Franklin Council to Vote Tomorrow on $15M Poth’s General TIF as Debate Over Blight, Financing and Political Influence Intensifies
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
FRANKLIN — The Franklin Common Council will vote Tuesday night on whether to approve Tax Incremental District (TID) No. 10, a financing plan that could direct up to $15 million in future property tax revenue toward redevelopment of the former Poth’s General and Orchard View property.
The proposal, which involves construction of approximately 292 apartment units and limited commercial space, has sparked debate in recent weeks as residents question whether the project meets Wisconsin’s statutory requirements for tax incremental financing and whether the public financing is justified.
The council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 17 at 6:30 p.m. at Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road.
How the Proposed TID Would Work
Under Wisconsin’s tax incremental financing system, the current value of property within a district is established as a “base value.”
Property taxes generated from that base value continue to be distributed to all taxing jurisdictions, including:
-
the City of Franklin
-
Milwaukee County
-
the Franklin Public School District
-
Milwaukee Area Technical College
However, taxes generated from the increase in property value after redevelopment are directed to the tax incremental district until project costs are repaid.
Financial projections prepared by municipal finance consultant Ehlers estimate the redevelopment could generate roughly $17 million in tax increment over the life of the district.
Under the proposed development agreement:
-
developer reimbursements would be capped at $15 million
-
payments would occur through pay-as-you-go financing, meaning reimbursements are made only as tax revenue is generated within the district.
According to the financial analysis, the district could remain active for up to 27 years if needed to repay project costs.
FAQ Statements Draw Scrutiny
City officials recently released a Frequently Asked Questions document explaining the proposed tax incremental district.
One FAQ states that “the city is not giving the developer $15 million.”
However, financial projections show that the developer could receive up to $15 million in reimbursements funded by tax increment generated by the redevelopment.
Another FAQ response states that taxpayers are not funding the project.
Critics argue that while the payments would not come from the city’s general fund, they would still be funded from property tax revenue generated by the redevelopment, which would otherwise be distributed among local taxing jurisdictions during the life of the district.
Questions Raised About Statutory Requirements
A memorandum submitted to the Common Council on March 14, 2026 by Franklin resident Andy Pelkey raises questions about whether the proposal satisfies several statutory requirements under Wisconsin law.
The “But-For” Test
Under Wisconsin’s tax incremental financing law, municipalities must determine that “but for” the creation of the tax incremental district, the development would not occur as proposed.
Pelkey wrote that this finding must be supported by evidence in the project plan.
“The statute requires the Common Council to make a finding that the development would not occur but for the creation of the district,” Pelkey wrote in the memo.
“That finding must be supported by evidence in the project plan.”
Financial feasibility analyses used in TIF proposals typically rely on assumptions about development costs, financing and projected property values.
Pelkey urged council members to review those assumptions carefully before making the required finding.
Blight Designation
The proposed district is structured as a blighted area TID, which under Wisconsin law requires documentation that properties within the district meet statutory criteria for blight.
Pelkey wrote that the project plan must demonstrate that at least 50 percent of properties in the district meet the statutory definition of blight.
“At least fifty percent of the properties within the proposed district must meet the statutory definition of blight,” he wrote.
The justification for blight in the district appears to rely on factors such as underutilized land, environmental issues and site constraints.
From “Downtown Franklin” Vision to Apartment Development
The redevelopment proposal centers on the former Sentry and Orchard View property near 76th Street and Rawson Avenue.
Earlier presentations of the project described a mixed-use community center concept, sometimes compared to Oak Creek’s Drexel Town Square, with retail storefronts, restaurants and public gathering spaces.
Over time, however, the proposal evolved into a development focused primarily on residential housing.
The current plan includes approximately 292 apartment units with a smaller amount of commercial space, a shift that has prompted questions among some residents about whether the project still reflects the original vision presented to the community.
Transparency Questions Raised During Review Process
The proposal has also drawn attention over the public process surrounding the TID.
At a Joint Review Board meeting on February 16, approximately 40 residents attended, but the meeting agenda did not include a public comment period.
A motion to suspend the rules to allow public comment failed after receiving no second, and the meeting proceeded without hearing from members of the public in attendance.
While Wisconsin law does not require public comment at every meeting, the absence of a comment period became a point of concern among some residents.
Questions about transparency also emerged after public records showed that Franklin’s Economic Development Director, who chaired the meeting, had signed Mayor John Nelson’s nomination papers for reelection.
Social Media Debate Highlights Political and Community Tensions
Debate over the proposed Poth’s General redevelopment has also intensified online, particularly on the Franklin Today Facebook page, where a March 15 post attempted to frame the ongoing discussion ahead of Tuesday’s council vote.
The post highlighted updated site plan images showing approximately 292 apartment units and commercial space within the proposed TID boundaries, while encouraging readers to reconsider criticism of the project.
In its commentary, the post repeatedly characterized opponents of the development as “NIMBYs,” a term commonly used to describe residents who oppose development projects near their homes. The post suggested that many concerns about the project stem from stereotypes about apartment developments and misinformation about the proposal.
The post also compared the project to Velo Village, an apartment development near Ballpark Commons that faced similar opposition before being built.
Active Participation by Political Allies
Public campaign materials and political activity indicate Wilhelm has previously been involved in Nelson’s political campaigns and appears to be participating in his current reelection effort.
In the Franklin Today discussion, Wilhelm responded to critics by:
-
explaining elements of the proposed site plan
-
disputing claims that the development is primarily an apartment complex rather than a mixed-use project
-
questioning assertions that the blight designation is unjustified
-
engaging directly with commenters who raised concerns about traffic, density, and the use of tax incremental financing.
Messaging Echoes Official Talking Points
Several arguments made in the Franklin Today discussion closely resemble explanations contained in the city’s Frequently Asked Questions document about the TID proposal, which has been circulated to residents.
Both the FAQ and the social media discussion emphasize similar themes, including:
-
the claim that the city is “not giving the developer $15 million”
-
comparisons to earlier developments that faced opposition but were later accepted
-
suggestions that criticism of the project is driven largely by misinformation or resistance to apartment development.
Critics argue that these talking points overlook key policy questions about whether the project satisfies the statutory “but-for” requirement, whether the site legitimately qualifies as blighted under Wisconsin law, and whether redirecting millions of dollars in future property tax revenue is appropriate for a project that is largely residential.
Comment Section Reflects Community Division
The comment thread itself reflected significant division among residents.
Some commenters expressed support for redeveloping the aging shopping center property and argued that additional housing could help support nearby businesses.
Others questioned whether the proposal represents the best use of one of Franklin’s most prominent intersections.
Concerns raised by commenters included:
-
traffic congestion at 76th Street and Rawson Avenue
-
the scale of apartment development at the site
-
whether the project represents a true mixed-use “downtown Franklin” concept
-
the diversion of future property tax revenue through the proposed $15 million tax incremental financing incentive.
Several commenters also criticized what they perceived as coordinated messaging among supporters of the project while dismissing critics as “NIMBYs.”
As the discussion continued, some exchanges between participants became increasingly heated, illustrating how the redevelopment proposal has become both a planning issue and a political issue within the community.
Plan Commission Vote Sets Stage for Council Decision
The proposal advanced to the Common Council after a Plan Commission meeting earlier this month.
Commissioners later questioned whether the abstention satisfied procedural rules requiring an affirmative vote.
A second vote was taken, requiring Nelson to cast a recorded vote. He ultimately voted “aye,” placing himself on record supporting the proposal.
Timeline: How the TID Proposal Reached Tuesday’s Vote
January 12, 2026
A Joint Review Board meeting scheduled to review the draft project plan was cancelled after residents raised concerns about meeting notice.
February 16, 2026
The Joint Review Board met to review the proposed district, with dozens of residents attending.
February 2026
The Plan Commission voted to advance the proposal to the Common Council.
March 17, 2026
The Franklin Common Council is expected to vote on whether to create Tax Incremental District No. 10.
Impact on Schools and Local Tax Revenues
If approved, the redevelopment could generate approximately $17 million in tax increment revenue.
During the life of the district, taxes generated from the increase in property value would be directed to the TID rather than immediately distributed to local taxing jurisdictions.
Those jurisdictions include:
-
Franklin Public Schools
-
Milwaukee County
-
Milwaukee Area Technical College
-
the City of Franklin
Once the district closes, the full value of the redevelopment would return to the tax rolls.
Supporters argue the incentive is necessary to make the redevelopment possible, while critics say the diversion of tax increment delays when schools and other governments receive the full benefit of the increased property value.
By the Numbers: Proposed TID 10 Redevelopment
Location:
Former Sentry / Orchard View property near 76th Street and Rawson Avenue
Housing Units:
Approximately 292 apartments
Projected Tax Increment:
About $17 million
Developer Reimbursement Cap:
Up to $15 million
Financing Structure:
Pay-as-you-go tax incremental financing
Maximum District Life:
Up to 27 years
Residents Encouraged to Attend Tuesday Meeting
Residents interested in the proposal can attend the Franklin Common Council meeting Tuesday, March 17 at 6:30 p.m. at Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road.
The meeting will determine whether the city proceeds with the proposed tax incremental district and the associated financing structure.
With millions of dollars in future tax revenue and a major redevelopment project at stake, Tuesday’s vote is expected to draw significant public attention.
Residents Can Watch the Meeting Live
Residents who cannot attend in person will also be able to follow the discussion online.
Franklin Community News (FCN) will broadcast the Common Council meeting live on its Facebook page beginning at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday.
The livestream will allow residents to watch the council’s deliberations and the final vote on the proposed Tax Incremental District No. 10 redevelopment plan as it happens.
The meeting is expected to draw significant public interest as council members decide whether to approve a financing plan that could redirect millions of dollars in future property tax revenue toward the redevelopment project.
Editorial: Franklin Should Reject the Poth’s General TIF Proposal
The Franklin Common Council faces an important decision Tuesday evening. Council members will vote on whether to create Tax Incremental District No. 10, a financing plan that could redirect up to $15 million in future property tax revenue toward redevelopment of the Poth’s General and Orchard View property.
While redevelopment of aging properties is often desirable, the proposed TID raises serious concerns about transparency, statutory compliance, and the appropriate use of public tax revenue. Based on the information currently available, the council should reject the proposal or postpone approval until critical questions are answered.
The “But-For” Test Has Not Been Clearly Demonstrated
Under Wisconsin law, municipalities may only create a tax incremental district if they determine that “but for” the TIF, the proposed development would not occur as planned.
This requirement exists for a reason. Tax incremental financing was created to address market failures, not to subsidize projects that would likely proceed anyway.
Yet the evidence supporting the “but-for” finding in this case appears thin. The financial model prepared by consultants relies heavily on assumptions about development costs, financing terms, and projected property values. Such models can easily be adjusted to show a financial “gap.”
As Franklin resident Andy Pelkey noted in a memorandum submitted to the council:
“The statute requires the Common Council to make a finding that the development would not occur but for the creation of the district. That finding must be supported by evidence in the project plan.”
Before committing millions of dollars in public tax increment, the council must ensure that the evidence supporting this determination is clear, credible, and independently verified.
A Questionable Blight Designation
The proposal also relies on designating the project area as a “blighted district.”
Under Wisconsin law, at least 50 percent of the properties within a proposed district must meet statutory criteria for blight. These criteria typically involve deteriorating structures, unsafe conditions, or environmental contamination that makes redevelopment unlikely without public intervention.
In the case of the Poth’s General site, the justification for blight appears to rely largely on claims of underutilization and site constraints. While the property may benefit from redevelopment, labeling it “blighted” stretches the definition beyond what many residents would consider reasonable.
If the city is going to invoke a blight designation to justify millions in public financing, the evidence should be clear and compelling.
Tax Revenue That Won’t Reach Schools for Years
The proposed district is expected to generate roughly $17 million in new property tax revenue over time.
However, under the TIF structure, those funds would not immediately flow to the entities that normally rely on property taxes—particularly Franklin Public Schools, Milwaukee County, and Milwaukee Area Technical College.
Instead, the tax increment would be used to reimburse the developer for project costs, potentially for up to 27 years.
Supporters argue that the development would not occur without the incentive. But critics point out that diverting tax revenue for decades delays when schools and other local governments receive the full benefit of the increased property value.
That trade-off deserves serious scrutiny.
Shifting Vision for the Project
Another concern is the significant change in the project itself.
Earlier presentations to the community described a mixed-use “downtown Franklin” concept with retail storefronts, restaurants, and public gathering spaces.
The current proposal is primarily residential, centered around approximately 292 apartment units with limited commercial space.
Residents deserve a clear explanation of how the project evolved and whether the revised plan still aligns with the original vision presented to the community.
Process and Transparency Concerns
The process leading up to Tuesday’s vote has also raised questions.
A January Joint Review Board meeting reviewing the project plan was cancelled after residents raised concerns about meeting notice.
At a subsequent meeting in February, dozens of residents attended but were unable to speak because the agenda did not include a public comment period.
These decisions may comply with the letter of the law, but they fall short of the spirit of transparency that should guide major public financing decisions.
A Decision That Deserves More Scrutiny
Redevelopment of the Orchard View area could ultimately benefit Franklin. But approving a $15 million public financing package requires more than optimistic projections and procedural compliance.
Before committing decades of future tax revenue to this project, the Common Council should ensure that:
-
the but-for test is clearly supported by evidence
-
the blight designation is justified
-
the financial assumptions are credible
-
the public has had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision
If those questions cannot be answered convincingly, the council should delay approval until they can.
Franklin taxpayers—and future generations who will live with the consequences of this decision—deserve nothing less.
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