Open records

1.  Record completeness issue: attachments missing. Communications from 2025 were received. Communications from 2021-present were requested in October

Attachments referenced throughout the email threads were not included in the production (spreadsheets, PDFs, drafts, scheduldes, and supporting documents). This leaves major gaps in what was actually shared, approved, or relied upon. linked files were not accessible/provided. Because key supporting documents are missing, the record does not allow full review of what was shared, approved, or relied upon. 

2.  Communications routed outside official channels

1. • Use of non-City email for City business
   • The records indicate Mayor Ted Neitzke used a CESA 6 personal email account for communications related to City business. 
   • Public records obligations apply based on the content and purpose of the communication, not the email platform used.
   • Project-related records may be fragmented across accounts unless personal/non-City accounts used for public business are searched and preserved.

Takeaway: Overall, this raises concern for potential gaps in the record. If City business is being conducted using a CESA 6 personal email account, then responsive records may exist outside City servers. Any complete production should include searches of non-City accounts used for City business, or a written statement explaining why those accounts were not searched.

3. This was never presented as a real “if.” 

1. • On 1/7/2025, the Mayor told the public we were at “step 1 of maybe 1,000” and “The opportunity to have a data center, which is very technology-based warehousing, on the north side of town could potentially bring a significant opportunity for the City. Key words are potentially. So, tonight what we want to do is explore those options because it is a significant thing for the City, the County, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States.”
   • Yet the developer had already executed a Pre-Development Agreement on December 12, 2024, which Mayor Neitzke signed on January 7, 2025. This signaled a mutual commitment to proceed. 
   • Just two weeks later, on January 22, 2025, the Pre-Annexation Agreement was approved and executed by both Mayor Neitzke and the developer. 
   • That sequence doesn’t suggest “let’s see if this is feasible.” It reads more like, “the decision has already been made — now we execute.” 
   • The unanswered question is what was ever truly up for debate. What terms were actually negotiated in public (including issues like expanded construction hours) if the foundational commitment was already in place?

Takeaway: The record reflects a project presented publicly as early-stage and evolving, while simultaneously being advanced through commitments, approvals, and messaging that signal a predetermined direction.

4. The pre-annexation agreement revealed the existence of the predevelopment agreement. 

• We did not know to request the Pre-Development Agreement until after we received and reviewed the Pre-Annexation Agreement, which mentioned the existence of the agreements likely existed.

5. A PR firm was involved early (before the public was aware of the project) to shape/spin the narrative

• The emails show professional PR/communications involvement (HPR Strategies) before the broader public was informed, indicating this wasn’t just “informing the community,” it was managing the message.
• There is clear evidence of message-control mechanics: draft review cycles, timing coordination, quote approvals, and a staged rollout of announcements (not spontaneous community communication).

6. A coordinated PR rollout (pre-release access, quote approvals, planned announcements)

• The communications reflect a planned media strategy including:
  • coordination with media
  • Mayor/governor quote review/approvals
  • A defined calendar of follow-on announcements (union partnership, “community engagement” items, and groundbreaking planning).

7. WDNR involvement happened early (before most people knew)

• The emails indicate WDNR involvement and permitting/Environmental impact study-type considerations were being discussed early in the process, including internal concern about WDNR communications and what they might require to be covered in the case of lawsuits

Takeaway: state-level environmental considerations were already active behind the scenes before the public had meaningful awareness or participation.

8. Milwaukee 7 involvement shows early regional economic-development coordination

• Milwaukee 7 involvement occurred early, before public knowledge of the project, suggesting this was being advanced through regional economic development channels while the public-facing process lagged far behind.

9. Valley Creek funding appears to be a strategic “community benefit” response — prompted by WDNR

• The emails suggest the Valley Creek project pledge was positioned as a community/environmental investment alongside announcements to improve community perception.
• The idea for Vantage to pledge money to the Valley Creek project is attributed to WDNR, which matters because it frames the pledge as part of a regulatory/mitigation narrative, not purely voluntary philanthropy.

10. Invite-only “community engagement” 

• Planning to make meetings and events invite-only.
• There is evidence of a curated invite list for a small business/community event, reinforcing that access and messaging were being managed.