Former Sentry Property (Poth's General) Labeled ‘Blighted’ — Residents Seek Supporting Evidence
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
Franklin, WI — What began as a vision for a vibrant mixed-use “downtown” for Franklin is now the subject of increasing scrutiny as city officials consider the creation of Tax Incremental District No. 10 (TID 10) and related financing structures tied to the Poth’s General development, the former Sentry and associated property.
At issue are two key questions:
Does the property legally qualify as “blighted” under Wisconsin law?
Should public tax increment revenue be committed under a 90/10 Pay-Go structure for up to 27 years?
Early versions of the Orchard View redevelopment were presented as a transformational project — a true mixed-use destination comparable to Oak Creek’s Drexel Town Square. The vision included:
Retail storefronts
Residential units
Entertainment uses
Public gathering space
Green space and walkability
The project was described as an economic engine for Franklin — a community center rather than simply a housing development.
Excerpt from the Tax Incremental District #10 Project Plan - Prepared by Ehlers
The current proposal, however, is substantially more residential in composition, with many of the originally highlighted commercial and public amenities reduced in scope. That shift has prompted residents to question whether public financing aligns with the initial economic development promises.
Under Wis. Stat. § 66.1105, at least 50% of a proposed “Blighted Area” TID must meet specific statutory conditions, such as:
Dilapidation
Structural deterioration
Unsafe or unsanitary conditions
Environmental contamination
Conditions detrimental to public health and safety
The TID 10 Project Plan asserts that approximately 81% of the 30.31-acre district qualifies as blighted.
Parcels 1, 6, and 7 are owned by Initech LLC, registered on April 13, 2022, with Axepoint Law listed as the registered agent and the principal owner address listed as that of James Pekar.
Parcels 3, 4 and 5 are owned by Franklin Rawson LLC, registered on March 18, 2022, with James O’Malley listed as the registered agent.
Graphic and Excerpt from the Tax Incremental District #10 Project Plan - Prepared by Ehlers
According to the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions these ownership entities were established in 2022 and now comprise the principal acreage designated as blighted within the proposed district.
However, critics note that the publicly available Project Plan materials consist largely of narrative descriptions and photographs. They argue that the official record does not clearly include:
Structural engineering reports
Fire inspection findings
Unsafe building determinations
Environmental or soil testing documentation
Parcel-by-parcel statutory analysis tying acreage to specific blight criteria
Excerpt from the Tax Incremental District #10 Project Plan - Prepared by Ehlers
Active tenants continue operating within the shopping center, utilities are functioning, and no publicly released condemnation orders have been included in the blight narrative materials.
A Wisconsin Open Records request has been submitted seeking inspection reports, enforcement history, environmental documentation, and internal analyses supporting the blight determination.
A formal letter has also been submitted to the Joint Review Board, Planning commission, and Common Council requesting that no vote be taken until objective documentation is included in the official record.
The 90/10 Pay-Go Structure
Separate from the blight question is the proposed Pay-Go TID structure.
Under the proposal, approximately 90% of the tax increment generated by the development would flow to the developer, with only 10% distributed among the overlapping taxing jurisdictions — including the school district, county, technical college, and city.
Residents circulating a petition argue that this structure diverts future tax revenue away from:
Emergency services
Schools
Parks
Infrastructure
for up to 27 years.
The petition also raises concerns about the statutory “but-for” requirement — the legal requirement that the development would not occur without the TID.
Petition organizers argue that no publicly released financial feasibility study or gap analysis has yet been provided demonstrating that the project would not proceed without public financing.
The petition formally asks the Joint Review Board to deny the proposed TID project plan or defer any vote until full documentation is disclosed.
What Happens When TIF Valuations Fluctuate — Lessons from Ballpark Commons
Recent publicly reported data shows dramatic shifts in property valuations within Franklin’s existing TIF districts — and these valuation patterns matter to taxpayers because they affect how much public benefit actually materializes from development.
A 2025 report on Franklin’s Tax Increment District valuations showed that:
Ballpark Commons TID saw its assessed value increase by 64% in one year despite no major new construction, raising questions about how valuations can jump without corresponding on-the-ground development.
Velo Village — a residential community associated with Ballpark Commons — saw its valuation decrease by 23% over a similar period.
Other Franklin TIDs experienced wild swings in valuation, including some that more than doubled in value and others that saw large drops — illustrating that assessed value trends can be unpredictable and driven by factors unrelated to actual development progress.
These valuation swings are significant because:
TIF financing depends on future tax increments, which are based on assessed values remaining stable or growing as projected.
When valuations jump without development, it may artificially inflate expectations of increment revenue — potentially skewing the financial justification for public subsidies.
When valuations decline after development (as with Velo Village), the expected increment revenue may fall short, potentially straining local taxing jurisdictions that had anticipated that revenue.
Residents note that Poth’s General developer Jim Pekar played a role in prior projects within Franklin’s development network, including earlier involvement with entities tied to Ballpark Commons, before moving forward independently on other sites.
Taken together, these valuation changes — and the lack of visible documentation explaining them — contribute to community skepticism about whether:
Blight designations are being applied based on fact or convenience,
Projected tax increments are realistic, and
**Public subsidies will deliver the promised long-term benefits to the community.
Why This Matters
By tying the TID 10 debate to past valuation behavior, the article:
Helps readers understand that TIF revenue projections are not guaranteed.
Shows that property values can spike or drop without clear development triggers.
Highlights why rigorous documentation (blight evidence, but-for analyses, feasibility studies) is crucial before committing public dollars.
This context makes the Open Records request and the resident letter to the Joint Review Board, Plan Commission, and Common Council not just procedural, but substantive to Franklin taxpayers who rely on stable funding for schools, safety, parks, and infrastructure.
What the City Has Formally Found
In the official Project Plan, the City has made a series of formal statutory findings required under Wisconsin law to create Tax Incremental District No. 10.
Among the most significant:
1. The “But-For” Finding
The City states that “but for” the creation of the TID, the development would not occur as proposed. According to the Plan, the City relied on SB Friedman Development Advisors to evaluate the developer’s request for tax incremental financing and to determine whether the project requires assistance to proceed.
Excerpt from the Tax Incremental District #10 Project Plan - Prepared by Ehlers
The Plan indicates that, without TIF assistance, projected returns would fall below expected market levels and that the project would not proceed in the manner proposed.
However, while the Plan references the Friedman report, questions remain as to whether the full financial analysis, gap study, and underlying assumptions have been made publicly available for independent review.
2. The Blight Determination
The Plan formally states that “not less than 50% by area of the real property within the District is a blighted area as defined by Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(2)(ae).”
Based on that finding, the District is designated as a blighted area district.
The publicly available materials include a narrative description and photographs of site conditions. However, the Plan does not, within the summary findings section, cite specific inspection reports, engineering studies, fire code violations, or environmental documentation demonstrating how individual parcels meet the statutory blight criteria.
Excerpt from the Tax Incremental District #10 Project Plan - Prepared by Ehlers
The blight designation ultimately rests on whether the record contains sufficient objective evidence to support the 50% threshold required by law.
3. Economic Benefit Findings
The City further finds that the anticipated economic benefits of the District — including new housing units, construction activity, employment, and increased property value — outweigh the projected tax increments to be invested in the project.
It also finds that project costs relate directly to the elimination of blight and that improvements will enhance the value of surrounding property.
Excerpt from the Tax Incremental District #10 Project Plan - Prepared by Ehlers
These findings are required by statute, but their strength depends on the documentation supporting both the financial projections and the blight analysis.
Excerpt from the Tax Incremental District #10 Project Plan - Prepared by Ehlers
At its core, the issue is not whether findings were written into the Plan — they were. The question is whether the underlying documentation supporting those findings has been sufficiently disclosed and independently verified before votes are taken.
Who Decides What? Understanding the TID Approval Process
Creating a Tax Incremental District (TID) in Wisconsin is not a single vote. It requires action by three separate bodies, each with a distinct statutory role.
Plan Commission
The Plan Commission is the first formal step in the process. It:
Holds the required public hearing on the proposed Project Plan.
Reviews the TID boundaries, project costs, and classification (such as “Blighted Area”).
Determines whether the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan.
Adopts a resolution recommending approval, modification, or rejection of the Project Plan to the Common Council.
The Plan Commission does not create the TID itself. Its role is advisory, but its recommendation becomes part of the official record and is forwarded to the Common Council.
Joint Review Board (JRB)
The Joint Review Board is required under state law for every TID. It is designed to protect the interests of all taxing jurisdictions affected by the district.
The JRB is composed of representatives from:
The City of Franklin
The Franklin School District
Milwaukee County
The technical college district
One public member
The JRB must independently review the Project Plan after the Common Council adopts it. The Board evaluates:
Whether the TID complies with Wis. Stat. § 66.1105
Whether the “but-for” test has been satisfied (meaning the project would not occur without TIF assistance)
Whether the proposed use of tax increment financing is appropriate
Importantly, the JRB has the authority to approve or deny the TID. If the JRB does not approve it, the TID cannot proceed.
Common Council
The Common Council is the legislative body that:
Adopts the resolution creating the TID.
Makes the formal legislative findings required by statute, including blight determinations.
Approves development agreements and financing structures.
The Council’s vote establishes the district, but it is not the final step — the TID must still receive approval from the Joint Review Board.
Why This Matters
Each of these bodies has an independent statutory responsibility. The Plan Commission reviews and recommends. The Common Council adopts legislative findings. The Joint Review Board independently evaluates whether the legal requirements have been met before the TID can take effect.
Understanding these roles is critical because the TID process is designed to include multiple safeguards before public tax increment revenue is committed.
Why This Matters to Franklin Residents and Taxpayers
Tax Increment Financing does not raise taxes directly — but it does redirect where future tax growth goes.
When a TID is created, the property’s current assessed value is “frozen.” Any new tax revenue generated above that base value — called the tax increment — does not immediately flow to the general budgets of:
The City of Franklin
The Franklin School District
Milwaukee County
The technical college district
Instead, that increment is used to reimburse project costs within the TID for up to 27 years.
Who Is Affected?
Because tax increment revenue is redirected:
Schools do not immediately receive the benefit of new property tax growth.
County services such as public safety, courts, and transportation do not receive their share of new valuation growth during the life of the TID.
City services — including police, fire, public works, and parks — must operate within existing revenue streams while the increment is committed to the district.
In a Pay-Go structure — such as the proposed 90/10 split — a significant portion of new tax increment would be paid to the developer rather than flowing into general government budgets.
Why Residents Care
For residents, the concern is not theoretical.
TIF decisions affect:
Long-term municipal revenue
School district funding growth
Infrastructure investment timing
Public safety funding capacity
Future property tax pressure
If the development performs as projected, the TID eventually closes and the full tax base is released to all taxing jurisdictions.
If projections fall short, the financial structure can place pressure on future budgets or require adjustments.
Open Records Request Filed
In response to concerns about the blight designation and statutory compliance, a Wisconsin Open Records request has been submitted seeking objective documentation supporting the TID 10 classification as a “Blighted Area.”
The request seeks:
Building and fire inspection reports
Code enforcement history
Engineering reports
Environmental or soil studies
Documentation supporting the 50% statutory blight threshold
Internal analyses used to justify the designation
The request asks that these materials be released prior to any final vote so residents and taxing jurisdictions can evaluate whether the statutory criteria have been met.
Letter Sent Requesting Deferral of Vote
A formal letter has also been sent by a Franklin resident to the Joint Review Board, with copies to the Plan Commission and Common Council, requesting that:
Objective documentation supporting the blight designation be made part of the official record;
The statutory “but-for” requirement be clearly demonstrated; and
No vote be taken to approve or advance the TID until supporting evidence is publicly available.
The letter incorporates concerns raised in a circulating resident petition opposing the proposed 90/10 Pay-Go structure and urging the Joint Review Board to deny or defer approval of the project plan unless statutory requirements are clearly satisfied.
The Core Question
At its heart, the debate is about:
Whether the property legally qualifies as blighted;
Whether the development truly requires public financing to occur;
And whether the long-term diversion of tax increment revenue is justified by documented necessity and public benefit.
For residents and taxpayers, transparency and documentation are not technicalities — they are safeguards built into state law to ensure public financing is used only when necessary and appropriate.
Excerpt from the Tax Incremental District #10 Project Plan - Prepared by Ehlers
Broader Questions About Long-Term Stability
Beyond the immediate legal requirements, some residents are asking longer-term questions:
If constructed, how long will the developer maintain ownership?
Will the project remain mixed-use, or continue shifting toward residential density?
What guarantees exist that public benefit will match initial projections?
Franklin has seen previous large-scale projects evolve significantly over time, leading some residents to seek stronger documentation and safeguards before committing long-term tax increment revenue.
What Happens Next?
The Plan Commission and Joint Review Board meetings represent key decision points.
Residents concerned about:
The adequacy of the blight documentation
The 90/10 revenue structure
Compliance with the statutory “but-for” test
The long-term impact on schools and public services
are encouraged to attend both the Plan Commission hearing and the Joint Review Board meeting.
The core issue facing Franklin is not whether redevelopment should occur.
It is whether statutory requirements for declaring blight and committing future tax revenue have been fully documented and satisfied before votes are taken.
Transparency and documentation — not narrative alone — will determine the strength of this proposal moving forward.
Message for John "I am your Mayor Nelson"
UPDATE 2/13 9:53pm
Shortly after this article was posted at 7pm on 2/13 County Supervisor Steve Taylor posted the following pertaining to the author of this article on the Franklin Community Discussion Group. It appears that Supervisor Taylor is making a public threat. The question remains...why does Supervisor Taylor care about this development,about the Mayor, or about FCN and its articles.
Because a vote for John Nelson, is a vote for Steve Taylor, is a vote for Mike Zimmerman, is a vote for Danelle Kenney, is a vote for Maqsood Kahn. All part of the continuation of Franklin's Circle of Corruption.
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