Mayor Nelson Faces Transparency Questions as TID 10 Debate Intensifies and Public Comment Is Denied
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
Approximately 40 residents filled the Franklin City Hall hearing room Monday evening, reflecting growing public attention surrounding the proposal.
Among those present were former Mayors Tom Taylor and Steve Olson, mayoral candidate Basil Ryan, former Alderperson Kristin Wilhelm, Mayor John Nelson, Director of Administration Kelly Hersh, City Attorney Jessie Wesolowski, Alderman Nabil Salous, Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann and former City Planner Kaniewski.
The Joint Review Board consists of:
-
Sally Smits, Public Member
-
John Regetz, Franklin Economic Development Director (elected Chair for the meeting)
-
Celia Benton, Milwaukee County Economic Development Project Manager
-
Sherry Terrell-Webb, MATC District Member
-
Andy Chromy, Franklin Public School District
-
Blaise Paul, Oak Creek–Franklin Joint School District
No Public Comment Period
Shortly after being elected chair, Director of Economic Development John Regetz announced that there would be no citizen comment period, as public comment was not included on the posted agenda.
A resident stood and repeatedly asked, “Who made that mistake?” referring to the absence of public comment. No direct response was provided during the exchange.
Former Mayor Tom Taylor requested suspension of the rules to allow comment and asked City Attorney Jessie Wesolowski for guidance. Wesolowski confirmed that public comment was not listed on the agenda.
Franklin School District representative Andy Chromy made a motion to suspend the order of business to allow public comment. The motion received no second and failed.
As a result, no public comment period was held.
While Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law does not require public comment at every meeting, the absence of one — given the turnout and the financial magnitude of the proposal — became a focal point of the evening.
Second Request to Allow Public Comment
At the conclusion of the meeting, former Mayor Tom Taylor again asked that the Board suspend its rules to allow members of the public in attendance to speak.
The request was not entertained, and no motion was formally taken up at that time.
During the exchange, Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann addressed former Mayor Taylor and stated, “Former Mayor Taylor, you know how this works.”
No additional discussion followed, and the meeting proceeded toward adjournment without a public comment period.
For attendees who had remained in the hearing room expecting an opportunity to address the Board, the second request and response marked the final procedural moment of the evening.
Transparency Promises and Meeting Optics
During his most recent campaign, Mayor Nelson emphasized transparency and open government. In campaign materials and public statements, he spoke about improving efficiency, reducing secrecy, and restoring public trust in City Hall.
At the Joint Review Board meeting, however, when the issue of public comment arose, the Mayor did not speak during the procedural discussion regarding suspension of the rules.
The meeting complied with statutory requirements. Wisconsin law does not require a public comment period at every meeting, and the Board acted within its authority when it proceeded without one.
However, for residents who attended expecting an opportunity to speak, the absence of public comment — combined with the Mayor’s silence during the motion discussion — has become part of the broader conversation about transparency and public participation.
The issue raised by attendees is not whether the meeting was lawful.
It is whether high-profile decisions involving significant public financing should include opportunities for citizen input when a full room of residents is present.
A Shift From Long-Standing Planning Direction
Some have suggested that opposition to the current proposal is rooted in nostalgia for an earlier 2022 concept — as if that proposal was viewed as a “panacea” or the answer to every redevelopment hope.
That characterization misses the larger issue.
For more than two decades, the 76th and Rawson corridor has consistently been identified in City planning documents as a commercial and retail node.
Beginning with the 1999 Ticknor Report, followed by the RA Smith “Franklin First” Report in 2005, and later reinforced in the 2015 Graef update, the site was envisioned as a commercial and service-oriented destination. None of those planning documents contemplated residential development at this location.
Similarly, Franklin’s Comprehensive Master Plans did not identify this intersection as a primarily residential district.
The current proposal therefore represents not merely an evolution of a 2022 development concept — but a significant policy shift from long-standing planning direction.
That broader context is central to understanding why many residents are raising concerns.
A Revised Agenda and the “Blighted Area” Label
The February 19 Plan Commission agenda now formally identifies TID 10 as a “proposed Blighted Area District comprising approximately 30 acres.”
The Ehlers Project Plan asserts that approximately 81% of the district qualifies.
However, some residents have questioned whether objective documentation — including inspection reports, engineering studies, and parcel-by-parcel statutory analysis — has been fully incorporated into the public record beyond narrative descriptions and photographs.
An open records request has been submitted seeking documentation supporting the blight designation.
Nomination Papers and Perceived Independence
In addition to debate over blight and public comment, questions have surfaced regarding perceived independence in the process.
Public records confirm that Director of Economic Development John Regetz signed Mayor Nelson’s nomination papers for the upcoming 2026 mayoral campaign.
Under Wisconsin law, municipal employees are not prohibited from signing nomination papers as private citizens. The act itself is legal.
However, some residents have raised concerns about optics, noting that Regetz — who signed the nomination papers — later chaired the Joint Review Board meeting on a high-profile development initiative supported by the Mayor.
Some residents who attended the meeting identified that it appeared as if Regetz was reading from a prepared script.
No violation of law has been alleged. The issue raised by residents centers on perception: whether senior administrative officials involved in major development decisions should avoid political activity that could create the appearance of alignment with elected officials whose projects are under review.
Prior Leadership Discussions
In an April 11, 2023 meeting at The Point After Bar & Grill, Mayor-elect Nelson discussed the Director of Economic Development position with FCN, then held by Regetz.
During that conversation, Nelson stated that he intended to meet with Regetz to outline specific expectations and performance timelines. Nelson further indicated that if those expectations were not met, he intended to “work Regetz out of his job.”
Nelson also acknowledged that at the March 22 event he had a brief conversation with another individual to determine whether there might be interest in the Director position.
Regetz ultimately remained in the position, and no personnel change occurred.
The discussion took place during the post-election administrative transition period.
Campaign Promises and Public Perception
Mayor Nelson campaigned on transparency and improving government efficiency. During the Joint Review Board meeting, he did not speak during the procedural discussion regarding public comment.
The meeting complied with statutory requirements. However, for some residents, the combination of:
-
A revised agenda formally designating a Blighted Area District
-
A full hearing room without public comment
-
The nomination paper signature
-
And prior leadership discussions
Early concepts that emphasized:
• A true mixed-use "Downtown" destination
• Retail storefronts and dining
• Public gathering spaces
• Farmers markets and seasonal events
• A walkable community center
has intensified scrutiny regarding transparency and process.
No formal ethics complaint or legal violation has been established.
The debate at this stage centers on governance, optics, and public confidence.
What Happens Next
TID 10 — which could redirect approximately $15 million in future tax increment revenue over up to 27 years — now proceeds to the Plan Commission and ultimately the Common Council.
The Joint Review Board must independently determine whether statutory requirements have been met, including:
-
The blight threshold
-
The “but-for” test
-
And whether approval is appropriate for the overlapping taxing jurisdictions
The redevelopment of 76th and Rawson is no longer solely a land-use discussion.
It has become a broader conversation about documentation, fiscal stewardship, administrative independence, and public participation.
As the process continues, residents appear focused not only on the outcome — but on how the decisions are being made.
Participation now matters.
As our neighbors in Vernon/Big Bend are now advocating with their own proposed Sports & Entertainment Complex being proposed...they advocate
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.
đź•Ż️ 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.
đź’¬ 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.
đź’¬ 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