Residents demand independent studies as developers describe $30 million-a-year data center plan for Osawatomie

Residents packed an Osawatomie council meeting on June 25 to challenge a proposed 283‑acre hyperscale data center dubbed “Project Catalyst,” pressing the city to require independent environmental, fiscal and public‑safety reviews before zoning or permits are approved.

The council heard more than a dozen public comments from nearby homeowners and community members who said they were worried about water use, noise, emergency response capacity, lighting and long‑term effects on property values. “Before we hand over 283 acres of our town's future, we have a duty to look at the actual track record of the partner we're choosing,” said Jennifer Hart, a resident who identified several earlier projects she said the developer did not complete.

Why it matters: Developers told the council their third‑party economic analysis projects roughly $30 million in annual revenue for the city and about 95–100 permanent jobs, while residents said the likely number of local, long‑term jobs is far lower than construction estimates and asked who would be legally accountable if promises fail.

In the presentation that followed public comment, GW Wells, a representative of Alco Development, and Charles Pensley of MDH Partners framed the project as an economic lifeline for the small city. Wells and Pensley said the site is already industrially zoned, that the team has pursued due diligence since 2023, and that they expect the project to be attractive to a hyperscaler because of available land, proximity to US‑169, existing transmission lines and fiber. “We believe the project will consume about 80,000 gallons a day of water,” Pensley said, adding the design is air‑cooled and that figure represents a substantial reduction from earlier plans.

Developers also said an earlier discussion of a 50% property‑tax abatement is no longer in play and that the users likely would pay full property taxes from day one. They described a suite of studies they are preparing—wetlands, endangered‑species habitat, sound, stormwater and traffic—and said formal site‑plan and zoning applications will be submitted this summer with public hearings to follow.

Residents sought specifics and legal guarantees. Speakers repeatedly asked: who verifies developer projections; what binding mechanisms will enforce performance guarantees; will backup diesel generators and weekly testing create air‑quality or health impacts; and will local emergency services receive the training and equipment needed for complex industrial incidents. “If those costs exist, who pays for them? The developer or the taxpayer?” asked Mark Winkls, a resident.

Developers’ responses and commitments: The team said grid interconnection and any required transmission upgrades would be paid by the project and coordinated with Evergy and regional transmission authorities; they reiterated that generators would be used only for weekly testing and outages and that emissions are subject to state and federal permitting. They promised that any off‑site road repairs and required public‑safety upgrades identified in a gap analysis would be funded by the project, and that all environmental and engineering studies would be publicly filed with the city as part of the zoning and permitting process. Pensley said construction could begin as early as 2028, contingent on approvals and power availability.

What remains unsettled: Residents and council members pressed for independent third‑party studies and questioned whether the pre‑development agreement should have waited until the city adopted specific zoning and performance standards for hyperscale data centers. Developers said the pre‑development work was to test feasibility and that formal rezoning, site‑plan review and legally enforceable development agreements will follow.

Next steps: The developers said they will submit formal zoning and site plans in the coming months and that the city will schedule public hearings where those studies and enforceable conditions—on noise limits, lighting, setbacks, water monitoring, emergency‑response funding and performance guarantees—can be required as binding conditions of approval. The council later moved on to consider procedural resolutions on utilities and franchise negotiations related to the project.

The meeting made clear that while the developer emphasizes economic benefit, residents demand independent verification and legally enforceable protections before any final approvals are granted.