Developer files another lawsuit against city

Shaffer Development, the Mequon company whose plans to create a large subdivision on Port Washington’s far west side were lauded by officials initially but ultimately fell through after 17 months of negotiations, filed an open records lawsuit against the city on Tuesday.

The suit is the second open records lawsuit filed against the city in recent months,  and it’s the second filed against the city by Shaffer.

Town of Port resident Lynde Uihlein filed a lawsuit in December seeking records relating to the Vantage Data Centers Lighthouse Campus.

Cindy Shaffer, owner of the development company, had proposed buying the 39-acre, city-owned Schanen farm on the south side of Highway 33 on the city’s far west side and creating a 263-home subdivision there.

After months of negotiations and deadline extensions, Shaffer’s plan for the development was approved by the Plan Commission, but Shaffer and the city were unable to reach a final development agreement for the project by the March 21, 2025, deadline.

The Common Council took no action after a closed session on March 18, and on March 24 the city attorney, in an email to Shaffer, said the city was not interested in extending the deadline.

In the suit filed Tuesday, Shaffer said she requested a number of records, including materials, records, notes and agreements from a March 18, 2025, closed session of the Common Council as well as other closed sessions dealing with her proposed project in an attempt to understand why the city ended negotiations. The lawsuit claims she has not received all of the items she sought.

“When the city finally did respond, all it produced were publicly available agendas and minutes of certain Common Council meetings,” the lawsuit states. “The city failed to produce any documentation, notes, recordings, resolutions or materials that were reviewed or considered during the closed sessions,” according to the lawsuit.

The court filing also includes a letter from City Clerk Susan Westerbeke to Shaffer’s attorney that states, “Further, many of the records your client requests simple do not exist. The city is under no obligation to create records that do not exist. The city has provided all responsive records to your May 6, 2025, (request) and considers the matter closed.”

The lawsuit says the reason provided buy the city for not providing other records is that they are covered under attorney-client privilege, but added the city did not explain why or how they are protected by the privilege.

In the lawsuit, Shaffer also questions the reason for the closed session. The city closed the meeting to “discuss and formulate negotiating strategies including ... the terms and conditions for sale and development of the approximately 39-acre parcel.”

“It is unclear what bargaining was necessary for the closed session, especially when such negotiation had previously been had between the parties,” the lawsuit states. “No bargaining was discussed by the city, nor could there be. This is further evidenced by the ultimate decision to no longer continue negotiations.”

Shaffer sent a request for a writ of mandamus for review and investigation to District Attorney Ben Lindsay, according to the suit, but on Feb. 3 Lindsay declined to take action on the request.

Shaffer’s lawsuit — a writ of mandamus — seeks a court order compelling the city to disclose the records as well as reimbursement of her costs.

Shaffer is also suing the city for more than $4 million, alleging the city did not negotiate with her in good faith.

In addition to the $200,000 in costs she incurred and the $4 million in lost profits, Shaffer is seeking to recover her attorney’s fees.

A hearing on motions in that case is scheduled before Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Adam Gerol on Friday, March 27.