(Examples listed: Yaskawa US, MDG, Saputo Cheese, Carma Labs, Krones)

What Nelson claims:

That these employers were directly recruited or secured through mayoral leadership and that jobs are “family-supporting.”

What the record is:

• Large employers locate based on:

  • State and regional economic development incentives

  • Workforce availability

  • Transportation access

  • Utility capacity

  • Private real-estate development

• Nothing shows that:

  • That Nelson led negotiations on wages or job quality, location or building value

  • Binding commitments regarding “family-supporting” compensation

  • Any involvement by Nelson in the recruitment of these companies

  • That any discussion on taxable value and involvement in the community were held with Nelson

FCN Analysis

The claim conflates economic growth occurring during Nelson’s tenure with direct causation by the mayor. The phrase “family-supporting jobs” is not defined and is unsupported by wage data in the campaign material.

Conclusion: General economic activity cited, but causal and qualitative claims are unsubstantiated.

What the card implies

That Mayor Nelson was instrumental in bringing Costco to Franklin.

What the record shows

• Costco site selection is driven primarily by:

  • Demographics

  • Traffic counts

  • Parcel size

  • Market demand

• The Franklin Costco followed:

  • Standard zoning and development approval processes

  • Recruitment by the landowner

  • Common Council review and approval

• No evidence shows Franklin was selected due to mayoral advocacy rather than market factors

FCN Analysis

The mayor did not “deliver” Costco. The project followed a typical commercial development path instigated by an extremely powerful and skilled landowner, not anything said or done by the City of Franklin. Approval authority rested with the Council, not the mayor acting alone.

Conclusion: Costco HAS NOT BROKEN GROUND IN FRANKLIN. The development happened in spite of Nelson.

(Example cited: Children’s Wisconsin Clinic)

What the card implies

That expansions were the result of mayoral policy initiatives.

What the record shows

• Medical clinics:

  • Are typically private or nonprofit expansions

  • Follow healthcare system planning, not municipal policy

  • Children's facility moved locations within the city.  Closed one, moved to another.

• Recreation and community services:

  • Offered no "list" of new recreation and community services.  No development has occurred on the last 110 acre park acquisition in 2022.

• No specific ordinances, initiatives, or funding programs are cited on the card

FCN Analysis

The claim references developments that occurred during Nelson’s tenure but does not demonstrate direct mayoral leadership nor action. Without policy citations, this functions as a temporal association, not proof of leadership action.

Conclusion: Unsupported by specific policy actions.

(Claim: Over 4,000 acres protected)

What the card implies

That green space preservation occurred because of the mayor’s actions.

What the record shows

• No new Franklin parkland since 2022

  • Was already designated prior to Nelson’s term

  • Is protected through zoning and conservation easements

  • Park development limited to conversion of tennis courts to pickleball courts.

  • No proposals presented that would have diminished natural or parks areas.

• During the same period:

  • High-density and commercial developments were approved

  • Some developments incorporated green space as a legal requirement, not a policy choice

• No new preservation ordinances are cited

Supported the removal of a conservation easement including the removal of 1,000 trees from a buffer yard protecting surrounding neighborhoods from impacts of active high school property.   Supported a 60' AVERAGE buffer between homes and the very active high school.

FCN Analysis

Unfounded claim of natural resources protection and parks enhancement. No evidence of any park/trail/open space acquisition or improvement, no evidence of attack on natural areas by development

Conclusion:   Claim is baseless

Campaign Promises vs. Record in Office

When John R. Nelson ran for mayor three years ago, his campaign centered on a promise to change the culture at City Hall. He criticized what he described as secrecy, dysfunction, and conflict under prior leadership, and pledged to bring transparency, inclusion, and ethical governance to Franklin.

On his campaign website as a candidate, Nelson wrote:

“Current leadership rarely welcomes new or different ideas. Lots of bright and experienced officials and volunteers have walked away from City Hall as a result. They were exhausted and frustrated.”

“Current leadership often has facilitated or promoted obstruction, inefficiency and secrecy. Conflict, tension, ethics complaints and lawsuits have followed.”

“I won’t recklessly use my authority to manipulate the system to get my way.”

After winning the election, Nelson reinforced those commitments, thanking voters for their trust and promising a new approach to governance:

“I promised you a transparent and inclusive city government, and I fully intend to keep this promise.”

Three years into his term, FCN’s review finds that the conditions Nelson pledged to correct have not improved — and in several respects have worsened. His administration has been marked by continued conflict, staff departures, public disputes, lawsuits, ethics complaints, and multiple investigations involving city leadership. Rather than the transparent and inclusive government voters were promised, City Hall has experienced ongoing controversy and erosion of public trust.

The contrast between Nelson’s campaign promises and the record of his administration is based on documented events and public reporting, not hindsight. For voters reviewing his record, the question is straightforward: if the problems Nelson ran against now characterize his own tenure, has the promised change been delivered?