Franklin Joint Review Board Approves Controversial TID 10 Amid Legal Objections, Open Meetings Questions, and Growing Scrutiny

 

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Franklin’s Joint Review Board voted May 7 to approve the controversial TID 10 redevelopment proposal tied to the Poth’s General project, advancing one of the largest proposed Tax Increment Financing districts in the City’s recent history despite mounting legal objections, procedural concerns, and growing criticism over whether Wisconsin law was properly followed.

The approval came after weeks of escalating public controversy involving:

• Formal legal objections
• Competing legal memorandums
• Allegations of materially misleading public statements
• Disputes over blight eligibility
• Questions surrounding the statutory “but-for” requirement
• Concerns regarding procedural irregularities
• And now, possible Open Meetings Law issues

What initially began as a redevelopment proposal has rapidly evolved into a broader legal and governance dispute over the limits of public subsidy and the role of oversight bodies charged with protecting taxpayer interests.

Last-Minute Appointment Change Before Vote

Before the Joint Review Board meeting began, Mayor John Nelson withdrew his nomination of Cathy Richard to fill a vacant seat on the Board following public criticism regarding past social media posts attributed to Richard.

Nelson instead nominated former Franklin Alderman Mike Barber.

Two additional individuals also expressed interest in the position:

• Darrell Mallak
• N.J. Mathwig

During the meeting:

• School District representative Andy Chromy nominated Barber
• Franklin Economic Development Director John Regetz seconded the nomination

An MATC representative nominated Mallak, but the motion failed to receive a second.

The Board then voted unanimously to appoint Barber.

Technology Problems Raise Open Meetings Questions

The meeting itself was marked by repeated technology and participation issues involving remote members.

Representatives from multiple taxing jurisdictions participated remotely through two-way video conferencing but reportedly experienced ongoing connection and audio problems during portions of the meeting.

According to attendees, some remote participants were unable to fully participate verbally and were instructed to submit:

• Questions
• Comments
• Motions
• Votes

During portions of the meeting, communication from remote participants reportedly occurred through the RingCentral chat function visible on the meeting screen, with messages directed to Franklin Director of Administration Kelly Hersch due to ongoing audio and connection issues.

That process is now drawing additional scrutiny regarding whether portions of the meeting complied with Wisconsin Open Meetings Law requirements.

Critics argue:

• Deliberations and communications between board members are generally expected to occur openly and contemporaneously before the public
• Reliance on chat-based communication routed through an intermediary may create transparency concerns
• Portions of the Board’s deliberative process may not have been fully audible or observable to members of the public in real time
• Questions may arise regarding whether all communications relevant to motions, deliberations, or voting were fully preserved on the public record

The issue could become particularly significant given the complexity of the legal and factual issues before the Board and the limited substantive discussion prior to approval.

Questions Raised About Role of Chair

Additional procedural concerns have also emerged surrounding the role of Franklin Economic Development Director John Regetz, who served as Chair of the Joint Review Board.

Observers have questioned whether it was appropriate for Regetz:

• To second motions while serving as Chair
• To vote as a participating member of the Board
• And to oversee a process involving a TID proposal actively supported by the City administration

The questions add another layer to growing criticism regarding the procedural handling of the TID approval process.

Attorney Asked Members About Legal Objection Before Final Vote

Immediately before the final vote, Franklin City Attorney Jessie Wesolowski addressed the Board regarding the formal legal objection submitted by attorney Joseph R. Cincotta challenging the legality of the proposed TID.

According to attendees, Wesolowski asked Joint Review Board members whether they had received or reviewed Cincotta’s letter prior to voting.

It reportedly remained unclear whether all members had actually reviewed the objection.

Newly appointed board member Mike Barber reportedly stated that he had seen the letter “on social media.”

Wesolowski also informed the Board that attorneys representing developer Land By Label had submitted a formal written response to Cincotta’s objections.

She then asked Board members whether they wished to review the developer’s response before proceeding with the vote.

According to attendees, members declined additional review.

Regetz reportedly asked whether the letters should simply be “read into the record,” but instead the documents were merely placed on file before the Board proceeded toward approval.

Critics now argue the exchange raises additional questions regarding whether the Board meaningfully reviewed or independently evaluated the competing legal arguments before voting.

Legal Duty of Joint Review Board Now Under Scrutiny

At the center of the controversy is the legal role of the Joint Review Board itself.

Under Wisconsin law, the JRB is not intended to serve as a ceremonial body simply affirming decisions already made by a municipality.

The Board has an independent statutory obligation to determine whether:

• The required “but-for” standard has actually been met
• The blight findings are legally and factually supported
• The use of Tax Increment Financing complies with Wisconsin law

The “but-for” requirement is one of the core safeguards built into Wisconsin’s TIF statute.

It requires decision-makers to independently determine that a project would not proceed without public subsidy.

Similarly, blight findings must be grounded in statutory definitions and supported by sufficient factual evidence — not merely accepted because they appear in consultant reports or municipal project materials.

Critics now argue there is little evidence the Joint Review Board independently evaluated those requirements before approving the district.

Pelkey Warned Officials About “Theft of Public Funds”

Much of the criticism surrounding the TID approval process stems from multiple memorandums and public comments submitted by Franklin resident Andy Pelkey in the weeks leading up to the vote.

In public comments before the Common Council and Joint Review Board, Pelkey repeatedly warned officials that they were acting as trustees of taxpayer funds and had a legal obligation to ensure the statutory findings supporting the TID were factually accurate.

“You are the trustee of the public funds,” Pelkey told officials during public comment. “It’s the taxpayer’s money.”

Pelkey sharply criticized what he viewed as the City’s reliance on disputed factual claims to justify approximately $15 million in public financing.

“If you’re giving away $15 million of public funds for which you are the trustee, just make sure you’ve got your facts down and that there’s nothing amiss,” he stated.

He further warned:
“If there are any misstatements in there, false statements that are relevant and are significant, and you just turn a blind eye and give the money away anyway — that’s theft. It’s theft of public funds.”

One of Pelkey’s recurring criticisms involved claims that portions of the redevelopment area were “landlocked,” which he argued was factually incorrect.

“The land’s not landlocked,” Pelkey stated during public comment. “Landlocked means that you don’t have the right to go from a public street to a point on the property.”

He argued the parcels already possess access to 76th Street through contiguous ownership and existing access rights.

Pelkey Email Demanded “Meaningful Response”

Following the Joint Review Board meeting, Pelkey sent a May 6 email to members of the Franklin Common Council demanding what he described as a “meaningful response” to unresolved factual disputes surrounding the project.

In the email, Pelkey stated he remained concerned that the Joint Review Board had failed to independently evaluate the factual and legal predicates necessary to support approval of the TID.

“The discussion appeared to rely primarily upon conclusions contained within the Project Plan materials rather than independently evaluating whether the factual and legal predicates necessary for those conclusions were actually satisfied,” Pelkey wrote.

Pelkey also criticized City officials for allegedly dismissing objections simply because the matter had already been debated or approved.

“A meaningful response is not to state that the project has already been debated extensively or previously approved,” he wrote.

Instead, Pelkey argued the City had an obligation to directly address whether challenged factual claims were materially accurate.

“A meaningful response is to demonstrate that the challenged factual representations were not false or misleading and that the statutory findings relied upon by the City were supported by materially accurate information.”

His email concluded:
“The attached memorandum and exhibits identify the specific factual disputes that remain unresolved.”

Prior Franklin Development Battle Adds Historical Context

The controversy surrounding TID 10 also carries an interesting historical connection to another major Franklin development dispute.

Attorney Joseph R. Cincotta — who now represents property owner Linda Mathwig in opposition to TID 10 — previously represented Franklin residents who opposed the proposed Strauss Brands slaughterhouse development in Franklin several years ago.

That earlier battle became one of the most politically divisive development fights in recent Franklin history and ultimately resulted in Strauss abandoning the project.

Notably, the resident opposition effort in the Strauss matter was led in part by:

• Current Franklin Director of Administration Kelly Hersch
• Newly elected Franklin Alderwoman Danielle Kenney

While the Strauss dispute involved very different issues than the current TID controversy, the reappearance of several of the same legal and political figures in another high-profile Franklin development battle is drawing additional public attention as scrutiny surrounding TID 10 continues to intensify.

Limited Discussion Before Approval

Despite:

• Formal legal objections from attorney Joseph R. Cincotta
• Multiple memorandums submitted by Pelkey
• Disputes regarding factual claims in City-issued FAQs
• Challenges to the blight designation
• Questions involving the “but-for” finding
• And warnings of potential litigation

discussion before approval reportedly remained limited.

School District representative Andy Chromy asked several clarifying questions involving:

• The “but-for” analysis
• The blight designation

However, observers note there appeared to be little independent factual investigation or substantive legal examination of the competing claims submitted into the public record.

Following those discussions:

• Chromy made the motion to approve TID 10
• Newly appointed member Mike Barber seconded the motion
• The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approval

Critics now argue the Board appeared to function primarily as a body ratifying conclusions already reached by the Franklin Common Council and City consultants rather than serving as an independent reviewing authority.

Potential Litigation Appears Increasingly Likely

With the Joint Review Board now formally approving TID 10 despite ongoing objections, attention may increasingly shift toward whether opponents pursue judicial review.

Under Wisconsin certiorari review standards, courts generally examine whether municipal bodies:

• Acted according to law
• Relied on sufficient evidence
• Exercised reasonable judgment
• And followed proper procedure

If litigation occurs, scrutiny may now extend beyond the substance of the TID itself and into:

• The adequacy of the Joint Review Board’s independent review
• Remote participation issues
• Voting procedures
• Appointment decisions
• And whether legal safeguards required under Wisconsin law were meaningfully exercised

From Redevelopment Proposal to Legal Test Case

What began as a redevelopment proposal has now become something far larger.

The central issue is no longer simply whether the Poth’s General project is desirable.

The issue increasingly becoming the focus is whether the statutory safeguards built into Wisconsin’s Tax Increment Financing laws were treated as meaningful legal requirements — or merely procedural hurdles on the path toward approval.

And with legal objections continuing to grow, the final decision regarding Franklin’s controversial TID 10 may ultimately be made not by City officials, but by the courts.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/