.png)
PART 2 — THE $78,500 SOUND STUDY
Franklin Taxpayers Paid for Answers About Ballpark Commons Noise. Why Haven’t They Received the Complete Study?
A decade of promises, a developer-funded study requirement that disappeared, hundreds of thousands spent studying sound—and a Council President (Michelle Eichmann) who repeatedly advanced ROC Ventures requests while residents waited for answers.
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
For years, Franklin residents living near Ballpark Commons have complained about amplified music, stadium speakers, concerts, fireworks and other noise traveling into their neighborhoods.
They were promised solutions.
They were promised enforcement.
They were told decisions would be based on data.
And eventually, Franklin taxpayers were asked to put up another $78,500 for an independent professional sound study.
Yet the history of the Ballpark Commons noise controversy raises a much more fundamental question:
Why were taxpayers paying for another sound study at all?
Long before JPM Acoustics entered the picture, City records contained requirements specifically intended to prevent this problem.
And as the controversy continued, Common Council President Michelle Eichmann repeatedly made, seconded or supported motions benefiting ROC Ventures—including concerts, festivals, fireworks and increased sound allowances.
Then, in February 2026, Eichmann publicly warned of financial “ramifications” if ROC events did not proceed, explicitly connecting ROC's ability to generate revenue with money it owed the City.
Weeks later, another extraordinary development emerged:
ROC—the entity whose sound Franklin hired JPM to independently study—entered into a separate financial arrangement with JPM involving approximately $63,000 and obtained part of the consultant's work.
Meanwhile, Franklin taxpayers were still waiting for the complete study.
The Sound Problem Was Foreseen Years Ago
Noise was not an unforeseen consequence discovered after Franklin Field opened.
It was discussed during the development process years earlier.
In 2014 materials addressing neighborhood concerns, the developer represented that the proposed public-address system would use technology intended to significantly reduce noise pollution affecting adjacent property owners.
Speakers were supposed to be distributed around the stadium and aimed toward spectators rather than projecting amplified sound outward.
That was the promise.
Then came an even more significant protection.
2016: A Comprehensive Sound Study—At the Developer's Expense
The PDD No. 37 approval required a comprehensive outdoor sound study before new or revised concerts, live-music venues and other amplified outdoor events, including the proposed baseball stadium.
The study was supposed to consider existing and proposed events and facilities, identify practices and equipment necessary to comply with Franklin's regulations, and reasonably address neighbors' concerns.
It was also supposed to receive independent review by a party chosen by the City at the applicant's reasonable expense.
And it was supposed to be reviewed and accepted by the Common Council before further development.
In other words:
The developer was supposed to address the sound issue before development—not Franklin taxpayers years afterward.
But the comprehensive-study requirement did not survive.
2018: The Developer Sought to Remove the Requirement
During the subsequent Ballpark Commons approval process, the applicant sought to eliminate the comprehensive sound and lighting study requirements and rely instead upon provisions negotiated with Milwaukee County.
Franklin's own professional planning staff raised concerns.
Staff noted that the applicant was not proposing to undertake the comprehensive sound study then required by PDD No. 37 and identified significant shortcomings in what was being proposed instead.
Among them were inadequate information concerning speaker type, location and orientation; anticipated sound levels from major activities; and anticipated sound levels at nearby homes.
Planning staff recommended that the comprehensive study still be performed.
The Common Council nevertheless changed course in June 2018, replacing the original requirement with the County/Ballpark Commons Noise and Light Addendum.
Michelle Eichmann was not on the Council for that vote, and responsibility for the 2018 decision should not be attributed to her.
But what happened afterward matters enormously to the decisions she would later make.
$169,111 for “Sound & Light Modifications”
The financial history raises another question.
A November 2018 Ballpark Commons TIF document contains a specific budget category:
Sound & Light Modifications — $169,111
The earlier figure was $100,000, meaning the revised budget reflected an additional $69,111.
And this was not the privacy-berm budget. Privacy berms appear separately in the City's financial document.
Later City financial documents appear to show different figures for the category, so it would be premature to say $169,111 was ultimately spent.
But taxpayers are entitled to know:
What sound modifications were actually purchased?
What equipment was changed?
What mitigation was installed?
How much was spent specifically on sound rather than lighting?
Who verified that the modifications worked?
And where is the public accounting?
Then the Complaints Came
Franklin Field opened in 2019.
The noise controversy did not disappear.
City records later documented more than 100 complaints during the following years, while City planning staff acknowledged limitations in the sound-monitoring arrangement that had replaced the original comprehensive-study requirement.
Eventually Milwaukee County commissioned RSG to conduct another sound analysis.
Among the issues identified was something that should sound familiar:
speaker orientation.
The very issue Franklin planning staff wanted examined before the stadium opened became part of the problem years afterward.
Speakers that residents had complained were directing sound outward were eventually redirected into the stadium in October 2023.
Years after the original promises.
Years after the comprehensive-study requirement.
And only after sustained neighborhood complaints.
2023: The Mayor Promises “Solutions”
On September 20, 2023, Mayor John Nelson announced an “emergency meeting” concerning Rock Sports Complex noise.
The City's press release described residents' concerns as longstanding and said resolving them was a mayoral priority.
Then an agenda item began appearing repeatedly before the Common Council:
“Solutions to the Noise Issues at the ROC / Ballpark Commons”
It appeared October 3.
Again October 17.
Again November 7.
Again November 21.
Again December 19.
And again January 3, 2024.
The public was repeatedly told:
“Mayor will provide an update as to the Solutions to the Noise Issues at the ROC / Ballpark Commons.”
Yet the public packets provided little meaningful documentation explaining what those “solutions” actually were.
At one meeting, Nelson displayed a new handheld decibel meter.
A decibel meter measures noise.
It doesn't mitigate it.
And throughout this supposed search for “solutions,” there was little apparent public accounting for the comprehensive study originally required before development or the money budgeted for Sound & Light Modifications.
March 2024: Franklin Promises Enforcement
On March 5, 2024, the Common Council unanimously approved Resolution 2024-8109.
Its language was forceful.
The resolution spoke of quiet enjoyment, quality of life and protecting property owners from nuisance and interference.
It specifically referenced Franklin's prohibition against noise disturbances crossing property boundaries and loudspeaker noise.
The message seemed clear:
Franklin would enforce its rules.
But the subsequent record raises questions about how consistently that promise was applied when ROC Ventures sought approval for events.
Enter Michelle Eichmann
By this point, Michelle Eichmann had become increasingly important in the Ballpark Commons story.
A review of Council records from 2024 through 2026 shows Eichmann repeatedly making, seconding or voting for ROC Ventures requests involving concerts, festivals, fireworks and sound levels.
And some of those votes were not merely routine unanimous approvals.
On May 7, 2024, ROC sought approval for fireworks following Milwaukee Milkmen games.
Eichmann seconded the motion and voted yes.
The Council rejected it 2–4.
Only Eichmann and one other alderperson supported it.
That same evening ROC sought approval for its Summer Concert Series.
Again, Eichmann seconded the motion.
Again, she voted yes.
Again, it failed 2–4.
Those votes matter because they demonstrate that Eichmann wasn't merely following the Council majority.
She was willing to advance ROC requests even when most of her colleagues weren't.
When a revised concert proposal returned later that month with additional restrictions, Eichmann again seconded approval.
2025: From 55 to 65 Decibels
In 2024, Franklin Field operated under an approved 55-dBA property-line limit.
In 2025, ROC sought 65 dBA.
That's not a trivial numerical difference. Decibels operate logarithmically; a 10-dB increase represents a substantial increase in sound intensity and is generally perceived as significantly louder.
And Eichmann didn't merely vote for the increase.
She made the motion.
At the May 6, 2025 meeting, Eichmann personally moved to allow Franklin Field to operate at 65 dBA.
Another alderperson voted against it.
At the same meeting, she personally moved to permit ROC's Rock'n Food Truck Rally to operate at 60 dBA.
Two alderpersons voted against that motion.
But something else happened that evening.
The Council authorized Franklin's new sound study.
Taxpayers Put Up Another $78,500
Franklin retained JPM Acoustics to perform sound monitoring, noise mitigation and compliance work associated with Ballpark Commons.
The City ultimately appropriated $78,500 in General Fund money for the project.
JPM was repeatedly described in City materials as an independent consultant.
And Eichmann was directly involved.
She supported the JPM agreement and subsequently personally moved authorization of the Site Access and Cooperation Agreement involving Franklin, JPM and ROC/Ballpark Commons.
So Eichmann cannot credibly be characterized as a spectator to the process.
She helped advance the consultant's work.
She helped advance ROC's event requests.
And she personally moved some of the sound allowances the consultant was supposed to help Franklin evaluate.
February 18, 2026: “We're Data-Driven”
By February 2026, Franklin still didn't have the resolution residents had been waiting for.
At the February 18 Council meeting, Mayor Nelson told residents Franklin needed facts before moving forward:
“I'm not going to ask the council to do something until we're data-driven. We're data-driven.”
Nelson said taxpayers had paid for JPM to provide “good, tangible data and proven facts.”
Yet that same evening the Council was considering additional ROC events without having the completed JPM work publicly available.
One alderman suggested holding up the events until the sound-study issue was resolved.
Eichmann resisted.
She said:
“I don't feel that we should penalize the venue at all because the JPM contract falls on the city side.”
Then she asked:
“So why is it the rocks problem that the city hasn't gotten the JPM thing? The two are not even connected.”
That statement would become remarkably significant only weeks later.
Eichmann Defends ROC—and Attacks JPM
Eichmann continued defending ROC's efforts.
She credited the developer with moving and adjusting speakers and working with the City and neighbors.
Meanwhile, she was considerably less charitable toward Franklin's own consultant.
The City disclosed that 35% of the $78,500 contract—or $27,475—remained unpaid.
Eichmann said JPM had undertaken additional work without Franklin's authorization.
She accused the consultant of having “a lot of missing parts” and “dropp[ing] the ball.”
Then she said:
“I feel like JPM is playing games with us.”
And predicted:
“I foresee legal action with this down the road without a doubt.”
Consider the contrast.
The City's independent consultant was drawing Eichmann's criticism.
ROC Ventures was drawing her defense.
And then the discussion turned to money.
Eichmann Warns of Financial “Ramifications”
When ROC Ventures’ Country Rising and Tacos & Tequila applications initially failed to advance at the February 18, 2026 Common Council meeting, Council President Michelle Eichmann did more than argue that the events should be approved.
She introduced ROC’s financial interests—and the City’s financial exposure to ROC—directly into the Council’s decision-making.
Earlier in the discussion, Eichmann argued that ROC should not be penalized because Franklin had not resolved its problems with JPM Acoustics.
“I don't feel that we should penalize the venue at all because the JPM contract falls on the city side.”
She then asked:
“So why is it the rocks problem that the city hasn't gotten the JPM thing? The two are not even connected.”
Eichmann also defended ROC's efforts to address noise, crediting the developer with moving and adjusting speakers and working with the City and neighbors.
But when the Country Rising and Tacos & Tequila applications encountered resistance, Eichmann's argument shifted directly to economics.
Eichmann referenced her position on the Engage Franklin board of directors, saying Engage Franklin had been looking forward to the event. She pointed to potential hotel stays, restaurant visits, shopping and other tourism activity.
Then she made the financial connection to ROC explicit:
“we're after the rock at times because we want his payments that he owes to the city, but yet we're stopping him from bringing in revenue to pay the city.”
Eichmann followed that with a warning:
“There will be ramifications to follow, I do expect, financially, which will then, in turn, unfortunately, affect the taxpayers in one way or another.”
Whose Financial Interests Come First?
Eichmann's comments raise a question considerably larger than whether one festival should receive a permit.
Franklin is both financially connected to Ballpark Commons and responsible for regulating activities at Ballpark Commons.
Those responsibilities can pull in different directions.
The City has an interest in seeing ROC meet its financial obligations. At the same time, elected officials are responsible for applying Franklin's ordinances and weighing the effects of concerts, festivals and amplified sound on neighboring residents.
Eichmann's comments placed those competing considerations squarely on the public record.
Her argument was essentially that preventing ROC from holding revenue-generating events could make it more difficult for ROC to make payments owed to Franklin—and ultimately could financially affect taxpayers.
That raises an uncomfortable question:
Has Franklin become so financially dependent upon Ballpark Commons succeeding that officials are reluctant to say no to ROC Ventures?
There is no evidence that Eichmann personally benefits financially from ROC's events, and her comments do not establish a statutory conflict of interest.
But they do reveal something important about how she says she weighs ROC event approvals.
The ability of ROC to generate revenue and make payments to Franklin was explicitly part of her argument for allowing the events to proceed.
But Where Is the Economic-Impact Data?
Eichmann also invoked the broader economic benefits of Country Rising and Tacos & Tequila—hotels, restaurants, shopping and tourism.
Those benefits are certainly possible.
But Tacos & Tequila is also largely a self-contained, day-long event at Franklin Field. Attendees can arrive at Ballpark Commons, park, eat from festival vendors, purchase beverages and enjoy entertainment without ever patronizing another Franklin business.
Some visitors undoubtedly purchase gasoline, eat elsewhere or stay overnight. But Franklin Community News has not identified a publicly available economic-impact analysis establishing how many attendees stay in Franklin hotels, how much they spend at Franklin restaurants and retailers outside Ballpark Commons, or what measurable economic benefit actually reaches the broader Franklin business community.
That's an important distinction:
Attendance is not the same thing as economic impact.
If economic development is being invoked by the Council President as justification for approving events despite longstanding neighborhood noise concerns, taxpayers are entitled to see the numbers supporting that argument.
How many hotel room nights does Tacos & Tequila generate?
How much spending reaches Franklin businesses outside Ballpark Commons?
How much additional tax revenue does Franklin actually receive?
How much festival spending remains with ROC Ventures and event vendors?
And how much economic activity would have occurred in Franklin anyway?
Without those numbers, claims about broader economic impact remain largely assertions rather than demonstrated benefits.
The Timing Makes Eichmann's Argument Even More Significant
At the same February 18 meeting, Franklin was still struggling to obtain the work it had commissioned from JPM Acoustics.
Mayor John Nelson was telling residents that the City needed to be “data-driven” and had spent taxpayer money to obtain reliable information before determining how to proceed.
Yet Eichmann was arguing against delaying ROC events while the City's own sound-study controversy remained unresolved.
Her position was clear:
Don't penalize ROC because Franklin hasn't resolved JPM.
Allow ROC to generate revenue.
ROC needs that revenue, in part, to make payments owed to Franklin.
Failure to do so could have financial ramifications for taxpayers.
And only weeks later, the distinction Eichmann had drawn between ROC and JPM would become much harder to maintain.
ROC would disclose that it had entered into a separate financial arrangement with JPM involving approximately $63,000 of the consultant's outstanding claim in exchange for receiving the festival executive summary.
On February 18, Eichmann said the two were “not even connected.”
Weeks later, they were financially connected.
That sequence raises a fundamental question residents have every right to ask:
Zimmerman: “He Doesn't Report Into Me”
ROC owner Mike Zimmerman also addressed the JPM controversy that evening.
And his words would soon become important.
Zimmerman emphasized that JPM was Franklin's consultant—not his:
“He doesn't report into me. He reports into you guys.”
Zimmerman added:
“the sound study sits with you guys. This is your sound study.”
On February 18, the message from both Zimmerman and Eichmann was unmistakable:
JPM was the City's responsibility.
Eichmann said ROC and the City's JPM dispute were “not even connected.”
Zimmerman said JPM reported to Franklin, not him.
Then something extraordinary happened.
Weeks Later, They Were Financially Connected
By March, ROC/Ballpark Commons disclosed to Franklin that it had entered into a separate financial arrangement directly with JPM.
According to ROC's own written submission to the Common Council, Franklin and JPM were embroiled in a contractual dispute that had prevented release of the sound study.
ROC said it then agreed to financially backstop approximately $63,000 of JPM's outstanding claim.
And ROC described what it received in return:
The executive summary concerning the music-festival portion of the study.
That sequence deserves repeating.
Franklin taxpayers funded the study.
JPM was hired as Franklin's independent consultant.
ROC was the entity being studied.
Franklin and JPM disputed payment.
ROC then entered a separate financial arrangement with JPM.
ROC received part of JPM's work product.
And the public still did not have the complete taxpayer-funded study.
Did ROC's Money Influence the Study?
There is presently no evidence establishing that ROC changed JPM's findings, altered measurements or improperly influenced the consultant's conclusions.
Franklin Community News is not alleging that occurred.
But that's not the end of the issue.
It is the beginning of it.
An independent consultant's credibility depends in part upon independence from the entity being evaluated.
Yet the subject of Franklin's independent sound study became financially involved with Franklin's consultant while the consultant and City were disputing payment.
That creates an unavoidable question:
Could ROC's financial relationship with JPM have influenced the consultant's conclusions, recommendations or final work product?
The available record does not answer that question.
And Franklin's failure to release the complete record makes independent evaluation difficult.
There is a simple way to resolve the concern:
Release the complete study.
Release the drafts.
Release the underlying measurements.
Release the invoices.
Release the City/JPM correspondence.
Release the terms of the ROC/JPM arrangement.
Then taxpayers can determine whether JPM's conclusions changed before or after ROC became financially involved.
ROC Got Information Before the Public
The arrangement raises another concern.
ROC reported receiving JPM's festival executive summary and reviewing the consultant's preliminary recommendations.
ROC then incorporated those recommendations into its proposed sound-management approach while seeking approval for additional events.
The entity being studied therefore had access to at least part of the consultant's findings while the complete taxpayer-funded study remained unavailable to residents.
Those residents had complained about Ballpark Commons noise for years.
They had attended meetings.
They had demanded enforcement.
They had been promised solutions.
Yet when JPM's work finally began emerging, ROC obtained access while the public remained without the complete report.
And Eichmann Continued Advancing ROC Requests
The JPM controversy did not cause Eichmann to retreat from ROC matters.
Her record includes making, seconding or supporting motions involving ROC concerts, festivals, fireworks and sound allowances.
On February 18 alone, she moved approval of multiple ROC-related matters.
Her initial motion to approve Country Rising and Tacos & Tequila was notable because no other alderperson seconded it.
She later moved to table the applications rather than reject them.
Then, on March 17, while additional ROC event matters were before the Council, Eichmann became directly involved in the City's unresolved JPM dispute.
She moved the Council into closed session concerning the JPM agreement and potential amendment.
After the closed session, she moved that Franklin “proceed as discussed in closed session.”
The public minutes don't explain what that meant.
That leaves another unanswered question:
What did Eichmann and the Council decide privately about JPM after ROC had become financially involved with the consultant?
A Pattern Franklin Residents Can Judge for Themselves
None of this proves that Michelle Eichmann has an improper relationship with Mike Zimmerman.
It does not prove she received anything from ROC.
And it does not establish that she violated Wisconsin's conflict-of-interest laws.
But those limitations should not obscure what is documented.
When ROC sought fireworks in May 2024 and most of the Council rejected them, Eichmann supported them.
When ROC sought its concert series and most of the Council rejected it, Eichmann supported it.
She subsequently supported or advanced additional concerts and festivals.
She personally moved sound allowances of 60 and 65 dBA.
She argued against delaying ROC events while Franklin still lacked the completed JPM work.
She defended ROC's mitigation efforts.
She sharply criticized Franklin's own sound consultant.
And when ROC event applications stalled, she explicitly raised ROC's need to generate revenue, money ROC owed Franklin and potential financial “ramifications” for taxpayers.
In the ROC matters reviewed by Franklin Community News for this investigation, we have not identified an instance during this period in which Eichmann affirmatively voted to reject a ROC Ventures request.
That doesn't tell residents what Eichmann's motives were.
But it does tell them what her record was.
The $78,500 Question Is Really a Decade-Long Question
Franklin's noise controversy is no longer simply about whether a concert was too loud.
Look at the chronology.
The developer promised sound-system designs intended to minimize neighborhood impacts.
A comprehensive outdoor sound study was required at the developer's expense.
The developer later sought removal of that requirement.
Franklin planning staff recommended keeping it.
The requirement was nevertheless replaced.
A City TIF document subsequently budgeted as much as $169,111 for Sound & Light Modifications.
Complaints continued.
Milwaukee County later spent substantial taxpayer money commissioning another study.
The Mayor announced an “emergency” effort to find solutions.
“Solutions to the Noise Issues” appeared on Council agendas month after month.
Franklin unanimously adopted a resolution promising enforcement.
Then Franklin taxpayers appropriated another $78,500 for JPM.
And while the resulting study remained caught in a contractual dispute, the entity being studied entered a financial arrangement with the City's independent consultant and obtained part of its findings.
After more than a decade, taxpayers deserve answers to some remarkably basic questions:
What happened to the sound study originally required at the developer's expense?
What sound mitigation was actually purchased through the TIF?
Why did Franklin need another $78,500 study?
Why did ROC become financially involved with Franklin's independent consultant?
Who approved or knew about that arrangement?
Why did ROC obtain JPM findings while the public lacked the complete study?
Did JPM's recommendations change after ROC became financially involved?
What did the Council decide about JPM behind closed doors?
And perhaps most importantly:
Where is the complete taxpayer-funded sound study?
Franklin residents have heard promises about Ballpark Commons noise for years.
They have been given emergency meetings.
They have been given agenda updates.
They have been given resolutions.
They have been given decibel meters.
They have been given another consultant.
What they still haven't been given is the one thing that could allow them to evaluate the City's decisions for themselves:
The complete answers.
COMING IN PART 3:
The ROC– Engage Franklin - Franklin Tourism Relationship: Development, Events, Tourism, TID Dollars and the Public Officials Making the Decisions
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.
💬 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.
.png)
.png)
.png)
