TAYLOR LEADS 4–3 VOTE THAT DERAILS COURTHOUSE REFERENDUM

Finance chairman says elected officials—not voters—should decide whether Milwaukee County proceeds with $858 million in proposed construction funding

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

MILWAUKEE — Finance Committee Chairman Steve Taylor successfully led a narrow 4–3 vote Thursday to lay over a proposal that would have allowed Milwaukee County voters to decide whether the County should proceed with approximately $858 million in proposed construction funding for a new courthouse complex.

The committee's action effectively eliminated any realistic opportunity for the advisory referendum to appear on the November 2026 ballot. Because election officials must receive ballot language well before the November election, delaying the resolution until an unspecified future date left little practical time for it to advance through both the Finance Committee and the full County Board before statutory deadlines.

During nearly an hour of debate, Taylor repeatedly argued that the decision should remain with elected officials rather than the taxpayers who will ultimately finance the project.

"This is a representative government. We're elected to make the decision," Taylor told fellow supervisors.

Taylor also predicted Milwaukee County voters would reject the proposal if it appeared on the ballot.

"I'm telling you right now, if this goes to referendum, absolutely the voters will reject it because they don't have the information."

He continued:

"You're not going to be able to educate the voters the way they need to be. It's going to be all rhetoric."

Taylor's position ultimately prevailed.

What the Resolution Would Have Done

The proposal, introduced by Supervisor Justin Bielinski, would not have authorized construction, approved borrowing, or issued debt.

Instead, it sought an advisory referendum asking Milwaukee County voters whether they supported proceeding with approximately $858 million in construction funding before the County Board considered future appropriations and financing.

Although advisory only, supporters argued the referendum would have provided elected officials with a direct measure of public opinion before committing to one of the largest public borrowing decisions in Milwaukee County history.

Opponents maintained that weighing complex financing decisions is precisely why County Supervisors are elected.

A Procedural Vote with Major Consequences

Following debate, Vice Chair Shawn Rolland moved to lay the referendum resolution over to the call of the chair.

Bielinski opposed delaying the proposal, arguing that election deadlines required immediate action if the advisory question was to appear on the November ballot. He also noted that November elections historically attract substantially higher voter turnout than spring elections, providing what he believed would be a more representative expression of public opinion.

The motion passed 4–3, making it highly unlikely Milwaukee County voters will have an opportunity to consider the referendum this November.

How the Committee Voted

Voting to Lay the Referendum Over

• Steve Taylor (Chair)
• Shawn Rolland (Vice Chair)
• Willie Johnson Jr.
• Felesia Martin

Voting Against the Layover

• Juan Miguel Martinez
• Justin Bielinski
• Anne O'Connor

The vote did not determine whether Milwaukee County will build a new courthouse.

Instead, it determined whether Milwaukee County taxpayers would have an opportunity to weigh in before the County Board considers construction-phase funding.

Representative Government—or Direct Public Approval?

The debate ultimately centered on two competing views of public governance.

Taylor argued that County Supervisors are elected specifically to make difficult financial decisions involving complex public projects.

He warned that voters could not realistically be educated on a project of this magnitude before Election Day and predicted a referendum campaign would be driven by rhetoric rather than facts.

Supporters of the referendum reached the opposite conclusion.

They argued Wisconsin voters routinely decide complicated fiscal questions involving school construction, technical college borrowing, constitutional amendments, and local borrowing referenda.

If voters are trusted to decide those questions, they argued, Milwaukee County taxpayers should likewise be trusted to decide whether the County should proceed with nearly $858 million in proposed courthouse construction funding.

Why Should Milwaukee County Be Different?

Supporters of the referendum argued Milwaukee County taxpayers should be afforded the same opportunity routinely provided to voters across Wisconsin when governments undertake major public construction projects.

Throughout Wisconsin, school districts regularly ask voters to approve borrowing for new schools, additions, and major renovations before issuing long-term debt.

Technical College districts likewise seek voter approval for major capital borrowing authorized under Wisconsin law.

Supporters argued the proposed courthouse project is no different.

With an estimated total project cost approaching $897 million, including approximately $858 million in proposed construction funding, they contend Milwaukee County taxpayers should likewise have the opportunity to decide whether the County should move forward before future borrowing is authorized.

Taylor rejected that premise.

He maintained Milwaukee County operates under a representative form of government and that elected County Supervisors—not voters—should make the decision.

Borrowing Capacity, Competing Priorities, and Property Taxes

The discussion also highlighted Milwaukee County's broader financial picture.

County officials have acknowledged annual capital requests already exceed the County's self-imposed bonding limits, requiring policymakers to prioritize projects and defer others.

Supporters of the referendum argued committing approximately $858 million in construction funding inevitably affects the County's future borrowing capacity and its ability to fund other priorities, including:

• Parks
• Roads and bridges
• Public safety facilities
• Transit infrastructure
• Senior centers
• Recreational facilities
• Deferred maintenance throughout Milwaukee County

Throughout Thursday's meeting, supervisors discussed inflation, construction costs, deferred maintenance, financing strategies, and the cost of delaying the courthouse project.

One important question, however, remained unanswered:

What will the project cost the average Milwaukee County homeowner in additional property taxes?

To date, Milwaukee County has not publicly released an estimate identifying the projected annual property tax impact associated with financing approximately $858 million in construction costs.

Without that information, taxpayers remain unable to fully evaluate one of the project's most significant financial implications before the County Board considers future borrowing.

For supporters of the referendum, that omission reinforced the argument that taxpayers should have a direct voice before construction funding proceeds.

Why Wasn't the Building Simply Maintained?

One question largely absent from Thursday's Finance Committee debate was why Milwaukee County is pursuing a complete replacement of the Public Safety Building rather than continuing repairs or undertaking a major renovation.

The answer lies in decades of aging infrastructure, years of deferred capital investment, and conclusions reached after nearly a decade of formal study.

The Public Safety Building opened in 1929 and has served as Milwaukee County's primary criminal courthouse for nearly a century.

Over the years, County officials continued making repairs and replacing individual building systems as funding allowed, but larger modernization projects were repeatedly deferred as competing budget priorities limited available capital.

Recognizing those challenges, Milwaukee County established the Courthouse Advisory Group in 2016 to evaluate the future of the courthouse complex.

After reviewing multiple alternatives, the advisory group recommended replacing the Public Safety Building rather than attempting a comprehensive renovation.

That recommendation was reaffirmed in subsequent studies, including a 2018 Wisconsin Policy Forum review, and ultimately became the foundation for today's Investing in Justice initiative.

County assessments estimate the Public Safety Building alone now faces more than $75 million in deferred maintenance and system replacement needs, while deferred maintenance across the broader courthouse campus exceeds $334 million.

County officials also report spending approximately $500,000 annually responding to emergency repairs. Judges and courthouse staff have described recurring elevator failures, flooding, plumbing problems, electrical outages, and aging mechanical systems requiring continual emergency repairs simply to maintain daily court operations.

Previous planning studies concluded that bringing the nearly century-old building into compliance with modern building codes, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, courtroom security standards, and contemporary operational needs would be less practical and less cost-effective than constructing a replacement facility.

As a result, Milwaukee County elected to pursue the Investing in Justice project, which calls for demolishing the existing Public Safety Building while preserving and renovating the adjacent Historic Milwaukee County Courthouse. During construction, court operations would temporarily relocate to renovated courthouse space and leased downtown "swing space" before moving into the new courthouse upon completion.

The Debate Isn't Whether a Courthouse Is Needed

Importantly, Thursday's debate was not over whether Milwaukee County requires a modern criminal courthouse.

County officials, judges, and many members of the County Board generally agree the existing Public Safety Building has reached the end of its useful life.

Instead, the disagreement centers on how the project should be financed, whether Milwaukee County should proceed with approximately $858 million in construction funding, and whether taxpayers should have the opportunity to vote before the County Board commits to one of the largest public borrowing decisions in county history.

Supporters of Bielinski's advisory referendum argue replacement may be necessary but taxpayers deserve a direct voice before the County incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in additional borrowing.

County Executive David Crowley's administration, however, has warned that delaying construction could increase project costs by approximately $4 million per month because of inflation while emergency repairs to the aging facility continue.

How the $897 Million Project Is Structured

While much of Thursday's debate focused on approximately $858 million in construction funding, the total Investing in Justice project is currently estimated at approximately $897 million.

According to Milwaukee County, the project includes:

• $38.6 million already appropriated for planning, design, engineering, and pre-construction activities.
• Approximately $858 million for demolition of the existing Public Safety Building, construction of the new criminal courthouse, a secure connection to the Criminal Justice Facility, and related site improvements.
• Funding for temporary downtown "swing space" leases and renovations to the Historic Milwaukee County Courthouse so court operations can continue during construction.

The County plans to vacate the Public Safety Building before demolition begins, temporarily relocating many court functions until the new courthouse is completed.

County's Proposed Financing Strategy

County officials have stated they intend to offset a significant portion of the project's cost through recently enacted state funding changes and long-term borrowing rather than relying exclusively on increased local property taxes.

Even so, supervisors continue debating how the remaining construction costs should be financed and what impact future borrowing could have on Milwaukee County's long-term fiscal capacity.

Supporters of the referendum argue that before the County commits to construction borrowing, taxpayers deserve to understand both the financing plan and its long-term implications.

If Voters Cannot Be Informed, What Is the County Paying $546,475 to Communicate?

Taylor's comments also raised another question surrounding the courthouse project.

If County officials believe voters lack sufficient information to make an informed decision, what is Milwaukee County receiving in return for nearly $550,000 already committed to communications and advocacy?

County contract records show Milwaukee County entered into a $546,475 professional services agreement with Mueller Communications for communication and advocacy services related to the Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex project.

The agreement—identified as Contract No. 3049—is described as:

"Fee Revision 4 to the 2024 Professional Services Agreement for Communication and Advocacy WC0276 Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex."

County records show the full $546,475 has been encumbered under the contract.

Following Thursday's meeting, Bielinski criticized the expenditure, writing:

"At a time when County pools like McCarty are sitting closed, in part because of needed repairs that cost less than $10,000, County Executive David Crowley is spending $546,475 in taxpayer money for a communications consultant to advocate in favor of the $897 million courthouse project.

This is an insult to the hardworking people of Milwaukee County—many of whom are already struggling to afford basic needs—whose property taxes are already rising due to the state's refusal to properly fund public education."

Taylor argued voters could not realistically be educated before a referendum.

The existence of a nearly $550,000 communications contract has therefore become part of the broader public discussion, prompting questions from critics about how those communication efforts are intended to inform taxpayers and whether the County has adequately explained the project's financial impact, including its potential effect on future property taxes.

What's Next?

Although the advisory referendum now appears effectively off the November ballot, the courthouse project itself continues moving forward.

County officials are expected to continue advancing the Investing in Justice project and present future construction-phase funding proposals to the Milwaukee County Board for consideration.

Thursday's vote did not decide whether Milwaukee County will build a new courthouse.

It decided who should have the opportunity to weigh in before the County moves forward with approximately $858 million in construction funding.

For Chairman Steve Taylor and the committee majority, that responsibility belongs to elected officials.

For supporters of the referendum, it belongs to the taxpayers who may ultimately finance one of the largest public construction projects in Milwaukee County history.

Whether Milwaukee County should be treated differently than Wisconsin communities that routinely ask voters to approve major public borrowing remains one of the central policy questions left unresolved by Thursday's 4–3 committee vote.

𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 | 𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗔𝗬𝗟𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦𝗡'𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗞 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗗𝗘
Milwaukee County is considering moving forward with approximately $858 million in courthouse construction funding.

Should the taxpayers who will ultimately help pay for it have a voice?
During last week's Finance Committee meeting, Chairman Steve Taylor argued they should not.

"This is a representative government. We're elected to make the decision."

He also stated that voters "don't have the information" and predicted a referendum would become "all rhetoric."

EDITORIAL

In today's editorial, Franklin Community News examines those statements, asks whether taxpayers deserve the opportunity to vote on one of the largest public construction projects in Milwaukee County history, and provides contact information for every Milwaukee County Supervisor so you can make your voice heard before the July 30 County Board meeting.

Whether you support a new courthouse or oppose it, one question remains:
Should taxpayers have the opportunity to vote before Milwaukee County commits approximately $858 million in construction funding?

Read the editorial, review the facts, and then contact your County Supervisor.
Representative government works best when elected officials trust—and listen to—the people they represent.

Read the editorial 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.

🕯️ 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/

 

FRANKLIN APPROVES UP TO $10 MILLION IN NEW BORROWING

Questions Raised Over Taxpayer Impact, Budget Planning, and Administrative Experience

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

The Franklin Common Council has authorized the City to borrow up to $10 million through the issuance of General Obligation Promissory Notes, a decision that could have long-term financial implications for taxpayers while raising broader questions about the City's budgeting practices and administrative leadership.

The borrowing resolution, approved during the Council's July 21 meeting, follows months of Council approvals for capital projects that, according to multiple fiscal notes presented throughout the year, did not have appropriated funding within the City's adopted 2026 budget. During the meeting, City officials explained that approximately $8.15 million in previously approved projects now require financing, with additional projects potentially bringing the borrowing closer to the authorized $10 million.

Borrowing Before Budgeting?

Throughout the meeting, Council members questioned whether they had sufficient financial information before authorizing the borrowing. Particular concern was expressed regarding the lack of detailed projections showing the effect the additional debt could have on future property taxes.

Although city officials discussed the need to move forward with delayed infrastructure improvements and explained that postponing projects often increases costs due to inflation and construction escalation, several Council members questioned whether taxpayers should first receive a clearer picture of the long-term financial impact.

The discussion highlighted a broader policy question facing Franklin:

Should major capital projects receive approval before a funding source has been identified?

That question becomes increasingly important as municipalities across Wisconsin continue to balance aging infrastructure, rising construction costs, and growing pressure on local property taxpayers.

The Taxpayer Question

For many residents, the most significant unanswered question remains straightforward:

What will this borrowing cost?

While the resolution authorizes borrowing of up to $10 million, no estimate of the potential property tax impact was presented during the Council's public discussion before the vote. Taxpayers were not provided with projections showing how debt service may affect future municipal tax levies or what the borrowing could mean for the average homeowner.

As Franklin continues preparing future budgets while addressing ongoing capital needs, those answers will become increasingly important.

Leadership During a Period of Transition

The borrowing authorization also comes during a period of significant transition within Franklin's senior administrative leadership.

Since 2023, Mayor John Nelson has assembled a new executive leadership team responsible for overseeing the City's administration and finances.

Director of Administration Kelly Hersh was appointed shortly after Mayor Nelson took office. Rather than selecting one of two finalists identified through a professional executive search conducted by Public Administration Associates, the Mayor discontinued the search process and appointed Hersh directly.

Prior to her appointment, Hersh had not served as a municipal City Administrator or Chief Administrative Officer. Her background consisted primarily of communications, community advocacy, and political involvement within Franklin, including serving as a prominent supporter during Mayor Nelson's campaign.

Director of Finance and Treasurer Danielle Brown brought municipal finance experience from
her previous role as Deputy Treasurer for the Village of Waterford and possesses strong academic credentials, including an MBA and accounting degrees. However, Franklin represented her first appointment as the chief financial officer of a municipality.

Neither observation should be interpreted as criticism of either official's dedication or work ethic. Rather, the appointments reflect a leadership team relatively new to their respective executive roles as the City undertakes increasingly significant financial decisions involving long-term borrowing, capital planning, and budget management.

Experience Versus Opportunity

Municipal governments across Wisconsin regularly appoint talented professionals into leadership positions for the first time. Experience must begin somewhere.

Nevertheless, the Franklin appointments have generated continuing public discussion because they occurred after substantial turnover in City Hall and because several appointments departed from more traditional municipal career paths.

As the City prepares to borrow up to $10 million while simultaneously confronting future budget pressures, residents may reasonably ask whether Franklin has assembled the depth of executive municipal management experience necessary to navigate increasingly complex financial decisions.

Those questions are not personal—they are questions of governance and stewardship.

More Than a Borrowing Resolution

The Council's vote represents more than authorization to issue debt.

It raises broader questions regarding long-term financial planning, transparency, and accountability:

• Should projects be approved before funding has been identified?

• Should taxpayers receive projected tax impacts before borrowing is authorized?

• Should the Council require a comprehensive debt analysis before future borrowing?

• How much additional debt can Franklin responsibly assume while maintaining essential city services?

Those are questions that deserve continued public discussion well beyond a single Council meeting.

Franklin Community News will continue examining the City's capital planning process, debt obligations, and administrative decision-making in the weeks ahead.

WHO IS MANAGING FRANKLIN'S FINANCES? - EDITORIAL

As the City Prepares to Borrow Up to $10 Million and Projects a 4%–4.5% Increase in the City's Property Tax Levy, Taxpayers Have a Right to Know Who Is Making the Recommendations

When the Franklin Common Council voted to authorize up to $10 million in new borrowing, much of the public discussion centered on aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, and financing options.

Yet another question deserves equal attention:

Who is managing Franklin's finances?

That question has become increasingly relevant after city officials advised that financing approximately $10 million in capital projects could result in an estimated 4% to 4.5% increase in the City's portion of the property tax levy beginning with the 2027 budget, depending upon final borrowing costs and future budget decisions.

For homeowners already facing rising costs from inflation, insurance, utilities, and other taxing jurisdictions, even a modest municipal tax increase is significant.

As Franklin prepares for one of its largest recent borrowing authorizations, taxpayers deserve to understand the experience and backgrounds of the officials responsible for recommending the City's financial strategy.

Who Oversees Franklin's Finances?

While the Common Council ultimately approves budgets and borrowing, much of the analysis and recommendations originate with the City's administrative leadership.

Those responsibilities primarily rest with:

• Mayor John Nelson

• Director of Administration Kelly Hersh

• Director of Finance and Treasurer Danielle Brown

Together, these officials oversee budget preparation, capital improvement planning, debt financing, financial forecasting, and recommendations presented to the Common Council.

Director of Administration: Kelly Hersh

Kelly Hersh became Franklin's Director of Administration shortly after Mayor John Nelson assumed office in 2023.

Her appointment attracted attention because of both the position's importance and the hiring process itself.

Prior to filling the position, the City retained Public Administration Associates (PAA)—a nationally recognized executive search firm—to recruit qualified candidates for Franklin's chief administrative officer position.

That recruitment reportedly cost taxpayers approximately $9,500 and produced finalists for consideration.

Rather than selecting from those finalists, Mayor Nelson discontinued the search process and appointed Hersh directly.

Before becoming Director of Administration, Hersh had not served as a municipal City Administrator, Village Administrator, or Chief Administrative Officer.

Her background consisted primarily of communications, community advocacy, and political involvement in Franklin, including:

• Founding director of Franklin Community Advocates.

• Participation in litigation involving the proposed Strauss Brands development.

• Filing a Wisconsin Ethics Commission complaint concerning a Franklin alderperson.

• Serving as a prominent supporter and campaign ally of Mayor John Nelson during his successful mayoral campaign.

Publicly available information indicates Hersh holds a Bachelor of Arts in Communications.

The City's recruitment materials reportedly expressed a preference for candidates possessing graduate-level education together with substantial municipal executive management experience.

Supporters have argued that leadership ability, communication skills, and knowledge of Franklin's community were more important than traditional municipal administrative experience.

Critics have questioned whether bypassing a professional executive search produced the most qualified candidate to oversee a city with an annual budget exceeding tens of millions of dollars.

Director of Finance and Treasurer: Danielle Brown

Franklin's Director of Finance entered City Hall with experience in municipal finance.

Prior to joining Franklin, Danielle Brown served as Deputy Treasurer for the Village of Waterford, managing treasury operations, tax collections, municipal accounting, and financial administration.

She also possesses impressive academic credentials, including:

• Master of Business Administration (MBA)

• Bachelor of Science in Accounting

• Associate Degree in Accounting

Franklin represented Brown's first appointment as the chief financial officer of a municipality.

That distinction is important.

While deputy treasurer experience provides an excellent foundation in municipal finance, the Director of Finance assumes significantly broader responsibilities, including:

• Preparing the City's annual budget.

• Advising the Common Council on financial policy.

• Managing debt issuance.

• Developing capital financing strategies.

• Preparing long-range financial forecasts.

• Monitoring the City's overall fiscal condition.

Brown now serves as the City's principal financial advisor during one of the most significant borrowing discussions in recent years.

Experience Versus Opportunity

Every successful City Administrator and Finance Director accepted a first leadership position at some point in their careers.

The issue is not whether either official is intelligent, hardworking, or committed to public service.

Rather, taxpayers may reasonably ask whether Franklin should place greater emphasis on demonstrated executive municipal management experience when filling its highest administrative positions—particularly as the City recommends borrowing up to $10 million while projecting an increase of approximately 4% to 4.5% in the City's property tax levy.

That is a legitimate question of governance—not a personal criticism of any individual.

Transparency Builds Public Trust

Major borrowing decisions affect taxpayers long after elected officials and administrators leave office.

Debt issued today will be repaid over many years through future municipal budgets supported by Franklin property owners.

Those decisions require more than balancing current needs.

They require:

• Long-term financial planning.

• Comprehensive debt affordability analysis.

• Accurate revenue forecasting.

• Property tax impact projections.

• Transparent communication with both elected officials and the public.

As Franklin moves toward adoption of its 2027 budget, taxpayers deserve more than a borrowing authorization.

They deserve a clear explanation of how the recommendations were developed, what alternatives were considered, how the borrowing will affect future property taxes, and why city leadership believes this represents the best long-term financial strategy.

The Bottom Line

Franklin's recent borrowing authorization is about more than issuing debt.

It is about confidence in the process.

When residents are asked to support higher property taxes, they have every right to understand not only what decisions are being made, but who is making them and the experience they bring to those decisions.

Municipal government depends upon public trust.

Transparency, accountability, and informed public discussion are essential to maintaining that trust.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

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

Milwaukee County Courthouse Referendum Receives Finance Committee Hearing

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

A proposal that would give Milwaukee County voters the opportunity to weigh in on one of the largest public construction projects in County history is now scheduled for consideration by the County Board's Finance Committee.

The Finance Committee is scheduled to consider the proposed referendum at its meeting on Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 203-R of the Milwaukee County Courthouse, 901 N. 9th Street, Milwaukee. The meeting will provide the first public opportunity for committee members to debate whether Milwaukee County voters should be given the opportunity to decide the question on the November ballot.

Supervisor Justin Bielinski's File No. 26-533 would place a contingent referendum on the November 3, 2026 ballot asking voters whether Milwaukee County should authorize up to $858 million in additional construction-phase funding for the proposed Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex Project. The overall project is currently estimated to cost approximately $896.6 million, with approximately $38.6 million already authorized for planning, design, and consulting services. 

The proposed referendum would not itself authorize borrowing, approve construction contracts, or issue bonds. Instead, it would ask Milwaukee County voters whether they support moving forward with the construction phase of the project. Any future appropriations, contracts, or financing would still require approval by the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors. 

According to the resolution, the nearly century-old Safety Building faces more than $75 million in deferred maintenance, does not meet current Wisconsin Supreme Court standards for court facilities, and presents significant operational and security challenges. County officials have argued that replacing the building is necessary to modernize Milwaukee County's criminal justice system. 

A Project With Long-Term Financial Implications

The proposed resolution acknowledges that a project of this magnitude would likely require substantial long-term borrowing.

It further states that financing the project "may place upward pressure on the property tax levy" and recognizes that significant borrowing could affect Milwaukee County's ability to fund other infrastructure priorities, including parks, roads, bridges, transit, and public facilities. 

The resolution also notes that Milwaukee County's 2026 Capital Budget requested $120.1 million in general obligation bonding authority, while only $56.8 million was available under the County's bonding cap, leaving $63.3 million in requested borrowing authority unfunded. 

Transparency Should Not Depend on the Type of Government

Across Wisconsin, taxpayers are routinely asked to approve major capital construction projects before their local governments undertake significant long-term borrowing.

School districts regularly place referenda before voters to finance new schools, additions, and major renovations. Likewise, Wisconsin Technical College districts generally must obtain voter approval for capital expenditures exceeding $1.5 million, subject to statutory exceptions.

These referenda are typically accompanied by detailed financial information explaining:

• The amount to be borrowed.

• The estimated impact on property taxes.

• The purpose of the project.

• The long-term financial obligations.

Milwaukee County's proposed Courthouse Complex project is different.

Although the project carries an estimated total cost of $896.6 million, there is no general statutory requirement that Milwaukee County obtain voter approval before proceeding.

Supervisor Justin Bielinski's proposal would voluntarily ask voters whether Milwaukee County should authorize up to $858 million in additional construction funding before the County commits to the project. 

The Missing Piece: What Will It Cost You?

Perhaps the most important question for Milwaukee County homeowners has yet to be publicly answered.

How much will this project increase my property taxes?

Despite hundreds of pages of reports, planning documents, and presentations, Milwaukee County has not publicly released an estimate showing how the proposed construction funding would affect the annual property tax bill for the average homeowner.

That information matters.

Taxpayers understand that the courthouse project itself is estimated to cost $896.6 million, with up to $858 million in additional construction funding still under consideration. But construction costs are only part of the financial picture.

If approved, much of the project is expected to be financed through long-term borrowing. That means taxpayers would ultimately repay not only the principal borrowed but also interest over many years. The total repayment obligation will depend on future borrowing amounts, interest rates, repayment schedules, and any state or other outside funding ultimately received.

Before Milwaukee County commits to borrowing on this scale—or before voters are asked to express their opinion—many taxpayers may reasonably expect answers to several basic questions:

• How much will the project increase the annual property tax bill for a home assessed at $250,000?

• What about a $400,000 home?

• What about a $600,000 home?

• How much debt will Milwaukee County issue?

• What will taxpayers ultimately repay over the life of the bonds, including interest?

• How much state funding has been secured, and how much is merely anticipated?

• What other capital projects may be delayed because of this borrowing?

These are not arguments for or against the courthouse project.

They are questions of fiscal transparency.

The Cost of the Referendum

Ironically, the referendum itself would cost approximately $18,000—a fraction of one percent of the nearly $897 million project.

Supporters argue that spending $18,000 to allow taxpayers to weigh in on one of the largest financial decisions in County history is a modest investment in transparency and public participation

Other County Priorities

The proposed resolution also acknowledges that borrowing for the courthouse project could affect Milwaukee County's ability to finance other important public investments.

Among the priorities that could compete for limited borrowing capacity are:

• Parks and park facilities.

• County roads and bridges.

• Transit infrastructure.

• Other County buildings and facilities.

• Future capital maintenance needs. 

Milwaukee County's own 2026 Capital Budget demonstrates those competing demands. According to the resolution, the County received $120.1 million in requested general obligation borrowing for capital projects, but only $56.8 million was approved under the County's bonding cap, leaving $63.3 million in requested borrowing authority unfunded.

The Voice of the People

The proposed resolution notes that the eastern façade of the Milwaukee County Courthouse bears the Latin inscription:

"Vox populi, vox Dei" — "The voice of the people is the voice of God." 

Whether the referendum ultimately reaches the November ballot now appears uncertain.

Regardless of where one stands on the courthouse project itself, the broader issue remains.

Should Milwaukee County taxpayers be given the same opportunity that voters in many Wisconsin school districts and technical college districts receive—to review the financial information, understand the potential tax impact, and cast a vote before their government commits to hundreds of millions of dollars in long-term borrowing?

That is the question now before Milwaukee County—not simply whether to build a new courthouse, but how transparent the County should be with the taxpayers who will ultimately pay for it.

Finance Committee Meeting Scheduled Thursday

The Finance Committee's consideration of the resolution represents the next step in determining whether Milwaukee County residents will have the opportunity to vote on the proposal this November.

Members of the public who wish to observe the discussion or provide testimony should review the meeting agenda and public participation procedures through Milwaukee County.

Finance Committee Meeting

📅 Thursday, July 23, 2026
🕘 9:00 a.m.
📍 Room 203-R
Milwaukee County Courthouse
901 N. 9th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

At issue is whether Milwaukee County voters should have the opportunity to decide if the County should proceed with up to $858 million in additional construction-phase funding for a courthouse project now estimated at approximately $896.6 million.

Editorial: For the Greater Good, Let the People Decide

There are times when leadership is measured not by the decisions that are made, but by whether the public is allowed to participate in making them.

For weeks, Milwaukee County's proposed courthouse referendum sat without a hearing because it was not placed on the Finance Committee agenda.

As Chairman of the Finance Committee, Supervisor Steve Taylor determines what comes before the committee for consideration. Had the proposal never been scheduled, Milwaukee County taxpayers could have been denied the opportunity to vote this November on one of the largest public construction projects in County history.

Fortunately, the proposal has now been placed on the agenda.

That is good news—not because the referendum is guaranteed to pass, but because the public deserves the opportunity to hear the debate and, if approved by the County Board, ultimately cast a ballot.

The issue has never been whether Milwaukee County needs modern court facilities.

Reasonable people can agree that the nearly century-old Safety Building presents significant challenges.

The issue is whether taxpayers deserve a voice before Milwaukee County commits to up to $858 million in additional construction funding for a project approaching $900 million.

Even more importantly, taxpayers deserve to know what the project will actually cost them.

Not the construction estimate.

Not the architect's estimate.

Not the project's price tag.

Their property tax bill.

If Milwaukee County can estimate construction costs to the nearest million dollars, it should also be able to estimate what a homeowner with a $250,000, $400,000, or $600,000 home can expect to pay if long-term borrowing is approved.

That information should not be an afterthought.

It should be available before any referendum is held and certainly before elected officials commit taxpayers to decades of debt service.

Supervisor Steve Taylor has often defended controversial decisions with the phrase:

"It is for the Greater Good."

Franklin Community News agrees.

Transparency is for the greater good.

Providing taxpayers with honest financial projections is for the greater good.

Allowing public debate is for the greater good.

Giving Milwaukee County residents the opportunity to vote on one of the largest financial commitments in County history is for the greater good.

The Finance Committee's decision to finally place this proposal on its agenda is a welcome step.

But taxpayers should expect more than simply a hearing.

They deserve complete financial transparency.

They deserve to know how much this project could increase their property taxes—not just next year, but over the life of the bonds.

And they deserve elected officials who trust them enough to let them decide.

"Vox populi, vox Dei" — The voice of the people is the voice of God.

If those words mean anything, Milwaukee County should embrace them—not merely carve them into stone.

The greater good begins with trusting the people.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

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

FRANKLIN REVOKES ON THE BORDER’S LICENSES

 

FRANKLIN REVOKES ON THE BORDER’S LICENSES

Common Council votes 3-2 following a nearly six-hour evidentiary hearing, concluding that substantial evidence supported each of the five allegations against the establishment.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

After nearly six hours of testimony, legal arguments, documentary evidence, and deliberation, the Franklin Common Council voted 3-2 Thursday evening to revoke the alcohol beverage licenses and public entertainment license held by On the Border Gentlemen’s Club, concluding that substantial evidence demonstrated the establishment had become a disorderly house where prostitution, drug activity, violence, and repeated violations of city ordinances had occurred.

The decision followed what City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski repeatedly described as a quasi-judicial proceeding, requiring Council members to act not as policymakers, but as impartial fact-finders weighing sworn testimony and evidence.

For Franklin, the hearing represented one of the most significant license revocation proceedings in recent memory.

A Split Vote

Following the adoption of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Common Council voted 3-2 to revoke On the Border’s licenses.

Voting in favor of revocation were Alderman Salus, Alderman Hassan, and Alderwoman Eichmann. Voting against revocation were Alderwoman Kresovic and Alderman Johnson.

Alderwoman Kenney recused herself from the proceedings because of a conflict of interest and did not participate in the hearing, deliberations, or final vote.

The narrow margin reflected differing views among the five participating Council members regarding whether the City’s evidence justified the extraordinary remedy of permanently revoking the establishment’s operating privileges.

Although the Council’s deliberations occurred in closed session, members returned to open session to publicly announce detailed findings supporting each of the five counts alleged in the City’s complaint before casting the final roll-call vote. By adopting those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Council concluded that substantial evidence supported each allegation and ordered the revocation of the establishment’s Class “B” intoxicating liquor license, Class “B” fermented malt beverage license, Entertainment and Amusement License, and Cigarette Sold by Machine License. 

For On the Border, the 3-2 vote brought months of uncertainty to a close. Whether the matter ends there, however, may ultimately depend on whether the business seeks judicial review of the Council’s decision.

An Unusual Hearing

Unlike a routine Common Council meeting, Thursday’s proceedings resembled a courtroom.

Witnesses testified under oath.

Attorneys conducted direct and cross-examinations.

Hundreds of pages of exhibits were admitted into evidence.

Council members heard legal arguments before retiring into closed session to deliberate before returning to open session to announce their decision.

Throughout the hearing, City Attorney Wesolowski repeatedly reminded Council members that their decision could not be based simply upon pending criminal charges involving club employees.

Instead, Wisconsin law required them to determine whether the evidence presented demonstrated violations sufficient to justify revocation of the licenses.

A Multi-Year Investigation

The City’s case centered on testimony from Franklin Police detectives and command staff describing what they characterized as a lengthy investigation involving local, state and federal law enforcement.

According to police testimony, the investigation included:

• interviews with dancers, former employees, patrons and confidential witnesses;
• cooperation with the FBI during a human trafficking investigation;
• surveillance of activity occurring inside the establishment;
• narcotics investigations;
• prostitution investigations;
• execution of search warrants;
• numerous police reports spanning several years.

Detectives testified they concluded prostitution was occurring inside VIP rooms, illegal drug activity was taking place inside the establishment, and management either knew or should have known about the activity.

Police Describe Extraordinary Demands on Department Resources

One of the recurring themes throughout the hearing involved the amount of police resources devoted to the business.

Officers testified that On the Border generated significantly more police activity than other licensed establishments within Franklin.

Police described repeated responses involving:

• narcotics investigations;
• overdoses;
• disturbances;
• assaults;
• prostitution investigations;
• suspicious activity;
• welfare checks.

Command staff testified that investigations involving the club consumed substantial investigative resources over an extended period.

Allegations Extended Beyond Prostitution

Although much public attention has focused on prostitution allegations, the City’s evidence addressed a much broader range of alleged misconduct.

According to testimony presented Thursday, investigators documented evidence involving:

• prostitution;
• cocaine trafficking;
• fentanyl-related incidents;
• overdoses;
• assaults involving employees;
• alcohol sales to intoxicated patrons;
• disorderly conduct;
• repeated police intervention.

The City argued these incidents demonstrated a continuing pattern inconsistent with maintaining licensed premises under Franklin ordinances.

Defense Challenges City’s Evidence

Representing On the Border, Attorney Steven Levine aggressively challenged nearly every aspect of the City’s case.

During cross-examination, Levine questioned investigators regarding:

• whether officers personally witnessed prostitution;
• reliance upon witness interviews;
• anonymous complaints;
• credibility of confidential witnesses;
• whether owners Jerry and Mary Hay personally participated in criminal conduct;
• management policies prohibiting illegal activity;
• whether police statistics fairly compared On the Border to other businesses.

Levine also questioned whether many of the alleged criminal incidents involved patrons rather than employees and argued the City was attempting to hold ownership responsible for conduct occurring without their knowledge.

Ownership Denies Knowledge

Defense witnesses testified that ownership prohibited prostitution and criminal conduct.

Evidence was presented describing:

• employee policies;
• surveillance cameras;
• management oversight;
• cooperation with law enforcement;
• termination of employees suspected of misconduct.

The defense argued isolated criminal acts committed by individual employees should not justify revoking licenses held by the business itself.

Council Weighs the Evidence

After hearing testimony, attorneys presented closing arguments before the Council entered closed session.

When the Council returned to open session, members announced findings concluding there was substantial evidence supporting multiple violations alleged by the City.

Among the findings adopted were conclusions that substantial evidence supported allegations involving:

• prostitution occurring at the licensed premises;
• illegal drug activity;
• physical assaults by employees;
• sales of alcohol to intoxicated persons;
• operation of a disorderly house;
• repeated violations demonstrating the premises had become detrimental to public safety.

The Council’s findings were based upon the administrative standard applicable to license revocation proceedings—not proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases. 

What Happens Next?

Thursday’s vote does not necessarily represent the final chapter.

Businesses whose licenses are revoked generally have the ability to seek judicial review of municipal decisions.

Should an appeal be filed, a reviewing court would examine the administrative record developed during Thursday’s hearing, including:

• witness testimony;
• documentary exhibits;
• procedural fairness;
• legal standards applied;
• whether substantial evidence supported the Council’s findings.

For that reason, the transcript of Thursday’s hearing may ultimately become as important as the vote itself.

A Landmark Franklin Proceeding

Regardless of whether additional litigation follows, Thursday’s hearing will likely stand as one of the most consequential liquor-license proceedings ever conducted before the Franklin Common Council.

Unlike many municipal license matters resolved through negotiated agreements or uncontested proceedings, this case produced a detailed evidentiary record spanning years of investigations, extensive police testimony, vigorous legal advocacy, and formal findings of fact.

Whether viewed as a necessary exercise of the City’s police powers or an aggressive use of municipal licensing authority, the proceedings established a comprehensive administrative record that is likely to shape any future judicial review.

For Franklin residents, Thursday’s decision marked not merely the revocation of licenses, but the conclusion of an extensive public hearing examining the responsibilities of licensed establishments, the role of law enforcement, and the authority of local government to protect public safety through its licensing powers.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

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