Tonganoxie residents press council for 18-month moratorium on proposed data center; council divided

A steady stream of residents on June 1 urged the Tonganoxie City Council to place an 18-month moratorium on approvals for hyperscale data centers while others urged the council to reject the pause so the city can negotiate protections and benefits if the project proceeds.

Rebecca Davis, representing Citizens Against Blue Stem (Tongi Data Center Watchdog Group), described a citizen petition that would "pause, slow down, gather more information" on utilities, noise, water and tax incentives and asked the council to either adopt the petition ordinance or send it to a public vote rather than litigating the petitioners. "Our petition does not say no forever. It says pause, slow down," Davis said.

Opponents of the moratorium included Andy Pearson, who urged the council to "reject the moratorium and support Project Blue Stem," calling it a "multi-billion dollar hyperscale data center" he said could bring construction jobs, 100'to'100 permanent positions and, he asserted, roughly $358 million in tax revenue over 30 years based on public estimates. "Let's negotiate hard for strong mitigation," Pearson said.

Several other residents, including preschool operator Gretchen Mitler and longtime landowners Jane Dent and Brian Mley, said their concerns are public health, noise and loss of rural character. "This facility, if built, will forever change the landscape and the air, the water, the soil," Dent said, urging the council to back the petition.

City attorney Miss Kristich told the council she had reviewed the petition and relevant statutes and concluded the proposed ordinance likely is administrative and therefore subject to an exception in the statute that can make the petition process inapplicable. "I have determined that the proposed ordinance is administrative and therefore subject to the exception in subsection E," she said, adding the council could nonetheless adopt a moratorium by ordinance on its own initiative.

Council debate that followed divided around two central questions: would a moratorium give the city time to learn and set enforceable protections, or would it "tie the city's hands" and remove the council's ability to negotiate for community benefits if the county proceeds without city involvement? Newly elected council member Mr. Wilkkey told the room he could not support the 18-month petition moratorium as structured, saying it could prevent the city from negotiating for safety standards, taxes or infrastructure contributions. "A moratorium removes our seat at the table," he said.

No formal ordinance vote was taken at the June 1 meeting. Several council members asked staff to draft possible moratorium language and explore options, including mirroring a 90-day county moratorium that was already under consideration at the county level, and to return with recommendations. The council also discussed legal limits on annexation and the practical effect a city moratorium would have if the project proceeded on county-approved land outside city limits.

The next procedural step in the transcript was the council's direction to staff to prepare moratorium options for future consideration; the petitioners at the meeting requested either adoption of their petition ordinance or that the issue be placed before voters rather than litigated.