Port Washington residents press council over proposed Vantage data center as petition and objections mount

Dozens of Port Washington residents used a packed public-comment period to press the Common Council on a proposed Vantage data center, saying they were not properly consulted and urging elected officials to slow or halt approvals.

Critics raised environmental, fiscal and transparency concerns. Mike Jenkins, a local resident, said petition organizers have collected more than 1,000 signatures and urged the council to “vote no tonight and put the power back to the people” while arguing that negotiated tax-increment financing (TID) terms shift long-term infrastructure costs away from the company and onto taxpayers.

Several speakers criticized the city’s outreach and questioned promises from Vantage and utility partners. Emily Bullwark, a librarian, said she had reviewed the city’s materials and outside studies and found the city’s presentation to be “biased” and lacking independent verification. Jonathan Rizk told the council he believed Vantage and We Energies had misled the public about electricity costs, citing local reporting that he said showed reduced rates for very large customers could leave other customers to bear additional cost.

An attorney representing a local group, Great Lakes Neighbors United, told the council he had filed an eight-page objection to the TID approval and noted the joint review board had approved the TID earlier that afternoon. Joe Sincotta said the group is reviewing next steps on land use and annexation matters related to the project.

Supporters also spoke. Kathleen (Katie) Schilling, representing the Ozaukee Economic Development Board, said her organization supports the Vantage proposal and expects investment, construction jobs and opportunities for local businesses to participate in supply chains and services for the project.

Mayor (speaker identified in the public record) and staff clarified meeting procedure: the council took no TID vote at the meeting, and the mayor said the city clerk will validate petition signatures within a 15-day review window and the council will have up to 30 days to respond if the petition is certified.

The meeting record shows a wide range of requests from the public, including demands for independent third-party oversight of water use and emissions, clearly defined clawback provisions tied to jobs and investment promises, regular public reporting of water usage, and stronger community benefit commitments. Several speakers asked that the council postpone further approvals until those safeguards are specified.

What happens next: the council carried out routine agenda items that evening but did not take final action on the TID or other major entitlements; petition verification and any follow-up actions will proceed through the city clerk and council process.