Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to respond to petition and question proposed hyperscale data center
Summary
Multiple residents urged Tonganoxie City Council to acknowledge and respond to a May 18 petition seeking a moratorium on a proposed hyperscale data center, raising concerns about transparency, land use, utility costs and health effects from electromagnetic fields.
A string of public commenters at the Tonganoxie City Council's July 6 meeting pressed the council to publicly acknowledge and respond to a petition submitted May 18 asking for a moratorium on a proposed hyperscale data center.
Carl Skint, introduced by the mayor, told the council that signers of the petition "deserve acknowledgment, communication, and response," saying a petition is "more than a collection of signatures" and asking the council to explain why the petition was rejected and to discuss annexation options and coordination with county commissioners.
Manette Holton, who said she has lived in Leavenworth County for more than 40 years, urged residents to scrutinize developer promises and to consult the city's comprehensive plan before rezoning decisions. She cited experiences in other states and recommended organized public participation early in the process.
Linda Steele, identified in the agenda as a cancer researcher, raised health concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with high-voltage transmission lines and urged requirements that any data center project include shielding and mitigation to prevent EMFs "from leaving the campus."
Tammy Patton questioned long-term land-use and financial impacts, asking what would happen if large data center buildings were no longer needed in 20 years, whether buyers or end users would be bound by commitments, and who would pay for site reclamation or environmental cleanup if necessary. She also asked whether utilities or property values could be affected and whether the city could secure guarantees for future liability and compliance.
None of the public comments recorded a direct staff response that night addressing the petition's rejection or promising specific follow-up; speakers asked the council to make the record of the petition and staff responses more transparent. The council moved on to its regular agenda after the public comment period.
What happens next: The council did not take a formal vote on a moratorium during the meeting. Petitioners asked for public discussion of the petition outcome, annexation options and clearer communication; the council's next procedural steps were not specified in the record of the July 6 meeting.
