Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Gardner City Council to pause data center approvals pending impact studies
Summary
Multiple residents and regional advocates urged the Gardner City Council to place an 18–24 month moratorium on data center approvals near 191st Sinclair, citing weak state standards, potential health and environmental impacts, noise and water use, and calls for independent third‑party assessments and transparency about incentives.
Residents and regional advocates pressed the Gardner City Council on the local impacts of proposed data center development, urging the council to adopt an 18–24 month moratorium to allow independent study and new local safeguards.
"They should be restricted to areas specifically designed to absorb those impacts," said Carrie Barth, a former state representative speaking for the Kansas Maha Council, arguing that weak state regulations and a 2024 sales-and-use tax exemption have encouraged data center siting in Kansas. Barth recommended a date‑certain pause until a state‑level independent third‑party study of safety and health effects is completed.
Carrie Schmidt, a Gardner resident, told the council the moratorium would give the city time to create clear definitions and guardrails for data centers, saying current zoning categories are vague and were written before such high‑power, high‑water‑use facilities existed. "An 18 to 24 month pause here in Gardner gives you time for thorough impact studies," she said.
Stacy Rogers, a candidate for governor, called for a statewide moratorium and encouraged collaboration between cities, counties and legislators so local officials can review guardrails and involve residents in work sessions before decisions are made.
Dr. Nicole Bowen urged independent third‑party assessments of environmental impact, infrastructure demand and compatibility with surrounding residential areas, and she asked for transparency on the use of economic incentives tied to projects. "Residents deserve transparency around the use of economic incentives moving forward," she said.
David Harris described how the proposed site would sit near multigenerational family properties and said the council should establish advance guidance about where industrial uses may go to avoid sudden, incompatible rezoning. "We should know in advance where those are," he said.
Council members acknowledged the concerns and flagged several follow‑ups: one council member asked staff to prepare for discussions on a potential moratorium before the June 1 meeting and another urged the council to consider regional impacts if neighboring jurisdictions approve different standards.
The council did not take a formal vote on a moratorium at this meeting; public comment concluded and the meeting moved to consent items. The next steps identified in the meeting were staff follow‑up, potential work sessions with residents and a June 1 council agenda item where a moratorium could be formally considered.
