Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Tonganoxie council for answers and role in county review of proposed data center
Summary
At the June 15 Tonganoxie City Council meeting, multiple residents urged the council to explain the disposition of a citizen petition seeking a moratorium on a proposed 1.2-gigawatt data center and to seek a seat at county-level discussions; speakers raised health, noise, water and property-value concerns.
Dozens of Tonganoxie residents used the council's public-comment period on June 15 to press elected officials for transparency about a citizen petition and to ask the city to take a more active role in county-level reviews of a proposed large-scale data center.
Jim Carlskint, who identified himself during public comment, said a certified petition requesting a temporary moratorium on the project was submitted May 18 and that petitioners have since received "silence" from local government. "Tonight, I'm asking the council to publicly explain what action was taken on the petition, who made the decision, what criteria was used to evaluate the request," Carlskint said, asking for a written disposition and guidance about appeal or reconsideration options.
Several other residents described the proposed development — repeatedly characterized by speakers as a 1.2-gigawatt campus covering roughly 1,000 acres — as unprecedented and risky for water supplies, health and the rural character of the area. "We are being asked to accept the risk without fully understanding the consequences," said John Wickey, who described building a home near the proposed site.
Speakers cited a range of concerns: potential "heat-island" effects, air and water pollutants, noise from continuous backup generators, and impacts on wildlife and agriculture. Brooklyn Patton, who said she has a chronic kidney disease, voiced personal health concerns; Tammy Patton, a realtor, warned homeowners could be unable to sell properties near such a facility.
Several commenters urged the council to press county officials for more time and stronger standards. "I believe the best interests of Tonganoxie can be achieved with active participation from this council," John Morgan told the panel, asking it to "push to get a seat at the table" on noise, water and power standards.
One commenter, Tuna Conrad, recounted long-running frustrations with building inspections and permitting and said he believed a contractor he encountered was later "our mayor," a claim raised in public comment but not addressed by the council during the meeting.
Council members noted several times that the property at issue lies in county jurisdiction and that county processes — including a 90-day moratorium at the county level mentioned by commenters — are in motion. Council staff and members did not announce any formal city-level action on the petition at the June 15 meeting.
Next steps: Citizens asked for a written explanation of the petition's disposition and a clear route for appeal or reconsideration; several speakers urged residents to follow upcoming Board of County Commissioners hearings and elections, which some said will determine final outcomes. The council meeting record shows no formal vote on petition-related actions that night.
