Steve Taylor Now Oversees Milwaukee County Finances. His Record at the ROC Foundation Tells a Different Story.
Franklin Community News
“I am honored to be trusted with these roles and the responsibility that comes with them,” Taylor said in a recent press release, pledging to “keep pushing for responsible budgeting” and warning that the County faces serious financial challenges.
“We need to focus on our core services and make sure we’re being responsible with taxpayer dollars,” he added.
But they also raise a fair question:
What does Taylor’s own record show about financial management and decision-making?
From Public Office to Nonprofit Leadership
Before taking on the County’s top financial oversight role, Taylor served in public office during the approval and development of Ballpark Commons in Franklin.
During that time, he was involved in actions supporting zoning, financing, and the eventual sale of the former Crystal Ridge landfill—then owned by Milwaukee County—to ROC Ventures, led by Mike Zimmerman, for a nominal purchase price of $1 as part of a broader redevelopment plan.
Public records indicate that the transaction did not involve a traditional request-for-proposals (RFP) process or competitive bidding.
Following his unsuccessful reelection bid in 2018 to Patti Logsdon, Taylor later became Executive Director of the ROC Foundation, an organization affiliated with that same development.
This progression—from public official involved in development decisions to leadership of an affiliated nonprofit—provides important context for evaluating his record.
A Small Budget—But a Revealing One
The ROC Foundation is a relatively small nonprofit.
- In 2024, it reported approximately $105,000 in total revenue
- By comparison, Milwaukee County’s annual budget exceeds $1 billion
The difference in scale is enormous.
But financial leadership is not defined by size alone. The same principles apply at every level:
- Discipline
- Consistency
- Transparency
And the Foundation’s financial record offers insight into how those principles have been applied.
A Pattern of Inconsistent Performance
From 2020 through 2024, the ROC Foundation’s finances show:
- Two years of operating losses
- One year of near break-even
- One year of surplus
- A return to losses
Revenue rose sharply in some years, then declined. Net assets followed a similar pattern.
Rather than steady growth, the record reflects volatility and limited long-term stability.
A closer look at program spending relative to revenue and executive compensation shows the following:
In 2020, executive compensation was nearly 19 times greater than program spending, and only 3.9% of revenue was directed toward mission-related activities.
Fundraising That Doesn’t Always Deliver
The Foundation’s fundraising efforts generated significant gross revenue—sometimes exceeding $100,000 annually.
But expenses often rose alongside that revenue.
In 2022, for example:
- Fundraising exceeded $100,000
- Yet resulted in a net loss after expenses
This raises a fundamental operational question:
How effective is a fundraising model if most of the revenue is consumed by costs?
Fundraising Model and Revenue Sources
IRS filings and public reporting indicate that the ROC Foundation’s fundraising activities extend beyond traditional donations and include event-based revenue streams such as:
- 50/50 raffles
- Raffles and prize-based drawings
- In-game promotions during sporting events
- Auctions and tournament-based fundraising events
According to IRS disclosures, the Foundation has also allowed other nonprofit organizations to participate in these fundraising activities at Milwaukee Milkmen and Milwaukee Wave games.
Reporting Limitations and Transparency
While certain events—such as golf tournaments and auctions—are itemized in IRS filings, the Foundation’s Form 990 does not separately report:
- Gross raffle receipts
- Raffle-related expenses
- Net proceeds from gaming activities
- Distribution of funds to participating nonprofits
Instead, these revenues may be included within aggregate fundraising totals without detailed breakdowns.
Connection to Financial Results
This fundraising structure provides important context for the Foundation’s financial patterns:
- Fundraising revenue can appear substantial in total
- However, associated costs and undisclosed breakdowns make it difficult to determine:
- net proceeds from specific activities
- how much funding directly supports the mission
Why This Matters
Event-based and raffle-driven fundraising models are not uncommon.
However, when detailed reporting is limited, they raise a fundamental question:
How much of the revenue generated ultimately supports charitable programming after expenses and allocations?
Without detailed breakdowns of raffle and event-based fundraising, evaluating the true net impact of these activities becomes more difficult—particularly when overall financial results show expenses closely tracking revenue.
Rising Compensation, Regardless of Results
While financial performance fluctuated, one trend remained consistent:
Taylor's Executive compensation increased every year.
- 2020: ~$53,000
- 2021: ~$60,000
- 2022: ~$63,000
- 2023: ~$70,000
- 2024: ~$79,000
This growth occurred regardless of whether the organization was operating at a loss or surplus.
In several years, compensation exceeded or closely matched program spending.
Mission vs. Spending
The ROC Foundation’s stated mission is:
“to provide support and unique experiences for youth, high school, and young adults… and create impactful outcomes in the communities where we live, work, and play.”
IRS filings confirm that funds were directed toward mission-related activities.
However, the level of that spending varied significantly:
- Minimal in early years
- Moderate in some years
- Declining in others
- Increasing sharply in 2024, with limited detail
This inconsistency raises an important question:
Are financial resources being aligned with measurable mission impact?
Financial Relationships and Structure
Recent filings also show direct financial transactions between the ROC Foundation and ROC Ventures:
- ~$10,000 in 2023
- ~$23,000 in 2024 (including rent and management fees)
Public materials also show overlapping structure:
- Taylor as Executive Director
- ROC Ventures–linked email domain
- Board leadership connected to the same network
These relationships are not inherently improper—but they underscore the importance of transparency and clear governance.
Governance and Oversight
IRS filings and reporting have noted:
- No conflict-of-interest policy
- No independent compensation review
- Limited board oversight
These are not violations of law.
But they are widely recognized governance standards—and their absence raises reasonable questions about internal controls.
Organizational Structure and Recent Changes
Publicly available materials have previously identified Joe Zimmerman as President of the ROC Foundation and a key figure associated with ROC Ventures.
More recent information suggests there have been changes in leadership and affiliations within the organization, including transitions in both board roles and professional positions.
While the full scope and timing of these changes are not entirely reflected in publicly available filings, they point to an evolving organizational structure.
Such changes further underscore the importance of transparency and clear governance—particularly when financial relationships exist between affiliated entities and when leadership roles intersect with public office.
Industry Comparison
The Foundation’s program spending can be compared to widely accepted nonprofit benchmarks, which generally expect at least 65% of expenses to support mission-related activities.
In multiple years, the ROC Foundation falls significantly below industry benchmarks, particularly in 2020 and 2023, where only a small percentage of revenue was directed toward program activities.How Does the ROC Foundation Compare to Similar Nonprofits?
Financial performance is best understood in context.
Nonprofit evaluators such as Charity Navigator, Candid (GuideStar), and IRS benchmarking data generally assess organizations based on how much of their revenue is directed toward program activities versus administrative and fundraising costs.
A commonly cited benchmark is:
- 65% or more of total expenses directed to programs → considered efficient
- 75%+ → considered strong
- Below 50% → raises concerns about efficiency and mission alignment
ROC Foundation vs. Typical Benchmarks
Based on its IRS filings:
- 2020: 3.9% to program activities
- 2021: 24.2%
- 2022: 25.9%
- 2023: 12.3%
- 2024: 85.7% (with limited detail on classification)
What This Means
In multiple years, the ROC Foundation falls well below commonly accepted nonprofit efficiency benchmarks.
- In 2020, program spending was under 4%, far below industry norms
- In 2021–2023, spending remained substantially below the 65% benchmark
- Only in 2024 does the organization approach typical nonprofit standards
Important Context
These comparisons do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing.
However, they do provide a useful framework for evaluating how effectively an organization directs its resources toward its stated mission.
When compared to typical nonprofit benchmarks, the ROC Foundation’s spending patterns appear:
- Inconsistent over time
- Below industry norms in multiple years
- Heavily weighted toward non-program expenses in earlier periods
Why This Matters
Nonprofit organizations exist to serve a mission.
Industry benchmarks are designed to answer a simple question:
How much of the money raised is actually going toward that mission?
That same question becomes especially relevant when the organization’s leadership is responsible for overseeing public finances at a much larger scale.
The numbers raise questions on their own. But when compared to widely accepted nonprofit benchmarks, the contrast becomes even more pronounced.
The Bigger Question
Milwaukee County’s budget exceeds $1 billion—more than 10,000 times larger than the ROC Foundation’s.
But financial management is not about scale alone. It is about approach.
Across five years, the ROC Foundation’s record shows:
- Inconsistent financial performance
- Rising executive compensation
- Fluctuating program spending
- Fundraising inefficiencies
- Financial ties to a related private entity
That record does not answer every question—but it does raise one:
What does this approach look like when applied to a billion-dollar public budget?
Final Thought
Taylor has warned that Milwaukee County faces serious financial challenges and has pledged to ensure responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Those are commitments worth taking seriously.
They are also standards worth applying consistently—whether the budget is $100,000 or $1 billion.
Because in the end, financial stewardship is not defined by size.
It is defined by discipline, consistency, and accountability.
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