Data center foes file petition; panel OKs TIF district

Less than a week after opponents of the Vantage Data Center’s Lighthouse Campus turned in a petition aimed at forcing a referendum on a tax incremental financing district for the campus, the Port Washington Joint Review Board unanimously approved a TIF district that would fund $459 million in primarily infrastructure costs for the project — the last local approval needed for the complex.

The petition, signed by 1,028 city residents seeking to have the TIF district put to referendum, was given to City Clerk Susan Westerbeke Thursday, Nov. 13, by members of the opposition group Great Lakes Neighbors United.

“We just want our voice to be heard,” member Mike Beaster said. “We pour our hearts out at Common Council meetings. They just move ahead.”

Christine Le Jeune, a founding member, said the petition is a major step for residents who have been “shamefully ignored” by officials regarding the data center.

“Residents are clear; we are not divided on the data center, on how we want our town to be run. The petition shows that,” she said. “Democracy works best when people have a say in decisions that directly impact their city and their wallets. We will use every available avenue to fight back and overturn the irresponsible decision that went against the wishes of residents.

“If the Joint Review Board does not decline the TID on Tuesday, then we will all know how the city truly feels about its residents.”

On Tuesday, the Joint Review Board, which is made up of representatives of the taxing entities — the city, Port-Saukville School District, Ozaukee County and Milwaukee Area Technical District as well as a citizen — met and unanimously approved the TIF district with little discussion.

Todd Taves, senior municipal advisory with Ehlers, the city’s financial consultant for the TIF district, noted that the city received a letter from the Great Lakes Neighbors United objecting to the creation of the district.

The letter, written by Attorney Joseph Cincotta, asserts that the district does not comply with state laws governing industrial TIF districts and is inconsistent with the state’s public purpose doctrine, which requires public funds to be used for public purposes.

“The Joint Review Board should consider pausing on its decision to approve or deny TIF No. 5 and seek further information and facts so it may make a properly based decision on this significant project and obligation for the city,” Cincotta wrote.

Chris Smith, the city’s attorney for the data center, told the board, “Creation of this district is in accordance with all state statutes.”

Cincotta told the Common Council on Tuesday that Great Lakes Neighbors United is looking at what to do next regarding the TIF district, saying they are examining every step of the process.

Taves said after the meeting that the district still has to be certified by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

The petition seeks a referendum on any TIF district with a base value of $10 million or that anticipates project costs of $10 million or more. 

The city has 15 days to review and certify the petition, something Smith said primarily involves checking the signatures to ensure those who signed the petition are qualified voters who live in the city.

If there are issues, the clerk then returns the document and the petitioners have 10 days to correct it, Smith said. 

Once the petition is certified, it will be forwarded to the Common Council, which has 30 days to either adopt the action or place it on the ballot in spring. 

Smith said he will also likely review the document during that time.

About 100 people attended Tuesday’s Common Council meeting, many of them expressing frustration with the city’s actions and concerns about the potential for energy costs to rise, water quality to be compromised and pollution to increase because of the $15 billion data center campus being built by Vantage for Oracle and OpenAI.

They also spoke against the TIF district, saying the city shouldn’t have to help the company with its development, adding a large corporation will run roughshod over the city, and they again asked the city to hold a referendum or at a minimum slow action on the data center.

If Saukville can hold a referendum on whether to allow residents to raise chickens, the least Port can do is hold one on the data center, Mike Jenkens, 5400 Sunny Ridge, Belgium, said.

“Vote no tonight and give the power back to the people,” he said, noting Port won’t see any major tax benefit for years.

“Give us the opportunity to vote on the biggest development this town has ever seen,” Emily Bolwerk, 312 W. Main St., added. “There has not been enough research into the negative effects of the data center. 

“You say Vantage is going to provide 1,000 jobs. List them. I want proof. All I can find is data saying data centers do not create economic growth.”

Kathleen Cady Shilling, executive director of Ozaukee Economic Development, said she supports the data center, noting Vantage has been meeting with local businesses to talk about how they can be part of the project and benefit from it.

“There’s going to be a variety of options for businesses,” she said. “We are very excited to see the project move forward. We’re also excited to see Vantage becoming one with the community.

Vantage is also talking to people about ways to support the community, Cady Shilling said.

But Maureen Jajtner, 3639 E. Norport Dr., told aldermen, “Building something that is not needed or wanted is not wise. Are we protecting ourselves? Are there guarantees? Are we  willing to sell our soul and our city for a pie-in-the-sky promise?

“How many experts do we have working for us? Are we just accepting that these companies have our best interest at heart.” 

Michael Gauthier, 3283 Bayhill Rd., told officials, “We don’t want this. This is not just me and all my friends. Everyone in the city is opposed to this except for a very small minority of people who are going to profit from this.”

After he swore at aldermen and accused them of taking money from the company, he was escorted from the podium by police.