Nelson Forced to Vote as TID 10 Advances After Heated Public Hearing on Blight, Subsidy, and Transparency
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
Franklin’s debate over the former Sentry / Orchard View property escalated Thursday night as the Plan Commission convened a public hearing on the proposed creation of Tax Incremental District No. 10 (TID 10) — formally designated as a proposed Blighted Area District.
What unfolded was more than a development discussion.
It became a referendum on blight designation, public subsidy, density, and political accountability — in the middle of an active mayoral election cycle.
A Packed Chamber — and a Divided City
Mayor John Nelson, who chairs the Plan Commission and is currently running for reelection, called the meeting to order with a full dais present: Alderwoman Courtney Day, Alderman Nabil Salous, Commissioners Kevin Haley, Patrick Leon, Michael Shawgo, and Rebecca Specht (Commissioner Leung excused).
By the time the public hearing opened at 6:53 p.m., the chamber had heard nearly an hour of presentations from:
Arianna Schmidt and Todd Taves of Ehlers (TIF consultants)
Lance Dorn and Joe Krivicki of SB Friedman (but-for analysis consultants)
Ian Martin, Managing Principal of Land by Label (developer)
The proposal:
A 27-year blighted area TID covering approximately 30 acres near 76th and Rawson, anchored by a 292-unit apartment development and between 35,000–50,000 square feet of potential commercial space.
The City would return 90% of tax increment generated by the project — capped at $15 million — to the developer on a pay-as-you-go basis.
The Blight Debate
Blight quickly became the central issue.
Under Wisconsin statute, at least 50% of the district must meet statutory blight criteria. Ehlers reported approximately 81% of the acreage qualifies.
Ian Martin addressed concerns directly.
He described two categories of blight:
1️⃣ The Orchard View Building Itself
Martin stated the shopping center’s decline began nearly a decade ago after the grocery anchor closed. He cited:
Failing fire suppression systems
Obsolete mechanical equipment
Water line breaks
Ongoing temporary heating costs
Life-safety expenditures to keep the structure operational
He rejected suggestions that deterioration was manufactured:
The shopping center has been struggling for more than a decade.
2️⃣ The “Vacant” Land
Martin described the eastern portion of the site as a historic unregulated dump site, stating that buried rubble, tires, and fill material render the land structurally unstable.
He cited:
Approximately $200,000 spent removing buried debris
$550,000–$600,000 in structural soil stabilization
Environmental sampling due to concerns about historic infrastructure
Limited road access and infrastructure
He acknowledged that unknown environmental conditions remain a risk.
The blight determination, consultants emphasized, is based on present condition — not ownership history.
Public Hearing: A Clear Divide
Once public comment opened, the tone sharpened.
Support for Redevelopment
Mira Kresvik, a candidate for District 4 Alder, acknowledged the visible deterioration of the site and praised the transparency of documentation.
Former Alderperson Kristin Wilhelm defended the TIF structure, emphasizing that:
“There seems to be a real misconception that this is a taxpayer-funded project.”
She reminded attendees that the incentive is pay-as-you-go:
“They don’t get the money unless they put the buildings in.”
Wilhelm also pointed to development agreement provisions allowing the City to repurchase land for $1 if required commercial components are not delivered.
Opposition Focused on Subsidy and Density
Several speakers voiced strong opposition.
Andrew Pelkey argued that TIF was intended for contaminated or economically impossible sites:
“They didn’t buy it for a dollar. They bought it for $7.5 million.”
He characterized the $15 million incentive as a poor value for taxpayers.
Willie Dusky questioned the long-term financial impact:
“What will the TIF do to my taxes for the rest of my life?”
Nance Gasovic emphasized quality-of-life concerns for nearby homeowners:
“We are basically being asked to underwrite our own aggravation and inconvenience.”
Eli Gasovic argued the project had evolved away from its original “town square” concept:
“I would suggest we change the name… and call it what it truly is — an apartment complex.”
Colleen Miller questioned traffic modeling and raised concerns about density comparisons.
Dana Gindt similarly questioned whether the project still resembled the mixed-use vision originally presented.
Linda Mathwick simplified the TIF allocation structure:
“If you could just take $100… the developer is receiving $90.”
She indicated a petition opposing the TID is being circulated citywide.
How the Plan Commission Framed the Debate
While public comment reflected a sharply divided room, the Plan Commission itself also revealed meaningful differences in emphasis — particularly around blight designation, residential balance, and fiscal prudence.
Alderman Nabil Salous: Blight Skepticism and Valuation Concerns
Alderman Salous raised one of the most direct challenges to the blight designation.
Drawing from his real estate background, Salous questioned whether one of the most visible and strategically located parcels in Milwaukee County could legitimately be considered blighted.
He pressed consultants on the discrepancy between the $83 million total project cost and the approximately $42 million projected taxable value, asking why the assessed increment would represent roughly half the construction cost.
On blight, he stated plainly that the parcel is highly desirable land and questioned whether statutory criteria were being stretched to justify TIF eligibility.
Salous also commented that the system could appear to reward neglect if deterioration itself becomes a pathway to subsidy eligibility.
Alderwoman Courtney Day: Timing, Residential Dominance, and Market Direction
Alderwoman Day focused her questions on two issues:
Whether deterioration was due to long-term decline or more recent neglect,
And whether the project’s predominantly residential composition aligns with long-term economic goals.
She asked whether the blight analysis considered how the property reached its current state.
Consultants responded that statutory blight analysis focuses on present conditions, not historical causation.
Day also pressed on whether the market trend toward primarily multifamily redevelopment — with relatively minor commercial components — is becoming the norm, and whether that shifts the City’s long-term tax base composition.
Her line of questioning suggested concern about whether the commercial-to-residential ratio sufficiently supports long-term fiscal sustainability.
Commissioner Kevin Haley: Process and Voting Standards
Commissioner Haley became central to the evening’s procedural turning point.
After the initial 3-0-1 vote (with Mayor Nelson abstaining), Haley questioned whether the motion legally satisfied the Commission’s administrative requirement that action requires an affirmative vote of the Commission.
His intervention — along with Alderwoman Day — prompted a re-vote, ultimately requiring Mayor Nelson to cast a recorded vote in favor.
Haley’s actions shifted the meeting from a technical approval to a recorded political position.
Mayor John Nelson: Limited Substantive Commentary
As Chair, Mayor Nelson largely facilitated the meeting rather than engaging deeply in policy debate during deliberation.
He did not substantively respond to public criticism during comment period, nor did he expand on blight or fiscal philosophy during discussion.
However, when procedural clarification required a re-vote, Nelson ultimately voted “aye,” placing himself formally on record in support of TID 10.
Given his reelection campaign and prior emphasis on transparency and fiscal discipline, that vote may carry broader political implications beyond the Commission chamber.
Overall Tone of the Commission
The Commission’s discussion did not reflect hostility toward redevelopment itself. Rather, the tension centered on:
Whether blight designation was fully justified,
Whether residential predominance aligns with Franklin’s long-term planning goals,
And whether the public incentive appropriately balances risk and return.
In the end, despite reservations voiced during questioning, the Commission approved the resolution establishing the TID boundaries and project plan — advancing it to the Common Council.
Political Context: A Mayoral Election Shadow
Mayoral candidate Basil Ryan also addressed the Commission, asking whether the project delivers measurable benefits to existing residents.
With Nelson presiding over the meeting while simultaneously running for reelection, the TID debate has now entered campaign territory.
The Vote — and the Moment That Changed It
When the public hearing closed, the Commission moved to vote.
Commissioner Rebecca Specht had vacated her seat prior to the final vote.
The initial motion passed 3-0-1 — with Mayor Nelson abstaining.
However, City Attorney Jessie Wesolowski declared the motion passed.
Commissioners Courtney Day and Kevin Haley questioned whether an abstention satisfied the Commission’s Administrative Manual requirement that action requires the affirmative vote of the Commission.
A re-vote was taken.
Mayor Nelson was required to cast a vote.
He voted aye.
The resolution establishing the boundaries of and approving the project plan for TID 10 passed.
Why This Vote Matters
The Plan Commission’s approval is not merely advisory.
If it had failed, the TID would have stopped.
Instead, it now advances to the Common Council for consideration on March 17, followed by final Joint Review Board review.
The proposed district could redirect approximately $15 million in future tax increment over up to 27 years.
What This TID Does — and Does Not — Do to Your Property Taxes
One of the most repeated concerns during public comment was that residents would “pay $15 million” for the project.
That characterization requires clarification.
This Is Not a Referendum-Style Tax Increase
Unlike a school referendum, a TID does not immediately raise property taxes on homeowners.
There is no line item added to tax bills.
When a TID is created:
The current property value within the district is “frozen.”
All taxing jurisdictions (City, County, Schools, MATC, MMSD) continue receiving taxes on that base value.
Any new value created by redevelopment — the “increment” — is captured and used within the TID.
In this case, up to 90% of that increment (capped at $15 million) would be returned to the developer through a pay-as-you-go structure.
If the development does not occur, there is no increment to return.
Where Taxpayer Exposure Actually Exists
While homeowners are not directly assessed a new tax, there are broader fiscal considerations:
1️⃣ Opportunity Cost
For up to 27 years, the incremental tax revenue generated by the new development does not flow into:
The City’s general fund
School district operating budgets
County levy
Instead, it remains inside the TID.
That means the growth in value from this site will not immediately offset levy pressures elsewhere.
2️⃣ Service Demand vs. Revenue Timing
New development generates:
Police and fire calls
Road maintenance needs
Public works demand
School enrollment impacts (though multifamily typically generates fewer students than single-family)
If service costs rise faster than base value growth elsewhere in the City, pressure shifts to the overall levy.
3️⃣ Underperformance Risk
This TID is structured as pay-as-you-go, meaning the City is not issuing general obligation debt up front.
However, if projected valuation growth underperforms expectations, the TID may:
Remain open for the full statutory term (27 years)
Generate less than projected surplus increment
Limit the City’s flexibility for future projects within that geographic area
The City would not automatically write a $15 million check — but long-term fiscal strategy could be impacted.
4️⃣ The Flip Side: Potential Upside
If projections are accurate:
The TID would close once obligations are met.
The full, improved property value would then return to the general tax rolls.
Future taxpayers could benefit from increased tax base without new land consumption.
Supporters argue this is precisely the purpose of TIF:
to unlock redevelopment that otherwise would not occur.
The Real Debate
The disagreement is not whether residents receive a $15 million bill next year.
They do not.
The debate is whether redirecting future tax growth for nearly three decades is the best fiscal strategy for this location — and whether the projected return justifies the risk and opportunity cost.
That question now moves to the Common Council.
What Happens If the Project Is Sold Before the TID Closes?
Another question raised privately by residents — and increasingly discussed publicly — is what happens if the development is sold before the TID reaches its 27-year maximum term.
That scenario is not unusual in multifamily development.
In many cases, developers build, stabilize occupancy, and sell projects within a few years to long-term investment groups.
If that occurs, the TID does not automatically dissolve.
The tax increment continues to be calculated based on the assessed value of the property — regardless of ownership.
Sale Does Not End the TID
If Land by Label were to sell the completed development:
The new owner would assume the property.
The property would continue to generate increment based on its assessed value.
The development agreement governing reimbursement would remain tied to the increment generated.
Ownership changes do not cancel the district.
The Key Variable: Assessed Value
Where risk enters the equation is in property valuation.
TIF projections are based on estimated stabilized assessed value — in this case approximately $42 million in new value.
If the property:
Sells at a lower valuation,
Experiences declining rents,
Or is reassessed downward,
The annual tax increment would decline accordingly.
Because this TID is structured as pay-as-you-go, the City is not issuing upfront general obligation debt to fund the $15 million incentive.
However:
If increment underperforms projections,
Reimbursement to the developer would take longer,
The district could remain open for the full 27-year term,
And projected surplus increment may not materialize.
Prior Local Example
Residents have referenced Velo Village as an example of a recently developed apartment complex that later changed ownership and experienced valuation adjustments.
While every project differs in financing structure, market conditions, and TID design, the broader lesson residents point to is this:
Assessed value assumptions matter.
TIF performance is ultimately dependent on long-term property valuation stability — not just construction cost.
The Core Question
The issue is not whether the project can be sold.
That is common in real estate development.
The issue is whether the projected assessed value used to justify the but-for finding remains stable over time.
If it does, the TID performs as projected.
If it does not, the timeline and fiscal benefits shift.
That uncertainty is part of the long-term financial calculus the Common Council must weigh on March 17.
The Bigger Question
The debate Thursday was not simply about one parcel.
It centered on:
What qualifies as blight
When public subsidy is appropriate
Whether residential-heavy redevelopment aligns with long-standing commercial planning goals
And whether transparency promises match procedural outcomes
Mayor Nelson, now publicly on record in favor of the TID, will carry that vote into a reelection campaign where fiscal stewardship and transparency are already central themes.
The redevelopment of 76th and Rawson has officially moved beyond land use.
It is now political.
The Decision Now Shifts to the Council
The Plan Commission vote was not advisory — it was required for the TID to advance.
But the final political accountability now shifts to the Common Council on March 17.
Council members will have to decide:
Whether the blight designation is justified
Whether a predominantly residential redevelopment aligns with long-standing commercial planning goals
Whether redirecting up to $15 million in future tax growth is prudent fiscal policy
Mayor Nelson is already on record in support.
On March 17, the rest of the Council will be as well.
The debate over the former Sentry property is no longer theoretical.
It is headed for a recorded vote.
The entire Plan Commission discussion and vote on TID 10 is available here.
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