Big Bend’s Decision Point: What the Documents — and Franklin’s Experience — Reveal Before January 29
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi, Franklin Community News
Why This Matters Now
On January 29, 2026, the Village of Big Bend Board of Trustees and Plan Commission will hold a joint public hearing on a request that would fundamentally change how a large portion of the community is used — and how its impacts are felt for decades to come.
The hearing concerns a proposal by Claire Roth (agent) and Eric Weishaar (owner) to amend Big Bend’s Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use Map, converting approximately 42 acres at the northeast corner of Skyline Avenue and State Highway 164 from Medium Density Residential to Commercial land use. This amendment is directly tied to related rezoning and conditional use requests for the proposed Breck Athletic Complex, a large indoor/outdoor regional sports development.
This step matters because Comprehensive Plan amendments set the framework for all future zoning, development approvals, and infrastructure decisions. Once land use is changed at the plan level, later approvals often follow as a matter of course — even when impacts emerge that were not fully understood at the outset.
In other words, this hearing is not just about one project application. It is about whether Big Bend is prepared to lock in a land-use decision that enables a multi-phase, regional sports complex — and whether lessons learned from similar developments elsewhere are considered before that framework is put in place.
Franklin faced a similar decision years ago. The experience that followed offers Big Bend and neighboring communities a rare opportunity: to evaluate not only what is being proposed, but what those early approvals tend to produce over time.
A Decision That Will Shape Big Bend Long After the First Game Is Played
Big Bend residents are being asked to weigh one of the largest development proposals the community has ever faced: the Breck Athletic Complex, a $175–$225 million, multi-phase sports development planned on roughly 150 acres near Highway 164 and Skyline Avenue.
At first glance, comparisons to Ballpark Commons in Franklin may seem overstated. Ballpark Commons includes a stadium and a professional minor-league baseball team. The Breck proposal does not. That distinction matters.
But Franklin’s experience offers something more important than a one-to-one comparison. It shows how early decisions — made long before construction begins — quietly determine how a project will operate, how flexible a community remains, and who ultimately bears the risk.
Big Bend is now standing at that same decision point.
What This Comparison Is Based On
This comparison is grounded in the official filings and agreements submitted for each project, not post-construction hindsight.
For Big Bend, the analysis draws directly from the Breck Athletic Complex Planned Unit Development (PUD) Narrative dated December 23, 2025, the associated land-use change and rezoning petitions, parking and traffic research, draft boring logs dated December 22, 2025, an ALTA survey, Musco Lighting Plans, and signed Plan Commission and reimbursable services agreements filed with the Village.
For Franklin, the comparison is based on the Ballpark Commons Planned Development District (PDD), multiple 2018 development agreements, municipal services agreements, TIF and infrastructure financing documents, and recorded implementation and guarantee agreements governing construction and operations.
The conclusions below flow directly from how those documents structured each project at the approval stage — and how those structures later shaped real-world outcomes.
Franklin’s Path: How Ballpark Commons Took Shape
Those approvals were intentional. They were designed to create a regional destination.
But once the development and municipal services agreements were executed and infrastructure was built, Franklin’s flexibility narrowed. What had once been theoretical — lighting impacts, sound, traffic, and service demands — became daily realities that were far harder to adjust after the fact.
Franklin’s experience shows a consistent pattern: the most consequential decisions happened early, before residents could fully see how the project would operate year after year.
Big Bend’s Proposal: Different Design, Similar Scale
complex, built to host youth and amateur competitions across multiple sports.
According to the developer’s PUD Narrative and Plan Commission submittals, the project includes:
-
Multiple baseball, soccer, and lacrosse fields
-
A large indoor turf facility
-
Tall field lighting designed for evening use
-
Extensive parking and internal roadways
-
Hotels, restaurants, and event space as part of future phases
There is no professional team. But the scale is unmistakably regional.
Tournament complexes operate differently than stadiums. Instead of frequent scheduled games, they generate intense, compressed activity — hundreds or thousands of participants arriving and leaving in short windows, often across entire weekends.
The absence of a stadium reduces some impacts. It does not eliminate them.
Where the Projects Truly Differ — and Where They Don’t
The key difference between Ballpark Commons and Big Bend is event pattern, not footprint.
Ballpark Commons concentrated activity into predictable, recurring events. The Breck complex concentrates activity into bursts — tournament weekends, multi-day events, and peak-season traffic surges.
In both cases, the pressure on infrastructure, services, lighting, sound, and neighboring communities comes from scale and intensity, not branding.
That is why Franklin’s experience still matters.
Infrastructure Timing: The Moment That Matters Most
Franklin approved major infrastructure commitments early, as reflected in the Ballpark Commons infrastructure and development agreements. Once those commitments were recorded against the land, the City’s ability to recalibrate expectations was limited.
Big Bend is not there yet.
Zoning changes are still under review. Infrastructure extensions have been proposed, but not finalized. No development or municipal services agreements have yet been recorded for the Breck project.
That timing matters. Once infrastructure is extended and agreements are recorded, leverage shifts.
Financing and Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Where the Risk Really Sits
One of the most important — and least visible — differences between the two projects involves how they are financed, and how risk is distributed once public investment is introduced.
Franklin: When TIF Became the Backbone
As documented in the Ballpark Commons Tax Increment District (TID) financing and infrastructure agreements, Franklin advanced tens of millions of dollars in public infrastructure costs tied to future tax increment growth within the district.
TIF works by capturing future increases in property value within a defined district and using that incremental tax revenue to retire project-related debt. In theory, growth pays for itself.
In practice, TIF introduces a tradeoff. If values rise as projected, the district succeeds. If they do not, taxpayers absorb the risk until obligations are met.
Once Ballpark Commons’ TID was created and infrastructure was built, Franklin became financially invested in the project’s performance. That investment reduced flexibility when issues arose, because the project’s operations were now directly tied to public fiscal exposure.
Franklin’s experience also shows how this risk can surface in practice. As reflected in subsequent property valuations within the Ballpark Commons TID, projected increments did not materialize as anticipated in the early years, contributing to a developer shortfall obligation that ultimately led to litigation that remains active. While property values later fluctuated upward, the shortfall dispute illustrates how TIF structures can expose municipalities to fiscal pressure when performance does not align with projections — reinforcing the importance of conservative assumptions and enforceable safeguards at the approval stage.
Big Bend: Earlier in the Financing Timeline
By contrast, Big Bend has not yet approved a TID or tax increment financing structure for the Breck Athletic Complex, as reflected in the absence of recorded TIF agreements in the project’s current filings.
At this stage:
-
No TID has been created
-
No tax increment financing has been approved
-
Infrastructure funding is still under consideration
The moment a TID is created, future tax revenue is earmarked to retire project debt rather than flow immediately to schools and local services. Big Bend has not yet made that commitment.
Franklin’s experience shows that once financing is locked in, communities often stop managing projects — and start managing financial risk.
Stormwater: A Big Bend and Vernon Issue
Stormwater is one area where Big Bend’s situation differs meaningfully from Franklin’s.
Stormwater does not respect municipal boundaries. Once drainage systems are built, runoff patterns are largely permanent.
For Vernon, this matters. Downstream communities can experience drainage or flooding impacts without having approved the project or possessing enforcement authority over it.
Lighting and Sound: Impacts That Emerge Over Time
At Ballpark Commons, lighting and sound impacts were defined early in the PDD and development
agreements, but their real-world effects were not fully apparent until operations were underway.
In practice, sound impacts from Ballpark Commons have not been limited to isolated events or to the municipal boundary. During the spring, summer, and early fall baseball season, game noise, amplified announcements, music, and crowd sound routinely carry into nearby residential neighborhoods within Franklin as well as into neighboring Greendale. For residents living near Ballpark Commons, this has meant recurring evening disruption — often extending until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m., and at times later, particularly on weekends.
Importantly, Greendale had no authority to enforce its own lighting or sound ordinances on activity occurring in Franklin. Its local regulations simply did not apply across the municipal line.
The same structural issue exists for Vernon in relation to Big Bend.
Traffic, Parking, and Cross-Border Public Safety Impacts
Franklin’s Municipal Services Agreements document the City’s responsibilities for traffic control and event coordination at Ballpark Commons.
Because these impacts originated from a facility approved and operated in Franklin:
-
Greendale had no authority to regulate event traffic patterns
-
Greendale Police were required to respond to congestion and parking conflicts
-
Local resources were diverted from routine public safety needs
The same risks exist for Vernon in relation to the Breck Athletic Complex, given tournament-driven traffic surges documented in the project’s parking and traffic research.
Operations and Municipal Services
Large sports complexes do not simply open and run themselves. Franklin’s agreements show that demands on police, fire, traffic control, and maintenance increase after opening, not before.
Big Bend still has the opportunity to clearly define service responsibilities, cost recovery, and performance expectations before approvals are finalized.
What Big Bend and Vernon Can Still Do Now
Franklin’s experience makes one thing clear: leverage is highest before approvals are granted.
Big Bend and Vernon still have the ability to:
-
Require stormwater standards designed for full build-out
-
Define enforceable limits on lighting, sound, and hours of operation
-
Address cross-border traffic and parking impacts up front
-
Clarify municipal service costs and reimbursement mechanisms
-
Delay financing commitments until operational impacts are fully understood
Asking these questions is not anti-development. It is responsible governance.
A Final Thought — and a Moment to Be Heard
Franklin’s experience shows that the most consequential development decisions are rarely the most visible ones. They are made early — in zoning language, infrastructure commitments, financing structures, and development agreements — long before the first tournament is played or the first parking lot fills.
Once those decisions are locked in, neighboring communities like Greendale learn that they have no meaningful authority to control light, sound, traffic, or enforcement tied to approvals made elsewhere.
Big Bend and Vernon are not there yet.
They still have the opportunity — and the responsibility — to define standards before approvals are granted, to protect communities that have no vote, and to ensure that public investment does not quietly limit future choices.
That opportunity begins with the Joint Public Hearing scheduled for January 29, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. at Big Bend Village Hall, where the Village Board of Trustees and Plan Commission will take public comment on proposed land-use, rezoning, and conditional use changes tied to the Breck Athletic Complex.
Public hearings are where these decisions move from paper to policy. They are often the last moment when residents can influence how a project is framed — and how its impacts are managed — before approvals narrow future options.
The lesson from Franklin is not to oppose development.
It is to understand it fully before approving it.
Plan first. Build second.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment