Residents press Leavenworth County to extend 90-day moratorium, demand independent studies on proposed data center

Leavenworth County commissioners heard more than an hour of public comment from residents urging a cautious, study-driven approach to a proposed hyperscale data center (called in testimony “Project Blue STEM” or associated with Clover Leaf). Several speakers said the existing 90-day moratorium is insufficient and asked the commission to provide more time and accessible meeting opportunities so affected residents can review technical studies and participate.

Ashley Gubian, a Tonganoxy resident, opened the line of formal comments by thanking the commission for the 90-day moratorium but saying that “90 days is simply not enough time to fully evaluate a project of this magnitude.” She asked the county to hold at least one evening meeting or a town-hall-style session in the district where the project is proposed so working residents can attend without taking time off.

Other commenters recited technical concerns they said have not been addressed in the public materials. Kim Culbert said public diagrams show on-site power generation and described various configurations that could include gas turbines and multiple megawatts of generation, raising questions about emissions, water use and a 110–150-foot tower associated with auxiliary equipment. “The lack of transparency is what is most disturbing,” she said, and urged the commission to require independent analyses before any substantive approvals.

Rick Watkins, a commercial developer who said his firm owns 165 acres southwest of the proposed site, told commissioners he has generally backed development in the past but worries about electricity draw, potential low-frequency or tonal noise, water usage and localized warming effects. He said the proposal could affect nearby residential projects and asked the commission to consider those land-use implications.

Several commenters also raised fiscal concerns about state-level tax incentives for data centers. Written testimony read into the record referenced Senate Bill 98 and the work of fiscal watchdog groups noting that tax incentives for data centers in other states have produced significant foregone revenue. At the meeting, commenters urged a full fiscal-impact analysis that accounts for long-term capital refresh cycles, potential foregone tax revenue and any costs local government might assume for infrastructure or mitigation.

Supporters of extended review urged a list of independent studies before the county permits a project of this scale: an environmental impact study, aquifer and groundwater assessment, traffic and road-use analysis, a noise study that addresses low-frequency and tonal noise, emergency-services capacity review, a fiscal-impact study and a property-value analysis. Multiple speakers recommended that the county stipulate independent review by firms with no financial relationship to the applicant or the county.

Commissioners did not take a new procedural vote on the moratorium during the public-comment period. Several commissioners acknowledged the scope of the questions raised and noted that moratorium-related work and legal issues are being reviewed by staff, while others said clarifying technical questions are appropriate for the planning commission and staff to address.

Next steps: residents asked for an extended moratorium and at least one evening public meeting in the impacted district and requested that staff compile a list of independent studies to be required as part of the county’s review package. The commission did not announce a new deadline at the meeting; residents said they will follow up with written requests and asked the county to include their materials in the agenda packet for future review.