Multiple Candidates, One Nomination: Why Is the Mayor Shaping the TID #10 JRB Decision?
Franklin Community News
As the Joint Review Board (JRB) prepares to meet to select a public member for Tax Increment District (TID) No. 10—associated with the proposed Poth’s General development, a fundamental question has emerged—one that goes beyond any individual candidate and instead focuses squarely on process.
Multiple individuals have now stepped forward expressing interest in serving as the JRB’s citizen member.
Yet, the process has continued to center around a single mayoral nomination.
If the Joint Review Board is the body that makes the selection, why is the process being shaped around a recommendation from the Mayor?
A Process Defined by Statute
Under Wisconsin law, the public member of a Joint Review Board is not appointed by the Mayor or Common Council. The position is filled by a majority vote of the Joint Review Board itself.
The intent is clear:
The public member is to be selected by the independent body responsible for reviewing and approving Tax Increment Districts—not by any single elected official.
Who Serves on the Joint Review Board
The Joint Review Board is made up of representatives from multiple taxing jurisdictions, along with one public member.
Typically, the Board includes:
- A representative of the local school district
- A representative of the technical college district
- A representative of the county
- A representative of the City of Franklin
- And one public (citizen) member
The public member is the only position specifically intended to represent a broader resident perspective outside of governmental entities.
A Change in Nominee—But Not in Process
The Mayor’s current recommendation follows a prior nomination that was withdrawn after becoming the subject of public scrutiny, including reporting that raised concerns about judgment and fitness for the role.
The Mayor subsequently indicated that the nominee would not be serving and issued a new recommendation.
While the nominee has changed, the underlying process—and the questions surrounding it—remain the same.
Interest Came Forward—Before and After the Nomination
Records show that former Mayor Steve Olson formally submitted interest in serving as the public member on April 19.
On April 30, Mayor John Nelson issued a letter recommending former Alderman Mike Barber for the role.
In the days that followed, additional individuals came forward, bringing the total number of interested candidates to at least four.
These included:
- Darrel Malek, a long-time Franklin business owner, licensed professional engineer, and real estate professional who emphasized neutrality and independence in the role
- N.J. Mathwig, a 25-year Franklin resident who outlined extensive independent research into TID structures and governance
Together, these candidates represent a range of experience in public service, business, and technical review of TID-related issues.
These were not casual expressions of interest. They were formal submissions, with qualifications, experience, and stated intent to serve in an objective capacity.
Why the Public Member Position Matters
The level of interest in the public member position is not incidental.
For TID 10, the Joint Review Board is responsible for making a final determination on whether the proposed district meets the legal and financial requirements to move forward. That includes evaluating whether the development would occur “but for” the use of Tax Increment Financing.
In practical terms, the public member will be voting on a decision involving millions in public financing and long-term impacts on the City’s tax base.
For many residents, that responsibility alone explains the level of engagement.
Some have expressed interest based on:
- A desire for independent, non-political representation
- Experience with development, finance, or municipal governance
- Concerns about how the TID was structured or justified
- A belief that the decision warrants careful, objective review
When a single vote can influence a decision of this scale, it is not surprising that residents want a voice in who casts it.
At the same time, the structure of the process raises an additional consideration:
Whether the selection ensures an independent voice—or one aligned with a preferred outcome.
The Central Question
The presence of multiple interested candidates—both before and after the Mayor’s recommendation—raises a straightforward question:
Was the process structured to allow the Joint Review Board to evaluate its options?
Or,
Has the process effectively narrowed the field to a single recommended candidate before the Board even votes?
What the Joint Review Board Actually Decides
The importance of this question becomes clearer when considering the role of the Joint Review Board itself.
The JRB is not creating TID 10—that has already been approved by the Common Council.
The Board’s role is to independently review and either approve or deny the district.
For TID 10 and the proposed Poth’s General development, the JRB must:
- Review the full project plan and public record
- Evaluate financial assumptions and projected tax increment
- Determine whether the development would occur “but for” the use of Tax Increment Financing
- Consider the impact on taxpayers and overlapping taxing jurisdictions
This “but for” determination is the critical test—whether public financing is truly necessary.
Community Concerns Surrounding TID 10
Concerns surrounding TID 10 have also begun to surface among residents and stakeholders, focusing on how the district was justified and what it ultimately represents.
Among the issues being raised:
- Whether the area meets the definition of a “blighted area” under state law
- The extent to which the project relies on a limited number of parcels to meet eligibility thresholds
- Questions about the level of public subsidy relative to the nature of the development
- Whether the project is truly unviable without TIF—or simply less profitable
- The overall composition of the development, including its significant residential component
Some have also pointed to gaps or inconsistencies in the public record during the approval process.
These concerns do not change the role of the Joint Review Board—but they underscore the importance of independent review.
Campaign Contributions and Public Confidence
Additional questions raised by residents relate to campaign contributions from individuals connected to the TID 10 project.
Campaign finance records show that individuals associated with the development—including members of the Pekar family (linked to the developer) and the O’Malley family (property owners within the proposed district)—contributed approximately:
- $3,000 from the Pekar family - Principal Land by Label
- $1,500 from the O’Malley family
during the 2023 mayoral election cycle.
While campaign contributions are lawful and a routine part of the political process, their presence in decisions involving significant public financing can raise broader questions:
- Whether decision-making is fully independent
- Whether the appearance of impartiality is maintained
- And whether public confidence in the process is preserved
When viewed alongside the current selection process, these factors further highlight the importance of an independent Joint Review Board.
Public Statements and Judgment
Public discussion surrounding the nomination has also extended beyond the process itself to include the public statements of those involved.
In a social media post earlier this week, Cathleen (“Cathy”) Richard, the prior nominee for the Joint Review Board public member position, responded to coverage of the issue with a series of remarks directed at individuals involved in the discussion.
The post included personal criticisms, references to “questionable actions,” and statements suggesting she would expose information about others. Among the statements made:
“If Steve Olson doesn’t withdraw… I’ll make it my mission to expose any questionable actions he’s taken in office.”
“We are going to see if his reputation is more important than trying to end the TID10 vote.”
“The skeletons in your closet are SO MUCH BIGGER.”
The post also referenced other individuals and suggested the existence of additional undisclosed information.
While individuals have the right to express their views, statements of this nature—particularly those involving personal attacks or implied threats of exposure—have raised additional questions among residents about judgment, tone, and the ability to serve in a role requiring objectivity and independence.
When viewed alongside the broader process concerns, these public statements further underscore the importance of selecting a public member who can approach the role with neutrality and professionalism.
Recommendation vs. Selection
There is nothing inherently improper about a mayor offering a recommendation.
But there is also no statutory role for such a recommendation in the selection process.
When multiple individuals express interest in a public position, the expectation is not simply that a name is presented—it is that the decision-making body considers the available candidates before making its choice.
Otherwise, the distinction between a selection and a confirmation begins to blur.
Why It Matters
The Joint Review Board is not ceremonial.
For TID 10 and the proposed Poth’s General project, its decision will determine whether the use of public financing moves forward.
That decision affects:
- Taxpayer exposure
- Long-term public financial obligations
- The distribution of tax base across jurisdictions
The independence of the Board—and the integrity of its composition—matters.
A Decision Still to Be Made
The upcoming JRB meeting is where the decision is formally made.
The Board has the authority to:
- Consider candidates
- Select the public member
- Or determine its own process
The question is not who the Mayor has recommended.
The question is whether the Joint Review Board will make an independent choice—based on the candidates available to it.
Conclusion
This is not about any one individual.
It is about whether the process reflects the structure and intent of the law.
Multiple candidates have stepped forward.
The Board has the authority to decide.
The only remaining question is whether it will.
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