The City of Edgerton, Kansas, has filed a lawsuit against the residents and the group behind a citizen petition that sought to ban high-impact data centers in the city. The city argues the petition is based on facts that are not true and is asking a court to declare it void.
According to KCTV5, Johnson County District Court records show the lawsuit names Carrie Schmidt, the Public Trust Collective, Inc., Kimberly Twente, and others as defendants. The city wants the petition thrown out and the ordinance it proposed permanently blocked from going to voters.
The legal fight comes after county officials confirmed that organizers had gathered enough valid signatures to require the city to either adopt the ordinance or send it to a public vote.
City says quotes and claims in the petition don’t match reality
On July 15, Schmidt filed the petition with the Edgerton City Clerk. It proposed an ordinance that would block high-impact data centers, prevent industrial nuisances, protect residents’ property, and preserve the city’s resource capacity, according to the lawsuit.
Before filing, Schmidt had submitted the petition to the Johnson County Legal Department for a form review. The county found that the petition generally followed state requirements but did not tell the city about this at the time. The city says it only received a copy of that determination on July 21.
The Johnson County Election Office later confirmed that enough valid signatures had been collected, which meant the city was legally required to either adopt the ordinance or put it before voters. Disputes like this are becoming more common as communities push back against data center growth across the country.
The Edgerton City Council reviewed the petition at its July 23 meeting and chose not to adopt it. City officers told the council the proposed ordinance was “legally and factually deficient.” The city says the petition’s introductory statements described actions the city never took and mentioned agreements that do not exist. It also says the ordinance included the phrase “the Governing Body finds…,” even though the city says it never actually made those findings.
Instead of sending the measure to a public vote, the council voted to authorize a lawsuit challenging the petition’s validity. City Attorney Todd Luckman later issued a statement explaining the city’s actions. Addressing why two individuals and the Public Trust Collective were named in the suit, he said, “This is because Kansas law requires that people whose interests would be affected by the decision must be named.”
Luckman also clarified what the city is and is not seeking. He said the city is not asking for money, attorney’s fees, or damages, and explained that a request for a “restraining order” in this case does not mean the city is trying to stop anyone from making contact. Instead, he said, “The City is asking the court to temporarily pause the election process that is required under the state law while the court determines whether the proposed ordinance can legally proceed to a vote.”
The lawsuit, filed by the law firm Stumbo Hanson, LLP, and verified by City Administrator Elizabeth A. Linn, lists several specific factual disagreements.
On water service, the city says it does not supply water to the Logistics Park, the industrial area where the data center has been proposed. That job belongs to Rural Water District No. 7, and the city says it has no authority over water decisions there.
On electric service, the city says it does not own or run an electric utility. Power in Edgerton comes from Evergy, a utility regulated by the state, and the city says there is no agreement requiring Evergy to consult with the city about any customer’s energy use. Power supply has become a flashpoint elsewhere, too, as some utilities are prioritizing data centers over local residents when it comes to electricity access.
Regarding construction, the city says it has not received a new construction application for a data center. It has only been asked to approve a site plan and plat for an existing building already located in an industrial zone. On zoning, the city says its Development Services Director determined in April 2025 that data center uses fit within the Business Park and Logistics Park zoning rules, meaning no rezoning is required for the project.
The city also pointed out what it calls an inconsistency in the petition. A separate manufacturing project once considered for the Logistics Park would have used more than 100,000 gallons of water a day, far more than a data center. That project would not have been blocked under the proposed ordinance, according to the lawsuit. Some states have taken a different route, with officials in Ohio suspending tax breaks for data centers amid similar community concerns.
The data center behind the dispute is proposed by DAMAC Digital Solutions Kansas, LLC, which wants to convert an existing building in the Logistics Park, an industrial area next to a BNSF Railroad intermodal facility. At a July 9 City Council meeting, residents raised concerns about water usage, environmental effects, and the company’s foreign ties.
The Edgerton Planning Commission had initially denied DAMAC’s site plan application over concerns about fuel tank placement. DAMAC appealed, and on July 16, the City Council voted 4-0 to approve the appeal, finding that DAMAC had committed to following all applicable city codes.
The city is now asking the court for two things: a declaratory judgment stating the petition is void because it contains false statements of fact, and a permanent injunction stopping the ordinance from being passed or sent to a public vote.
The city argues that if the ordinance is passed, it could not be repealed for 10 years, which it says could strip landowners of development rights and expose the city to costly lawsuits. The city also describes the petition as a disguised zoning ordinance that targets data centers while leaving out other industrial uses with similar or greater resource demands.
Published: Aug 18, 2026 08:15 am