May 13, 2026
90-day moratorium adopted
The BOCC adopted a 90-day moratorium by motion, 3–2, covering Project Bluestem and other data-center, battery-storage, and crypto-related proposals while regulations and additional information were considered.
Public record · Updated August 25, 2026
Project Bluestem, documented.
A source-grounded record of Leavenworth County's data-center debate: what has been formally decided, what County consultants modeled, what residents and officials have said, and what remains unverified in the publicly posted record.
Evidence rule used on this site
Official actions and primary documents are separated from consultant projections, representations attributed to project or utility parties, public testimony, and information that is not yet established in the public record. A claim being discussed at a public meeting does not automatically make the underlying claim true.
3–2May 13 moratorium vote
2–3Aug. 5 extension failed
8–1Aug. 12 regulations tabled
4distinct regulation drafts preserved
Concept illustration. This image is not the formal Project Bluestem application or an approved site plan.
Verified chronology
The process changed materially after May 13.
The sequence below uses official minutes, official recordings, Planning Commission packets, moratorium drafts, and County consultant materials. Where a document is missing, the limitation is stated. Click any event for evidence details.
Verified action
June 10
Draft regulatory framework continues
BOCC materials included a revised data-center regulation draft and separate draft moratoria. Official minutes show no action on those separate June moratorium drafts.
July 8
Planning Commission work session
The Planning Commission worked through data-center and BESS standards including zoning pathways, development agreements, closed-loop cooling, setbacks, public sound monitoring, third-party inspections, and developer-funded improvements.
July 22
Kutak Rock authorized for specialized County legal work
County records show authorization of Kutak Rock for legal services related to the proposed data-center development, with cost to be paid from Cloverleaf-provided funds. The executed engagement agreement was not publicly located.
Aug. 5
Moratorium extension fails 2–3
A motion to extend the data-center moratorium through January 31 failed. County staff then indicated the existing moratorium would expire.
Aug. 12
Planning Commission tables DEV-26-100, 8–1
At the public hearing, the Planning Commission tabled the proposed language amendments until the next month's meeting and requested a joint BOCC/Planning Commission work session. Andrew Gribble cast the no vote. Staff also stated there was no formal data-center application before the Commission that night.
Aug. 18
Project proposal reportedly submitted
The next day's official BOCC recording states that a project proposal had “came forward yesterday.” The public archive review did not locate the date-stamped application package or a public case number.
Aug. 19
New moratorium draft tabled after reported filing
Unsigned draft Resolution 2026-14 was in the packet. During the official recording, County officials said the new filing changed the legal posture, and the Board tabled the moratorium item. The draft Aug. 19 minutes later embedded in the Aug. 26 packet omit this discussion.
Evidence map
What is established — and what is not.
This is the site's central distinction. Each category has a different evidentiary weight.
Verified public record
- May 13 moratorium adopted 3–2.
- Aug. 5 extension failed 2–3.
- Aug. 12 Planning Commission tabled DEV-26-100 8–1.
- Four distinct regulation versions are preserved: April/May, June, July, and August.
- The County used a developer-funded mechanism for third-party review and professional work.
Basis: BOCC minutes/recordings, Planning Commission packets/recordings, Cost Funding Agreement, consultant authorization records.
County / consultant analysis
- Stifel modeled a conceptual ±1,145.5-acre project and a 1.2 GW electrical load.
- Stifel's report is explicitly a preliminary analysis of gross public-sector revenues.
- SMH proposed $99,650 in Phase 1 roadway engineering in the anticipated development area.
- These are analyses and planning inputs, not final approvals or guaranteed outcomes.
Basis: August 19 BOCC packet; Stifel report; SMH proposal.
Representations & public testimony
- Residents raised recurring concerns about water, power, noise, emissions, property impacts, rural character, incentives, and independent review.
- Project/utility-related figures discussed in meetings are labeled as attributed representations unless backed by the underlying document.
- Public testimony is preserved as part of the record but is not treated as proof of every factual assertion made.
Basis: BOCC and Planning Commission recordings/transcripts.
Not established in the posted record
- The formal Aug. 18 application package and public case number.
- A final site plan, final power configuration, or final water demand.
- An executed Project Bluestem development agreement, PILOT, tax-abatement, or community-benefit agreement.
- The underlying Evergy calculation cited for the 1.2 GW electricity estimate.
- A project-specific Suburban Water will-serve/capacity letter.
Basis: primary-document source-gap audit through Aug. 25, 2026.
Fiscal record
Stifel modeled gross revenue — not net public benefit.
That distinction is essential. Project-related governmental costs were not quantified in the report, and several major inputs remain assumptions or were supported by underlying materials that were not publicly posted.
$57.9Mapprox. annual measurable gross public-sector revenue modeled at stabilized build if the site remains unincorporated
$114.8Mapprox. annual measurable gross public-sector revenue modeled under an annexation scenario
1.2 GWelectrical-load assumption attributed by Stifel to Evergy; underlying Evergy calculation not publicly located
Do not read these as guaranteed outcomes. Stifel describes its work as preliminary gross public-sector revenue analysis. The annexation scenario is heavily affected by modeled Tonganoxie electricity sales-tax and franchise-fee assumptions. The public archive did not contain the underlying cost/benefit workbook, a final project application, or executed incentive/community-benefit agreements.
Developer-funded review
What the public documents actually show.
The County's public record shows a mechanism for the developer side to fund County third-party work. The posted agreement itself is unsigned and undated, so this site distinguishes the posted instrument from proof of execution.
Cost Funding Agreement
The publicly posted agreement names Western Meadowlark ProjectCo LLC and Leavenworth County, establishes an initial $450,000 fund for eligible third-party expenses, and caps aggregate contributions at $500,000 without developer consent.
Public version located in the May 6 BOCC packet; executed copy not publicly located.
Professional work
County records later show Kutak Rock authorization for specialized legal work and an SMH roadway-engineering proposal. The record should be read as County-retained professional work paid from developer-provided funds — not as proof that those professionals represented the developer.
July 22 and Aug. 19 BOCC packets/minutes.
Regulation development
The rules were still evolving when the reported application arrived.
The archive preserves four distinct versions and the Planning Commission's August decision not to advance the latest draft yet.
| Version | Status | What it shows |
|---|---|---|
| April 29 / May 6 | Found | Early BOCC regulatory draft and initial framework. |
| June 10 | Found | Revised BOCC work-session draft; included an 85 dBA property-line figure with tonal reduction language. |
| July 8 | Found | Planning Commission work-session draft and detailed discussion; commissioners moved toward 65 dBA, reduced to 55 dBA with tonal presence. |
| August 12 — DEV-26-100 | Found | Public-hearing draft; Planning Commission tabled it 8–1 for additional work. |
| Post-August 12 revision | Not publicly located | No later revised draft was found in the reviewed County packets through the archive cutoff. |
BESS vs. data centers
A real structural difference in the draft rules.
The August draft contains more explicit lifecycle protections for battery energy storage systems than for data centers. Staff explained that the regulatory pathways differ; critics argued comparable protections should be applied to the larger use.
BESS draft
- Decommissioning agreement
- Abandonment provisions
- Financial security
- Emergency-response requirements
- Transfer approval and fee
- Insurance / indemnification provisions
Data-center draft
The data-center framework relies more heavily on rezoning/development-plan review and project-specific development agreements for performance standards, penalties, and site-specific conditions.
Important: “Permitted by right” in a PIT district does not mean permitted anywhere in the County without review. The land would first have to obtain the applicable zoning and proceed through the required development-plan/public process.
Open record
Questions the public record cannot yet answer.
These are not accusations or assumptions. They are simply matters that the publicly posted materials reviewed through August 25 do not establish.
Formal applicationWhat exact project, zoning request, site plan, parcels, and phased buildout were filed on or about Aug. 18?
Power configurationWhat is the final utility/on-site generation configuration, if any, and what supporting studies accompany it?
Water commitmentWhat project-specific written capacity or will-serve commitment, if any, has been issued?
Fiscal agreementsAre any PILOT, abatement, development, or community-benefit agreements actually executed?
Net fiscal effectWhat are the governmental costs associated with the project, beyond the gross revenue modeled by Stifel?
Next regulation draftWhat changes will follow the Planning Commission's 8–1 vote to table DEV-26-100?
Why publish now?
The public record is already sufficient to document the County's formal actions, the regulatory timeline, consultant analyses, funding structure, and the limits of what has been publicly posted. Missing documents are identified as missing rather than filled in with assumptions. That makes the record useful now while remaining updateable as new official material is posted.
Source standard
Read the record yourself.
The Source Library organizes the official BOCC and Planning Commission recordings, meeting packets, minutes, regulation drafts, consultant work, and source-gap notes used for this page.