

An MATC representative nominated Mallak, but the motion failed to receive a second.

The Board then voted unanimously to appoint Barber.

Technology Problems Raise Open Meetings Questions

The meeting itself was marked by repeated technology and participation issues involving remote members.

Representatives from multiple taxing jurisdictions participated remotely through two-way video conferencing but reportedly experienced ongoing connection and audio problems during portions of the meeting.

According to attendees, some remote participants were unable to fully participate verbally and were instructed to submit:

• Questions
• Comments
• Motions
• Votes

During portions of the meeting, communication from remote participants reportedly occurred through the RingCentral chat function visible on the meeting screen, with messages directed to Franklin Director of Administration Kelly Hersch due to ongoing audio and connection issues.

That process is now drawing additional scrutiny regarding whether portions of the meeting complied with Wisconsin Open Meetings Law requirements.

Critics argue:

• Deliberations and communications between board members are generally expected to occur openly and contemporaneously before the public
• Reliance on chat-based communication routed through an intermediary may create transparency concerns
• Portions of the Board’s deliberative process may not have been fully audible or observable to members of the public in real time
• Questions may arise regarding whether all communications relevant to motions, deliberations, or voting were fully preserved on the public record

The issue could become particularly significant given the complexity of the legal and factual issues before the Board and the limited substantive discussion prior to approval.

Questions Raised About Role of Chair

Additional procedural concerns have also emerged surrounding the role of Franklin Economic Development Director John Regetz, who served as Chair of the Joint Review Board.

Observers have questioned whether it was appropriate for Regetz:

• To second motions while serving as Chair
• To vote as a participating member of the Board
• And to oversee a process involving a TID proposal actively supported by the City administration

The questions add another layer to growing criticism regarding the procedural handling of the TID approval process.

Attorney Asked Members About Legal Objection Before Final Vote

Immediately before the final vote, Franklin City Attorney Jessie Wesolowski addressed the Board regarding the formal legal objection submitted by attorney Joseph R. Cincotta challenging the legality of the proposed TID.

According to attendees, Wesolowski asked Joint Review Board members whether they had received or reviewed Cincotta’s letter prior to voting.

It reportedly remained unclear whether all members had actually reviewed the objection.

Newly appointed board member Mike Barber reportedly stated that he had seen the letter “on social media.”

Wesolowski also informed the Board that attorneys representing developer Land By Label had submitted a formal written response to Cincotta’s objections.

She then asked Board members whether they wished to review the developer’s response before proceeding with the vote.

According to attendees, members declined additional review.

Regetz reportedly asked whether the letters should simply be “read into the record,” but instead the documents were merely placed on file before the Board proceeded toward approval.

Critics now argue the exchange raises additional questions regarding whether the Board meaningfully reviewed or independently evaluated the competing legal arguments before voting.

Legal Duty of Joint Review Board Now Under Scrutiny

At the center of the controversy is the legal role of the Joint Review Board itself.

Under Wisconsin law, the JRB is not intended to serve as a ceremonial body simply affirming decisions already made by a municipality.

The Board has an independent statutory obligation to determine whether:

• The required “but-for” standard has actually been met
• The blight findings are legally and factually supported
• The use of Tax Increment Financing complies with Wisconsin law

The “but-for” requirement is one of the core safeguards built into Wisconsin’s TIF statute.

It requires decision-makers to independently determine that a project would not proceed without public subsidy.

Similarly, blight findings must be grounded in statutory definitions and supported by sufficient factual evidence — not merely accepted because they appear in consultant reports or municipal project materials.

Critics now argue there is little evidence the Joint Review Board independently evaluated those requirements before approving the district.

Pelkey Warned Officials About “Theft of Public Funds”

Much of the criticism surrounding the TID approval process stems from multiple memorandums and public comments submitted by Franklin resident Andy Pelkey in the weeks leading up to the vote.

In public comments before the Common Council and Joint Review Board, Pelkey repeatedly warned officials that they were acting as trustees of taxpayer funds and had a legal obligation to ensure the statutory findings supporting the TID were factually accurate.

“You are the trustee of the public funds,” Pelkey told officials during public comment. “It’s the taxpayer’s money.”

Pelkey sharply criticized what he viewed as the City’s reliance on disputed factual claims to justify approximately $15 million in public financing.

“If you’re giving away $15 million of public funds for which you are the trustee, just make sure you’ve got your facts down and that there’s nothing amiss,” he stated.

He further warned:
“If there are any misstatements in there, false statements that are relevant and are significant, and you just turn a blind eye and give the money away anyway — that’s theft. It’s theft of public funds.”

One of Pelkey’s recurring criticisms involved claims that portions of the redevelopment area were “landlocked,” which he argued was factually incorrect.

“The land’s not landlocked,” Pelkey stated during public comment. “Landlocked means that you don’t have the right to go from a public street to a point on the property.”

He argued the parcels already possess access to 76th Street through contiguous ownership and existing access rights.

Pelkey Email Demanded “Meaningful Response”

Following the Joint Review Board meeting, Pelkey sent a May 6 email to members of the Franklin Common Council demanding what he described as a “meaningful response” to unresolved factual disputes surrounding the project.

In the email, Pelkey stated he remained concerned that the Joint Review Board had failed to independently evaluate the factual and legal predicates necessary to support approval of the TID.

“The discussion appeared to rely primarily upon conclusions contained within the Project Plan materials rather than independently evaluating whether the factual and legal predicates necessary for those conclusions were actually satisfied,” Pelkey wrote.

Pelkey also criticized City officials for allegedly dismissing objections simply because the matter had already been debated or approved.

“A meaningful response is not to state that the project has already been debated extensively or previously approved,” he wrote.

Instead, Pelkey argued the City had an obligation to directly address whether challenged factual claims were materially accurate.

“A meaningful response is to demonstrate that the challenged factual representations were not false or misleading and that the statutory findings relied upon by the City were supported by materially accurate information.”

His email concluded:
“The attached memorandum and exhibits identify the specific factual disputes that remain unresolved.”

Prior Franklin Development Battle Adds Historical Context

The controversy surrounding TID 10 also carries an interesting historical connection to another major Franklin development dispute.

Attorney Joseph R. Cincotta — who now represents property owner Linda Mathwig in opposition to TID 10 — previously represented Franklin residents who opposed the proposed Strauss Brands slaughterhouse development in Franklin several years ago.

That earlier battle became one of the most politically divisive development fights in recent Franklin history and ultimately resulted in Strauss abandoning the project.

Notably, the resident opposition effort in the Strauss matter was led in part by:

• Current Franklin Director of Administration Kelly Hersch
• Newly elected Franklin Alderwoman Danielle Kenney

While the Strauss dispute involved very different issues than the current TID controversy, the reappearance of several of the same legal and political figures in another high-profile Franklin development battle is drawing additional public attention as scrutiny surrounding TID 10 continues to intensify.

Limited Discussion Before Approval

Despite:

• Formal legal objections from attorney Joseph R. Cincotta
• Multiple memorandums submitted by Pelkey
• Disputes regarding factual claims in City-issued FAQs
• Challenges to the blight designation
• Questions involving the “but-for” finding
• And warnings of potential litigation

discussion before approval reportedly remained limited.

School District representative Andy Chromy asked several clarifying questions involving:

• The “but-for” analysis
• The blight designation

However, observers note there appeared to be little independent factual investigation or substantive legal examination of the competing claims submitted into the public record.

Following those discussions:

• Chromy made the motion to approve TID 10
• Newly appointed member Mike Barber seconded the motion
• The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approval

Critics now argue the Board appeared to function primarily as a body ratifying conclusions already reached by the Franklin Common Council and City consultants rather than serving as an independent reviewing authority.

Potential Litigation Appears Increasingly Likely

With the Joint Review Board now formally approving TID 10 despite ongoing objections, attention may increasingly shift toward whether opponents pursue judicial review.

Under Wisconsin certiorari review standards, courts generally examine whether municipal bodies:

• Acted according to law
• Relied on sufficient evidence
• Exercised reasonable judgment
• And followed proper procedure

If litigation occurs, scrutiny may now extend beyond the substance of the TID itself and into:

• The adequacy of the Joint Review Board’s independent review
• Remote participation issues
• Voting procedures
• Appointment decisions
• And whether legal safeguards required under Wisconsin law were meaningfully exercised

From Redevelopment Proposal to Legal Test Case

What began as a redevelopment proposal has now become something far larger.

The central issue is no longer simply whether the Poth’s General project is desirable.

The issue increasingly becoming the focus is whether the statutory safeguards built into Wisconsin’s Tax Increment Financing laws were treated as meaningful legal requirements — or merely procedural hurdles on the path toward approval.

And with legal objections continuing to grow, the final decision regarding Franklin’s controversial TID 10 may ultimately be made not by City officials, but by the courts.

The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.

Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.

💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.

Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable 

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

‘Unqualified From the Start’: Nelson’s Praise of Kelly Hersch Raises New Questions About Accountability

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi - Franklin Community News

Franklin Mayor John Nelson’s comments before the Common Council this week are reigniting debate over the controversial hiring and continued defense of City Administrator Kelly Hersch.

During council remarks recognizing Hersch’s three-year anniversary with the city, Nelson repeatedly emphasized that Hersch was hired unanimously by the Common Council and praised what he described as her accomplishments and growth while “learning on the job.” But for many residents and critics, those comments do not settle the concerns surrounding Hersch’s qualifications when she was originally selected — they revive them.

The issue has never simply been whether Hersch improved over time. The question has always been why Franklin leadership selected someone critics argue lacked the necessary executive and municipal experience in the first place, while dismissing concerns raised publicly at the time.

“Learning on the Job” in One of Franklin’s Most Powerful Positions

Nelson’s remarks may have unintentionally reinforced one of the central criticisms surrounding Hersch’s appointment.

By publicly acknowledging that Hersch was effectively “learning on the job,” Nelson appeared to validate what many residents argued from the beginning: that Franklin entrusted one of the city’s most powerful administrative roles to someone who did not possess the level of experience traditionally expected for the position.

The role of city administrator is not an entry-level municipal position. The administrator oversees daily city operations, budgeting, personnel matters, labor negotiations, policy implementation, and coordination across multiple departments. Residents reasonably expect someone entering that role to already possess substantial executive-level governmental experience.

Instead of addressing whether Franklin residents were best served by hiring a candidate who allegedly lacked that background, Nelson framed the issue as a success story about growth and adaptation.

But critics argue that is not the standard taxpayers should expect.

Repeated Emphasis on “Unanimous” Approval

Nelson twice stressed during his remarks that Hersch was approved unanimously by the Common Council.

That detail may have been intended to reinforce legitimacy and consensus. However, unanimous approval does not eliminate questions about transparency, qualifications, or the hiring process itself.

In fact, critics argue the repeated emphasis on unanimity highlights a broader concern: whether Franklin’s leadership collectively failed to conduct the level of scrutiny expected for such a critical appointment.

A unanimous vote can demonstrate unity.

It can also demonstrate that no one in city leadership was willing to ask difficult questions.

Political Connections and Questions About the Hiring Process

The controversy surrounding Hersch’s appointment was never limited to qualifications alone.

Before becoming Franklin’s Director of Administration, Hersch reportedly played a leadership role in Mayor John Nelson’s 2023 mayoral campaign. That political relationship came on the heels of litigation involving the City of Franklin connected to the Strauss Brands controversy.

Critics have long argued that the sequence of events raises serious questions about whether Franklin prioritized political loyalty over qualifications during the hiring process.

Concerns were also raised that other applicants who allegedly met or exceeded the stated minimum qualifications for the position were bypassed or excluded from serious consideration.

For critics, the issue is not personal.

It is whether Franklin residents received the most qualified leadership available — or whether political relationships and internal favoritism played a greater role in the selection process than merit and experience.

Nelson’s comments this week may have unintentionally intensified those concerns.

By repeatedly praising Hersch for extensive training, nonstop work, dedication, and effectively learning while serving in the role, Nelson appeared to reinforce the very criticism residents raised from the beginning: that Franklin hired someone into one of the city’s most powerful administrative positions before she possessed the level of executive municipal experience many believe the job required.

During Tuesday night’s meeting, Nelson praised Hersch for undergoing “lots of trainings,” working “seven days a week,” and dedicating extensive time to the position.

“She has worked diligently. She has worked very hard, focused, lots of trainings,” Nelson said.

Nelson also described Hersch as someone who “doesn’t turn it off on a nine-to-five basis” and said “daily means seven days a week.”

“I’m very, very happy and I’m very proud that I was able to present her to council,” Nelson stated, later emphasizing again that the council “approved her again unanimously.”

For critics, those comments only intensify the underlying concern.

The issue, they argue, is not whether Hersch works hard.

The issue is whether extensive on-the-job development and continual training should have been necessary in the first place for someone appointed to oversee city operations at the highest administrative level.

The Original Questions Never Fully Went Away

Three years later, Nelson’s public comments have effectively reopened the same questions critics raised when Hersch was first appointed.

If Franklin required someone to develop into the role through extensive training and continual on-the-job growth, why was that person selected over allegedly more experienced candidates in the first place?

And why were those concerns dismissed politically instead of addressed directly at the time?

Public Confidence Requires More Than Celebration

Public officials are free to praise colleagues and employees. But when leaders publicly celebrate controversial decisions without acknowledging the concerns residents raised at the time, it risks appearing dismissive of legitimate public scrutiny.

The issue is not whether Hersch has supporters inside city government.

The issue is whether Franklin residents received the level of competence, transparency, and accountability they deserved from the beginning.

Nelson’s remarks may have been intended as a routine anniversary recognition.

Instead, they revived a larger question many residents believe was never fully answered:

Why was someone allegedly still “learning on the job” placed into one of the most important administrative positions in the city in the first place?

The Political Risk for Nelson

Nelson’s comments also carry political implications beyond Hersch herself.

By strongly tying himself to Hersch’s tenure and repeatedly defending the hiring decision, Nelson is effectively making her administration part of his own political legacy.

That creates additional scrutiny over:

• Hiring decisions

• Administrative turnover

• Departmental controversies

• Public records disputes

• Financial management

• Leadership culture within City Hall

The more aggressively Nelson insists the decision was unquestionably correct, the more attention critics are likely to place on whether the results actually justify that confidence.

Concerns Over Separation of Powers Inside City Hall

Nelson’s remarks also renewed concerns about the proper separation of authority between the Mayor’s Office and the Director of Administration position itself.

Under Franklin’s governmental structure, the Director of Administration is intended to serve as a professional administrative leader responsible for overseeing city operations, personnel coordination, budgeting, and implementation of policy independent of day-to-day political considerations.

Critics argue that Nelson’s comments blurred that distinction.

By repeatedly emphasizing his personal role in selecting Hersch, defending her publicly, and closely associating her accomplishments with his own leadership, Nelson reinforced concerns that the position has become politically tied to the mayor rather than operating as an independent administrative office serving the broader interests of the city.

Those concerns are amplified by Hersch’s prior involvement in Nelson’s mayoral campaign and allegations that more qualified candidates were bypassed during the hiring process.

Critics argue the issue is larger than any individual personality conflict.

It is whether Franklin’s governmental structure is functioning as intended — with independent administrative leadership and meaningful institutional checks — or whether political loyalty has effectively merged executive and administrative authority inside City Hall.

For residents concerned about transparency and accountability, that distinction matters.

The Director of Administration position was designed to provide professional management and operational independence, not simply function as an extension of the mayor’s political operation.

Ongoing Investigation Adds Additional Scrutiny

The renewed scrutiny surrounding Hersch’s role also comes as both Hersch and Mayor John Nelson reportedly remain tied to an active law enforcement investigation.

According to reporting by FCN, investigators obtained a warrant outlining allegations connected to actions involving city leadership. FCN further confirmed directly with the lead investigator at the West Allis Police Department that the investigation has not concluded and remains active and ongoing.

While authorities have not announced criminal charges and no conclusions have been publicly released, the existence of an ongoing investigation adds another layer of public concern surrounding City Hall leadership and accountability.

The investigation has become particularly significant because it overlaps with many of the same issues critics have raised for years, including:

• transparency in city government,

• political favoritism,

• use of public office,

• internal decision-making,

• and accountability among senior city officials.

Against that backdrop, Nelson’s public celebration of Hersch’s leadership and repeated insistence that her appointment was unquestionably successful is likely to face increased scrutiny from residents who believe unanswered questions still remain.

For critics, the issue is no longer limited to qualifications alone.

It is whether Franklin leadership has consistently placed political loyalty and internal relationships ahead of transparency, public trust, and independent accountability.

The existence of an ongoing investigation does not establish wrongdoing or guilt.

However, Nelson’s decision to publicly celebrate Hersch’s tenure while both remain tied to an unresolved investigation is likely to generate continued public scrutiny moving forward.

Accountability Is Not Personal

None of these questions are personal attacks.

Residents have a right to ask whether public officials selected the most qualified candidate available for a powerful taxpayer-funded position.

They also have a right to revisit those questions when city leadership itself publicly characterizes the position as one that required significant on-the-job learning.

That is not unfair scrutiny.

That is accountability.

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.

The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.

Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.

💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.

Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable 

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

Franklin’s TID 10 – Poth’s General Faces Legal Challenge Over Failure to Meet “But-For” and Blight Requirements

 

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

A proposed Tax Incremental District tied to the Poth’s General development (TID 10) in the City of Franklin is now facing a formal legal challenge, raising significant questions about whether the project complies with Wisconsin law.

In a May 5, 2026 letter to the Franklin Common Council and Joint Review Board (JRB), attorney Joseph R. Cincotta, representing property owner Linda Mathwig, stated plainly:

“The proposed TID No. 10 and the Project Plan that supports it is not in compliance with the TID statute.”

The letter, submitted on the eve of the JRB’s consideration of the project, places the City on notice that approval of TID 10 – Poth’s General could be subject to judicial review.

The Central Legal Issue: The “But-For” Test

At the core of the objection is a foundational requirement of Wisconsin Tax Increment Financing law: a TID may only be approved if the development would not occur “but for” public subsidy.

Cincotta directly challenges whether that standard has been met:

“When a developer is able to finance its own improvements, and then receive what is in effect tax refund in future years… it defeats and is contrary to the idea that the development would not occur ‘but for’ the availability of public subsidy.”

The letter emphasizes that TIF is not intended to subsidize projects that are already financially viable:

“The ‘but for’ test should not be interpreted to allow for public subsidy merely on the assertion by a developer that they are not willing to risk and/or cannot get the financing they would prefer without TID subsidy to develop their project.”

In blunt terms, the letter argues that where financing is available but declined:

“In such a case the market is signaling that the project should not be built.”

State Guidance Requires “Convincing Evidence”

The objection also relies on guidance from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, which outlines how Joint Review Boards must evaluate TIF proposals.

Cincotta quotes directly from the State TIF Manual:

“Before JRB members agree to the ‘but for’ criterion, they must have convincing evidence showing TIF is necessary to make the development possible.”

The guidance is explicit:

“If TIF is not needed before a development proceeds, the JRB members should not agree to the ‘but for’ criterion.”

According to the letter, however:

“The City’s consultant did not advise the JRB members… of the existence of the State TID Manual or provide the above guidance to the decision-makers involved in this matter.”

If accurate, that raises a critical issue: whether decision-makers were properly informed of the legal standard they were required to apply.

Blight Determinations Are Not Immune From Review

The letter also addresses the justification often used to support TID creation—blight.

Cincotta asserts that the project area does not meet any meaningful definition:

“The project area involved here is not genuinely blighted under any definition within the statute or otherwise.”

He supports this position by citing controlling case law:

“The predicates for a municipality’s determinations regarding the formation of a TID must be subject to some form of judicial review.”

This directly challenges the notion that municipal findings alone are sufficient or beyond scrutiny.

Subject to Certiorari Review

The letter makes clear that approval of TID 10 would not end the matter.

Under Wisconsin law, such decisions are subject to certiorari review, where a court evaluates whether the City:

• Acted according to law
• Followed proper procedure
• Relied on sufficient evidence

Cincotta explicitly warns that those standards may not be met here.

Notice of Potential Legal Challenge

The City, the Joint Review Board, and the developer are all put on formal notice:

“The intention… is to pursue further investigation and a potential legal challenge to this approval should it occur.”

The letter urges caution:

“We would suggest the approval be denied, but in the alternative, the matter be adjourned… so that the JRB can be provided with and evaluate the facts that are needed to make a proper decision.”

Implications for the Common Council and Joint Review Board

With this objection now formally on record, the decision before the Franklin Common Council and Joint Review Board is no longer a routine development matter.

The central issue is not whether the project is desirable.

It is whether TID 10 – Poth’s General satisfies the legal requirements imposed by Wisconsin law.

If the concerns raised in the letter are borne out, approval of the TID could be subject to judicial review and potential invalidation.

Additional Concerns: Process and Context

While the Cincotta letter focuses on statutory compliance, the record surrounding the project’s advancement raises additional concerns that may become relevant if the matter proceeds to court.

During Plan Commission review:

• An initial motion related to the project failed
• Commissioners then moved simply “to vote again”
• The same motion was subsequently approved on a second vote
• No formal motion to reconsider or amended proposal was introduced

This sequence—where a failed motion was revisited without a recognized procedural mechanism—could factor into a court’s review of whether the City proceeded on a correct theory of law.

The role of Mayor John Nelson, who serves as Chair of the Plan Commission, is also notable:

• The Mayor has voting authority but had not voted in multiple prior meetings
• He did not vote on the initial motion, which failed
• He did vote on the subsequent vote, which passed

The outcome changed only after his participation.

Campaign Contributions and Project Stakeholders

Campaign finance records from Mayor John Nelson’s 2023 campaign—during the period when the Poth’s General development was first advancing—show contributions from individuals connected to the project.

These include:

• Five contributions of $750 each from members of the Pekar family
  • Total: $3,750
• Two contributions of $750 each from members of the O’Malley family
  • Total: $1,500

Combined total: $5,250

Public records identify members of these families as being associated with entities involved in the Poth’s General development underlying TID 10.

There is no indication that these contributions violated campaign finance laws.

However, when considered alongside the approval process:

• A project tied to identifiable contributors comes before the Commission
• The initial motion fails
• The matter is revisited without a formal reconsideration process
• The Chair participates in the subsequent vote, which passes

This sequence may raise additional questions regarding the broader decision-making context, particularly if the matter is subject to judicial review.

Conclusion

The challenge to TID 10 – Poth’s General is grounded in a clear legal argument: that the statutory requirements for public subsidy have not been met and that the record does not support approval.

The additional circumstances surrounding the approval process—including the handling of the vote and the involvement of project-connected contributors—may further shape how that record is evaluated.

With litigation now a stated possibility, the City’s next steps will determine whether the project proceeds—or whether the matter ultimately shifts from the council chamber to the courtroom.

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.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.

Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.

💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.

Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable 

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

Franklin Officials Must Confront Questions Before Renewing Irish Cottage Liquor License

 

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

As the Franklin License Committee meets Tuesday evening to review annual liquor license renewals, one application should not be treated as routine.

The Class B license for Irish Cottage comes before the committee under the shadow of a fatal and preventable tragedy—one that demands more than a rubber stamp.

On November 2, 2024, 74-year-old Franklin resident James Riegling was killed in a head-on crash in a construction zone. According to a Nov. 7, 2024 report by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the driver, Leonel Molina Rios, 58, is now facing one count of felony homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle and one count of knowingly operating a motor vehicle without a valid license causing death.

If convicted, Molina Rios could face up to 31 years in prison and $110,000 in fines. Sentencing is scheduled for Friday, May 22 at 1:30 p.m. in Judge Borowski’s courtroom, Room 502 of the Safety Building.

According to the criminal complaint cited in that report, Molina Rios told police he had been drinking for hours at Irish Cottage prior to the crash. He admitted consuming multiple beers and shots of liquor and stated he believed he was impaired when he chose to drive. A bartender also confirmed serving a patron matching his identity several alcoholic drinks during that time.

Those facts are not speculation—they come directly from the criminal complaint.

And they raise a fundamental question for Franklin officials:
Was this tragedy solely the result of one individual’s actions, or does it reflect a failure of responsible alcohol service that demands accountability?

More Than Just One Decision

Wisconsin law prohibits serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated individuals. That responsibility falls squarely on the establishment and its staff.

Yet in this case, a patron was able to drink for hours, leave the premises, and—by his own admission—drive while impaired before causing a fatal crash.

That sequence of events demands scrutiny.

Dram Shop Law Is Not a Shield From Accountability

Wisconsin’s dram shop law limits the ability to hold bars civilly liable for the actions of intoxicated adult patrons. But that does not give establishments a free pass.

State law still prohibits serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated individuals, and that responsibility falls squarely on the establishment and its staff. When a patron can consume multiple drinks over several hours, admit he was impaired, and then leave and cause a fatal crash, it raises serious questions about whether those standards were followed. Even if civil courts are limited in imposing liability, the City of Franklin is not. Through its licensing authority, it has both the power—and the obligation—to determine whether an establishment is operating in a manner that protects public safety.

A Decision That Matters

Each year, liquor license renewals are often routine. But this year should not be.

Approving this license without pause sends a message—that even in the wake of a fatal drunk driving crash tied to alcohol service at a local establishment, business proceeds as usual.

That is not the standard Franklin has historically set.

An Opportunity for Leadership

Members of the License Committee—and ultimately the Common Council—have a choice.

They can approve the license as part of routine business, or they can hold the application and conduct a full review of the circumstances surrounding this case.

That is not punishment. It is responsible governance.

A Community Watching Closely

The impact of this crash did not end on November 2.

James Riegling was a husband, father, grandfather, and a member of this community. His loss continues to be felt by family, friends, and neighbors.

Sentencing on May 22 will give the victim’s family an opportunity to speak about that loss. It will also provide city officials a chance to hear firsthand the consequences of impaired driving.

But the decision before the License Committee comes first.

The Bottom Line

This is not about assigning criminal guilt—that will be decided in court.

This is about accountability.

If a patron can drink for hours, leave a licensed establishment impaired, and cause a fatal crash, the city has a responsibility to ask whether that establishment met its obligations under the law.

Franklin officials should not move forward with business as usual.

They should pause.
They should review.
And they should ensure that the privilege of holding a liquor license in this city is matched by a commitment to protecting the public.

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.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.

Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.

💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.

Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable 

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

Multiple Candidates, One Nomination: Why Is the Mayor Shaping the TID #10 JRB Decision?

 

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

As the Joint Review Board (JRB) prepares to meet to select a public member for Tax Increment District (TID) No. 10—associated with the proposed Poth’s General development, a fundamental question has emerged—one that goes beyond any individual candidate and instead focuses squarely on process.

Multiple individuals have now stepped forward expressing interest in serving as the JRB’s citizen member.

Yet, the process has continued to center around a single mayoral nomination.

If the Joint Review Board is the body that makes the selection, why is the process being shaped around a recommendation from the Mayor?

A Process Defined by Statute

Under Wisconsin law, the public member of a Joint Review Board is not appointed by the Mayor or Common Council. The position is filled by a majority vote of the Joint Review Board itself.

The intent is clear:

The public member is to be selected by the independent body responsible for reviewing and approving Tax Increment Districts—not by any single elected official.

Who Serves on the Joint Review Board

The Joint Review Board is made up of representatives from multiple taxing jurisdictions, along with one public member.

Typically, the Board includes:

• A representative of the local school district
• A representative of the technical college district
• A representative of the county
• A representative of the City of Franklin
• And one public (citizen) member

The public member is the only position specifically intended to represent a broader resident perspective outside of governmental entities.

A Change in Nominee—But Not in Process

The Mayor’s current recommendation follows a prior nomination that was withdrawn after becoming the subject of public scrutiny, including reporting that raised concerns about judgment and fitness for the role.

The Mayor subsequently indicated that the nominee would not be serving and issued a new recommendation.

While the nominee has changed, the underlying process—and the questions surrounding it—remain the same.

Interest Came Forward—Before and After the Nomination

Records show that former Mayor Steve Olson formally submitted interest in serving as the public member on April 19.

On April 30, Mayor John Nelson issued a letter recommending former Alderman Mike Barber for the role.

In the days that followed, additional individuals came forward, bringing the total number of interested candidates to at least four.

These included:

• Darrel Malek, a long-time Franklin business owner, licensed professional engineer, and real estate professional who emphasized neutrality and independence in the role
• N.J. Mathwig, a 25-year Franklin resident who outlined extensive independent research into TID structures and governance

Together, these candidates represent a range of experience in public service, business, and technical review of TID-related issues.

These were not casual expressions of interest. They were formal submissions, with qualifications, experience, and stated intent to serve in an objective capacity.

Why the Public Member Position Matters

The level of interest in the public member position is not incidental.

For TID 10, the Joint Review Board is responsible for making a final determination on whether the proposed district meets the legal and financial requirements to move forward. That includes evaluating whether the development would occur “but for” the use of Tax Increment Financing.

In practical terms, the public member will be voting on a decision involving millions in public financing and long-term impacts on the City’s tax base.

For many residents, that responsibility alone explains the level of engagement.

Some have expressed interest based on:

• A desire for independent, non-political representation
• Experience with development, finance, or municipal governance
• Concerns about how the TID was structured or justified
• A belief that the decision warrants careful, objective review

When a single vote can influence a decision of this scale, it is not surprising that residents want a voice in who casts it.

At the same time, the structure of the process raises an additional consideration:

Whether the selection ensures an independent voice—or one aligned with a preferred outcome.

The Central Question

The presence of multiple interested candidates—both before and after the Mayor’s recommendation—raises a straightforward question:

Was the process structured to allow the Joint Review Board to evaluate its options?

Or,

Has the process effectively narrowed the field to a single recommended candidate before the Board even votes?

What the Joint Review Board Actually Decides

The importance of this question becomes clearer when considering the role of the Joint Review Board itself.

The JRB is not creating TID 10—that has already been approved by the Common Council.

The Board’s role is to independently review and either approve or deny the district.

For TID 10 and the proposed Poth’s General development, the JRB must:

• Review the full project plan and public record
• Evaluate financial assumptions and projected tax increment
• Determine whether the development would occur “but for” the use of Tax Increment Financing
• Consider the impact on taxpayers and overlapping taxing jurisdictions

This “but for” determination is the critical test—whether public financing is truly necessary.

Community Concerns Surrounding TID 10

Concerns surrounding TID 10 have also begun to surface among residents and stakeholders, focusing on how the district was justified and what it ultimately represents.

Among the issues being raised:

• Whether the area meets the definition of a “blighted area” under state law
• The extent to which the project relies on a limited number of parcels to meet eligibility thresholds
• Questions about the level of public subsidy relative to the nature of the development
• Whether the project is truly unviable without TIF—or simply less profitable
• The overall composition of the development, including its significant residential component

Some have also pointed to gaps or inconsistencies in the public record during the approval process.

These concerns do not change the role of the Joint Review Board—but they underscore the importance of independent review.

Campaign Contributions and Public Confidence

Additional questions raised by residents relate to campaign contributions from individuals connected to the TID 10 project.

Campaign finance records show that individuals associated with the development—including members of the Pekar family (linked to the developer) and the O’Malley family (property owners within the proposed district)—contributed approximately:

• $3,000 from the Pekar family - Principal Land by Label
• $1,500 from the O’Malley family

during the 2023 mayoral election cycle.

While campaign contributions are lawful and a routine part of the political process, their presence in decisions involving significant public financing can raise broader questions:

• Whether decision-making is fully independent
• Whether the appearance of impartiality is maintained
• And whether public confidence in the process is preserved

When viewed alongside the current selection process, these factors further highlight the importance of an independent Joint Review Board.

Public Statements and Judgment

Public discussion surrounding the nomination has also extended beyond the process itself to include the public statements of those involved.

In a social media post earlier this week, Cathleen (“Cathy”) Richard, the prior nominee for the Joint Review Board public member position, responded to coverage of the issue with a series of remarks directed at individuals involved in the discussion.

The post included personal criticisms, references to “questionable actions,” and statements suggesting she would expose information about others. Among the statements made:

“If Steve Olson doesn’t withdraw… I’ll make it my mission to expose any questionable actions he’s taken in office.”

“We are going to see if his reputation is more important than trying to end the TID10 vote.”

“The skeletons in your closet are SO MUCH BIGGER.”

The post also referenced other individuals and suggested the existence of additional undisclosed information.

While individuals have the right to express their views, statements of this nature—particularly those involving personal attacks or implied threats of exposure—have raised additional questions among residents about judgment, tone, and the ability to serve in a role requiring objectivity and independence.

When viewed alongside the broader process concerns, these public statements further underscore the importance of selecting a public member who can approach the role with neutrality and professionalism.

Recommendation vs. Selection

There is nothing inherently improper about a mayor offering a recommendation.

But there is also no statutory role for such a recommendation in the selection process.

When multiple individuals express interest in a public position, the expectation is not simply that a name is presented—it is that the decision-making body considers the available candidates before making its choice.

Otherwise, the distinction between a selection and a confirmation begins to blur.

Why It Matters

The Joint Review Board is not ceremonial.

For TID 10 and the proposed Poth’s General project, its decision will determine whether the use of public financing moves forward.

That decision affects:

• Taxpayer exposure
• Long-term public financial obligations
• The distribution of tax base across jurisdictions

The independence of the Board—and the integrity of its composition—matters.

A Decision Still to Be Made

The upcoming JRB meeting is where the decision is formally made.

The Board has the authority to:

• Consider candidates
• Select the public member
• Or determine its own process

The question is not who the Mayor has recommended.

The question is whether the Joint Review Board will make an independent choice—based on the candidates available to it.

Conclusion

This is not about any one individual.

It is about whether the process reflects the structure and intent of the law.

Multiple candidates have stepped forward.

The Board has the authority to decide.

The only remaining question is whether it will.

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.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.

Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.

💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.

Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable 

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/