Joint-Review-Board-Meeting-Agenda-Packet-Final-Update-2-5-6-2026.pdf

Page 1 of 1 JOINT REVIEW BOARD CITY OF FRANKLIN TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICT NO. 10 May 6, 2026, at 4:00 PM Franklin City Hall, Council Chambers 9229 W Loomis Rd. 1. Call to order. 2. Roll call. 3. Appointment of Public Member 4. Approval of minutes, Organizational Meeting February 16, 2026. 5. Review the public record, planning documents and the resolutions passed by the Plan Commission and Common Council. 6. Consideration of “Resolution Approving the Creation of Tax Incremental District No. 10”. 7. Adjourn. Notice is given that a majority of the Common Council may attend this meeting to gather information about an Agenda item over which they have decision making responsibility. This may constitute a meeting of the Council per State ex rel. Badke v. Greendale Village Board, even though the Common Council will not take formal action at this meeting. Notice is given that upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information, please contact the Franklin City Clerk’s office at (414) 425-7500. NOTICE OF JOINT REVIEW BOARD MEETING CITY OF FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN Notice is Hereby Given that the City of Franklin will hold a Joint Review Board meeting on May 6, 2026, at 4:00 PM at the Franklin City Hall, Council Chambers, located at 9229 W Loomis Rd. The meeting is being held to appoint a Public Member, and to consider approval of the resolution adopted by the Franklin Common Council creating Tax Incremental District No. 10. The meeting is open to the public. By Order of the City of Franklin, Wisconsin Published April 29, 2026 City of Franklin Office of the Mayor John R. Nelson Celebrating Quality of Life 9229 West Loomis Road Franklin, Wisconsin 53132- 9630 phone (414) 425 -7500 franklinwi.gov April 30, 2026 City of Franklin Joint Review Board c/o City Development Department 9229 W Loomis Road Franklin, WI 53132 Dear Members of the Joint Review Board, I, Mayor John R. Nelson, do hereby recommend Mike Barber for the Public Member seat on the City of Franklin Joint Review Board. My prior nomination has informed me that she will be unable to fulfill the duties of this post. Mr. Barber currently serves with distinction on the City of Franklin Economic Development Commission and served as District 5 Alderman for 9 years. He served on the Board of Health, Volition Franklin Committee, Quarry Monitoring Committee, Economic Development Commission and Personnel Committee. Mr. Barber’s aldermanic district contains the proposed Tax Increment District No. 10, and he is very familiar with that area of the City, the TID-10 Project, as well as all Franklin issues. He has an MBA from Marquette University and has had highly successful careers at Harley Davidson and Milwaukee County. Mike is very qualified for the seat of Public Member on the City of Franklin Joint Review Board and will be an excellent Board Member. Sincerely, John R. Nelson, Mayor City of Franklin, Wisconsin From: volunteerfactsheet@franklinwi.info <volunteerfactsheet@franklinwi.info> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2026 11:43 AM To: Lisa Huening <LHuening@franklinwi.gov>; Shirley Roberts <SRoberts@franklinwi.gov>; Maggie Poplar <MPoplar@franklinwi.gov> Subject: Volunteer Fact Sheet Name: Steve Olson PhoneNumber: 4144259060 EmailAddress: solson@wi.rr.com YearsasResident: 38 Alderman: 1 ArchitecturalBoard: CivicCelebrations: CommunityDevelopmentAuthority: EconomicDevelopmentCommission: EnvironmentalCommission: FinanceCommittee: FairCommission: BoardofHealth: FirePoliceCommission: ParksCommission: LibraryBoard: PlanCommission: PersonnelCommittee: BoardofReview: BoardofPublicWorks: QuarryMonitoringCommittee: TechnologyCommission: TourismCommission: BoardofZoning: WasteFacilitiesMonitoringCommittee: BoardWaterCommissioners: CompanyNameJob1: City of Franklin CompanyAddressJob1: 9229 W. Loomis Rd. TelephoneJob1: 414-425-7500 StartDateandPositionJob1: 4/7/14 Mayor EndDateandPositionJob1: 4/18/23 Mayor CompanyNameJob2: City of Franklin AddressJob2: 9229 W. Loomis Rd. TelephoneJob2: 414-425-7500 StartDateandPositionJob2: 5/99 Alderman EndDateandPositionJob2: 4/13 Alderman CompanyNameJob3: City of Franklin AddressJob3: 9229 W. Loomis Rd. TelephoneJob3: 414-425-7500 StartDateandPositionJob3: 5/90 Chair, Economic Development Commission EndDateandPositionJob3: 4/14 Signature: Steve Olson Date: 4/19/26 Signature2: Steve Olson Date2: 4/19/26 Address: 8091 S. Meadowcreek Ct. PriorityListing: Joint Review Board - Citizen member WhyInterested: I have been involved in some way with TID's 1 through 8. I have negotiated project plans for TID's 3 through 8, defeased TID's 2 through 4. I'm versed in the financial reporting as well. DescriptionofDutiesJob1: All aspects of city management and development. DescriptionofDutiesJob2: Represent the interests and vision of the district and the community DescriptionofDutiesJob3: Provide volunteer efforts in developing the non-residential tax base. Instrumental in the Ticknor Report, Franklin First Report, 27th St. Corridor Plan, Crossroads Development Plan AdditionalExperience: See Current Results To the City of Franklin Joint Review Board, I am volunteering and nominating myself for the public member position on the Joint Review Board (JRB). I had no intention of doing this, but after reviewing the options and nominations on social media, I am extremely concerned that this will not be a neutral member without preconceived notions based on past affiliations. More concerning is past relationships and derogatory statements made by nominated individuals. It is extremely important that this position is held by a neutral and objective person with integrity and without political and personal influence. Below are my qualifications, which I believe make me the most appropriate and likely most experienced option for this position. • Resident of Franklin and owner of Franklin businesses for about 30 years. • Past President and current Board Member of Engage Franklin, which provides me with the motivation to ensure any decisions made by the JRB are in the best interest of tourism in Franklin. • I have spent a great deal of time reviewing TID documents, and in this case specifically TID 10. This review has included a thorough review of State Statutes as well as all of the various aspects of TID development in general. This review has been done objectively to ensure that decisions are made without political or personal influence. • My professional qualifications include being a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, Wisconsin Real Estate Broker and Wisconsin Dwelling Contractor Qualifier. All of these, and the related experience in development would be a benefit to the JRB. My reason for accepting my role with Engage Franklin was to ensure objectivity and integrity within the organization. This is the same reason that I am volunteering for the JRB position. I am completely independent and sincerely believe that my appointment to this position would avoid unnecessary conflict and political pressure on the Board and throughout the community. I simply want what is in the best interest of Franklin. If there is anything else you would need from me prior to Wednesday’s meeting, please let me know. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Darrel R. Malek, PE Starfire Electric, LLC, President Starfire, Inc., Chairman Starfire Properties, LLC, Sole Member Point After Pub and Grille, Managing Member »Integrity? . Professionalism? . Commitment? . Service. and. Pride‹ Volunteer Fact Sheet Name: Nicole J. Mathwig PhoneNumber: 414-377-1974 EmailAddress: mathwignj@gmail.com YearsasResident: 25 Alderman: 5 ArchitecturalBoard: CivicCelebrations: CommunityDevelopmentAuthority: EconomicDevelopmentCommission: EnvironmentalCommission: FinanceCommittee: FairCommission: BoardofHealth: FirePoliceCommission: ParksCommission: LibraryBoard: PlanCommission: PersonnelCommittee: BoardofReview: on BoardofPublicWorks: QuarryMonitoringCommittee: TechnologyCommission: TourismCommission: BoardofZoning: WasteFacilitiesMonitoringCommittee: BoardWaterCommissioners: CompanyNameJob1: TBD - Independent AI Study & Startup Concept Development) CompanyAddressJob1: Not applicable TelephoneJob1: Not applicable StartDateandPositionJob1: 2025 — Independent AI Learner / Early-Stage Startup Concept Development EndDateandPositionJob1: Not applicable CompanyNameJob2: University of Wisconsin–Parkside AddressJob2: 900 Wood Road Kenosha, WI 53144 TelephoneJob2: StartDateandPositionJob2: Spring 2022 / Neuroscience Lab Research Assistant EndDateandPositionJob2: May 2023 / Neuroscience Lab Self-Directed Research Lead CompanyNameJob3: University of Wisconsin–Waukesha AddressJob3: 1500 N. University Drive Waukesha, WI 53188 TelephoneJob3: StartDateandPositionJob3: Spring 2018/ Fall 2019 — Chemistry, Anatomy & Physiology Tutor EndDateandPositionJob3: Spring 2019 — Chemistry, Anatomy & Physiology Tutor Signature: Nicole J. Mathwig Date: 5/1/2026 Signature2: Nicole J Mathwig Date2: 5/1/2026 Address: 7321 Brunn Dr, Franklin WI, 53132 PriorityListing: JRB WhyInterested: The public-member seat should reflect an independent resident perspective. I am interested in serving on the Joint Review Board because I believe it benefits from someone who is not approaching TID review as a former elected official, but as a resident who has taken the time to study the issues carefully. Over the past several months, I have developed a focused understanding of Tax Incremental Districts and Tax Increment Financing, especially as they relate to Franklin’s current development decisions. I believe the public member should bring a true resident perspective that is independent from prior officeholding or City government experience. I would bring a prepared, independent, and evidence-based approach to the review process. My goal would be to ask thoughtful questions, review the record carefully, and help ensure that TID decisions are supported by clear facts, sound reasoning, and fiscal responsibility. DescriptionofDutiesJob1: Currently studying artificial intelligence, specifically data science, distributed computing, and startup development with the goal of building a platform that allows individuals to opt in and share unused computer processing power for AI workloads when their devices are idle. The concept would allow users to be compensated for contributing computational resources while helping create a decentralized network for AI processing. This work involves learning AI systems, technical infrastructure, platform design, user incentives, business planning, and the practical challenges of building a scalable technology product. It has strengthened my ability to analyze systems, learn technical material independently, organize complex ideas, and think about long-term impacts. DescriptionofDutiesJob2: Served as a student researcher in a neuroscience lab and then became self guided, where I designed behavioral research concepts and built custom experimental systems using programming, 3D printing, Arduino-based electronics, and AI/machine-learning concepts. I developed a human-adapted Skinner box with 3D printing and designed a behavioral study on deception using camera-based facial data analysis to establish behavioral baselines for deception. I also prepared university research ethics approval materials for my own experiments. This experience strengthened my ability to design structured methods, evaluate evidence, work through complex technical problems, and communicate research clearly. DescriptionofDutiesJob3: Served as a student/peer tutor in anatomy, physiology, and chemistry while enrolled at UW–Waukesha. Helped students work through complex science concepts, lab material, chemical principles, biological systems, and exam preparation. This role strengthened my ability to explain technical information clearly, identify where someone is struggling, and guide others through difficult material in a structured and understandable way. AdditionalExperience: I have reviewed TID project plans, agenda packets, blight materials, development assumptions, development agreements, public records, statutory requirements, and the role of the Joint Review Board in determining whether a proposed TID is financially and legally justified. I have also researched TIDs in other Wisconsin communities, including Greenfield, Cudahy, South Milwaukee, DeForest, Oak Creek, Wauwatosa, West Allis, Eau Claire, and others. This has allowed me to compare how different municipalities structure TID project plans, document blight findings, use development incentives, evaluate projected tax increment, and consider the long-term impact on overlapping taxing jurisdictions. I bring a combination that is unusual for this seat: a resident perspective, recent focused TID research, document-review skills, and the ability to analyze technical material without being part of City government. MINUTES JOINT REVIEW BOARD, CITY OF FRANKLIN CREATION OF TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICT NO. 10 February 16, 2026 1. The Joint Review Board (JRB) organizational meeting for the Proposed Tax Incremental District No. 10 creation in the City of Franklin was called to order at 6:00 p.m., on February 16, 2026, by the Chair of the JRB, John Regetz. The meeting was held in the Hearing Room at Franklin City Hall, 9229 West Loomis Road, Franklin, Wisconsin. On roll call, the following members were present: Chair John Regetz (City of Franklin), Celia Benton (Milwaukee County), Andy Chromy (Franklin School District) and Sally Smits (Public Member). Also attending were Todd Taves and Arianna Schmidt with Ehlers Public Finance Advisors, Joe Krivichi and Lance Dorn with SB Friedman Development Advisors, City Administration Director Kelly Hersh, Mayor Nelson, Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann, Finance Director Danielle Brown and City Attorney Jesse A. Wesolowski. 2. Motion by Benton, seconded by Chromy, to reappoint Sally Smits as the public member. Motion Carried. 3. Motion by Chromy, seconded by Benton, to reappoint Regetz as the Chairperson. Motion Carried. Some public attendees interrupted the meeting to ask for public comment. The Chair deemed no such addition to the agenda was appropriate as it was not included in the publicly advertised and posted agenda. The Chair called on the City Attorney who deemed the agenda had been properly advertised and posted. No motion was presented to amend the agenda and the meeting proceeded according to the agenda. 4. Chairman Regetz called upon Mr. Taves, who reviewed the responsibilities of the Joint Review Board. 5. Ms. Schmidt reviewed the project plan for the proposed creation of TID No. 10. Mr. Krivichi reviewed the Poth’s General Development Underwriting Analysis, contained in the Project Plan, which concluded that this Project would not be done without the financial assistance requested by the Developer. JRB members were provided an opportunity to ask questions. Board Member Benton asked if the Project conforms to City zoning and land use plans, which will be answered at the Plan Commission Hearing meeting. 6. Next Meeting Dates were reviewed by the Board. Motion by Chromy, second by Smits, to tentatively schedule the next meeting date for the Franklin Joint Review Board on March 25 at 4:00 p.m., at Franklin City Hall. Chairman Regetz will confirm JRB Members’ availability and finalize the meeting date. 7. Motion by Chromy, second by Benton, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried, meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.. May 6, 2026 PROJECT PLAN City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Incremental District No. 10 Poths General Redevelopment Site Prepared by: Ehlers N19W24400 Riverwood Drive, Suite 100 Waukesha, WI 53188 BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT’S WHAT WE DO. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 2 KEY DATES Organizational Joint Review Board Meeting Held: February 16, 2026 Public Hearing Held: February 19, 2026 Action by Plan Commission: February 19, 2026 Action by Common Council: April 8, 2026 Action by the Joint Review Board: May 6, 2026 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................3 Preliminary Map of Proposed District Boundary ............................................................................ 6 Map Showing Existing Uses and Conditions ..................................................................................... 7 Preliminary Parcel List and Analysis .................................................................................................... 9 Equalized Value Test .................................................................................................................................. 11 Statement Listing the Kind, Number and Location of All Proposed Public Works or Improvements Within the District ....................................................................................................... 12 Map Showing Proposed Improvements and Uses ........................................................................ 14 Detailed List of Estimated Project Costs .......................................................................................... 17 Economic Feasibility Study, Description of the Methods of Financing Estimated Project Costs and the Time When Related Costs or Monetary Obligations are to be Incurred ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Annexed Property ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Estimate of Property to Be Devoted to Retail Business ........................................................... 23 Proposed Changes of Zoning Ordinances, Master Plan, Map, Building Codes and City Ordinances .................................................................................................................................................... 23 Statement of the Proposed Method for the Relocation of any Persons to be Displaced ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24 How Creation of the Tax Incremental District Promotes the Orderly Development of the City ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 List of Estimated Non-Project Costs ................................................................................................. 25 Legal Opinion Advising Whether the Plan is Complete and Complies with Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(4)(f) ................................................................................................................................................. 26 Calculation of the Share of Projected Tax Increments Estimated to be Paid by the Owners of Property in the Overlying Taxing Jurisdictions ...................................................... 28 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 3 SECTION 1: Executive Summary DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT Tax Incremental District (“TID”) No. 10 (“District”) is a proposed Blighted Area District comprising approximately 30 acres located to the southeast of S. 76th Street and W Rawson Avenue. The District will be created to pay the cost of development incentives and other ongoing administrative costs related to redevelopment of the Orchard View Shopping Center and adjoining parcels (“Project”). The initial d evelopment will consist of a 292- unit market rate multifamily development to be constructed by Land by Label (“Developer”) named Poths General, honoring the legacy of the historic Poths General Store that previously stood on the site. Additionally, the Developer plans to build a new Dollar Tree store within the district, to replace the existing Dollar Tree building that will be demolished by the Developer as a part of the multifamily development. There is also opportunity for future commercial development in the District. In addition to the incremental property value that will be created, the City expects the Project to provide employment opportunities, increased income and sales tax collection, development of housing, increased commercial activity, and other benefits to the local economy resulting from the purchase of goods and services related to construction and operation of the Project. AUTHORITY The City is creating the District under the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 66.1105. ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST EXPENDITURES The City anticipates making total expenditures of approximately $1 5.7 million (“Project Costs”) to undertake the projects listed in this Project Plan (“Plan”). Project Costs include an estimated $15 million for development incentives, and $705,000 for ongoing administrative expenses. INCREMENTAL VALUATION The City projects that new land and improvements value of approximately $42 million will result from the Project. Creation of this additional value will be made possible by the Project Costs made within the District. A table detailing assumptions as to the development timing and associated values is included in the Economic Feasibility Study located within this Plan. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 4 EXPECTED TERMINATION OF DISTRICT Based on the Economic Feasibility Study located within Section 9 of this Plan, the City anticipates that the District will generate sufficient tax increment to pay all Project Costs within its allowable 27 year life. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As required by Wis. Stat. § 66.1105, and as documented in this Plan and the exhibits contained and referenced herein, the following findings are made: 1. That “but for” the creation of this District, the development projected to occur as detailed in this Plan: 1) would not occur; or 2) would not occur in the manner, at the values, or within the timeframe desired by the City. The City engaged SB Friedman Development Advisors to evaluate the Developer’s request for tax incremental financing assistance and to provide an opinion as to whether the Project requires it to procced. The following excerpt taken from the Friedman report summarizes the conclusions . The City has relied on this report to conclude that but for the receipt of the requested assistance, the Project will not proceed. (A full copy of the Friedman report is attached as Appendix A). 2. The economic benefits of the District, as measured by increased employment, business and personal income, and property value, are sufficient to compensate for the cost of the improvements. In making this determination, the City has considered the following benefits that will result from the Project: a. Creation of 292 housing units, providing housing for workers and families that will support the local economy. b. Redevelopment of a blighted site, providing new housing and commercial uses that will generate significantly more economic activity than present uses in the District. c. The short-term economic benefit in terms of employment and purchase of materials and services related to construction of the Project. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 5 d. The long -term economic benefit resulting from increased employment associated with uses to be established in the District. 3. The benefits of the proposal outweigh the anticipated tax increments to be paid by the owners of property in the overlying taxing jurisdictions. As required by Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(4)(i)4., a calculation of the share of projected tax increments estimated to be paid by the owners of property in the overlying taxing jurisdictions has been prepared and can be found in this Plan. However, because the Project would not occur without the use of tax incremental financing, these tax increments would not be paid but for creation of the District. Accordingly, the City finds that the benefits expected to be realized as set forth in this Plan outweigh the value of the tax increments to be invested in the Project. 4. Not less than 50% by area of the real property within the District is a blighted area as defined by Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(2)(ae)1. 5. Based on the foregoing finding, the District is designated as a blighted area district. 6. The Project Costs relate directly to the elimination of blight in the District, consistent with the purpose for which the District is created. 7. Improvements to be made in the District are likely to significantly enhance the value of substantially all of the other real property in the District. 8. The equalized value of taxable property in the District, plus the incremental value of all existing tax incremental districts within the City does not exceed 12% of the total equalized value of taxable property within the City. 9. The City estimates that less than 35% of the territory within the District will be devoted to retail business at the end of the District’s maximum expenditure period, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(5)(b). 10. There are no parcels to be included within the District that were annexed by the City within the preceding three-year period. 11. The Plan for the District is feasible and is in conformity with the Master Plan of the City. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 6 SECTION 2: Preliminary Map of Proposed District Boundary Map Found on Following Page. To the extent District boundaries include wetlands identified on a map prepared under Wis. Stat. § 23.32, the wetlands are excluded from the District. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 7 SECTION 3: Map Showing Existing Uses and Conditions Map Found on Following Page. Map Ref # Parcel Number 1 756 9993 021 2 756 9993 013 3 756 9993 005 4 756 9993 019 5 756 9993 018 6 756 9993 016 7 756 9993 012 Map Ref # Parcel Number 1 756 9993 021 2 756 9993 013 3 756 9993 005 4 756 9993 019 5 756 9993 018 6 756 9993 016 7 756 9993 012 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 8 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 9 SECTION 4: Preliminary Parcel List and Analysis N/A ROW Areas 0.41 1 756 9993 021 7178 S 76TH ST INITECH, LLC 10.10 10.10 2  756 9993 013 7401 W RAWSON FRANKLIN RAWSON, LLC 1.97 3 756 9993 005 7401 W RAWSON FRANKLIN RAWSON, LLC 1.83 4 756 9993 019 7295 W RAWSON FRANKLIN RAWSON, LLC 0.38 5  756 9993 018 7255 W RAWSON FRANKLIN RAWSON, LLC 1.31 6 756 9993 016 0 W RAWSON AVINITECH, LLC 3.59 3.59 7 756 9993 012 0 W RAWSON AVINITECH, LLC 10.71 10.71 TOTALS 30.31 24.40 Percentage of TID Area Designated as Blighted (at least 50%) 81% Percentage of TID Area Not Designated as Blighted 19% Total Area 100% Wetland Acreage Removed from District Boundaries 0.18 Blighted g Acres Map Reference Number Parcel Number Address Owner Acres Calculation of Estimated Base Value 1 Parcel Land Improvement T otal Land Improvement Total 756 9993 021 2,931,600 1,648,300 4,579,900 3,230,100 1,816,100 5,046,200  756 9993 013 138,500 7,700 146,200 152,600 8,500 161,100 756 9993 005 138,800 1,400 140,200 152,900 1,500 154,400 756 9993 019 86,300 0 86,300 95,100 0 95,100  756 9993 018 575,500 0 575,500 634,100 0 634,100 756 9993 016 598,200 0 598,200 659,100 0 659,100 756 9993 012 259,300 0 259,300 285,700 0 285,700 TOTALS 4,728,200 1,657,400 6,385,600 5,209,600 1,826,100 7,035,700 1) Estimated based on values as of January 1, 2025. Actual base value will be as of January 1, 2026. 2) Calculation based on aggregate assessment ratio of 90.76%. Assessed Value Equalized Value 2 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 10 Blighted Area: The District will be designated as a blighted area. Under the definition of blighted area found at Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(2)(ae), qualifying criteria includes : “An area, including a slum area, in which the structures, buildings or improvements, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of populatio n and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of these factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare”; or “An area which is predominantly open and which consists primarily of an abandoned highway corridor, as defined in § 66.1333(2m)(a), or that consists of land upon which buildings or structures have been demolished and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site improvements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community.” Specific blighting conditions include the following parcels: • The Orchard View Shopping Center, specifically the Poth’s General Site (see Map Reference #1). • 13 acres of vacant land, east of the shopping center (Map Reference #6 & #7). A total of 24.40 acres, or 81% of the District area, is blighted, meeting the requirement that at least 50% of the area be blighted. See Appendices B and C for the Blight Designation Narrative & Photos. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 11 SECTION 5: Equalized Value Test The following calculations demonstrate that the City expects to be in compliance with Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(4)(gm)4.c., which requires that the equalized value of the taxable property in the proposed District, plus the value increment of all existing tax incremental districts, does not exceed 12% of the total equalized value of taxable property within the City. The equalized value of the increment of existing tax incremental districts within the City, plus the base value of the proposed District, totals $374,704,700. This value is less than the maximum of $ 869,462,904 in equalized value that is permitted for the City. Calculation of City Equalized Value Limit City TID IN Equalized Value (Jan. 1, 2025) 7,245,524,200$ TID Valuation Limit @ 12% of Above Value 869,462,904$ Calculation of Value Subject to Limit Estimated Base Value of Territory to be Included in District 7,035,700$ Plus: Assumed change for Jan. 1, 2026 assessment -$ Incremental Value of Existing Districts (Jan. 1, 2025) 367,669,000$ Less: Value of Parcels Removed from District -$ Less: Value of Underlying TID Parcels -$ Total Value Subject to 12% Valuation Limit 374,704,700$ Total Percentage of TID IN Equalized Value 5.17% Residual Value Capacity of TID IN Equalized Value 494,758,204$ Valuation Test Compliance Calculation City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Increment District No. 10 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 12 SECTION 6: Statement Listing the Kind, Number and Location of All Proposed Public Works or Improvements Within the District Project Costs are any expenditure made, estimated to be made, or monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be incurred as outlined in this Plan. Project Costs will be diminished by any income, special assessments or other revenues, including user fees or charges, other than tax increments, received or reasonably expected to be received in connection with the implementation of the Plan. If Project Costs incurred benefit territory outside the District, a proportionate share of the cost is not a Project Cost. Costs identified in this Plan are preliminary estimates made prior to design considerations and are subject to change after planning, design and construction is completed. The following is a list of tax incremental financing eligible Project Costs that the City expects to make, or may need to make, in conjunction with the implementation of the District’s Plan. The map found in Section 7 of this Plan along with the Detailed L ist of Project Costs found in Section 8 provide additional information as to the kind, number and location of potential Project Costs. There are no public improvements in this Project Plan. Community Development Cash Grants (Development Incentives) The City may enter into agreements with property owners, lessees, or developers of land located within the District for sharing costs to encourage the desired kind of improvements and assure tax base is generated sufficient to recover Project Costs. No cash grants will be provided until the City executes a developer agreement with the recipient of the cash grant. Any payments of cash grants made by the City are eligible Project Costs. Miscellaneous Professional Service and Organizational Costs The costs of professional services rendered, and other costs incurred, in relation to the creation, administration and termination of the District, and the undertaking of the projects contained within this Plan, are eligible Project Costs. Professional ser vices include but are not limited to: architectural; environmental; planning; engineering; legal; audit; financial; and the costs of informing the public with respect to the creation of the District and the implementation of the Plan. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 13 Administrative Costs The City may charge the District as eligible Project Costs reasonable allocations of administrative costs, including, but not limited to, employee salaries. Costs allocated will bear a direct connection to the time spent by City employees relating to the implementation of the Plan. Financing Costs Interest expense, debt issuance expenses, redemption premiums, and any other fees and costs incurred in conjunction with obtaining financing for projects undertaken under this Plan are eligible Project Costs. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 14 SECTION 7: Map Showing Proposed Improvements and Uses Map Found on Following Page. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 15 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 16 Proposed Poth’s General Site Plan Map Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 17 SECTION 8: Detailed List of Estimated Project Costs The following list identifies the Project Costs that the City currently expects to incur in implementing the District’s Plan. All projects identified and related costs reflect the best estimates available as of the date of preparation of this Plan. All costs are preliminary estimates and may increase or decrease. Certain Project Costs listed may become unnecessary, and other Project Costs not currently identified may need to be made. (Section 6 details the general categories of eligible Project Costs). Changes in Project Cost totals or the types of Project Costs to be incurred will not require that this Plan be amended. This Plan is not meant to be a budget nor an appropriation of funds for specific Project Costs, but a framework within which to manage Project Costs. Project ID Project Name/Type Totals 1 Development Incentives Land By Label 15,000,000 15,000,000 2 Ongoing Planning & Administrative Costs 705,000 705,000 Total Projects 15,705,000 15,705,000 City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Increment District No. 10 Detailed List of Estimated Project Costs Est. Cost Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 18 SECTION 9: Economic Feasibility Study, Description of the Methods of Financing Estimated Project Costs and the Time When Related Costs or Monetary Obligations are to be Incurred This Section includes a forecast of the valuation increases expected within the District, the associated tax increment collections, a summary of how Project Costs would be financed, and a projected cash flow demonstrating that the District is economically feasible. Key Assumptions The Project Costs the City plans to make are expected to create $42 million in incremental value by 2054. Estimated valuations and timing for construction of the Project are included in Table 1. Assuming the City’s current equalized TID Interim tax rate of $ 16.50 per thousand of equalized value, declining at -0.5% annually, and no economic appreciation or depreciation, the Project would generate $17 million in incremental tax revenue over the 27 -year term of the District as shown in Table 2. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 19 Table 1 – Development Assumptions Actual Annual Total Units Total Value Total Value Estimated Value per 1 2026 146 23,068,000 (3,789,100) 19,278,900 2026 1 2 2027 146 23,068,000 23,068,000 2027 2 3 2028 0 0 2028 3 4 2029 0 0 2029 4 5 2030 0 0 2030 5 6 2031 0 0 2031 6 7 2032 0 0 2032 7 8 2033 0 0 2033 8 9 2034 0 0 2034 9 10 2035 0 0 2035 10 11 2036 0 0 2036 11 12 2037 0 0 2037 12 13 2038 0 0 2038 13 14 2039 0 0 2039 14 15 2040 0 0 2040 15 16 2041 0 0 2041 16 17 2042 0 0 2042 17 18 2043 0 0 2043 18 19 2044 0 0 2044 19 20 2045 0 0 2045 20 21 2046 0 0 2046 21 22 2047 0 0 2047 22 23 2048 0 0 2048 23 24 2049 0 0 2049 24 25 2050 0 0 2050 25 26 2051 0 0 2051 26 27 2052 0 0 2052 27 Totals 0 292 46,136,000 0 (3,789,100) 42,346,900 Notes: 1.) Developer plans to build 292 units, $158,00 AV per Unit, in 2026 and 2027 2.) No value assumed for Dollar General or other expected Commercial development. Construction Year Construction Year $158,000 City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Increment District No. 10 Development Assumptions Poths General - Apartments1 Net Out Base2 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 20 Table 2 – Tax Increment Projection Worksheet Type of District Base Value 7,035,700 District Creation Date Economic Change Factor 0.00% Valuation Date Jan 1, 2026 Apply to Base Value Max Life (Years) Base Tax Rate 16.50$ End of Expenditure Period 22 3/17/2048 Rate Adjustment Factor -0.50% Revenue Periods/Final Year 27 2054 Extension Eligibility/Years Yes 3 Eligible Recipient District Construction Year Value Added Valuation Year Economic Change Total Increment Revenue Year Tax Rate1 Tax Increment 1 2026 19,278,900 2027 0 19,278,900 2028 $16.42 316,588 2 2027 23,068,000 2028 0 42,346,900 2029 $16.34 691,922 3 2028 0 2029 0 42,346,900 2030 $16.26 688,462 4 2029 0 2030 0 42,346,900 2031 $16.18 685,020 5 2030 0 2031 0 42,346,900 2032 $16.10 681,595 6 2031 0 2032 0 42,346,900 2033 $16.02 678,187 7 2032 0 2033 0 42,346,900 2034 $15.93 674,796 8 2033 0 2034 0 42,346,900 2035 $15.86 671,422 9 2034 0 2035 0 42,346,900 2036 $15.78 668,065 10 2035 0 2036 0 42,346,900 2037 $15.70 664,724 11 2036 0 2037 0 42,346,900 2038 $15.62 661,401 12 2037 0 2038 0 42,346,900 2039 $15.54 658,094 13 2038 0 2039 0 42,346,900 2040 $15.46 654,803 14 2039 0 2040 0 42,346,900 2041 $15.39 651,529 15 2040 0 2041 0 42,346,900 2042 $15.31 648,272 16 2041 0 2042 0 42,346,900 2043 $15.23 645,030 17 2042 0 2043 0 42,346,900 2044 $15.16 641,805 18 2043 0 2044 0 42,346,900 2045 $15.08 638,596 19 2044 0 2045 0 42,346,900 2046 $15.00 635,403 20 2045 0 2046 0 42,346,900 2047 $14.93 632,226 21 2046 0 2047 0 42,346,900 2048 $14.86 629,065 22 2047 0 2048 0 42,346,900 2049 $14.78 625,920 23 2048 0 2049 0 42,346,900 2050 $14.71 622,790 24 2049 0 2050 0 42,346,900 2051 $14.63 619,676 25 2050 0 2051 0 42,346,900 2052 $14.56 616,578 26 2051 0 2052 0 42,346,900 2053 $14.49 613,495 27 2052 0 2053 0 42,346,900 2054 $14.41 610,427 Totals 42,346,900 0 Future Value of Increment 17,225,891 Notes: 1) Tax rate shown is actual 2025/2026 rate per DOR Form PC-202 (Tax Increment Collection Worksheet). Yes City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Increment District No. 10 Tax Increment Projection Worksheet Blighted Area March 17, 2026 27 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 21 Financing and Implementation The City expects to enter into a development agreement to provide the Developer with a pay-as-you go (“PAYGO”) developer incentive up to a cap of $15 million. The terms include annual PAYGO payments will be equal to 90% of the tax increment generated by the residential portion of the Project. Payments to the Developer are payable solely from and limited to the tax increment generated, subject to annual appropriation . I f the Project achieves financial returns above 17% IRR or 3.00x investor return multiple, the City would be entitled to 25% of excess proceeds, not to exceed $2.5 million. This summary is intended to provide a general explanation of the District plan of finance. Specific terms and conditions pertaining to development pr ojects will be detailed in related development agreements. Based on the Project Cost expenditures as included within the cash flow exhibit (Table 3), the District is projected to accumulate sufficient funds by the year 2054 to pay off all Project cost liabilities and obligations. The projected closure is based on the various assumptions noted in this Plan and will vary dependent on actual Project Costs incurred and the actual amount of tax increments collected. In particular, the Plan only considers the tax increment to be generated by the residential development. The City expects commercial development and redevelopment to occur within the District. P otential incremental value increases from that commercial development are not quantified but will increase tax increment collections that may permit an earlier closure of the District. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 22 Table 3 – Cash Flow MRO #1 Land by Label2 Year $14,868,802 Year 2026 0 0 0 0 0 2026 2027 0 0 0 0 0 2027 2028 316,588 316,588 181,429 115,000 296,429 20,159 20,159 14,687,373 2028 2029 691,922 691,922 519,230 115,000 634,230 57,692 77,851 14,168,143 2029 2030 688,462 688,462 516,116 115,000 631,116 57,346 135,197 13,652,027 2030 2031 685,020 685,020 603,018 15,000 618,018 67,002 202,199 13,049,009 2031 2032 681,595 681,595 599,935 15,000 614,935 66,659 268,859 12,449,074 2032 2033 678,187 678,187 596,868 15,000 611,868 66,319 335,177 11,852,206 2033 2034 674,796 674,796 593,816 15,000 608,816 65,980 401,157 11,258,390 2034 2035 671,422 671,422 590,780 15,000 605,780 65,642 466,799 10,667,610 2035 2036 668,065 668,065 587,758 15,000 602,758 65,306 532,106 10,079,852 2036 2037 664,724 664,724 584,752 15,000 599,752 64,972 597,078 9,495,100 2037 2038 661,401 661,401 581,761 15,000 596,761 64,640 661,718 8,913,339 2038 2039 658,094 658,094 578,784 15,000 593,784 64,309 726,027 8,334,555 2039 2040 654,803 654,803 575,823 15,000 590,823 63,980 790,008 7,758,732 2040 2041 651,529 651,529 572,876 15,000 587,876 63,653 853,661 7,185,855 2041 2042 648,272 648,272 569,945 15,000 584,945 63,327 916,988 6,615,911 2042 2043 645,030 645,030 567,027 15,000 582,027 63,003 979,991 6,048,883 2043 2044 641,805 641,805 564,125 15,000 579,125 62,681 1,042,671 5,484,759 2044 2045 638,596 638,596 561,237 15,000 576,237 62,360 1,105,031 4,923,522 2045 2046 635,403 635,403 558,363 15,000 573,363 62,040 1,167,071 4,365,159 2046 2047 632,226 632,226 555,504 15,000 570,504 61,723 1,228,794 3,809,656 2047 2048 629,065 629,065 552,659 15,000 567,659 61,407 1,290,201 3,256,997 2048 2049 625,920 625,920 549,828 15,000 564,828 61,092 1,351,292 2,707,170 2049 2050 622,790 622,790 547,011 15,000 562,011 60,779 1,412,072 2,160,159 2050 2051 619,676 619,676 544,209 15,000 559,209 60,468 1,472,539 1,615,950 2051 2052 616,578 616,578 541,420 15,000 556,420 60,158 1,532,697 1,074,530 2052 2053 613,495 613,495 538,645 15,000 553,645 59,849 1,592,546 535,885 2053 2054 610,427 610,427 535,885 15,000 550,885 59,543 1,652,089 (0) 2054 Totals 17,225,891 0 17,225,891 14,868,802 705,000 15,573,802 Totals Notes: 1.) Admin fees are per the City's proforma 2.) MRO is not to exceed $15 million per draft Development Agreement LEGEND: END OF EXP. PERIOD Total Expenditures Annual Cumulative PROJECTED CLOSURE YEAR Projected Revenues Total Revenues Balances Liabilities Outstanding City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Increment District No. 10 Cash Flow Projection Interest Earnings Tax Increments Ongoing Planning & Administration1 Projected Expenditures Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 23 SECTION 10: Annexed Property A tax incremental district cannot include annexed territory unless at least three years have elapsed since the annexation, or certain other requirements are met. None of the property within the proposed District boundary was annexed during the past three years. SECTION 11: Estimate of Property to Be Devoted to Retail Business Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(5)(b), the City estimates that less than 35% of the territory within the District will be devoted to retail business at the end of the District’s maximum expenditure period. SECTION 12: Proposed Changes of Zoning Ordinances, Master Plan, Map, Building Codes and City Ordinances Zoning Ordinances The proposed Plan is in general conformance with the City’s current zoning ordinances. Individual properties may require rezoning at the time of development. Master (Comprehensive) Plan and Map The proposed Plan is in general conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan identifying the area as appropriate for mixed use development. Building Codes and Ordinances Development within the District will be required to conform to State Building Codes and will be subject to the City's permitting and inspection procedures. The proposed Plan conforms to all relevant State and local ordinances, plans, and codes. No changes to the existing regulations are proposed or needed. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 24 SECTION 13: Statement of the Proposed Method for the Relocation of any Persons to be Displaced Should implementation of this Plan require relocation of individuals or business operations, relocations will be handled in compliance with Wis. Stat. Chapter 32 and Wis. Admin. Code ADM 92. SECTION 14: How Creation of the Tax Incremental District Promotes the Orderly Development of the City Creation of the District and the implementation of the projects in its Plan will promote the orderly development of the City by creating opportunities for mixed use development , rehabilitating and conserving property , eliminating blighted areas , providing necessary public infrastructure improvements , and providing appropriate financial incentives for private development projects . Through use of tax increment financing, the City can attract new investment that results in increased tax base. Development will occur in an orderly fashion in accordance with approved plans so that the Projects will be compatible with adjacent land uses. Development of new uses in the District will add to the tax base and will generate positive secondary impacts in the community such as a. Creation of 292 housing units, providing housing for workers and families that will support the local economy. b. Redevelopment of a blighted site, providing new housing and commercial uses that will generate significantly more economic activity than present uses in the District. c. Short-term economic benefits in terms of employment and purchase of materials and services related to construction of the Project. d. Long-term economic benefits resulting from increased employment associated with uses to be established in the District. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 25 SECTION 15: List of Estimated Non-Project Costs Non-project costs are public works projects which only partly benefit the District. Costs incurred that do not benefit the District may not be paid with tax increments. Examples of non-project costs are: • A public improvement made within the District that also benefits property outside the District. That portion of the total Project Costs allocable to properties outside of the District would be a non -project cost. • A public improvement made outside the District that only partially benefits property within the District. That portion of the total Project Costs allocable to properties outside of the District would be a non - project cost. • Projects undertaken within the District as part of the implementation of this Project Plan, the costs of which are paid fully or in part by impact fees, grants, special assessments, or revenues other than tax increments. No improvements to be made within the District will benefit property outside the District. Furthermore, there will be no improvements made outside the District that will only partially benefit the District. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 26 SECTION 16: Legal Opinion Advising Whether the Plan is Complete and Complies with Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(4)(f) Legal Opinion Found on Following Page. Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 27 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 28 SECTION 17: Calculation of the Share of Projected Tax Increments Estimated to be Paid by the Owners of Property in the Overlying Taxing Jurisdictions The following projection is provided to meet the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(4)(i)4. Revenue Year Milwaukee County Milwaukee County Metro City of Franklin Franklin School District Milwaukee Area Technical Total Revenue Year 2028 68,273 26,884 96,975 146,855 17,398 356,385 2028 2029 148,589 58,510 211,055 319,615 37,866 775,635 2029 2030 147,846 58,217 210,000 318,017 37,677 771,756 2030 2031 147,107 57,926 208,950 316,427 37,488 767,898 2031 2032 146,371 57,636 207,905 314,845 37,301 764,058 2032 2033 145,639 57,348 206,866 313,270 37,114 760,238 2033 2034 144,911 57,061 205,831 311,704 36,929 756,437 2034 2035 144,187 56,776 204,802 310,146 36,744 752,654 2035 2036 143,466 56,492 203,778 308,595 36,560 748,891 2036 2037 142,748 56,210 202,759 307,052 36,378 745,147 2037 2038 142,035 55,929 201,745 305,517 36,196 741,421 2038 2039 141,325 55,649 200,737 303,989 36,015 737,714 2039 2040 140,618 55,371 199,733 302,469 35,835 734,025 2040 2041 139,915 55,094 198,734 300,957 35,655 730,355 2041 2042 139,215 54,818 197,741 299,452 35,477 726,703 2042 2043 138,519 54,544 196,752 297,955 35,300 723,070 2043 2044 137, 827 54,272 195,768 296,465 35,123 719,455 2044 2045 137,137 54,000 194,789 294,983 34,948 715,857 2045 2046 136,452 53,730 193,815 293,508 34,773 712,278 2046 2047 135,769 53,462 192,846 292,040 34,599 708,717 2047 2048 135,091 53,194 191,882 290,580 34,426 705,173 2048 2049 134,415 52,928 190,923 289,127 34,254 701,647 2049 2050 133,743 52,664 189,968 287,681 34,083 698,139 2050 2051 133,074 52,400 189,018 286,243 33,912 694,648 2051 2052 132,409 52,138 188,073 284,812 33,743 691,175 2052 2053 131,747 51,878 187,133 283,388 33,574 687,719 2053 2054 131,088 51,618 186,197 281,971 33,406 684,280 2054 Totals 3,699,517 1,456,750 5,254,775 7,957,660 942,773 19,311,475 SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC 312 424 4250 70 W Madison St, Suite 3700 Chicago IL 60602 sbfriedman.com MEMO To: City of Franklin From: SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC Date: February 2, 2026 RE: Poth’s General Development Underwriting Analysis Project Background SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC (SB Friedman) was engaged by the City of Franklin ( “City”) to conduct a preliminary financial review of a proposed redevelopment of the Orchard View Shopping Center on 76th Street, south of Rawson Avenue (“Site”). The redevelopment of the Site includ es 292 residential units located within a three -story apartment building and eight (8) garden style buildings, and 4,100 square feet of retail space (“Project”), as shown in Figure 1. The Project is anticipated to cost $83.8M. The Project will be developed by Land by Label (“Developer”). Figure 1. Proposed Site Plan Source: Rinka, City of Franklin Throughout 2025, SB Friedman reviewed multiple iterations of the development pro forma and worked with the City and Developer to negotiate terms around the City’s participation in the Project. The term sheet, agreed to in principle on July 22, 2025, included the following (see Exhibit A for full terms): Appendix A Page 1 of 8 City of Franklin | Poth’s General Development Underwriting Analysis SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC 2 • The assistance would be provided through municipal revenue obligation (MRO) payments equaling 90% of the incremental property taxes generated by the Project over the 27-year lifetime of a proposed Tax Increment Financing District (“TID”) • The term sheet included a not-to-exceed amount of $17,200,000 which was later reduced to $15,000,000 (as of January 2, 2026). • The requested MRO payments would be contingent on the Project receiving an occupancy permit from the City and achieving certain occupancy thresholds (Exhibit A Section 1.a.i. and ii.). • Any cost savings determined after construction would be shared equally between the Developer and City. • If the Project achieves financial returns above 17% IRR or 3.00x investor return multiple, the City would be entitled to 25% of excess proceeds, not to exceed $2,500,000. This memo reflects an analysis conducted on an updated pro forma prepared by the Developer and submitted to SB Friedman on January 2nd, 2026. Relative to the assumptions reviewed during the term sheet negotiation period, the Project unit count has reduced from 311 to 292 and the commercial SF has increased from 2,800 to 4,100. These changes resulted in the development budget decreasing from $ 92.6 million to $ 83.8 million, in addition to other marginal changes throughout the Developer’s pro forma (e.g., more detailed construction cost estimates). The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate whether the Project, as presented in the Developer’s most recent pro forma, appears to need public financial assistance , at the levels agreed to in principle in July 2025, in order to generate sufficient returns to be financially feasible. This financial “but-for” test is analytical in nature and is meant to inform a larger policy discussion regarding whether the Project meets desired public objectives. Review Process SB Frieman’s review process utilizes an in -depth review of the Project , comparable projects within the surrounding market, and industry data to answer the following questions: 1. Review Project and Site Context a. Where is the project located? b. What is the development program and mix of land uses? 2. Evaluate Development Budget a. What are the project development costs? (land, construction costs, etc.) b. Are project costs in line with industry benchmarks? If not, why? 3. Evaluate Financing Assumptions a. How does the developer intend to finance the project (debt, equity, etc.)? b. Are financing assumptions in line with current market expectations? 4. Evaluate Operating Assumptions a. Are revenue (e.g., rents) and expense assumptions reasonable given target tenant profile, market context and industry benchmarks? 5. Calculate Project Financial Returns a. Is the project achieving a level of financial returns that would make attract sufficient debt and equity investment? 6. Identify Financial Gap a. Is there a demonstrable financial gap that requires public assistance to make the project viable? 7. Identify Drivers of Need for Assistance a. What project components are driving the financial gap? b. Do these drivers align with larger policy goals? Appendix A Page 2 of 8 City of Franklin | Poth’s General Development Underwriting Analysis SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC 3 Review of Developer’s Model Key takeaways from SB Friedman’s review of the Developer’s pro forma are outlined below. DEVELOPMENT HARD AND SOFT COSTS • The estimated total development costs (TDC) of the Project are $83.8 million. • The Developer estimates hard costs of approximately $ 212,481/unit, which is lower than the range of comparable projects reviewed by SB Friedman, including Land by Label’s recent project in West Allis. o The project is larger in both unit count and gross square footage than other similar projects reviewed, which likely contributes to the lower cost per unit and square footage. It should be noted that most recent iteration of the development pro forma inclu des detailed construction costs estimates from a construction bid dated 11/7/2025. • Soft and financing costs are expected to be 8.7% and 5.4% of TDC, respectively, or 14.4% of TDC in aggregate. This is within our benchmark range of 10-15% of TDC. • The Developer is including a developer fee of 4. 1% of TDC, net of acquisition costs, which is below our 5% benchmark. FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS • The Developer's permanent financing assumptions, including amortization (30 years), interest rate (5.51%), cap rate (5.75%), and debt coverage ratio (1.25), align with the current financing environment. OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS • Average rent is assumed to be $2. 03/SF at stabilization. This rent appears reasonable based on the rents at Velo Village and other comparable projects in Franklin and the surrounding municipalities. Additional details on rent by unit type can be seen below in Figure 2. • The unit sizes proposed in the Project are smaller than recent comparable projects. Smaller unit sizes contribute to the higher per SF rent values for the Project compared to the market, even for unit types with similar chunk rent. Only 3 -bedroom units are anticipated to achieve lower per square foot ren t and chunk rent than the comps. It appears that 3 -bedrooms units are not a common typology within th is new construction rental market, and the Project includes only 26 3-bedroom units. Figure 2. Effective Rent of Comparable Projects Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom Chunk Per SF Chunk Per SF Chunk Per SF Chunk Per SF Poth’s General $1,455 $2.51 $1,597 $2.18 $2,114 $1.89 $2,581 $1.89 Comp Average[1] $1,434 $2.20 $1,636 $2.03 $2,046 $1.75 $2,758 $1.94 [1] Comparable projects in nearby municipalities were used to supplement data for Studio and 3-Bedroom values Source: CoStar, Land by Label, SB Friedman • Stabilized expenses are assumed to be 18.9% of revenue, which is within range of our 20% benchmark. • The Developer is assuming 3% annual rent and expense escalation, which is at the high end of the range typically observed by SB Friedman in similar projects (2-3%). • The Developer assumes property taxes per square foot will be $2. 83/SF at stabilization. This value appears reasonable based on the value of comparable projects in Franklin and the assumed tax rate of 1 6.26 in 2028 as projected in our TIF projection model (tax rate provided by Staff). Appendix A Page 3 of 8 City of Franklin | Poth’s General Development Underwriting Analysis SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC 4 • The Developer is assuming $14/SF NNN in rent from the commercial component which appears conservative based on market data from CoStar ($17.50/SF) but may be appropriate given the location of the proposed 4,100 SF commercial space (set back from 76th Street, which limits visibility). FINANCIAL GAP WITHOUT ASSISTANCE • Without assistance, the Project is expected to achieve a leveraged internal rate of return (LIRR) of 8.42%, which is well below the required returns to make a project financially feasible in the current market. • The Developer has indicated that their equity investors typically require a return of at least 12% LIRR, which is below the 15% return commonly expected in the current market. • The gap between achievable returns without assistance and expected returns is primarily driven by the relationship between cost of construction and achievable rents within the market. • At this anticipated financial return, the developer would have a difficult time attracting the necessary investor equity required to complete the Project. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST • The Developer’s financial assistance request, as noted above, consists of MRO payments equaling 90% of the incremental property taxes generated by the Project over the 27-year lifetime of the proposed TID. • Based on SB Friedman’s projections, which were updated to reflect the change in the development program and tax rate , the Project is estimated to generate approximately $ 17.2 million in incremental property taxes over the 27-year life of the TID. This value is lower than projections completed in July 2025 due to the reduction in unit count from 311 to 292 and the 2026 Base Tax Rate changing from 17.71 to 16.504 per staff. • Key assumptions included in the projections are outlined below: o The projections assume the base value of the TID to be $3,789,100. o The added assessed value per unit is assumed to be approximately $158,000 (2025$), which is within range of Velo Village and other comparable projects in the surrounding market. o Based on discussions with the City, the projections assume 0% value appreciation and a -0.5% annual decline in tax rate over the lifetime of the TID. PROJECT FINANCIAL RETURNS WITH ASSISTANCE • With the requested financial assistance, the Project is expected to achieve a financial return of 11.56% LIRR. • While this is still below market-typical return expectations, the Developer indicated the Project can be financed and completed as proposed. FINANCIAL BUT-FOR TEST • Based on SB Friedman’s analysis of the Developer’s financial pro forma, we determined that the assumptions are reasonable based on comparable projects and current market conditions. • Without assistance, the Project would achieve returns substantially below expected market returns as stated by Land by Label and as observed by SB Friedman on other recent development projects in the region. • Therefore, it is our conclusion that this Project would not occur, as presented, but-for the financial assistance requested by the Developer. Appendix A Page 4 of 8 City of Franklin | Poth’s General Development Underwriting Analysis SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC 5 Limitations of our Engagement Our deliverables are based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from research of the market, knowledge of the industry, and meetings with the City and Developer during which we obtained certain information. The sources of information and bases of the estimates and assumptions are stated in the deliverable. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results achieved during the period covered by our analysis wi ll necessarily vary from those described in our report, and the variations may be material. The terms of this engagement are such that we have no obligation to revise analyses or the deliverables to reflect events or conditions that occur subsequent to the date of the deliverable. These events or conditions include, without limitation, economic growth trends, governmental actions, changes in state statute or city ordinance , additional competitive developments, interest rates, and other market factors. However, we will be available to discuss the necessity for revision in view of changes in the economic or market factors affecting the proposed project. Our deliverables are intended solely for your information, for purposes of reviewing a request for financial assistance, and do not constitute a recommendation to issue bonds or other securities. The deliverable should not be relied upon by any other person, firm or corporation, or for any other purposes. Neither the report nor its contents, nor any reference to our Firm, may be included or quoted in any offering circular or registration statement, appraisal, sale s brochure, prospectus, loan, or other agree ment or document intended for use in obtaining funds from individual investors without our prior written consent. We acknowledge that upon submission to the City of Franklin, the report may become a public document within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act. Nothing in these limitations is intended to block the disclosure of the documents under such Act. Appendix A Page 5 of 8 Letter of Intent for Tax Incremental Financing Poths General Redevelopment of Orchard View Shopping Center City of Franklin July 17, 2025 La nd By Label LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company (“LxL”) is currently working toward the redevelopment of the largely vacant and unsightly Orchard View Shopping Center (the “Redevelopment”) near the southeast corner of Rawson and 76 th Street in Franklin, Wisconsin (the “City”). The Redevelopment is planned as a dynamic mixed-use community featuring a wide range of use categories, including food and beverage purveyors, retail, luxury apartments . The project will be known as “Poths General” (“ Poths General ”). Poths General will require significant infrastructure, including traffic improvements, demolition and disposal of the blighted shopping center and streetscaping (the “ Infrastructure”) and is not financially feasible without the financial help of the City. Therefore, LxL and City agree to the following terms to facilitate Poths General, which terms are non -binding and remain subject to execution and approval of a mutually agreeable development agreement. 1. LX L Obligations a. LXL shall complete demolition on the existing shopping center by December 31, 2025 and commence construction on Poths General by April 1, 2026. b. LXL shall obtain certificates of occupancy for all of the residential units (the “Residential Property”) in Poths General by July 1, 2028 (“Occupancy Date”). c. LXL shall construct Poths General in accordance with City approved plans and specifications. d. LXL shall collaborate and cooperate with City on the creation of a tax incremental financing district for the Redevelopment. e. LXL shall obtain debt and/or cash and other equity in the aggregate amount of approximately $90,800,000 required to construct Poths General (the “ LXL Funds”) (subject to the City Funds, as defined herein). f. LXL will provide a reasonable construction completion guaranty. g. LXL shall commence formal marketing efforts on that certain commercial parcel adjacent to 76 th Street (the “Commercial Parcel”) within 60 days following the later of City’s approval of: (a) tax incremental financing for the project on the terms generally outlined herein and (b) City’s approval of all entitlements, permits and other approvals necessary for the development and construction of Poths General. LXL shall deliver to the City evidence reasonably demonstrating LXL’s marketing efforts for the Commercial Parcel. h. LXL shall use best efforts to develop the Com mercial Parcel at a minimum of 25,000 square feet of commercial building space; provided that, City approves such development intensity on the Commercial Parcel. Exhibit A Appendix A Page 6 of 8 i. LXL Shall grade & hydroseed the Commercial Parcel by May 1, 2026. j. If LXL or an affiliate has not commenced construction on the Commercial Parcel within three (3) years after completion of footings and foundations on the first residential building of Poth’s General, then the City shall have the right to acquire the Commercial Parcel for $1.00. Notwithstanding the foregoing, LXL shall have the right to repurchase the Commercial Parcel for $1.00 if it secures a buyer and/or tenant for the Commercial Parcel, o btains a building permit for the same, and the City has not previously sold and/or leased the Commercial Parcel to another party in an arms-length, third party transaction. 2. City Funds a. Municipal Revenue Obligation. To allow LXL to recoup a portion of LXL’s Funds expended for Poths General, including the public parks and infrastructure, the City shall provide a municipal revenue obligation (i.e. developer -financed TIF) (the “MRO”) on the following terms: i. The first MRO payment shall not occur until March 31 following the year a temporary occupancy permit has been issued for the Residential Property and every year after , at which time LXL shall receive percentage of remaining tax increment equal to percentage of occupancy as of January 1 of such year after payment of City Admin Costs (as defined below) (the “Reduced MRO Payment” ) until the Residential Property reaches 9 0% occupancy for a period of 3 months (the “Occupancy Threshold”). ii. Once the Residential Property reaches the Occupancy Threshold, LXL shall receive: (a) the difference between 90% of remaining tax increment after City Admin Costs and the Reduced MRO Payment, plus (b) 90% of remaining tax increment after City Admin Costs every year after. iii. Administration fees and City principal and interest, if any, on City interfund advances (the “City Admin Costs ”) shall not exceed $115,000 withheld from years 1, 2 and 3 and not exceed $15,000 per year for each subsequent payment. iv. MRO shall be capped at $17,200,000. The City shall have the right to prepay outstanding amounts due on the MRO subject to a mutually agreeable valuation method. b. Impact Fee Waiver: As part of the Redevelopment, LXL will install significant traffic improvements, if warranted. Accordingly, the City shall waive the transportation impact fee (of what would be collected by the City) up to/equal to the amount of construction costs of the warranted improvements; provided, however, that LXL shall be obligated to pay all other impact fees and connection fees. The foregoing impact fee credit does not apply to the development of the Commercial parcel. 3. Cost Savings. LXL and the City shall share equally in all cost savings (excluding therefrom Appendix A Page 7 of 8 construction interest reserves and reasonable capital improvement reserves), within 90 days following the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last residential unit in Poths General and LXL’s construction lender’s approval of the release of such funds. 4. Contingent Interest. The City shall have a contingent interest in Poths General, whereby the City shall be entitled to 25% of proceeds above the greater of a 17.00% IRR or 3. 00x multiple calculated on investor returns and equity; provided that, the aggregate amount of the contingent interest shall not exceed $2,500,000. We believe Poths General is a catalytic redevelopment opportunity representing best -in-class concept and design. The redevelopment of the blighted Orchard View Shopping Center will have a positive impact beyond its boundaries. I look forward to seeing our shared vision brought to life. AGREED TO IN PRINCIPLE AS OF THE ____ DAY OF JULY, 2025. _______________________________________ John Nelson City of Franklin Mayor _______________________________________ Ian B. Martin Land By Label LLC Managing Principal Appendix A Page 8 of 8 Orchard View Shopping Center Blight Designation Narrative & Photos Orchard View Shopping Center, located at 7154 S 76th Street, is a mostly vacant, deteriorated shopping center characterized by aging, dilapidated buildings with failing roofs, outdated mechanical systems, inadequate lighting and ventilation, and neglected site improvements that pose fire and safety hazards. The building has been repeatedly graffitied, and several long-vacant spaces have been used over the years for miscellaneous storage, requiring substantial clean-out before they can be safely accessed or reused. The parking lot is severely deteriorated with extensive potholes, crumbling pavement, and non-functioning parking lot lights, creating unsafe conditions and contributing to crime and vandalism. Many utility services to the buildings have been disconnected, rendering the spaces unusable for prospective tenants even when tenant interest exists. The approximately 13-acres of vacant land east of the shopping center has historically been used as an unregulated dump area for non-structural soil fill, resulting in uneven grades, unstable ground conditions, and pockets of subsurface debris that pose risks to public safety and future development. Former farm ponds on the property have been partially filled with gravel, rubble, and miscellaneous refuse, contributing to unsafe conditions. Furthermore, the absence of functional infrastructure substantially impairs the viability of the site. These combined factors create conditions detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and substantially impair the sound growth of the surrounding community. The enclosed photos depict the deteriorated state of the property. Appendix B Page 1 of 7 Appendix B Page 2 of 7 Appendix B Page 3 of 7 Appendix B Page 4 of 7 Appendix B Page 5 of 7 Appendix B Page 6 of 7 Appendix B Page 7 of 7 MEMORANDUM Via email delivery to jregetz@franklinwi.gov TO: John Regetz Director, Economic Development City of Franklin 9229 W Loomis Road Franklin, WI 53132 FROM: Ian B. Martin Land By Label 638 Milwaukee Street Delafield, WI 53018 DATE: February 17, 2026 RE: Blight Determination – 13-Acre Vacant Property at Poths General This memorandum documents the physical, environmental, and access-related constraints affecting the approximately 13-acre vacant property located at 76th and Rawson to be developed into Poths General (the “Property”) and explains why these conditions meet the criteria for blight. Although currently undeveloped, the Property is burdened by significant site abnormalities that impair its usability, pose potential public safety concerns, and require extraordinary mitigation costs to make the land suitable for any reasonable use. 1. Geological Conditions The Property has historically been used as an unregulated dump area for non-structural soil fill. As a result, the site exhibits highly uneven grades and unstable subsurface conditions that present risks to public safety and render the land infeasible for agricultural or conventional development uses. Geotechnical evaluations indicate that the existing soils lack the consistency and bearing capacity required to support structures or improvements without extensive remediation. Development of the Property requires substantial corrective measures, including: • Rammed aggregate piers to stabilize bearing soils: $535,000 Appendix C Page 1 of 2 • Over-excavation and significant soil improvements: $200,000 • Comprehensive geotechnical investigation (completed): $38,000 2. Wetlands The Property contains numerous wetlands dispersed throughout the site. The majority of these wetlands were determined by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to be artificial in origin, non-federally exempt, and non-jurisdictional. However, one remaining wetland is located in the northeast corner of the Property and must be preserved. This wetland occupies approximately 7,300 square feet and significantly constrains site layout and grading. In order to develop the Property while protecting the wetland, a substantial retaining wall is required. The retaining wall is anticipated to be approximately 290 linear feet and three to nine feet in height. The estimated cost of the required retaining wall is $100,000 and includes required railing/fencing. 3. Environmental Considerations The Property required extensive environmental due diligence due to historic dry-cleaning operations previously conducted on or near the site. Given the known risks associated with such uses, a detailed environmental investigation was necessary to evaluate potential contamination concerns. The cost of the environmental investigation totaled $8,500. 4. Restricted Site Access The Property is effectively landlocked. While it benefits from easement rights across an adjacent shopping center parcel and is located near existing dedicated right-of-way, there is no existing public road access capable of serving development. To provide legal, safe, and functional access, the construction of approximately 306 linear feet of new public roadway is required. The estimated cost of constructing this roadway is $198,300. Conclusion Taken together, the Property’s unstable geological conditions, extensive wetland constraints, environmental history, and lack of public access create extraordinary development challenges that substantially impair its use and unique costs totaling $1,081,800. These conditions are not typical of vacant land and require extensive remediation, engineering, and public infrastructure investment to overcome. Appendix C Page 2 of 2 1 MEMORANDUM Date: April 3, 2026 To: City of Franklin Common Council From: Economic Development Department, John Regetz, Director RE: Staff Report: Tax Increment Number 10 District Description Tax Incremental District Number 10 (“TID-10”) is a proposed Blighted Area District comprising of approximately 30 acres located to the southeast of South 76th Street and West Rawson Avenue (Attachment 1, Poths_General_Site_Plan_with_TID_10). The TID-10 will be created to pay the cost of development incentives and other ongoing administrative costs related to the redevelopment of the Orchard View Shopping Center and adjoining parcels (“Project”). The City anticipates making total expenditures of approximately $15.7 million, as detailed in the Project Plan and subject to the limitations and conditions described therein (“Project Costs”), to undertake the projects listed in the Project Plan. Project Costs include an estimated $15 million for development incentives and $705,000 for ongoing administrative expenses. Included in the Developer’s construction budget are funds needed for: (a) the demolition of the dilapidated shopping center, (b) the extension of necessary infrastructure, and (c) the preparation of the property for the future commercial development described herein. More financial data is included in the Project Plan , including projected tax increment revenue generation of approximately $17.2 million for TID-10 (Franklin, WI - TID 10 Project Plan 3.30.26, Pp 3, 20). The initial development will consist of a 292-unit market-rate multifamily development and a 4,100 square foot food and beverage retail building, to be constructed by Land by Label (“Developer”) , named Poths General, honoring the legacy of the historic Poths General Store that previously stood on the site. Additionally, the Developer plans to build a new Dollar Tree store within the district, to replace the existing Dollar Tree building, which the Developer will demolish as part of the multifamily developme nt. The existing Harry’s Ace Hardware will be preserved. There is also an opportunity for future commercial development in TID-10. Developer has indicated that it has advanced discussions with a medical user and coffee shop as part of the redevelopment. In addition to the incremental property value that will be created, the City expects the Project to provide employment opportunities, increased income and sales tax collection, development of housing, increased commercial activity, and other benefits to t he local economy resulting from the purchase of goods and services related to the construction and operation of the Project. (Franklin, WI - TID 10 Project Plan 3.30.26, Pg. 3) Economic Benefits The Project Plan and supporting analyses identify the following anticipated benefits of TID-10: It will clean up a blighted, high-traffic area of the City, create new housing opportunities in a market segment identified as in high demand based on regional development trends, and generate new commercial development opportunities. The Developer will construct and maintain streets and collect refuse, in addition to providing paying over $2 million in Impact Fees ( Attachment 2, 3.9.2026 Impact Fees ). The Project Plan projects approximately $42 million in incremental value by the end of TID -10’s life in 2054, generating over 2 $600,000 annually in property tax revenues thereafter. These projections are based on assumptions detailed in the Project Plan and supporting financial analyses and are subject to variation based on actual development timing, valuation, and market conditions. The development of Poths General will be conducted according to the c ommercial and multi-use Development Agreements approved at the January 6, 2026, Common Council meeting. Within four years from the date of the Development Agreements’ executions, $89.2 million development costs will have been invested in the C ity, 292 residential units will have been built, and development of a minimum of 29,000 square feet of commercial space is to have begun. N ew residents will begin to frequent stores, restaurants , and other businesses in their neighborhood, many of which are within walking distance. According to the latest Baker Tilly report , the region will have experienced a positive $93.4 million in economic impact from construction costs invested in the C ity ( Attachment 3, Poths General Impact Summary_3.27.26). If 40,000 square feet of commercial space is developed in TID-10 (including other developers’ projects), then the TIF district could generate $22.6 million in increment and close in 20 years, according to a projection from Ehlers Municipal Finance Consultants (Attachment 4, Franklin, WI - TID 10 Creation Sensitivity Analysis). When TID-10 is fully developed, City utilities will garner new commercial and residential customers, generating, conservatively, $125,000 in annual water and sanitary sewer revenues without any additional investment (Attachment 5, City of Franklin Will Serve Letter). Blight Determination TID No. 10 meets the basis for the legal definition finding of blight. A “blighted area” means “an area” that is “detrimental established pursuant to the public health, safety, morals or welfare.” Wis. 66.1105(ae)(1)(a). Blight determinations are a legislative decision, §§ 66.1105(2) and local governments are given wide discretion 66.1333, and such determination will not be overturned supported by judicial review unless the decision was “arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable.” Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(2)(ae)1.b. “An area which is predominantly open and which consists primarily of an abandoned highway corridor, as defined in s. 66.1333(2m)(a), …, or otherwise, that substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community.” (Attachment 6, T-10 BLIGHT REVIEW) Wis. Stat. § 66.1333 (2m)(b)3.(bm) Blighted property “means any property within a city, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence,… or any property which by reason of faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness,… deterioration of site or other improvements,… or any combination of such factors, … retards the provisions of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability…, or any property which is predominantly open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site improvements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community.” (Attachment 6, T-10 BLIGHT REVIEW) The conditions identified below are consistent with statutory criteria, including but not limited to impairment of sound growth, inadequate site conditions, and limitations on development due to physical and environmental constraints. 3 Applicable case law is found in Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 681 N.W.2 nd 110. The Wisconsin Legislature determined that a blighted area, as such area may be identified by local government, “constitutes an economic and social liability, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of cities, and retards the provision of housing accommodations.” Wis. Stat. 66.1331 and Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 681 N.W.2nd 110. The right of the Council to determine Blight is upheld in Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire , 2018 WI 63, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131, in which the Court found for the City. Applicable citations are attached in T-10 Blight Review, including 11¶ 33 … the plain language of the statute does not require that the local legislative body—here, the City Common Council—itemize the evidence in the record that supports its finding of blight. Additionally: ¶ 35 This interpretation is reinforced by the surrounding blight- elimination statutes in chapter 66. … § 66.1105(4)(gm)4.a. Thus, the blight -elimination provisions in chapter 66 are all similar in that none of them require a specified rationale or itemization of supporting evidence. 12¶ 37 The key language in each of these statutes is that the “area,” in its current state, “is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.” “Public safety, public health, [and] morality ... are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs,” Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954), and a “municipality's exercise of its police power has traditionally been accorded deference by reviewing courts. ” Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88, ¶ 46, 351 Wis. 2d 1, 838 N.W.2d 852. “It is to be remembered that we are dealing with one of the most essential powers of government, one that is the least limitable.” Id.18 Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, ¶¶ 34-37, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 26–29, 913 N.W.2d 131, 143– 45 Obsolescence, deterioration , and impairment of the sound growth of a City are the rationale for Blight Determination for the applicable properties in TID -10. The obsolescence of the Orchard View Mall is supported by facts, with over 50% vacancies since 2022, failing infrastructure (plumbing, ammonia cooling systems, and transformers ), and deteriorating site conditions. T he following documented conditions collectively result in significant development constraints and increased costs, which impair the site’s market feasibility without public assistance: “The Planning Department had received multiple complaints about potholes and deterioration of the shopping center parking lot. Assistant City Engineer Kaitly n Witkowiak and I visited the parking lot on July 3, 2025 (photos attached) and notified the property owner. The property owner acted promptly and patched potholes (photos attached) . Complaints were closed on July 14, 2025.” (Attachment 7, 7-3-25 Plng Dept Pothole Invstgn) Regulo Martinez-Montilva, Planning Manager, Dept. of Development. “Orchard View Shopping Center, located at 7154 S. 76th Street, is a mostly vacant, deteriorated shopping center characterized by aging, dilapidated buildings with failing roofs, outdated mechanical systems, inadequate lighting and ventilation, and neglected site improvements that pose fire and safety hazards. The building has been repeatedly graffiti-ed, and several long-vacant spaces have been used over the years for miscellaneous storage, requiring substantial clean- out before they can be safely accessed or reused. The parking lot is severely deteriorated with extensive potholes, crumbling pavement, and non-functioning parking lot lights, creating unsafe conditions and contributing to crime and vandalism. Many utility services 4 to the buildings have been disconnected, rendering the spaces unusable for prospective tenants even when tenant interest exists. These combined factors create conditions detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and substantially impair the sound growth of the surrounding community.” (Pg. 1, Orchard View Shopping Center Blight Designation 12.11.2025) Deterioration and impairment of the sound growth of a city are the rationale for a Blight Designation of the vacant land east of the Orchard View Mall . The site has not been used for agriculture since 1990. Two geotechnical studies were conducted on the vacant property and warned of development hazards, due to extensive, unpermitted, and unspecified fill on the site (Attachment 8, Poths General - Geotechnical Report – FINAL, Pp. 6-7 [10/31/25]; Attachment 9, Poths General Geotechnical Report PSI, Pg. 6). The report went on to cite additional and costly mitigation construction measures. The Developer conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment ( EA), which documented the site’s filling activity, garbage dumping, and suspected PCB and PCE contamination (Attachment 10, Phase I ESA Report - 7154 S. 76th Street - Final - 2-25-2026, Pp., 9, 11, 60, 1310). A Phase 2 EA was conducted due to concerns at the Mall for PCB and PCE contamination, which confirmed that contamination levels were below enforcement thresholds and do not require remediation in groundwater and soil (Attachment 11, Endpoint Phase II EA Report - 76th & Rawson - Final - Land By Label, P p 4-5). Protection of wetlands in the northeast corner of the P roject requires a $100,000 stormwater retaining wall ( Attachment 12, Poth's - CoF Natural Resource Protection Plan , Attachment 13, Storm Pond Retaining Wall Poths General Civil Plans , Franklin, WI - TID 10 Project Plan 3.30.26 - Appendix C, Pg. 2). Access to the vacant parcels is constrained, including a lack of common ownership and direct access to Rawson Avenue, which limits development feasibility without infrastructure improvements. The City made a similar finding of blight in connection with vacant land that became TID No. 7 to facilitate Velo Village Apartments. See Ehlers Project Plan dated May 17, 2019 ( Attachment 14, TIDNo7_Project_Plan_FINAL_6-18-2019, Pg 7). In that case, the land that became Velo Village Apartments was almost entirely vacant, except for a small, dilapidated barn. Police, Fire, and School Services Demands Proposed TID -10 lies within established Fire, Police , and Public-School service areas. Franklin Public Schools forecasts that approximately 14.6 new students will be added to the district, and that plenty of capacity for such students exists in all applicable schools ( Attachment 1 5, Franklin Public School Capacity.pdf). “The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed development and provided the following assessment: • The project will not require the addition of any specific equipment or fire apparatus. • The fire department impact fees generated by the proposed project cannot be used for additional firefighter/paramedics or vehicles. However, they may be used for fire stations and fire department facilities. This development is in Fire Station 1’s first-response area, where our building requires repairs and additional space. • Historically, residential properties , including single -family, condominiums, senior living and apartments are the highest utilizers of emergency medical and fire department services. When Poth’s General project was originally proposed, it was suggested that the fire department compare the response activity generated by the 5-building Velo Village apartment complex located on S. Ballpark Drive as a 5 projection of the demands Poth’s General project will likely impose on the fire department. Since 2023, the Velo Village complex has generated between 12 and 30 calls per year for fire and emergency medical services.” Chief James Mayer, Franklin, Fire Dept. (Fire Department Comments Orchard View Blighted Area 03.30.26) The Fire Department further confirms that no additional apparatus or specialized equipment is required to serve the development. The Police Department does not anticipate a significant increase in service demand associated with the TID- 10 P roject. This is the advantage of an infill/redevelopment project : it utilizes existing infrastructure to complete development in an area and will have Departmental services already existing for the area. TID-10 Project Assistance The City has approved a Development Agreement that establishes -a pay-as-you-go (“PAYGO”) developer incentive for the Developer, capped at $15 million. The tax increment (new assessed valuation) created by Developer’s new projects alone generates the new tax revenues that fund the PAYGO incentive. The terms include annual PAYGO payments equal to 90% of the tax increment generated by the multi-use (residential with 4,100 square feet commercial) portion of the Project. Payments to the Developer are payable solely from and limited to the tax incr ement generated, subject to annual appropriation. A Municipal Revenue Obligation (MRO) dedicates these increased tax revenues from the development projects to the PAYGO incentive. Accordingly, the City is not obligated to make payments to the Developer except for the tax increment generated within the district. If the Project achieves a financial return above 17% IRR or 3.00x investor return multiple, the City would be entitled to 25% of excess proceeds, not to exceed $2.5 million. The Developer must secure financing and investors, along with their own equity, to fund the project. The Developer builds the infrastructure and pays Impact Fees, except for a partial credit for building a traffic light on South 76th Street. The Developer pays the taxes that fund the PAYGO incentive. S.B. Friedman’s Underwriting Analysis states that “ this Project would not occur, as presented, but-for the financial assistance requested by the Developer.” (Franklin, WI - TID 10 Project Plan 3.30.26 - Appendix A, pg. 4). TID-10 is projected to accumulate sufficient funds by the year 2054 to pay off all Project cost liabilities and obligations (Franklin, WI - TID 10 Project Plan 3.30.26 P g. 22). The projected closure is based on the various assumptions noted in this Plan and will vary depending on actual Project Costs incurred and the actual amount of tax increments collected. In particular, the Plan considers only the tax increment generated by the residential development. The City expects commercial development and redevelopment to occur within the TID-10. Potential incremental value increases from commercial development are not included in the Project Plan as there are no currently proposed projects, but have been estimated in the attached Franklin, WI - TID 10 Creation Sensitivity Analysis, to examine the potential TID-10 life upon full development. That Sensitivity Analysis shows that TID 10 could be closed in roughly 20 years, 7 years sooner than the “base case” financial modeling. Market Conditions Recent development patterns and market analyses indicate that the current economic climate in S outheast Wisconsin requires incentives for multi -use projects , including commercial and housing, and even for 6 housing alone. Apartments are the most pursued developments in contemporary markets, in large part because of the broader positive impact on surrounding commercial uses. A review of recent TIF projects reveals the demand for apartment housing and investment. These examples are provided for illustrative purposes to demonstrate broader regional development trends and are not relied upon as determinative of this Project’s feasibility. • Mayfair Mall, Wauwatosa: 900 apartments; $57.9 million TIF incentive; $50 million developer investment. • Southridge Mall, Greendale, : 675 apartments, 20; 50,000 square feet of new retail space at Southridge’s Boston Store site; $10.3 million TIF; $16.7 million financing for the first phase. • The Corners of Brookfield: 40,000 square feet of retail; 278 luxury apartments . • Regency Mall, Racine: 280 apartments & 230,000 square feet remain as an enclosed mall; $39.6 million TIF. • Drexel Town Square, Oak Creek : 399 apartments; $8.4 million grant ; $6.5 million loan; $85 million developer ($100 million total).). New apartments will become vacant in the future only if the community’s population decreases or the property is neglected . Construction costs in the single-family home market will stave off changes in this market dynamic in the foreseeable future. Recent development trends indicate that mixed -use projects incorporating residential components are commonly utilized to support commercial viability and reduce development risk. Investors also desire to develop a customer base that coincides with the commercial properties to be developed. Older commercial retail and service centers are failing in the current market, and investors want to mitigate the risk of building them by developing them alongside apartment projects. Clarification Regarding Record The materials supporting this Project, including engineering, environmental, financial, and legal analyses, have been provided to the Common Council over a multi-year period. The issues summarized in this report reflect topics previously reviewed and documented within the project record. At this stage, the matter before the Council is whether to evaluate and act upon the established record. Conclusion Based on the information summarized above and the supporting documentation contained within the project record, the staff ha ve provided the analysis necessary for informed consideration of the proposed Tax Incremental District No. 10. The Project Plan, supporting studies, and departmental reviews collectively address the statutory requirements, site conditions, financial structure, and anticipated impacts associated with the proposed district. Accordingly, the matter before the Common Council is to evaluate the established record and determine whether to proceed with approval of TID-10 based on the information provided. 7 ATTACHMENTS 1 7 6 54 3 2 Orchard View Mall (existing) JORDAN CT BRUN N DR BE ACH W OOD CT 76TH ST RAWSON AVE Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial GIS Department www .franklinwi.gov This map shows the approximate relative location of property boundaries but was not prepared by a professional land surveyor. This map is provided for informational purposes only and may no t be sufficient or appropriate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. µ BFausel - 4/1/2026 I:\Projects\Planning\Poths_General_Project\Poths_General_Projec t.aprx Franklin Proposed TID 10 & Poth's General Project 0 50 100 150 20025 Feet ATTACHMENT 1 Building Units Park Fire Police Library Transportation Water & Stormwater Administrative Sewer Total A 69$ 115,000$ 27,000$ 31,000$ 20,000$ 40,000$ 235,000$ 4,000$ 21,000$ 493,000$ B 69$ 115,000$ 27,000$ 31,000$ 20,000$ 40,000$ 235,000$ 4,000$ 21,000$ 493,000$ C 23$ 38,000$ 9,000$ 10,500$ 6,700$ 13,200$ 78,000$ 1,500$ 7,200$ 164,100$ D 23$ 38,000$ 9,000$ 10,500$ 6,700$ 13,200$ 78,000$ 1,500$ 7,200$ 164,100$ E 23$ 38,000$ 9,000$ 10,500$ 6,700$ 13,200$ 78,000$ 1,500$ 7,200$ 164,100$ F 23$ 38,000$ 9,000$ 10,500$ 6,700$ 13,200$ 78,000$ 1,500$ 7,200$ 164,100$ G 23$ 38,000$ 9,000$ 10,500$ 6,700$ 13,200$ 78,000$ 1,500$ 7,200$ 164,100$ H 23$ 38,000$ 9,000$ 10,500$ 6,700$ 13,200$ 78,000$ 1,500$ 7,200$ 164,100$ I 23$ 38,000$ 9,000$ 10,500$ 6,700$ 13,200$ 78,000$ 1,500$ 7,200$ 164,100$ J 6$ 10,000$ 2,500$ 2,700$ 1,800$ 3,500$ 20,500$ 350$ 2,100$ 43,450$ K 6$ 10,000$ 2,500$ 2,700$ 1,800$ 3,500$ 20,500$ 350$ 2,100$ 43,450$ Clubhouse N/A 1,050$ 1,200$ N/A 1,475$ 10,000$ 60$ 780$ 14,565$ Com m 4K SF N/A -$ -$ N/A -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Comm 8100K SF N/A 1,650$ 2,000$ N/A 2,390$ 10,000$ 60$ 600$ 16,700$ Comm 15K SF N/A -$ -$ N/A -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12 Garages 3,584 SF N/A 750$ 850$ N/A 1,100$ 30,000$ 60$ N/A 32,760$ 1 Ga rage 1,536 SF N/A 350$ 400$ N/A 450$ -$ 60$ N/A 1,260$ -$ Total 516,000$ 125,800$ 145,350$ 90,500$ 184,815$ 1,107,000$ 19,440$ 97,980$ 2,286,885$ 2,102,070$ Cost Category Park Fire Police Library Transportation Water & Stormwater Administrative Sewer Total Site Utilities 1,426,500$ 637,665$ 2,064,165$ Site Concrete & Walks 150,000$ 150,000$ Traffic Signal 600,000$ 600,000$ Landscaping & Furnishings 65,000$ 65,000$ Total 215,000$ -$ -$ -$ 600,000$ 1,426,500$ -$ 637,665$ 2,879,165$ Impact Fee Credit 0\ -$ -$ -$ 184,815$ -$ -$ -$ 184,815$ Impact & Connection Fees for Poths General Project Costs By Category ATTACHMENT 2 Estimated Construction Impact Estimated Development Costs $89.2M Estima ed Economic Output Ov t e Constr ction Period $68.0M $13.2M $12.2M $93.4M DIRECT INDIRECT Summary of Estimated Economic Impacts ve t e Construe i Period Impact Direct Total Employment Labor Income Value Added Economic Output 304 $26,762,857 $35,836,285 $67,988,251 442 $35,716,505 $53,019,110 $93,358,577 For purposes of this analysis, the construction period is defined as April 2026 through December 2028, encompassing site demolition, infrastructure and sitework, vertical construction of residential buildings, and project completion. Co structi n Supply Chain Based on industry data for Milwaukee County, WI, an estimated 55% of the goods and services that construction of the facility will require can be provided within the region. INDUCED 442 TOTAL TEMPORARY JOBS FROM CONSTRUCTION TOTAL OUTPUT Data used in this report was provided by the developer and other third-party reports or sources such as IMPLAN and Lightcast economic modeling tools, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ATTACHMENT 3 Estimated Operational Impacts Ongoing operations are estimated to support 54 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions across property management and retail uses within the development. The following analysis summarizes the estimated annual economic impact generated by these direct jobs, along with projected resident and visitor activity. Estimated Annual Economic Output from Operations $1 O.2M $3.4M $1.3M $]4.9M TOTAL ANNUAL OUTPUTDIRECT INDIRECT INDUCED Summary of Estimated Annual Economic Impacts Employment Labor Income Value Added 54 77 $2,361.587 $6,1 63,198 $10,1 93,648 $3,817,585 $9,029.684 $1 4,928,822 • Economic Output 77 Operational Supply Chain Based on industry data for Milwaukee County, WI, an estimated 73% of the goods and services that site operations will require to operate can be provided within the region. TOTAL ANNUAL FTE JOBS FROM OPERATIONS C 6 Local Expenditures Based on typical spending r $ 1 + 118111b IV1 E M P L 0 Y E E S P E N D 1 N G patterns ployees, sociated rojected / $36.1 income $24.5M RESIDENT SPENDING $9.7M VISITOR SPENDING $36.1 M TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ville, NC 28078@ model. 2024 Data, using inputs provided by the user and IMPLAN Group LLC, IMPLAN System (data and software). 16905 Nor Dr., SuIte 120, andBaker TIlly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLB trading as Baker Tilly, are members of the global network of Baker Tilly Ltd., the mi of which are CPA fIrm that provides services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group. LP and itsindene legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a entities provide tax and ;ed CPA fIrms. © 2026 Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LPconsulting to their clients and are not IMPLAN Methodology The economic impact of the Project is calculated for the (1 ) construction activity, and (2) the operation of the Project. Baker Tilly applied IMPLAN (a computer-based economic input-output model) to estimate the total direct1, indirect and induced economic impacts of the Project. This includes job creation, economic output and household earnings (orcompensations to employees), and federal, state and local taxes. The direct economic activity ripples through the local and state economies supporting additional economic impacts in the form of indirect and induced effects including jobs, output and household income. The tables throughout the analysis show the economic impacts of the individual aspects of the Project. The impacts are considered “Direct, Indirect or Induced" and will be presented for "Employment, Labor Income, Value Added, and Output", which are defined as such: Direct effects from initial spending creates additional activity in the local economy. Indirect effects are the results of business-to-business transactions indirectly caused by the direct effects. Induced effects are the results of increased personal income caused by the direct and indirect effects. Employment consists of a count of jobs that include both full-time and part-time workers. Labor Income consists of wages and salaries, employer-provided benefits, and proprietors' income. Value Added represents the difference between the value of goods and the cost of materials or supplies that are used in producing them. Value added is defined as the gross receipts of a firm minus the cost of goods and services purchases from other firms. Value added includes wages, salaries, interest, depreciation, rent, taxes and profit. Output can be thought of as the value of goods and services sold in the economy or revenues for businesses in the economy. Tax Impact Tax Impact results are based on the collected and reported taxes within the region for the given data year. Taxes are also levied at different levels of government. In IMPLAN, the results are given at the following levels: State + Local, Federal, County, Sub County General, Sub County Special Districts, and State. Sub County General includes city and township governments. Sub County Special includes fire and public-school districts. Taxes are industry and geographically specific. However, the breakout by tax category (i.e. sales tax, income tax, etc.) is not industry specific, due to raw data limitations. Also, there is no way within IMPLAN to know the breakout of the components of each subset of tax (i.e. Sales Tax) into additional detail; the raw data does not have this level of detail. ' The defInition of "direct jobs" through IMPLAN used in this report should not be confused with the concept of "direct job" creation measurable by Forms 1-9, payroll records or other similar documentation. When economists use the tenn "direct" jobs in the context of an econometric methodology such as IMPLAN, what is meant are.jobs created directly by either expenditures or revenues. For example. if a building is constructed or renovated, the employees of the various unaffIliated tenants of that building would be considered “direct" jobs in the context of an econometric report. The tenants' employees are not "direct" employees of the project developer or LLC. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLB trading as Baker TIlly, are members of the global network of Baker Tilly Intemational Ltd„ the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA fIrm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to theIr clients and are not licensed CPA fIrms. © 2026 Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP Actual Annual Total Units Total Value Total Value Sq. Ft. Total Value Estimated Value per 1 2026 146 23,068,000 (3,789,100) 19,278,900 2026 1 2 2027 146 23,068,000 20,000 3,000,000 26,068,000 2027 2 3 2028 0 20,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2028 3 4 2029 0 0 2029 4 5 2030 0 0 2030 5 6 2031 0 0 2031 6 7 2032 0 0 2032 7 8 2033 0 0 2033 8 9 2034 0 0 2034 9 10 2035 0 0 2035 10 11 2036 0 0 2036 11 12 2037 0 0 2037 12 13 2038 0 0 2038 13 14 2039 0 0 2039 14 15 2040 0 0 2040 15 16 2041 0 0 2041 16 17 2042 0 0 2042 17 18 2043 0 0 2043 18 19 2044 0 0 2044 19 20 2045 0 0 2045 20 21 2046 0 0 2046 21 22 2047 0 0 2047 22 23 2048 0 0 2048 23 24 2049 0 0 2049 24 25 2050 0 0 2050 25 26 2051 0 0 2051 26 27 2052 0 0 2052 27 Totals 0 292 46,136,000 0 (3,789,100) 40,000 6,000,000 48,346,900 Notes: 1.) Developer plans to build 292 units, $158,00 AV per Unit, in 2026 and 2027 2.) No value assumed for Dollar General or other expected Commercial development. Construction Year Construction Year $158,000 $150 City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Increment District No. 10 Development Assumptions Poths General - Apartments1 Net Out Base2 Commercial Franklin, WI - TID 10 Creation_Sensitivity Analysis.xlsx Prepared 3/24/2026 ATTAATTACHMENT 4 Type of District Base Value 7,035,700 District Creation Date Economic Change Factor 1.00% Valuation Date Jan 1, 2026 Apply to Base Value x Max Life (Years) Base Tax Rate 16.50$ End of Expenditure Period 22 3/17/2048 Rate Adjustment Factor -0.50% Revenue Periods/Final Year 27 2054 Extension Eligibility/Years Yes 3 Eligible Recipient District Construction Year Value Added Valuation Year Economic Change Total Increment Revenue Year Tax Rate 1 Tax Increment 1 2026 19,278,900 2027 70,357 19,349,257 2028 $16.42 317,743 2 2027 26,068,000 2028 263,850 45,681,107 2029 $16.34 746,401 3 2028 3,000,000 2029 527,168 49,208,275 2030 $16.26 800,012 4 2029 0 2030 562,440 49,770,714 2031 $16.18 805,110 5 2030 0 2031 568,064 50,338,779 2032 $16.10 810,228 6 2031 0 2032 573,745 50,912,523 2033 $16.02 815,365 7 2032 0 2033 579,482 51,492,006 2034 $15.93 820,523 8 2033 0 2034 585,277 52,077,283 2035 $15.86 825,700 9 2034 0 2035 591,130 52,668,412 2036 $15.78 830,897 10 2035 0 2036 597,041 53,265,454 2037 $15.70 836,114 11 2036 0 2037 603,012 53,868,465 2038 $15.62 841,352 12 2037 0 2038 609,042 54,477,507 2039 $15.54 846,610 13 2038 0 2039 615,132 55,092,639 2040 $15.46 851,889 14 2039 0 2040 621,283 55,713,922 2041 $15.39 857,188 15 2040 0 2041 627,496 56,341,418 2042 $15.31 862,508 16 2041 0 2042 633,771 56,975,190 2043 $15.23 867,849 17 2042 0 2043 640,109 57,615,298 2044 $15.16 873,211 18 2043 0 2044 646,510 58,261,808 2045 $15.08 878,595 19 2044 0 2045 652,975 58,914,784 2046 $15.00 884,000 20 2045 0 2046 659,505 59,574,288 2047 $14.93 889,426 21 2046 0 2047 666,100 60,240,388 2048 $14.86 894,874 22 2047 0 2048 672,761 60,913,149 2049 $14.78 900,343 23 2048 0 2049 679,488 61,592,638 2050 $14.71 905,835 24 2049 0 2050 686,283 62,278,921 2051 $14.63 911,348 25 2050 0 2051 693,146 62,972,067 2052 $14.56 916,884 26 2051 0 2052 700,078 63,672,145 2053 $14.49 922,441 27 2052 0 2053 707,078 64,379,223 2054 $14.41 928,022 Totals 48,346,900 16,032,323 Future Value of Increment 22,640,467 Notes: 1) Tax rate shown is actual 2025/2026 rate per DOR Form PC-202 (Tax Increment Collection Worksheet). Yes City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Increment District No. 10 Tax Increment Projection Worksheet Blighted Area March 17, 2026 27 Franklin, WI - TID 10 Creation_Sensitivity Analysis.xlsx Prepared 3/24/2026 MRO #1 Land by Label2 Year $15,000,000 Year 2026 0 0 0 0 0 2026 2027 0 0 0 0 0 2027 2028 317,743 317,743 182,469 115,000 297,469 20,274 20,274 14,817,531 2028 2029 746,401 746,401 524,144 115,000 639,144 107,256 127,531 14,293,387 2029 2030 800,012 800,012 528,281 115,000 643,281 156,732 284,262 13,765,106 2030 2031 805,110 805,110 622,432 15,000 637,432 167,678 451,941 13,142,674 2031 2032 810,228 810,228 626,599 15,000 641,599 168,629 620,569 12,516,075 2032 2033 815,365 815,365 630,782 15,000 645,782 169,584 790,153 11,885,293 2033 2034 820,523 820,523 634,980 15,000 649,980 170,543 960,696 11,250,313 2034 2035 825,700 825,700 639,194 15,000 654,194 171,506 1,132,202 10,611,119 2035 2036 830,897 830,897 643,424 15,000 658,424 172,473 1,304,675 9,967,695 2036 2037 836,114 836,114 647,670 15,000 662,670 173,445 1,478,119 9,320,026 2037 2038 841,352 841,352 651,931 15,000 666,931 174,421 1,652,540 8,668,094 2038 2039 846,610 846,610 656,209 15,000 671,209 175,401 1,827,941 8,011,885 2039 2040 851,889 851,889 660,503 15,000 675,503 176,385 2,004,326 7,351,382 2040 2041 857,188 857,188 664,814 15,000 679,814 177,374 2,181,700 6,686,568 2041 2042 862,508 862,508 669,141 15,000 684,141 178,367 2,360,067 6,017,427 2042 2043 867,849 867,849 673,485 15,000 688,485 179,365 2,539,432 5,343,942 2043 2044 873,211 873,211 677,845 15,000 692,845 180,367 2,719,799 4,666,097 2044 2045 878,595 878,595 682,222 15,000 697,222 181,373 2,901,172 3,983,876 2045 2046 884,000 884,000 686,616 15,000 701,616 182,384 3,083,555 3,297,260 2046 2047 889,426 889,426 3,297,260 15,000 3,312,260 (2,422,834) 660,721 0 2047 2048 894,874 894,874 0 894,874 1,555,595 0 2048 2049 900,343 900,343 0 900,343 2,455,938 0 2049 2050 905,835 905,835 0 905,835 3,361,773 0 2050 2051 911,348 911,348 0 911,348 4,273,121 0 2051 2052 916,884 916,884 0 916,884 5,190,004 0 2052 2053 922,441 922,441 0 922,441 6,112,446 0 2053 2054 928,022 928,022 0 928,022 7,040,467 0 2054 Totals 22,640,467 0 22,640,467 15,000,000 600,000 15,600,000 Totals Notes: 1.) Admin fees are per the City's proforma 2.) MRO is not to exceed $15 million per draft Development Agreement LEGEND: END OF EXP. PERIOD City of Franklin, Wisconsin Tax Increment District No. 10 Cash Flow Projection Interest Earnings Tax Increments Ongoing Planning & Administration1 Projected Expenditures Liabilities Outstanding PROJECTED CLOSURE YEAR Projected Revenues Total Revenues Balances Total Expenditures Annual Cumulative Franklin, WI - TID 10 Creation_Sensitivity Analysis.xlsx Prepared 3/24/2026 ATTACHMENT 5 T10 BLIGHT REVIEW Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(2) Definitions *** (ae)1. “Blighted area” means any of the following: a. An area, including a slum area, in which the structures, buildings or improvements, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of these factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. b. An area which is predominantly open and which consists primarily of an abandoned highway corridor, as defined in s. 66.1333(2m)(a), or that consists of land upon which buildings or structures have been demolished and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site improvements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community. 2. “Blighted area” does not include predominantly open land area that has been developed only for agricultural purposes. Vot ers with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131: On review, we consider two issues. First, we consider whether dismissal of Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claims was proper. We conclude that it was, because Plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted: the first and second counts fail because the City Common Council's findings of blight and the JRB's “but for” assertions are legislative determinations that do not present justiciable issues of fact or law; Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, ¶ 4, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 10, 913 N.W.2d 131, 136 ¶ 32 “[S]tatutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute. ” State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. Here, the statute states, in relevant part, as follows: In order to implement the provisions of this section, the following steps and plans are required: ... Adoption by the local legislative body of a resolution which ... [c]ontains findings that ... [n]ot less than 50%, by area, of the real property within the district is at least one of the following: a blighted area.... Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(4)(gm)4.a. “All words and phrases shall be construed according to common and approved usage; but technical words and phrases and others that have a peculiar meaning in ATTACHMENT 6 the law shall be construed according to such meaning. ” Wis. Stat. § 990.01(1); see also Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶ 45, 681 N.W.2d 110; Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 69-77 (2012) (“Ordinary-Meaning Canon”). 11¶ 33 “Findings” is not a defined term in the statute. The word “findings” is also not defined in Black's Law Dictionary, which instead refers the reader to the following entry for “finding of fact”: “A determination by a judge, jury, or administrative agency of a fact supported by the evidence in the record.... ” Finding of fact, Black's Law Dictionary *26 749 (10th ed. 2014). Given this ordinary meaning of “findings” , the plain language of the statute does not require that the local legislative body—here, the City Common Council—itemize the evidence in the record that supports its finding of blight. Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, ¶¶ 32-33, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 25–26, 913 N.W.2d 131, 143 ¶ 34 This plain language interpretation is supported by the context of surrounding and closely- related statutes. See Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶ 46, 681 N.W.2d 110 (“[S]tatutory language is interpreted in the context **144 in which it is used; ... in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes. ”). In a closely-related statute, the legislature has demonstrated that it is fully capable of specifying when findings of blight must be explained by itemized evidence. See Wis. Stat. § 32.03(6)(c)4. Chapter 32 governs the acquisition of condemned property vis-à-vis eminent domain, including municipal acquisition of blighted properties under chapter 66. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 66.1331(4)(a)3., (4)(b); Wis. Stat. § 66.1333(5)(a)3., (5)(b)1. Section 32.03(6) limits this method of acquiring blighted properties by requiring that “the condemnor shall make written findings and provide a copy of the findings to the owner of the property. The findings shall include ... [a] finding that the owner's property is blighted and the reasons for that finding. ” § 32.03(6)(c)4. (emphasis added). Thus, the legislature is fully capable of specifying when the reasons underlying a finding of blight must be given, and we should not read into Wis. Stat. § 66.1105(4)(gm)4.a. such a requirement where it is not specified. See Scalia & Garner, supra ¶32 at 93 (“Nothing is to be added to what the text states or reasonably implies. ”). ¶ 35 This interpretation is reinforced by the surrounding blight-elimination statutes in chapter 66. For example, Wis. Stat. § 66.1331, commonly known as *27 the “Blighted Area Law, ” requires only “the adoption of a resolution by the local legislative body declaring the area to be a blighted area in need of redevelopment. ” § 66.1331(5)(b)1. Similarly, Wis. Stat. § 66.1333, commonly known as the “Blight Elimination and Slum Clearance Act, ” requires only “the adoption by the local legislative body of a resolution declaring in substance that there exists within the city a need for blight elimination, slum clearance and urban renewal programs and projects. ” § 66.1333(3)(a)2.17 Here, Wis. Stat. § 66.1105, commonly known as the “Tax Increment L a w,” requires only the “[a]doption by the local legislative body of a resolution which ... [c]ontains findings that ... [n]ot less than 50%, by area, of the real property within the district is ... a blighted area. ” § 66.1105(4)(gm)4.a. Thus, the blight-elimination provisions in chapter 66 are all similar in that none of them require a specified rationale or itemization of supporting evidence. ¶ 36 Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, this interpretation is reasonable because findings of blight are legislative determinations that “do[ ] not raise justiciable issues of fact or law. ” *28 Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State Appeal Bd., 56 Wis. 2d 790, 794, 203 N.W.2d 1 (1973). In Wis. Stat. § 66.1105, “blighted area” means: An area, including a slum area, in which the structures, buildings or improvements, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of **145 these factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. § 66.1105(2)(ae)1.a. And this is substantially similar to the definition of “blighted area” in all of the blight-elimination statutes: “Blighted area” means any area, including a slum area, in which a majority of the structures are residential or in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, and which, by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of these factors, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency and crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safely, morals or welfare. Wis. Stat. § 66.1331(3)(a). “Blighted area” means ... [a]n area, including a slum area, in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, *29 age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Wis. Stat. § 66.1333(2m)(b)1. 12¶ 37 The key language in each of these statutes is that the “area, ” in its current state, “is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. ” “Public safety, public health, [and] morality ... are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs, ” Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954), and a “municipality's exercise of its police power has traditionally been accorded deference by reviewing courts.” Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88, ¶ 46, 351 Wis. 2d 1, 838 N.W.2d 852. “It is to be remembered that we are dealing with one of the most essential powers of government, one that is the least limitable. ” Id.18 Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, ¶¶ 34-37, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 26–29, 913 N.W.2d 131, 143–45 Tax Incremental District No. 10 Project Plan City of Franklin Prepared by Ehlers Page | 10 Blighted Area: The District will be designated as a blighted area. Under the definition of blighted area found at Wi s. Stat. § 66.1105(2)(ae), qualifying criteria includes: “An area, including a slum area, in which the structur es, buildings or improvements, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population an d overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which enda nger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of these factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare”; or “An area which is predominantly open and which consists primarily of an abandoned highway co rridor, as defined in § 66.1333(2m)(a), or that consists of land upon which buildings or structures have been demolished and which because of obsolete platti ng, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site i mprovements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community.” Specific blighting conditions include the following parcels: x The Orchard View Shopping Center, sp ecifically the Poth ’s General Site (see Map Reference #1). x 13 acres of vacant land, east of the shopping center (Map Reference #6 & #7). A total of 24.40 acres, or 81% of the District area, is blighted, meeting the requirement that at least 50% of the area be blighted. See Appendices B and C for the Blight Designation Narrative & Photos. “An area which is predominantly open and which consists primaril y of an abandoned highwa y corridor, as defined in § 66.1333(2m)(a), or that consists of land upon which buildings or structures have been demolished an d which because o f obsolete platting, diversity o f ownership, deterioration of structures or of site i mprovements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community.” WISCONSIN STATE STATUTE Wisconsin Legislature: 66.1333 66.1333 Blight elimination and slum clearance. (1) Short title. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Blight Elimination and Slum Clearance Act” . (2) Findings. In addition to the findings and declarations made in ss. 66.1331 (2) and 66.1337, it is found and declared that the existence of substandard, deteriorated, slum and blighted areas and blighted properties is a matter of statewide concern. It is the policy of this state to protect and promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the state in which these areas and blighted properties exist by the elimination and prevention of these areas and blighted properties through the utilization of all means appropriate for that purpose, thereby encouraging well-planned, integrated, stable, safe and healthful neighborhoods, the provision of healthful homes, a decent living environment and adequate places for employment of the people of this state and its communities in these areas and blighted properties. The purposes of this section are to provide for the elimination and prevention of substandard, deteriorated, slum and blighted areas and blighted properties through redevelopment and other activities by state-created agencies and the utilization of all other available public and private agencies and resources. State agencies are necessary in order to carry out in the most effective and efficient manner the state’s policy and declared purposes for the prevention and elimination of substandard, deteriorated, slum and blighted areas and blighted properties. State agencies shall be available in all the cities in the state to be known as the redevelopment authorities of the particular cities and carry out and effectuate the provisions of this section when the local legislative bodies of the cities determine there is a need for them to carry out within their cities the powers and purposes of this section. Assistance which may be given by cities or any other public bodies under this section is a public use and purpose for which public money may be expended. The necessity in the public interest for the provisions of this section is declared a matter of legislative determination. Nothing in this subsection contravenes, repeals or rescinds the finding or declaration of necessity before the recreation of this subsection on June 1, 1958. (2m) Definitions. In this section, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (a) “Abandoned highway corridor” means land in any city designated by the department of transportation for use as part of an expressway or a freeway, which is no longer designated by the department for that purpose. (am) “Arts incubator” has the meaning given in s. 41.60 (1) (a). (ar) “Authority” means a redevelopment authority. (b) “Blighted area” means any of the following: 1. An area, including a slum area, in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. 2. An area which by reason of the presence of a substantial number of substandard, slum, deteriorated or deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a city, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use. 3. An area which is predominantly open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site improvements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community. (bm) “Blighted property” means any property within a city, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provisions for ventilation, light, air or sanitation, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare, or any property which by reason of faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair market value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a city, retards the provisions of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare in its present condition and use, or any property which is predominantly open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site improvements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community. (c) “Blight elimination, slum clearance and urban renewal program, ” “blight elimination and urban renewal program, ” “redevelopment, slum clearance or urban renewal program, ” “redevelopment or urban renewal program, ” and “redevelopment program, ” mean undertakings and activities for the elimination and for the prevention of the development or spread of blighted areas. (d) “Blight elimination, slum clearance and urban renewal project, ” “redevelopment and urban renewal project, ” “redevelopment or urban renewal project, ” “redevelopment project, ” “urban renewal project, ” and “project” mean undertakings and activities in a project area for the elimination and for the prevention of the development or spread of slums and blight, and may involve clearance and redevelopment in a project area, or rehabilitation or conservation in a project area, or any combination or part of the undertakings and activities in accordance with a “redevelopment plan, ” “urban renewal plan, ” “redevelopment or urban renewal plan, ” “project area plan, ” or “redevelopment and urban renewal plan, ” either one of which means the redevelopment plan of the project area prepared and approved as provided in sub. (6). These undertakings and activities include all of the following: 1. Acquisition of all or a portion of a blighted area. 2. Demolition and removal of buildings and improvements. 3. Installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds, and other improvements necessary for carrying out in the project area the objectives of this section in accordance with the redevelopment plan. 4. Disposition of any property acquired in the project area, including sale, initial leasing or retention by the authority itself, at its fair value for uses in accordance with the redevelopment plan. 5. Carrying out plans for a program of voluntary or compulsory repair and rehabilitation of buildings or other improvements in accordance with the redevelopment plan. 6. Acquisition of any other real property in the project area where necessary to eliminate unhealthful, insanitary or unsafe conditions, lessen density, eliminate obsolete or other uses detrimental to the public welfare, or otherwise to remove or prevent the spread of blight or deterioration, or to provide land for needed public facilities. 7. Studying the feasibility of and initial design for an arts incubator, developing and operating an arts incubator, and applying for a grant or loan under s. 41.60 in connection with an arts incubator. 8. Studying the feasibility of an initial design for a technology-based incubator and developing and operating a technology-based incubator. (e) “Bonds” means any bonds, including refunding bonds; notes; interim certificates; certificates of indebtedness; debentures; or other obligations. (g) “Local legislative body” means the board of alderpersons, common council, council, commission or other board or body vested by the charter of the city or other law with jurisdiction to enact ordinances or local laws. (h) “Project area” means a blighted area which the local legislative body declares to be in need of a blight elimination, slum clearance and urban renewal project. (i) “Public body” means the state or any city, county, town, village, town board, commission, authority, district, or any other subdivision or public body of the state. (j) “Real property” includes all lands, together with improvements and fixtures, and property of any nature appurtenant to the lands, or used in connection with the lands, and every estate, interest, right and use, legal or equitable, in the lands, including terms for years and liens by way of judgment, mortgage or otherwise. (t) “Technology-based incubator” means a facility that provides a new or expanding technically-oriented business with all of the following: 1. Office and laboratory space. 2. Shared clerical and other support service. 3. Managerial and technical assistance. PLANNING DEPARTMENT POTHOLES INVESTIGATION PHOTOS ORCHARD VIEW SHOPPING CENTER JULY 3, 2025 ATTACHMENT 7 2135 South 116th Street West Allis, WI 53227 6 Date B-12 B-15 B-21 B-24 Depth Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Elevation 9/18/25 6.7 754.3 9.5 751.5 10.7 752.3 8.6 755.4 9/25/25 6.7 754.3 8.9 752.1 10.9 752.1 8.4 755.6 10/3/25 6.7 754.3 8.7 752.3 11.5 751.5 7.7 755.3 10/9/25 6.7 754.3 10.8 750.2 12.0 751.0 8.0 755.0 Note: All depths are in feet from the ground surface and elevations are in feet. Fluctuations in the groundwater table elevation should be expected with variations in precipitation, evapotranspiration, surface runoff, etc. Also, shallow perched groundwater conditions should be expected where relatively permeable coarse-grained soils are underlain by relatively impermeable fine-grained soils, especially following precipitation events. Analysis and Recommendations There are twelve primary issues that should be considered when planning this project. x Undocumented fills (absence of placement and compaction testing documentation) exist on the property. Typically, undocumented fills are a concern for structural support because they could have been placed inconsistently and not sufficiently compacted, potentially causing excessive total and/or differential settlements for structural elements (foundations, floor slabs, pavements, and utilities). x The bearing soils at the estimated footing elevations will be variable, including native soils (clay, silt, and sand), undocumented fills, and engineered (compacted) fills that will exhibit variable strengths. Variable soils can produce differential settlements if not considered in the structural design. x Buried topsoil/organic soils ex ist within the fills that ar e not suitable for structural support. x The use of conventional, shallow foundat ion systems would come with elevated settlement risks, unless utilized with some method of soil improvement. x Construction and the long-term performance of the pool is a concern due to the fill and water conditions. x Fine-grained (clay and silt) soils exist that are sensitive to construction activity, and actions to stabilize the subgrade during construction should be planned. x Clean sand (small quantities of fines) soils exist that will pose c onstruction challenges for excavations. x Shallow soils exhibiting high moisture content exist that will cause construction challenges. x Shallow perched water and groundwater exists that will im pact grading and excavating activities. x Because the project area has a development history, care should be taken to identify any existing buried structural elements and utilities that may impact new Undocumented fills (absence o f placement and com paction testin g documentation) exist on the property. Typically, undocumented fills are a concern for sr tructural support because they could have been placed inconsistently and not sufficiently compacted, potentially causing excessive t otal and/or dir fferential settlements for structural elements (foundations, floor sr labs, pavements, and utilities). The bearing soils at the estimated footing elevations will be v ariable, i ncluding native soils (clay, silt, and sand), undocumented fills, and engineered (compacted) fills that w ill exhibit v ariable stren gths. Variable soils can produce differential settlements if nf ot considered in the structural design. x x Buried topsoil/organic soils exist within the fills that are not suitable for sr tructural support. The use of conventional, shallow foundation systems would come with elevatedy settlement risks, unless utilized with some method of sf oil improvement. x x Because the project area h as a development history, Construction and the long-term performance of tf he pool is a concern due to the fill p and water cr onditions. care should be t aken t o identify any existing buried structural elements and utilities that may impact new pj p y, ATTACHMENT 8 2135 South 116th Street West Allis, WI 53227 7 elements. The removal of structural elements can also cause ground disturbance that will require restoration. x Soils that are not conducive to infiltration exist in the proposed stormwater management areas, and the site should be exempt from infiltration regulations. Foundation Support Foundation design typically consists of se lecting a bearing capacity that will manage settlements. Based on the geologic conditions present on this property, the foundation systems should be designed using an allowable bearing capacity that will limit the maximum total and differential settlements to 1 inch and ¾ inch, respectively. Undocumented fills and buried organic soils exist on the property. Although the majority of the fills exhibited suitable strength characteristics, their variability suggests that conventional foundation systems would be subjected to elevated risks of excessive settlements where t hey remain below foundation elements. The cross-sections in Appendix B illustrate the soil profiles in the building areas. The anticipated bearing soils for the buildings are summarized below: x Three-Story Apartment Building – Partial native soils and up to 8 feet (4.3-foot average) of undocumented fill beneath conventional footings. x Commercial Buildings – Partial native soils and up to 10 feet (5.6-foot average) of undocumented fill of beneath conventional footings. x Apartment Buildings (B, C, D, & F) – Up to 29 feet (12.8-foot average) of undocumented fill beneath conventional footings. x Apartment Buildings (E, G, H, & I) – Partial native soils and up to 11 feet (3.9-foot average) of undocumented fill beneath conventional footings. Given the variable depths of the undocumented fills, the design team could utilize different foundation plans for different building areas. If the owner accepts the risks associated with supporting a building on a conventional, shallow foundation system, a conservative allowable bearing capacity should be used by the structural engineer to design the footings to minimize differential settlements. The foundation for a building in this case should be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. Even with this conservative value, it is not possible to estimate the total and differential settlements. An extensive field-testing program should be implemented during construction to evaluate the bearing soils. If the owner would not accept the potential settlement risks for a building, then the undocumented fills and organic soils could be: 1) removed and replaced, 2) improved in- place (e.g., rammed aggregate piers/vibratory stone columns), or 3) an alternative foundation system (e.g., helical piers) utiliz ed. Deep foundation elements are not Undocumented fills and buried or ganic soils exist on the property. gy conventional foundation s ystems would be sub jected t o elevated gg y j risks of excessive settlements where they remain below foundationff elements. up to 10 feet (5.6-foot average) ofg undocumented fill of beneath conventional footings. up to 8 feet (4.3-footffy p g average) of undocumented fill beneath conventional footings. Up to 29 feet (12.8-foot average) ofp g ( ) undocumented fill beneath conventional footings. up to 11 feet (3.9-footp g ( ) p average) of undocumented fill beneath conventional footings. Given the variable depths of the undocumented fills,the design team could utilize different p foundation plans for different building areas. elements. The removal of structural elements can also cause ground disturbance that will require restoration. PSI Project No. 00523078 Franklin Farms Development Franklin, WI Page 6 www.intertek.com/building Groundwater levels at the three monitoring wells installed near boring B-1, B-5 and B-13 were measured on November 11, 2022. The following table summarizes these levels: WELL NO. NOVEMBER 11, 2022 WATER DEPTH/ELEVATION BEFORE DEVELOPMENT DEPTH/ELEVATION AFTER DEVELOPMENT WATER DEPTH/ELEVATION 20 MINUTES AFTER DEVELOPMENT B-1 14.4’/EL. 752.6 21.0’/EL. 746 17.9’/EL. 749.1 B-5 5.9’/EL. 743.1 16.6’/EL. 732.4 10.5’/EL. 738.5 B-13 13.8’/ EL. 753.2 20.0’/EL. 747 19’/EL. 748 The groundwater observations reported herein are considered approximate. It must be recognized that groundwater levels fluctuate wi th time due to variations in seasonal precipitation, lateral drainage conditions, and soil permeability characteristics. Longer term monitoring would be required to better evaluate gr oundwater levels on this site. Additional monitoring well readings are recommended and can be made when requested. CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Development Considerations In view of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings, together with the structural loading criteria and development grades anticipated, conventional spread footings, along with conventional slab-on-grade construction, can be used for support of the proposed structures. However, fill (including topsoil fill) and possible fill were present in B-2 through B-6, B-9, B-10, SW-1 and SW-3 to depths ranging from about 3 to 27 feet (EL. 760 to EL. 723), with 3 to 8 feet (EL. 760 to EL. 751) being more ty pical (B-2, B-3, B-4, B-9, B- 10, and SW-2). The deeper fill was encountered at B-5, B-6, and SW-3 in the vacant, northeastern portion of the site. The fill and possible fill are not suitable for support and all footings must therefore be extended to bear upon underlying natural soils. Preli minarily, it is estimated that typical undercuts of about 5 to 10 feet or so may be necessary for frost depth footings (with deeper overexcavations necessary for interior footings) in most areas. Substantiall y deeper undercuts in excess of 30 feet would likely be necessary for structures in the northeast portion of the site (B-5, B-6, and SW-3). However, some variation is likely and will be dependent upon final surface and slab elevations. It should be noted that substantia l difficulty with excavation st ability and sidewall caving, and with groundwater will likely be experienced in deeper excavations (including deeper undercuts), especially in the area of B-5, B-6, and SW-3. It is recommended that if feasible, structures not be located in this area of the site. If it is elect ed to place structures in this area, the use of an intermediate or deep foundation system will likely be required. However, fill (including topsoil fill) and possible fill were present in B-2 through B-6, B-9, B-10, SW-1 and SW-3 to depths ranging from about 3 to 27 feet (EL. 760 to EL. 723), with 3 to 8 feet (EL. 760 to EL. 751) being more typical (B-2, B-3, B-4, B-9, B-10, and SW-2). The deeper fill was encountered at B-5, B-6, and SW-3 in the vacant, northeastern portion of the site. The fill and possible fill are not suitable for support and all footings must therefore be extended to bear upon underlying natural soils. It should be noted that substantial di fficulty with excavation stabilit y and sidewall cavin g, and with groundwater will likely be experienced in deeper excavations (including deeper undercuts), especially in the area of B-5, B-6, and SW-3. It is recommended that if feasible, structures not be located in this area of the site. If it is elected to place structures in this area, the use of an intermediate or deep foundation system will likely be required. ATTACHMENT 9 Phase I ESA – 7154 South 76th Street February 25, 2026 Project No. 832-001-006 P AGE 9 1990: The existing commercial strip mall structure has been constructed on the 7154 South 76th Street parcel of the of subject property. Significant ground disturbance is noted on the eastern undeveloped parcels of the subject property. The residential structures on the adjoining property to the northwest have been demolished and two (2) commercial-type structures have been constructed and the property appears consistent with its present-day configuration. The adjoining property to the north-northwest has been constructed with a structure and appears consistent with its present-day configuration. The adjoining property to the west at 7130 South 76 th Street has been constructed with a paved parking lot. The adjoining property to the west at 7100 South 76th Street has been constructed with a structure and appears consistent with its present-day configuration. No significant changes are noted on the remainder of the adjoining properties. 1995: No significant changes are observed on the subject property. The adjoining property to the south at 7260 South 76th Street has been developed with a structure and appears consistent with its present-day configuration. The adjoining property to the west at 7141 South 76th Street has been constructed with a structure and a paved parking lot which appears consistent with its present-day configuration. Ground disturbance is noted on the adjoining properties to the west of the subject property at 7151 and 7281 South 76th Street. No significant changes are noted on the remainder of the adjoining properties. 2000: No significant changes are observed on the subject property. The adjoining properties to the east at 7111, 7121 7131, 7141 and 7151 South Beechwood Court and 7126, 7134, 7146 and 7158 West Brunn Drive are developed with residential structures which appear consistent with their present-day configurations. The adjoining properties to the south at 7534, 7518, 7418, 7480 and 7466 Carter Circle are developed with condominium structures which appear consistent with their present-day configurations. The adjoining properties to the south-southwest and southwest are developed with their present-day configurations. No significant changes are noted on the remainder of the adjoining properties. 2005: Significant ground disturbance is observed on the eastern undeveloped parcels of the subject property. The pond historically observed on the eastern undeveloped parcel of the subject property has been backfilled. An apartment complex with a paved parking lot have been constructed on the adjoining property to the northwest which it appears consistent with its present-day configuration. No significant changes are noted on the remainder of the adjoining properties. 2010 to 2015: No significant changes are observed on the subject property. The adjoining property to the west at 7151 South 76th Street is developed with a structure which appears consistent with its present-day configuration. Between 2010 and 2013, a structure which is consistent with the current configuration was constructed on the adjoining property to the west of the subject property at 7130 South 76th Street. No significant changes are noted on the remainder of the adjoining properties. 2018 to 2024: No significant changes are observed on the subject property. A commercial structure has been constructed on the adjoining property to the north-northeast at 7215 West Rawson Avenue which appears consistent with its present-day configuration. A residence has been constructed on the adjoining property to the east at 7101 South Beechwood Court which appears Significant ground disturbance is observed on the eastern undeveloped parcels of the subject property. The pond historically observed on the eastern undeveloped parcel of the subject property has been backfilled. ATTACHMENT 10 Phase I ESA – 7154 South 76th Street February 25, 2026 Project No. 832-001-006 PAGE 11 attorneys, travel agents, doctors and dentists) and restaurants. Subject property occupants of concern identified in the historic City Directories include Wolf Cleaners identified in the 7190- tenant space in the 1992 City Directory and National One Hour Cleaners identified in the 7174- tenant space in the 1995 through 2017 City Directories. Historic occupants on the adjoining properties include commercial uses, including: banks, restaurants, daycare/pre-school and residences. The historic utilization of the subject property for dry-cleaning has the potential to impact the subsurface conditions. Further discussion regarding this issue is provided in the subsequent sections of this report. A copy of the City Directory Image Report from EDR is attached in Appendix B. 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS AND AULS EDR performed a search of the subject property deed for the presence of environmental liens and AULs. No environmental liens or AULs were identified as being associated with the subject property. A copy of the EDR Environmental Lien and AUL Search is attached in Appendix B. 3.6 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 3.6.1 ENDPOINT – PHASE I ESA Endpoint previously performed a Phase I ESA for the subject property in August 2022. The following RECs and BERs were identified in connection with the subject property: RECs x The base of transformer 87-U-4998 contains significant corrosion and the concrete pad on which the transformer sits is stained with transformer oil. The staining is also observed extending off the west side of the concrete pad. Based on the age of the transformer and the lack of any markings indicating the transformer contains PCB-free oil, the potential exists for the release to the environment of PCB-containing oils from transformer 87-U-4998. x The historical usage of the 7174-tenant space as a dry-cleaning operation in conjunction with the obvious staining observed on the floor slab within the 7174-tenant space has the potential to have caused a release to the environment to occur. In addition, historical documentation indicates the 7190-tenant space was also used for dry cleaning for a short period of time. BERs x Several one (1) to five (5) gallon containers assumed to contain remnant paint were observed within the vacated 7140-tenant space. These containers should be collected, the contents characterized and properly disposed prior to demolition activities. x An elemental mercury separator was observed within the 7218-tenant space which was no longer connected to the subject property plumbing. The potential exists for the separator to contain elemental mercury. While the separator was left in an occupied tenant space, the Subject property occupants of concern identified in the historic City Directories include Wolf Cleaners identified in the 7190- tenant space in the 1992 City Directory and National One Hour Cleaners identified in the 7174- tenant space in the 1995 through 2017 City Directories. RECs x The base of transformer 87-U-4998 contains significant corrosion and the concrete pad on which the transformer sits is stained with transformer oil. The staining is also observed extending off the west side of the concrete pad. Based on the age of the transformer and the lack of any markings indicating the transformer contains PCB-free oil, the potential exists for the release to the environment of PCB-containing oils from transformer 87-U-4998. x The historical usage of the 7174-tenant space as a dry-cleaning operation in conjunction with the obvious staining observed on the floor slab within the 7174-tenant space has the potential to have caused a release to the environment to occur. In addition, historical documentation indicates the 7190-tenant space was also used for dry cleaning for a short period of time. 2005 DISCLAIMER: This map is a user generated static output from the Milwaukee County Land Information Office Interactive Mapping Service website.The contents herein are for reference purposes only and may or may not be accurate, current or otherwise reliable. No liability is assumed for the data delineated herein either expressed or implied by Milwaukee County or its employees. © MCAMLIS 752 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1:NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_Wisconsin_South_FIPS_4803_Ft_ US Feet75203 76 Notes 4,514 100. View to the south from the southern portion of the subject property. Pad-mounted transformer in distance. 102. Solid waste debris in southern portion of the subject property. 101. Pad-mounted transformer in southern portion of the subject property. Minor staining on bottom portion of transformer noted. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 7154 SOUTH 76TH STREET FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN PROJECT NO: 832-001-006 Report of Results – Phase II EA February 9, 2023 7154 South 76th Street, Franklin, Wisconsin Page 4 of 6 Groundwater VOCs x GP-1: Toluene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene were detected at estimated concentrations above standard laboratory detection limits in the GP-1 groundwater sample. However, neither of the concentrations exceeded their respective preventive action limit (PAL) or enforcement standard (ES). x GP-2: No VOC constituents were detected above standard laboratory detection limits in the GP-2 groundwater sample. x GP-3: Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was dete cted in the GP-3 groundwater sample at an estimated concentration of 0.99 micrograms per liter (μg/L). The concentration of PCE is reported as an estimate and identified with a “J” qualifier on the laboratory report due to the result being between the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ). The concentration of PCE was detected above its PAL, but below its ES. No other VOC constituents were detected above standard laboratory detection limits in the GP-3 groundwater sample. The groundwater VOC results are summarized in Table A.1.a – Groundwater Analytical Results-VOCs. Vapor VOCs x Numerous VOC constituents were detected above standard laboratory detection limits from the sub-slab vapor sample collected in the 7174-tenant space. However, all of the concentrations were detected below their respective regional screening levels (RSLs) for residential, small commercial and large commercial/industrial buildings. The vapor VOC results are summarized in Table A.4 – Sub-Slab Vapor Analytical Results- VOCs. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports and the chains-of-custody are included in Appendix B. CONCLUSIONS Based on the analytical results from the soil samples collected adjacent to the pad-mounted transformer 87-U-4998, none of the samples contained contaminant concentrations that exceeded an RCL. Therefore, it is our opinion that no further assessment of the subsurface conditions adjacent to the pad-mounted transformer is necessary. However, we recommend WE Energies, the owner of the transformer, be contacted to arrange for repair or replacement. Based on the results of the Phase II EA performed on the subject property, it appears low-level PCE contamination is present in groundwater adjacent to the 7190-tenant space, related to the historical dry-cleaning operations performed within this portion of the subject property building. It is important to note that the concentration of PCE detected was an estimated concentration slightly above its PAL, but below its respective ES. Additionally, none of the soil samples collected from the GP-3 soil boring contained detectable concentrations of PCE. It is also important to note that the CONCLUSIONS Based on the analytical results from the soil samples collected adjacent to the pad-mounted transformer 87-U-4998, none of the samples contained contaminant concentrations that exceeded an RCL. Therefore, it is our opinion that no further assessment of the subsurface condition s adjacent to the pad-mounted transformer is necessary. However, we recommend WE Ener gies, the owner of the transformer, be contacted to arrange for repair or replacement. Based on the results of the Phase II EA performed on the subject property, it appears low-level PCE contamination is present in groundwater adjacent to the 7190-tenant space, related to th e historical dry-cleaning operations performed within this portion of the subject property building.I t is important to note that the concentration of PCE detected was an estimated concentration sli ghtly above its PAL, but below its respective ES. Additionally, none of the soil samples collected from the GP-3 soil boring contained detectable concentrations of PCE. It is also important to note that the ATTACHMENT 11 Report of Results – Phase II EA February 9, 2023 7154 South 76th Street, Franklin, Wisconsin Page 5 of 6 GP-3 groundwater sample was collected from a temporary groundwater monitoring well without a sand filter pack, which may bias the results. It is our opinion that the PCE concentration in groundwater adjacent to the 7190-tenant space is negligible and additional assessment is not recommended at this time. However, as PCE is a common dry-cleaning solvent, we recommend additional soil, groundwater and soil vapor assessment activities be performed within the 7190- tenant space once vacated. LIMITATIONS This report was prepared under the constraint of cost, time and scope-of-work and reflects an assessment and evaluation that is based on data collected from potential RECs at the time of the evaluation. Our assessment was performed using t he degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by professional consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is made as the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. As u b s u r f a c ee x p l o r a t i o nw a sp e r f o r m e da n di spresented in this report. However, subsurface exploration cannot totally reveal what is below the surface. Depending upon the sampling method and frequency, every soil condition may not be observed, and some materials or layers, which are present in the subsurface may not be noted. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date of the assessment. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes o rt h ew o r k so fm a no nt h i so ra d j a c e n tp r o p e r t i e s . I na d d i t i o n ,c h a n g e si na p p l i c a b l eo r appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation, from the broadening of knowledge, or from other reasons. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalid wholly or partially by changes outside our control. CLOSING We appreciate this opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have any questions, require additional information, or need any clarifications related to this proposal, please do not hesitate to call us at 414-427-1200. Sincerely, Travis J. Manser Robert A. Cigale, P.G. Associate Consultant Principal Consultant GP-3 groundwater sample was collected from a temporary groundwater monitoring well without a sand filter pack, which may bias the results. It is our opinion that the PCE concentration i n groundwater adjacent to the 7190-tenant space is negligible and additional assessment is not recommended at this time. However, as PCE is a common dry-cleanin g solvent, we recommend additional soil, groundwater and soil vapor assessment activities be performed within the 7190 - tenant space once vacated. Report of Results – Phase II EA February 9, 2023p 7154 South 76th Street, Franklin, Wisconsin y Page 5 of6 S S S S S W W W W WW SSSSSS S S S S S S S SSSS S S W W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW G STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO STO OHW OHW STO WWWWW W W WWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G G G G G W EE E E E E E E EEE E EEEEEEEE E E E E E E E E E EEEEE E E E E E E E EE T T T T T T T TV TV TV TV S. 76TH STREET CTH "U" W. RAWSON AVENUE CTH "BB" ST ST U U U FO C WET WET WET WETWET WET WET WET WETWET WET WET WET WET WETWET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WETWETWET WET WET WETWET WET WET WET WETWET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW STO STO STO STO STO STO W W W W W W W STO STO STO S S S S S S W G GG G G ST WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET STO S. 76TH STREET CTH "U" S. 76TH AVENUE RENOVATED BUILDING FFE: 763.5 P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/LP/L P/L P/L P/LP/LP/LP/LP/LP/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/LP/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/LP/L BUILDING A FFE: 770.00 LL: 759.00 BUILDING A FFE: 770.00 LL: 759.00 BUILDING C FFE: 763.00 BUILDING B FFE: 762.00 BUILDING F FFE: 763.00 BUILDING D FFE: 763.00 BUILDING G FFE: 764.50 BUILDING E FFE: 765.00 BUILDING I FFE: 765.00 POND 1 NWL: 745.00 HWL: 750.98 BIO 2 NWL: 757.00 HWL: 760.92 BIO 3 NWL: 758.00 HWL: 761.91 BIO 4 NWL: 758.00 HWL: 761.37 FUTURE BUILDING K FFE: 764.00 GARAGES ELEV.=762.10 FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DUMPSTERS BUILDING K1/K2 FFE: 764.00 GARAGES ELEV.=763.75 GARAGESELEV.: 764.75 BUILDING H FFE: 765.00 FUTURE GARAGES FUTURE GARAGES DOG PARK P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L WETLANDS A, B, AND C WDNR ARTIFICIAL WETLAND EXEMPTION RECEIVED MARCH 4TH, 2024 0060'120' Scale: 1" = 60' NATURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION AREAS RESOURCE TYPE:WOODLANDSTREES >8" DBH OUTSIDE WOODSWETLANDSWETLAND BUFFER AREA DISTURBED46,772 SF (1.07 AC) (44%) 237" CALIPER (93%)0 SF (0.00 AC) (0%)0 SF (0.00 AC) (0%) MITIGATION RATIO0.75 : 1.002" : 8"1.50 : 1.001.50 : 1.00 MITIGATION AREA REQUIRED 35,079 SF (.81 AC)60" CALIPER0 SF (.00 AC).00 SF (0.00 AC) MITIGATION AREA PROVIDED 43,031 SF (.99 AC)60" CALIPER0 SF (.00 AC)0 SF (0.00 AC) NATURAL RESOURCE FEATURE AREAS RESOURCE TYPE:WOODLANDS TREES >8" DBH OUTSIDE WOODSWETLANDSWETLAND BUFFER TOTAL AREA:105,373 SF (2.419 AC)256" CALIPER7,287 SF (0.167 AC) 11,417 SF (0.262 AC) AREA TO BE DISTURBED: (TEMPORARY) 46,772 SF (1.074 AC) (44%) 237" CALIPER (93%) 0 SF (.00 AC) (0%)0 SF (.00 AC) (0%) AREA TO BE DISTURBED: (IMPERVIOUS/ PERMANENT) 0 SF (.00 AC) (0%)00 SF (.00 AC) (0%) 0.72 ACRE WOODLAND (STAND OF TREES WHOSE TOTAL COMBINED CANOPY COVERS AN AREA OF.50 ACRES OR MORE AND AT LEAST 50% OF WHICH IS COMPOSED OF CANOPIES OF TREES HAVING A DBH OF AT LEAST 3") 1.62 ACRE WOODLAND (STAND OF TREES WHOSE TOTAL COMBINED CANOPY COVERS AN AREA OF.50 ACRES OR MORE AND AT LEAST 50% OF WHICH IS COMPOSED OF CANOPIES OF TREES HAVING A DBH OF AT LEAST 3") STAND OF TREES NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED WOODLAND STAND OF TREES NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED WOODLAND TOTAL PROJECT AREA: (25 ACRES) DISTURBED WOODLAND AREA: 33,884 S.F. DISTURBED WOODLAND AREA: 12,888 S.F. STAND OF TREES NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED WOODLAND 1" = 60' PROPERTY LINE, TYP. ARTIFICIAL WETLAND TO BE FILLED, WETLANDS C,D,E,F EXEMPT PER 10/13/2022 WDNR ARTIFICIAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION LETTER *WETLAND EXEMPT PER 10/13/2022 & 3/4/2024 WDNR ARTIFICIAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION LETTER www.thesigmagroup.com 1300 West Canal Street Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-643-4200 Fax: 414-643-4210 THE GROU P Single Source. Sound Solutions. DRAWN BY: DESIGN DATE: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: PLOT DATE: NO. REVISIONDATE ISSUANCEDATE 7044 South Ballpark Drive Suite 305 Franklin, WI 53132 Phone: 414-285-3470 MJK ---- 21775 CC CTC EX 76TH AND RAWSON POTHS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT FRANKLIN, WI 53132 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION PLAN 2025.09.23 i:\land by label\21775 poths general - 76th-rawson\060 CAD\030_Production Sheets\EX 2 Natural Resource Protection Plan.dwg21775 EX AROONEY 2025.09.23 ---- PLAN COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 9/5/25 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- PRELIMINARY NOT FORCONSTRUCTION ---- ---- ---- LIMITS OF PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT. LIMITS OF PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT. LIMITS OF PROPOSED DISTURBANCE 30.0' WOODLAND BUFFER 30.0' WOODLAND BUFFER ATTACHMENT 12 OHWOHWOHWOHW WET WET WET W WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WETWET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WETWET WET WET STO STO STO STO STO STO STO W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S W W G G G G G G G G G G G WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET 7121 BEACHWOOD CT 7560256000 7111 BRUNN DR 7560255000 7101 BEACHWOOD CT 7560254000 7161 RAWSON AVE 7560334000 7215 RAWSON AVE 7569993017 7401 RAWSON AVE 7569993018 7401 RAWSON AVE 7569993019 7401 RAWSON AVE 7569993005 ON AVE 013 WET WET W W W ETT WET WET WET WET WE WE WET W WET T ET W W W W W W W W W WETWETWET WET WET WET TT WET WET WET T W W W W T WET WET T WET WET EET W WE WETETETT TETTT P/LP/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L BUILDING B (21-UNIT) FFE: 761.50 GARAGE ELEV.: 761.17 GARAGES GARAGE DOOR ELEV.: 761.58 GARAGE ELEV.: 761.83 MAIL POND 1 NWL: 745.00 HWL: 750.99 60.0' EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT 30.0' SETBACK 30.0' SETBACK 28.0' SNOW STORAGE 26.0' 26.0' 10' X 18' PARKING STALLS - TYP. 10' X 22' PARKING STALLS - TYP. PROPOSED RETAINING WALL W/ RAILING 79.6' 10' X 18' PARKING STALLS - TYP. 24.0' 24.0'24.0' 24.0' 10' X 22' PARKING STALLS - TYP. 4.0' 4.0' 4.0' 30' WETLAND BUFFER EXISTING WOODLANDS TO BE PROTECTED 4.0' 4.0' 173.0' PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) C403 A 122.3' 182.3' 104.5' TRUNCATED DOMES (TYP.)C401 H 4.0' 4.0' PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) CONCRETE WALK - INTEGRAL CURB (TYP.) C401 L 4.0' 4' WIDE PAVEMENT MARKING TYP. 10.0' STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT 11.0' 11.0' 11.0' STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT 20.0' STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT 18" STOP LINE PAVEMENT MARKING STOP SIGN ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGS 4" WIDE PAVEMENT MARKING CENTERLINE PAVEMENT MARKINGS GENERAL NOTES: 1. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON FIELD LOCATIONS AND/OR RECORDS FURNISHED BY MUNICIPALITIES AND UTILITY COMPANIES. THE LOCATION AND ACCURACY OF WHICH CANNOT BE GUARANTEED. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY INSTALLATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. 2. VERIFY ACTUAL LOCATIONS AND INVERTS IN THE FIELD. ANY POTENTIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 3. WORK TO BE COMPLETED IS INDICATED IN BOLD TYPE LINES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE INDICATED BY LIGHT TYPE LINES. 4. ELECTRONIC CIVIL FILES ARE AVAILABLE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST. DO NOT USE ELECTRONIC CIVIL FILES TO LAYOUT FOUNDATIONS, COLUMN LINES, LIGHT POLES, OR OTHER NON CIVIL SITE WORK. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS OF BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. 5. DIMENSIONS ARE FROM FACE OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT. 6. WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DRIVEWAY OPENINGS, SIDEWALK AND RAMPS, PAVING, AND CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE COMPLETED PER MUNICIPAL AND/OR COUNTY REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. 7. EARTHWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT OF ALL PAVEMENTS, CURB AND GUTTER, UTILITIES, VEGETATION, ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES, OR ANY OTHER ITEMS OWNED BY THE CITY OF FRANKLIN SCHEDULED TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES, AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED ITEMS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO COST TO THE CITY. C401 G C401 G CURB & GUTTER (ACCEPT) CURB & GUTTER (REJECT) C401 A C401 B C401 C C401 D 5" THICK CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE PAVEMENT ASPHALT SURFACE HEAVY-DUTY ASPHALT SURFACE LEGEND: THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON FIELD MARKINGS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, ITS ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS CANNOT BE GUARANTEED. 1"=30' GRAPHIC SCALE 03 0 6 0 www.thesigmagroup.com 1300 West Canal Street Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-643-4200 Fax: 414-643-4210THE G R O UP DRAWN BY: DESIGN DATE: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: PLOT DATE: NO. REVISION DATE ISSUANCE DATE 7044 South Ballpark Drive Suite 305 Franklin, WI 53132 Phone: 414-285-3470 MJK ---- 21775 CC CTC C102 76TH AND RAWSON POTHS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT FRANKLIN, WI 53132 SITE PLAN 2026.03.03 i:\land by label\21775 poths general - 76th-rawson\060 CAD\030_Production Sheets\100_Civil\C100 Site Plan.dwg21775C102MGARNER2026.03.03 ---- FOOTINGS&FOUNDATION PERMIT 10/30/25 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- CITY SUBMITTAL 1/09/26 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/06/26 PLUMBING SUBMITTAL 2/10/26 COUNTY SUBMITTAL 2/25/26 CITY SUBMITTAL 3/03/26 ATTACHMENT 13 GENERAL NOTES: 1. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON FIELD LOCATIONS AND/OR RECORDS FURNISHED BY MUNICIPALITIES AND UTILITY COMPANIES. THE LOCATION AND ACCURACY OF WHICH CANNOT BE GUARANTEED. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY INSTALLATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. 2. VERIFY ACTUAL LOCATIONS AND INVERTS IN THE FIELD. ANY POTENTIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 3. WORK TO BE COMPLETED IS INDICATED IN BOLD TYPE LINES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE INDICATED BY LIGHT TYPE LINES. 4. ELECTRONIC CIVIL FILES ARE AVAILABLE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST. DO NOT USE ELECTRONIC CIVIL FILES TO LAYOUT FOUNDATIONS, COLUMN LINES, LIGHT POLES, OR OTHER NON CIVIL SITE WORK. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS OF BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. 5. DIMENSIONS ARE FROM FACE OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT. 6. WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DRIVEWAY OPENINGS, SIDEWALK AND RAMPS, PAVING, AND CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE COMPLETED PER MUNICIPAL AND/OR COUNTY REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. 7. EARTHWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT OF ALL PAVEMENTS, CURB AND GUTTER, UTILITIES, VEGETATION, ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES, OR ANY OTHER ITEMS OWNED BY THE CITY OF FRANKLIN SCHEDULED TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES, AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED ITEMS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO COST TO THE CITY. C401 G C401 G CURB & GUTTER (ACCEPT) CURB & GUTTER (REJECT) 5 5 EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER SPOT GRADE T/C: TOP OF CURB GRADE FL: FLOW LINE CURB GRADE PROPOSED ASPHALT SPOT GRADE 100.00 100.50 T/C 100.00 FL EXISTING SURFACE SPOT GRADE (MATCH) 100.00 GRADE BREAK LINE TW TOP OF WALL BW BOTTOM OF WALL T/S TOP OF STEP B/S BOTTOM OF STEP C401 A C401 B C401 C C401 D 5" THICK CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE PAVEMENT ASPHALT SURFACE HEAVY-DUTY ASPHALT SURFACE LEGEND: 754 755 56 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 758 759 760 761 762 763 758 758 759 760 761 762 757 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET T WET WET WET WET WET WET W WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WETWET WET WET WET WET 7131 BEACHWOOD CT 7560257000 7121 BEACHWOOD CT 7560256000 7111 BRUNN DR 7560255000 6 756 756 756 756 756 WET WE 751 751 751 751 WET WET T WET T WET ETETWET 758 758 7 758 758 WET T WET WET WET 755 755 755 75 755 755 757 757 757 757 757 WET ET WET T WET WET WET WET WET WET T W WET WET WETTT WET T W ET WET WET ET WET P/LP/LP/LP/L P/L P/L BUILDING C (25-UNIT) FFE: 762.50 GARAGE ELEV.: 762.17 BUILDING B (21-UNIT) FFE: 761.50 GARAGE ELEV.: 761.17 BUILDING F (21-UNIT) FFE: 762.00 GARAGE ELEV.: 761.67 BUILDING D (21-UNIT TYPE A) FFE: 762.50 GARAGE ELEV.: 762.17 RS MAIL POND 1 NWL: 745.00 HWL: 750.99 BIO 2 TOP OF ENG.SOIL: 757.00 HWL: 760.37 756 757 758 759 760 761 754 755 756 757758759760761 748749750751752753754755 740741742 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 740 741 742 743744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 760 762 757 758 759 760 761 762 757 758 759 760 761 762 762 762 762 763 764 761 762 760 761 EXISTING WOODLAND TO BE PROTECTED 761 PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL W/ RAILINGC403 A 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 759 760 761 762 759 760 761 755.00 BW 755.10 TW 759.89 BW 757.11 TW 760.25 TW 754.03 BW 752.51 BW 760.87 TW 759.99 TW 752.25 BW 761 761 761 761 761 761 761 761 761 761 761 STORM CB 32.0 RIM:755.28 STORM CB 28.0 RIM:758.85 STORM CB 35.0 RIM:759.97STORM CB 34.0 RIM:759.97 STORM CB 33.0 RIM:761.28 STORM CB 33.1 RIM:760.90 STORM CB 38.1 RIM:761.12 STORM CB 37.0 RIM:760.47 STORM CB 36.0 RIM:760.47 STORM CB 29.0 RIM:760.04 STORM MH 38.0 RIM:760.80 STORM CB 30.0 RIM:760.69 STORM FES 27.0 12" SE INV:754.00 761.99 T/C 761.49 FL 762.01 T/C 761.51 FL 761.93 T/C 761.43 FL 761.78 T/C 761.28 FL 761.65 T/C 761.15 FL 761.66 T/C 761.16 FL 761.02 761.02 761.43 T/C 760.93 FL 761.29 T/C 760.79 FL 761.05 T/C 760.55 FL 761.05 T/C 760.55 FL 761.05 T/C 760.55 FL 761.38 T/C 760.88 FL 761.38 T/C 760.88 FL 761.05 T/C 760.55 FL 761.05 T/C 760.55 FL 761.05 T/C 760.55 FL 761.79 T/C 761.29 FL 761.34 T/C 760.84 FL 761.31 T/C 760.81 FL 761.04 760.95 761.67 T/C 761.17 FL761.67 T/C 761.17 FL 761.52 T/C 761.02 FL 761.40 T/C 760.90 FL 761.32 T/C 760.82 FL 760.36 T/C 759.86 FL 760.24 T/C 759.74 FL 760.05 T/C 759.55 FL 760.05 T/C 759.55 FL 760.54 T/C 760.04 FL761.25 T/C 760.75 FL 761.03 T/C 760.53 FL 760.97 T/C 760.47 FL 761.05 T/C 760.55 FL 761.34 T/C 760.84 FL 761.32 T/C 760.82 FL 761.30 T/C 760.80 FL 760.81 T/C 760.31 FL 761.15 T/C 760.65 FL 760.65 760.76 761.03760.97 762.08 T/C 761.58 FL 761.83 762.15 T/C 761.65 FL 761.71 T/C 761.21 FL 761.24 T/C 760.74 FL 758.83 T/C 758.33 FL 758.59 T/C 758.09 FL 758.45 T/C 757.95 FL 758.97 T/C 758.47 FL 762.23 T/C 761.73 FL 762.20762.20 762.20 762.20 762.20 762.20 762.30 762.30 761.29 761.15 762.12 762.12 762.12 762.12 762.12 762.12 762.22 762.22 761.37 761.29 761.15 761.80 761.48 761.93761.93 761.75 761.88 761.12 761.05 761.23 761.23 761.23 761.23 762.00 761.94 761.86 761.70 761.70 761.62 761.62 761.70 761.70 761.62 761.62 761.70 761.70 761.62 761.62 761.70 761.70 761.62 761.62 761.70 761.70 761.62 761.62 761.80 761.80 761.72 761.72 760.83 760.91 761.23 761.47 761.47 761.89 761.38 761.38 761.37 761.26761.12 761.12 761.20761.20 761.12 761.12 761.20761.20 761.12 761.12 761.20761.20 761.12 761.12 761.20761.20 761.12 761.12 761.20761.20 761.22 761.22 761.30761.30 759.79 759.85 758.91 761.32 761.74 761.67 760.73 760.73 760.73 760.73 760.75 761.45 761.58 762.50 762.50 762.39 761.58 762.34 T/C 761.84 FL 761.82 T/C 761.32 FL 760.74761.41 761.49 761.48 761.67 762.13 762.17 761.58 761.58 761.45 761.57 761.56 761.50 761.39 761.17 761.13 761.50 761.38 T/S 761.17 761.13 761.17 761.50 761.38 761.17 761.13 760.38 760.52 760.65 760.65 760.65 760.65 760.83 760.87 760.91 760.77 761.41 T/C 760.91 FL 761.89 762.00 761.15 760.99 761.15 761.15 761.15 761.32761.15 761.42 T/C 760.92 FL 761.71 T/C 761.21 FL 761.67 761.63 762.00 761.67 761.63 761.67 761.88 761.67 761.63 761.23 761.23 761.15 761.15 761.15 761.23 761.15 761.23 761.24 761.65 T/C 761.15 FL 761.15 762.50 762.17 762.13 762.17 761.50 761.50 761.50 761.50 761.50 761.50 761.50 761.50 761.49 762.00 762.00 762.00 762.00 762.00 762.00 762.50 762.50 762.50762.50 762.17 762.50 761.46 762.00 758.37 762.14 T/C 761.64 FL 761.91 T/C 761.41 FL 761.70 761.23 761.15 761.23 761.15 761 02 761.15 T/C 760.65 FL 761.23 761.39 T/C 760.89 FL 760.52 746 747 748 OCS 2.0 RIM:759.75 756 762.38 762.17 762.13 762.50762.50 762.50 762.50 762.50 762.39 762.40 762.40 762.40 762.20 762.20 762.02 762.12 762.12 762.12 761.94 761.09 B/S 761.47 T/S 761.17 B/S 762.39 T/S B/S 8 B/S 762.47 T/S 762 761.67 B/S 761.97 T/S 761.88 T/S 761.59 B/S 762.17 B/S 762.47 T/S 762.09 B/S 762.39 T/S STEPS 762.50 762.40 T/S 761.40 B/S 761.28 T/C 760.78 FL761.36 761.13 761.15 762.39762.30 T/C 761.80 FL 762 61.58 761.58 761.63 761.88 761.13 761.46 761.18 761.102' CURB TAPER 2' CURB TAPER 2' CURB TAPER 761.85 T/C 761.35 FL6' CURB TAPER 761.23 2' CURB TAPER 10.0' STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT 20.0' STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT 20.0' STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT 10.0' STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT 762.20 761 761 761 10.0' STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT 6' CURB TAPER 761 C402 C 760.97 TW 752.25 BW 760.87 TW 752.25 BW 753 THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON FIELD MARKINGS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, ITS ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS CANNOT BE GUARANTEED. 1''=30' GRAPHIC SCALE 02 0 4 0 www.thesigmagroup.com 1300 West Canal Street Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-643-4200 Fax: 414-643-4210THE G R O UP DRAWN BY: DESIGN DATE: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: PLOT DATE: NO. REVISION DATE ISSUANCE DATE 7044 South Ballpark Drive Suite 305 Franklin, WI 53132 Phone: 414-285-3470 MRG ---- 21775 CC CTC C205 76TH AND RAWSON POTHS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT FRANKLIN, WI 53132 GRADING PLAN 2026.03.03 i:\land by label\21775 poths general - 76th-rawson\060 CAD\030_Production Sheets\100_Civil\C200 Grading Plan.dwg21775C205MGARNER2026.03.03 ---- FOOTINGS&FOUNDATION PERMIT 10/30/25 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- CITY SUBMITTAL 1/09/26 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/06/26 PLUMBING SUBMITTAL 2/10/26 COUNTY SUBMITTAL 2/25/26 CITY SUBMITTAL 3/03/26 NOTES: 1. RETAINING WALL SYSTEM SHALL BE KEYSTONE, ROCKWOOD, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. TYPICAL SECTION IS FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ONLY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE DESIGN, PLANS, DETAILS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND STAMPED AND SEALED SHOP DRAWINGS AND STABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR THE RETAINING WALLS TO THE ENGINEER. THE RETAINING WALL MANUFACTURER SHALL PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE CONTRACTOR DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE COST OF THESE ITEMS SHALL BE INCLUDED. 3. STAMPED AND SEALED RETAINING WALL DESIGN, PLANS, DETAILS AND CALCULATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY. 4. GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT SPACING AND LENGTH PER MANUFACTURER'S ENGINEER RECOMMENDATIONS. 5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER MAY REQUIRE THAT ADDITIONAL DRAIN PIPING IS NEEDED DEPENDENT UPON SOILS ENCOUNTERED DURING WALL CONSTRUCTION. 6. WALL STRUCTURE TO BE VERIFIED WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 7. ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT SOILS BELOW LEVELING PAD WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO FROST HEAVE SHALL BE DESIGNED BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD. 8. PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND DETAILS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO INDICATE WALL LOCATIONS, LENGTHS, HEIGHTS, AND DETAILS COMMON TO THE WALL SYSTEM SELECTED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THE WALL SYSTEM SELECTED WILL CONFORM TO THE REQUIRED ALIGNMENTS AND DETAILS. 9. THE RETAINING WALL IS TO BE DESIGNED USING THE ELEVATIONS GIVEN ON THIS SHEET AND GRADING PLAN SHEETS. 10. STYLE AND COLOR OF THE MODULAR BLOCK SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT 11. PROTECTIVE RAILINGS/GUARD RAILS REQUIRED FOR ALL RETAINING WALLS ADJACENT TO PEDESTRIAN PATHS TO BE VERIFIED BY WALL DESIGNER, ARCHITECT, AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. 1.0' MIN. H 6" 6" MIN. TYP. REINFORCED (INFILL) SOIL ZONE RETAINED SOIL ZONE SET BACK PER BLOCK (VARIES BY MANUFACTURER) LIMIT OF REINFORCED ZONE LIMIT OF REINFORCED ZONE 6" Ø PERFORATED WRAPPED PIPE UNDERDRAIN (CONNECT TO STORM SEWER WHERE APPLICABLE) SEE NOTE 6 LEVELING PAD DRAINAGE AGGREGATE CAP UNIT FOUNDATION SOIL ZONE SOIL REINFORCEMENT FINISH GRADE TOP OF WALL ELEVATION (TOW) BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION (BOW) RAILING COORDINATE RETAINING WALL DESIGN WITH RAILING DESIGN NOTES: 1. INSTALL RIP-RAP WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS. 2. FOR PERMANENT POOL (WET) DETENTION BASINS: EXTEND RIP-RAP FROM OUTFALL TO AT LEAST 10 FEET BEYOND THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL. 3. RIP-RAP SHALL BE MEDIUM RIP-RAP PER WISDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY AND STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION 4. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE TYPE R PER WISDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS PER HIGHWAY AND STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION. CHANNELIZE AND DEPRESS RIP-RAP ALONG MIDLINE TO PREVENT FLOW FROM CIRCUMVENTING THE PATH OF THE RIP-RAP. MAKE TOP OF RIP-RAP FLUSH WITH EXISTING GROUND SURFACE AT EDGES. STANDARD APRON ENDWALL TYPE R GEOTEXTILE FABRIC RIP-RAP 1.5' MIN. 1' VARIES1' RIP-RAP OVER GEOTEXTILE LENGTH PER PLAN WATER MAIN JOINT RESTRAINT DISTANCE (FT) PER FITTING FITTING TYPE 6" DIAMETER 8" DIAMETER HORIZONTAL BEND - 11.25° 55 HORIZONTAL BEND - 22.5° 88 HORIZONTAL BEND - 45° 10 12 HORIZONTAL BEND - 90° 20 25 * RESTRAIN LARGER SIZED PIPE REDUCER - DIA. X 4" 25 50 REDUCER - DIA. X 6" - 25 REDUCER - DIA. X 8" -- REDUCER - DIA. X 12" -- REDUCER - DIA. X 16" -- DEAD END 40 60 TEE OR CROSS - RUN 10 10 TEE - 4" BRANCH 66 TEE - 6" BRANCH 86 TEE - 8" BRANCH - 10 TEE - 12" BRANCH -- TEE - 16" BRANCH -- TEE - 20" BRANCH -- VERTICAL BEND - 45° - UPPER 20 26 VERTICAL BEND - 45° - LOWER 5 6 VERTICAL BEND - 22.5° - UPPER 10 14 VERTICAL BEND - 22.5° - LOWER 55 VERTICAL BEND - 11.25° - UPPER 68 VERTICAL BEND - 11.25° LOWER 44 * WHERE RESTRAINT LENGTHS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS, THE VALUES IN THIS TABLE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS A MINUMUM FLOW APPROVED WATERTIGHT JOINT APPROVED RISER ADAPTER OR INSTALL SHORT NIPPLE AND PROVIDE BELL TO BELL CONTACT 4" OR 6" SDR 26 PVC RISER PIPE (BELL DOWN) DOUBLE BELL FITTING OR APPROVED FLEXIBLE COUPLING 4" OR 6" PVC SDR 35, TYP. (MIN 1.04% SLOPE) PREFABRICATED BEND AS NECESSARY TO MAKE CONNECTION FOR FUTURE CONNECTION, END COMPACTED GRANULAR BACKFILL AT UPPER END OF 45° BEND AND PLUG BEND WITH A WATERTIGHT STOPPER 4" OR 6" PVC SDR-26, TYP. TO 3' BEYOND UNEXCAVATED GROUND 3' MIN. COMPACTED GRANULAR BACKFILL UNDISTURBED GROUND 6' MAX. 4" OR 6" RISER PER PLAN COMPACTED GRANULAR BACKFILL APPROVED FLEXIBLE PREFABRICATED TEE 45° PVC BEND #4 BAR OR 2" x 4" 4' NTS www.thesigmagroup.com 1300 West Canal Street Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-643-4200 Fax: 414-643-4210THE G R O UP DRAWN BY: DESIGN DATE: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: SHEET NO: SCALE: PLOT DATE: NO. REVISION DATE ISSUANCE DATE 7044 South Ballpark Drive Suite 305 Franklin, WI 53132 Phone: 414-285-3470 MRG ---- 21775 CC CTC C403 76TH AND RAWSON POTHS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT FRANKLIN, WI 53132 DETAILS 2026.03.03 i:\land by label\21775 poths general - 76th-rawson\060 CAD\030_Production Sheets\100_Civil\C401 Details.dwg21775C403MGARNER2026.03.03 ---- FOOTINGS&FOUNDATION PERMIT 10/30/25 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- CITY SUBMITTAL 1/09/26 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/06/26 PLUMBING SUBMITTAL 2/10/26 COUNTY SUBMITTAL 2/25/26 CITY SUBMITTAL 3/03/26 SCALE: MODULAR BLOCK MSE WALLA NTS SCALE: RIP-RAP DISCHARGE APRONB NTS SCALE: HYDRANT SETTINGD NTS SCALE: UPFLO FILTER EXAMPLE DETAILC NTS SCALE: JOINT RESTRAINT TABLEE NTS SCALE: SANITARY RISERF NTS ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Plan TID No. 7 Creation City of Franklin Submitted by Ehlers Page 7 May 17, 2019 SECTION 2: Type and General Description of District The District is being created by the City under the authority provided by Wisconsin Statute Section 66.1105. The Dis trict is created as a “Blighted Area District” based upon a finding by the City in consultation with its Attorney and Special Legal Counsel that at least 50%, by area , of the real property within the District is blighted. In Section 5 of this Pl an, the City has identified those properties within the District that meet the criteria of “blighted areas” as defined in Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.1105(2)(ae)1 and relies on these characterizations as the basis for making the above finding. A map depicting the boundaries of the District is fo und in Section 3 of this Plan. A map depicting the proposed uses of the District is found in Section 8 of this plan. The City intends that TIF will be used to assure that private development occurs with in the District consistent with the City ’s development and redevelopment objectives. This will be accomplishe d by installing public improvements and making necessary related expenditures to promote developmen t and redevelopment within the District. The goal is to increase the tax base and to provide for and pr eserve employment opportunities within the City. The project costs included in this Plan relate directly to the elimination of blight and are consistent with the purpose for which the District is created. Based upon the findings, as stated w ithin this Plan, the District is declar ed to be a blighted area District based on the identification and classification of the property included within the district. ATTACHMENT 14 ATTACHMENT 15 STATE OF WISCONSIN:CITY OF FRANKLIN:MILWAUKEE COUNTY RESOLUTION NO.2026-8455 ARESOLUTION CREATING TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICTNO. 10, APPROVING ITSPROJECT PLAN AND ESTABLISHING ITSBOUNDARIES CITY OFFRANKLIN,WISCONSIN WHEREAS,the City of Franklin (the "City") hasdetermined thatuse ofTax Incremental Financing isrequiredtopromotedevelopmentandredevelopmentwithinthe City;and WHEREAS,TaxIncrementalDistrictNo. 10 (the "District") is proposed to be created by theCity asablightedareadistrictinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofWisconsin StatutesSection 66.1105(the "Tax IncrementLaw");and WHEREAS,aProjectPlanfortheDistricthasbeenpreparedthatincludes: a. A statement listing of the kind,number and location of all proposed public works or improvements within the District, or to the extent provided in Wisconsin Statutes Sections 66.1105(2)(f)1.k.and 66.1105(2)(f)1.n., outside oftheDistrict; b. Aneconomicfeasibility study; c. Adetailed listofestimatedprojectcosts; d. Adescriptionofthemethodsoffinancingallestimatedprojectcostsandthetimewhen therelated costsormonetary obligationsaretobe incurred; e. Amap showingexistingusesandconditionsofrealproperty intheDistrict; f. Amap showingproposed improvementsandusesin theDistrict; g. Proposed changes of zoning ordinances, master plan, map, building codes andCity ordinances; h. A listofestimatednon-project costs; 1. Astatementoftheproposedplan for relocation of anypersonstobe displaced; J. Astatementindicatinghow theDistrictpromotestheorderly developmentoftheCity; k. Anopinionofthe CityAttorneyorofanattorneyretainedbytheCityadvisingthatthe planis completeandcomplieswith Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.1105(4)(±).;and WHEREAS,priorto itspublication,acopy ofthenotice ofpublichearing wassenttothe chief executive officers of Milwaukee County, the Franklin Public School District, and the MilwaukeeAreaTechnicalCollegeDistrict,andanyotherentitieshavingthepowertolevy taxes on property located within the District, in accordance with the procedures specified in the Tax IncrementLaw;and WHEREAS,priortoitspublication,acopy ofthenoticeofpublichearingwasalsosentto theownersofallproperty intheproposedDistrict;and 2026-8455RES(TID 10CREATION) Page2 WHEREAS,in accordancewiththeproceduresspecifiedintheTaxIncrementLaw,the Plan Commission, on February 19,2026held apublichearingconcerningtheproject plan and boundaries and proposed creation of the District, providing interested parties a reasonable opportunitytoexpresstheirviewsthereon;and WHEREAS,aftersaidpublichearing,thePlanCommissiondesignatedtheboundariesof theDistrict, adoptedtheProject Plan, andrecommendedtothe Common Councilthat it create suchDistrictandapprovetheProjectPlan. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDbytheCommonCounciloftheCityofFranklin that: 1. Theboundaries oftheDistrictthatshallbenamed "TaxIncrementalDistrictNo. 10, City of Franklin", are hereby established as specified in Exhibit A of this Resolution. 2. TheDistrictiscreatedeffectiveasofJanuary1,2026. 3. TheCommonCouncilfindsanddeclaresthat: (a) Notlessthan50%byareaoftherealpropertywithintheDistrictisablighted areawithinthemeaningofWisconsinStatutesSection66.1105(2)(ae)1. (b) Based upon the finding stated in 3.a. above, the District is declared tobe a blighted area district based on the identification and classification of the propertyincludedwithintheDistrict. (c) Theimprovement of such area is likelytoenhance significantly thevalueof substantiallyalloftheotherrealpropertyintheDistrict. (d) The equalized value of the taxable property in the District plus the value incrementofallotherexistingtaxincrementaldistrictswithintheCity,doesnot exceed 12%ofthetotalequalizedvalueoftaxablepropertywithintheCity. (e) ThattherearenoparcelstobeincludedwithintheDistrictthatwereannexed bytheCitywithintheprecedingthree-yearperiod. () TheCityestimatesthatlessthan35%oftheterritorywithintheDistrictwillbe devoted to retail business at the end of the District's maximum expenditure period,pursuanttoWisconsinStatutesSection66.1105(5)(b). (g)Theprojectcostsrelatedirectlytopromotingtheeliminationofblightofthearea consistentwiththepurposeforwhichtheDistrictiscreated. 2026-8455 RES (TID 10 CREATION) Page 3 4. The Project Plan for "Tax Incremental District No. 10, City of Franklin" (see Exhibit B) is approved, and the City further finds the Plan is feasible and in conformity withthemaster planofthe City. BE ITFURTHERRESOLVED THATtheCity Clerk ishereby authorized anddirectedto apply to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, in such form as may be prescribed, for a "Determination of Tax Incremental Base", as of January 1, 2026, pursuant to the provisions of Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.1105(5)(b). BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDTHATpursuanttoSection66.1105(5)(f)oftheWisconsin Statutes thatthe City Assessor is hereby authorized and directed to identify upon the assessment roll returned and examined under Wisconsin Statutes Section 70.45, those parcels of property which are within theDistrict,specifyingthereon thename ofthe said District,andthe City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make similar notations on the tax roll made under Section 70.65oftheWisconsin Statutes. Adoptedthis 8th day ofApril,2026. AYES 3 NOES2 ABSENT0 2026-8455 RES(TID 10CREATION) Page4 LEGAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION OR MAP OF TAX INCREM ENTAL DISTRICT NO. 10 CITY OF FRANKLIN [INCLUDED WITHIN PROJECT PLAN] EXHIBIT A- 2026-8455RES(TID 10CREATION) Page 5 PROJECT PLAN [DISTRIBUTED SEPARATELY] EXHIBIT B­ City of Franklin Wisconsin Tax Incremental District No. 10 Joint Review Board Resolution JOINT REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CREATION OF TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICT NO. 10, CITY OF FRANKLIN WHEREAS, the City of Franklin (the “City”) seeks to create Tax Incremental District No. 10 (the “District”); and WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.1105(4m)(a) requires that a Joint Review Board (the “JRB”) convene to consider such proposal; and WHEREAS, the JRB consists of one representative chosen by the School District; one representative chosen by the Technical College District; and one representative chosen by the County, all of whom have the power to levy taxes on property within the Distric t; and one representative chosen by the City and one public member; and WHEREAS, the public member and JRB's chairperson were selected by a majority vote of the other JRB members before the public hearing required under Wisconsin Statutes Sections 66.1105 (4)(a) and (e) was held; and WHEREAS, all JRB members were appointed and the first JRB meeting was held within 14 days after the notice was published under Wisconsin Statutes Sections 66.1105 (4)(a) and (e); and WHEREAS, as required by Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.1105(4m)(b)1. the JRB has reviewed the public record, planning documents, resolution passed by the Plan Commission, and the resolution passed by the Common Council; and WHEREAS, the JRB has considered whether, and concluded that, the District meets the following criteria as required by Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.1105(4m)(c): 1. The development expected in the District would not occur without the use of tax increment financing. 2. The economic benefits of the District, as measured by increased employment, business and personal income and property value, are sufficient to compensate for the cost of the improvements. 3. The benefits of the proposal outweigh the anticipated tax increments to be paid by the owners of property in the overlying taxing districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the JRB approves the resolution passed by the Common Council creating the District, approving its Project Plan, and establishing its boundaries. City of Franklin Wisconsin Tax Incremental District No. 10 Joint Review Board Resolution BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the judgment of the JRB the development described in the Project Plan would not occur but for creation of the District, that the economic benefits of the District, as measured by increased employment, business and personal income and property value, are sufficient to compensate for the cost of the improvements, and that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the anticipated tax increments to be paid by the owners of property in the overlying taxing districts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the JRB approves those Project Costs identified in the Project Plan that will be made for projects located outside of, but within a one-half mile radius of the District, pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.1105(2)(f)1.n. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the JRB, as required by Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.1105(4m)(b)2m. has determined that the expected year of termination for purposes of Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.0602(3)(dq)1.b. is 2054, with final collection of tax increment to be the 2053 levy for the 2054 budget year. Passed and adopted this _____ day of , 2026. Resolution introduced and adoption moved by JRB member: Motion for adoption seconded by JRB member: On roll call motion passed by a vote of _____ ayes to _____ nays ATTEST: JRB Chairperson Signature Clerk Signature