There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
STATE OF MISSOURI
STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel.
WAKE UP JEFFCO, LLC,
SHERMAN DOYLE,
VERNON VALISH,
SHARON VALISH,
ROZILYN DANIELS,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF FESTUS, MISSOURI,
Serve: City Clerk
711 W Main Street
Festus, MO 63028
CRG ACQUISITION, LLC,
Serve: Registered Agent
8640 Evans Ave
St. Louis, MO 63134
DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. ____________
Division _____
PETITION
COMES NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 87
and 92, §§ 536.150 and 610.027, RSMo, and for its Petition states:
Parties
1.
Plaintiff - Wake Up Jeffco, LLC (“Wake Up Jeffco”) is a Missouri limited liability
company in good standing. Plaintiff was organized on February 11, 2026. Prior to its
organization, Wake Up Jeffco’s members and supporters operated as an unincorporated
association. Wake Up Jeffco’s business purposes include promoting educational and public
awareness regarding any proposed data center or any related facility that may be located in or
near Festus, Missouri or in Jefferson County, Missouri, retaining accountants, legal counsel and
1
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
26SL-CC03024Page 2 and other legal and/or administrative activities regarding the Company and its activities.
2.
Wake Up Jeffco’s members and supporters are Missouri residents, property
owners, and taxpayers who reside in and near Festus, Missouri. Wake Up Jeffco and its
members and supporters are adversely affected and aggrieved by the acts of Defendants as set
forth in the Petition.
3.
Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle, Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels are
taxpayers, property owners, and residents of Festus, Missouri, whose properties are located on
Glenkee Court in the immediate vicinity of the proposed data center project. Plaintiffs Sherman
Doyle, Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels have vested property interests that are
adversely affected and aggrieved by the acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth in the
Petition.
4.
Defendant - CRG Acquisition, LLC (“CRG”) is a Missouri limited liability
company in good standing. CRG’s principal place of business and registered agent are located in
St. Louis County, Missouri. According to its website, CRG “is a real estate development and
investment firm” that develops “scalable, high-performance data centers.”
5.
Defendant - City of Festus, Missouri (“City”) is a third class city located in
Jefferson County, Missouri.
6.
The City’s governing body is the eight member City Council and the Mayor.
Jurisdiction and Venue
7.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter in accordance with Article III, § 3 of
the Missouri Constitution. Venue is appropriate in accordance with § 508.010.2(2), RSMo
because CRG’s principal place of business and registered agent are located in St. Louis County.
2
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
other persons to provide assistance to the Company in its activities, and participating in litigationPage 3 Facts Regarding Data Centers
8.
Data centers are large buildings that house rows of computer servers,
data storage systems and networking equipment, as well as the equipment used for
power and cooling systems.1
9.
AI data centers are built to run around the clock, with no tolerance for downtime.
As a result, to ensure service continuity during grid outages, the rapid growth of AI data centers
is accompanied by a surge in on-site backup generator installations. . . . The high emission rate
from diesel backup generators, combined with extended operation for maintenance and nonemergency load shedding, could pose serious health risks to communities near large data
centers.2
10.
According to a recent report by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S.
data centers are projected to account for 6.7% to 12.0% of the nation’s total electricity
consumption by 2028, up from 4.4% in 2023. As data centers continue to rely on the power grid
as a primary energy supply, their soaring energy consumption could impose a substantial public
health burden, driving the total health impact of U.S. data centers up to around $20 billion per
year by 2028.3
11.
A typical AI-focused hyperscale data center annually consumes as much
electricity as 100,000 households.4
Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/ 2025/10/24/what-we-knowabout-energy-use-at-us-data-centers-amid-the-ai-boom/.
2 Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2025/11/mitigating-the-public-health-impacts-of-aidata-centers.
3 Id.
4 Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/ 2025/10/24/what-we-knowabout-energy-use-at-us-data-centers-amid-the-ai-boom/.
1
3
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Statement of FactsPage 4 Most of the electricity used by data centers – about 60% on average, . . . powers
the servers that process and store digital information. . . The next-largest component of energy
use at data centers are the cooling systems that prevent servers from overheating.5
13.
Cooling systems consume 30-40% of total data center power, making them the
second-largest electricity user. All IT equipment generates heat during operation, and
maintaining optimal temperatures (typically 68-77°F) is critical for preventing equipment
failure.6
14.
The siting of AI data centers, especially those with on-site diesel generators and
pollutant-intensive power generation, can directly worsen local air quality and health. . . To
minimize the health burden, data center developers and operators should strategically choose
locations that avoid exacerbating air pollution or health risks, guided by comprehensive, sciencebased health impact analyses.7
15.
Hyperscale AI data centers have a remarkable impact on their local regions, which
is consistent across the data centers worldwide and extends for several kilometers around the AI
hyperscalers. The consistency, scale and extent of these effects creates local climate zones
induced by data centers - the data heat island effect.8
16.
The data heat island effect could affect the welfare, healthcare, energy, and demo-
graphic systems. Since the trends of data center energy consumption are expected to show a
steep growth in the foreseeable future, the data heat island effect could solidly become an
Id.
Independent Alliance of the Electrical Industry (IAEI), https://iaeimagazine.org/ electricalfundamentals/how-much-electricity-does-a-data-center-use-complete-2025-analysis/.
7 Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2025/11/mitigating-the-public-health-impacts-of-aidata-centers.
8 Marinoni, A., Lio, P., Cambria, E. (2026). The Data Heat Island Effect: Quantifying the Impact
of AI Data Centers in a Warming World. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20897.
5
6
4
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
12.Page 5 having a robust impact on communities at local, regional, and international level.9
Facts Regarding the City’s Involvement with CRG
17.
According to an e-mail dated August 8, 2025 from Christopher P. McKee
(President, CRG) and an e-mail dated November 11, 2025 from Gregory Camp (City
Administrator), CRG first approached the City concerning a data center project to be located
along U.S. Highway 67 at County Highway CC on or about August 4, 2025.10
18.
On August 7, 2025, CRG met with the City Administrator, the City’s Building and
Planning Director, and the City’s Public Works Director to discuss the data center project.11
19.
In an e-mail dated August 8, 2025 to the Mayor and City Council, the City
Administrator stated, in part,
CONFIDENTIAL – Data Center Discussion – On Thursday Building and Planning
Director Mark Harris, Public Works Director Michael Christopher and myself, along
with Doug Bjornstad from Jefferson County Public Sewer District met with Chris
McKee, Chief Development Officer-CRG, Natasha Das, Vice-President-CRG, and
George Stock, President-Stock& Associates Consulting Engineers about their
assembly of several large tracts off of CC Highway and US67 for the purpose of a
data center. The location has large appeal due to the availability/proximity of high
voltage from Ameren. Our discussion covered annexation, zoning, development,
utilities and more. The proposed location may come before P&Z and City Council
as soon as September/October. A map of the area is attached.
20.
In an e-mail dated August 29, 2025 to Natasha Das (CRG), the City Building and
Planning Director stated,
Natasha
Here is the timetable I have:
Id.
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0101 and 0155 (https://www.festusmo.gov/
DocumentCenter/View/2358/Responsive-Records-3).
11 See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0101 and 0155.
9
10
5
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
additional factor for environmental and industrial sustainability in the changing climate, hencePage 6 All meetings are held at City Hall (P &Z 6:30 p.m.; Council 6:00 p.m. w/ hearings
normally 10 mins before at 5:50 p.m.)
I’ve attached the ordinance as well.
Have a great weekend.12
21.
In reply to the Building and Planning Director’s e-mail, Natasha Das (CRG)
stated GRG preferred a different timeline:
Mark,
Thanks for the call. As discussed, we’d appreciate it if we could pursue the below
timeline, instead.
Can you please confirm that works from your end? Also, please confirm the
publication deadline and whether any notices have gone out or been requested with
respect to the original 9/22 Council meeting. Thanks, again, for all of your help.
10/16 - P&Z for revision of Zoning Code
10/27 – Council for revision of zoning code
11/10 – Annexation Council
11/20 – P&Z for Zoning on all property
11/24 – Rezoning Council13
22.
In an e-mail dated September 4, 2025 to the Mayor and City Council, the City
Administrator made arrangements for Council members to meet with CRG in small groups:
All,
The City has been in talks with CRG Development regarding a Data Center project at
US67 and CC Highway. The project is substantial not just for Festus but for
Jefferson County. We are setting up stakeholder meetings with the
12
13
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0090.
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0088 - 0089.
6
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
09/11 - P&Z for revision of Zoning Code
09/22 – Council for revision of zoning code
10/14 (Tuesday) – Annexation Council
10/16 – P&Z for Zoning on all property
10/27 – Rezoning CouncilPage 7 Have a great day!14
23.
In an e-mail dated September 8, 2025 to the City Administrator and City Building
and Planning Director, Natasha Das (CRG) asked about the small group meetings:
Greg, Mark – hope you both had a wonderful weekend!
I’m following up on a few items:
- Checking to see how the schedule is looking for next Monday? Is there
anyone who was on the list that you were unable to get ahold of?15
24.
In his reply to Natasha Das’ e-mail, the City Administrator confirmed the small
group meetings: “Right now, I have groups of 3 starting at 9am and done by 3p (break for
lunch) hope to have it finalized tomorrow.”16
25.
In a text message conversation on September 12, 2025 (Exhibit 1 - 185), two City
officials, whose identities are currently unknown, stated CRG is “prepared” for the “NIMBAs:”17
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0005.
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0072.
16 See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0070 - 0071.
17 “NIMBa” is likely a typographical error for “NIMBY,” meaning opponents to the project, i.e.
“not in my back yard.”
14
15
7
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
development team to discuss the project and answer questions - would like to see if
you are available on September 15th or 17th? If you could give me a couple of
date/times, since we have to limit how many Councilmembers can attend at the
same time.Page 8 Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
8Page 9 On September 15, 2025, the Mayor and members of the City Council met in
groups of three persons or less with CRG for the specific purpose of discussing the data center
project, including amending the City zoning ordinance to accommodate data centers, annexing
certain properties into the City, and rezoning of several parcels for industrial use.18
27.
In an e-mail dated September 22, 2025 to the City Administrator, Chris McKee
(CRG) provided proposed Ordinance revisions to the City:
Good morning, Greg,
I hope you had a pleasant weekend. Could we find some time today to discuss the
proposed ordinance revisions? We reviewed them in detail on Friday and have a few
comments we'd like to share.
Additionally, could you please send us the contact information for the individuals
we met with last week? We would like to follow up with them on any further
questions they might have.
Thank you.
Chris19
28.
In an e-mail dated September 25, 2025 to the City Administrator and Building and
Planning Director, Natasha Das (CRG) confirmed the requested annexation and rezoning efforts
“will not go public:”
Mark, please see below. This will not go public until the notices that we handle
ourselves related to the rezoning, correct? Thanks.
Stockham
18-6.0-13.0-0-002-026 (in Festus)
Dietrich
18-6.0-14.0-0-000-001 (to be annexed)
18-6.0-23.0-0-000-004 (to be annexed)
See “CRG Stakeholder Meetings - September 15, 2025,” Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents
0306, 0307.
19 See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0100.
18
9
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
26.Page 10 Fadler
18-6.0-23.0-0-000-003 (to be annexed)
18-6.0-14.0-0-000-006 (to be annexed)20
29.
In reply to Natasha Das’ September 25, 2025 e-mail, the City Building and
Planning Director confirmed he would not release his report to the public:
Thank you.
I am simply preparing my report with this information. My report isn’t public until we
post the agenda aprox. November 17th.21
30.
In a text message conversation on October 9, 2025 (Exhibit 1 - 188), two City
officials, whose identities are currently unknown, discussed not having a public meeting in
connection with the annexation and how the public is likely unaware of the annexation:
20
21
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0092.
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0091.
10
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Hammon
18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019.01 (in Festus)
18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019 (to be annexed)Page 11 Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
31.
On multiple occasions between September 15, 2025 to October 27, 2025, the City
Council conducted public meetings in which closed sessions occurred during which the data
center project was discussed.
32.
Between September 15, 2025 to December 31, 2025, several City Council
members and other City officials traveled out-of-State for the specific purpose of visiting
different data center, with travel expenses paid by third party economic development groups.22
On information and belief, it is likely CRG reimbursed these economic development groups
for all travel expenses incurred by City officials.
22
11Page 12 On October 16, 2025, the City Planning and Zoning met and recommended
approval of certain amendments to the Festus City Code, Section 405.010 - Definitions, Section
405.185 - Regulation of Data Centers, and Section 405.390 - Data Centers.
34.
These specific amendments to the Festus City Code were proposed by CRG.
35.
On October 27, 2025, the City Council enacted Ordinance 4858 approving
amendments to the Festus City Code, Sections 405.010 - Definitions, Section 405.185 Regulation of Data Centers, and Section 405.390 - Data Centers.
36.
In a text message conversation on October 28, 2025 (Exhibit 1 - 194 - 194), two
City officials, whose identities are currently unknown referred to opponents to the data center
project as a “sideshow of uneducated people:”
12
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
33.Page 13 In an e-mail dated November 3, 2025 to the City Attorney, City Administrator,
and Building and Planning Director, Brandon Moonier (Thurman Law Firm representing CRG),
transmitted the documents to be executed by the City in connection with the annexation and
rezoning:
Gents:
Would appreciate your eyes on the attached. It’s the proposed annexation/rezoning
documentation for the 5 parcels outside of the City limits.
If acceptable as to form, I will arrange for signatures.
Thanks,
BTM23
38.
On or about November 5, 2025, applications for rezoning were submitted for the
seven parcels comprising the location of the proposed data center.
39.
These seven parcels included five parcels proposed for annexation and parcel
numbers 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-026 and 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019.01, which were already located
within the City limits.
40.
The rezoning applications were prepared by and signed as “Applicant” by CRG’s
consultant.
41.
On or about November 6, 2025, requests for annexation were submitted to the
City by the owners of the five parcels outside the City limits where the proposed data center
location was located.
42.
The parcel numbers for these five parcels are: 18-6.0-14.0-0-000-001; 18-6.0-
23.0-0-000-004; 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019; 18-6.0-23.0-0-000-003; and 18-6.0-14.0-0-000-006.
23
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0003.
13
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
37.Page 14 The forms requesting these annexations were prepared by CRG’s consultant.
44.
The five parcels were located in unincorporated Jefferson County and were zoned
N-1 (non-urban) under the Jefferson County zoning ordinance.
45.
In an e-mail dated November 7, 2025 to Chris McKee (CRG), Brian Malone (City
Attorney), Brandon Moonier (Thurman Law Firm representing CRG), Natasha Das (CRG), and
Mark Harris (City Building and Planning Director), the City Administrator admitted “the cat is
out of the bag” about the public’s knowledge of the data center project:
All,
With the agenda/annexation posted – the direct question posted to me by Ben
Menendez (Facebook page JeffCo Voters Voices For Responsible Development),
is it safe to assume this is for the Festus Data Center?
At some point the cat is out of the bag – while the zoning is not I1, that is certainly
the intent.
Thoughts on a response?24
46.
In a text message conversation on November 7, 2026 (Exhibit 1 - 196), two City
officials, whose identities are currently unknown, confirmed another meeting with CRG:
24
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0106.
14
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
43.Page 15 On November 10, 2025, the City Council enacted Ordinance 4860 which annexed
these five parcels into the City.
48.
On November 12, 13, and 17, 2025, several members of the City Council,
Planning and Zoning Commission, and other City officials met with CRG for the specific
purpose of discussing the data center project.25
49.
In a text message conversation on November 16, 2025 (Exhibit 1 - 198 - 199),
two City officials, whose identities are currently unknown, discussed a way to mislead the public
about CRG’s data center project and how they must “keep the flock herded:”
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0111 - 0112 (e-mail dated November 10, 2025 from
Gregory Camp (City Administrator) to Brian Malone (City Attorney), Brandon Moonier
(Thurman Law Firm representing CRG), Chris McKee (CRG), and Natasha Das (CRG).
25
15
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
47.Page 16 On November 20, 2025, the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission met and
recommended approval of all the rezoning applications.
51.
In an e-mail dated November 22, 2025 to the City Administrator, Councilperson
Templeton asked whether there could be a pause to allow for an open house for the public:
Greg,
I realize we can’t conduct studies, as we don’t have an actual proposal, but is there
value to having an open house to openly discuss the data we have, the research
conducted and the potential facility that could be built? I realize this would delay
the process, but is it worth the time and effort to help with community opposition?
I’m concerned the speed of this process is causing things to spiral.
Thank you,
Staci Templeton26
52.
Contrary to Councilperson Templeton’s request, the City did not conduct any
open house to “openly discuss the data center.”
53.
In a text message conversation that occurred prior to the Monday, November 27,
2025 City Council meeting (Exhibit 1 - 200 - 202), two City officials, whose identities are
currently unknown, discussed restricting public participation at the upcoming Council meeting
by limiting the number of public comments:
26
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0079.
16
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
50.Page 17 Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
54.
On November 27, 2025, the City Council enacted Ordinance 4867 which rezoned
the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial).
17Page 18 On or about December 9 - 10, 2025, City Council members Venz and Tinnin
traveled out-of-State for the specific purpose of visiting a data center located in Omaha,
Nebraska.
56.
On February 26, 2026, the City Council retained MarksNelson Advisors for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement with CRG concerning the data center project.
57.
On March 9, 2026, the City Council held a public meeting during which a closed
session was conducted to discuss the data center project.
58.
On March 17, 2026, the City Council met in closed session with CRG and
MarksNelson Advisors.
59.
On March 20, 2026, the City issued a Statement announcing a “framework” had
been reached concerning an agreement between the City and CRG. A COPY OF THE City’s
Statement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.
60.
On March 20, 2026, the City posted Public Notice of a “Special Meeting” to
occur on March 30, 2026 to consider the “framework” of an agreement with CRG.
61.
On Monday, March 23, 2026, the City Council conducted a public hearing at the
Festus High School at which time the City Council heard public comments on “the framework.”
62.
During an interview on KMOV-TV on March 23, 2026, the Mayor stated, “…
we’ve been open and above board about all of this. There have been no closed meetings; no
behind the door meetings.”
63.
On the afternoon of Friday, March 27, 2026, the City released a copy of a 29-
page, single-spaced “Infrastructure Development Agreement” between the City and CRG.
18
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
55.Page 19 On the afternoon of Friday, March 27, 2026, the City issued a revised Public
Notice for the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.” A copy of the revised Public Notice
is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3.
65.
On Monday, March 30, 2026, the City Council conducted a “Special Meeting” at
which the City Council approved the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” by a 6 - 2 vote. A
copy of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” is attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit 4.
19
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
64.Page 20 66.
Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
67.
Prior to the City’s rezoning decision on November 27, 2025, the two parcels in the
65.
City limits, parcels 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-026 and 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019.01, were zoned R-1
(residential).
68.
Prior to the City’s rezoning decision on November 27, 2025, the five parcels
which were annexed into the City were zoned N-1 (non-urban) by Jefferson County.
69.
These seven rezoned parcels are adjacent to established, occupied residential
properties located along Glenkee Court and Ashford Place known as Ashford Place Subdivision
in Festus, Missouri.
70.
At the time of the November 27, 2025 decision to rezone these properties, there
are no parcels in the immediate vicinity of the seven rezoned parcels that are zoned I-1
(industrial) or that currently contain any established industrial uses.
71.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial)
primarily benefits each individual property owner of each parcel and CRG.
72.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) does not
serve the broader community interest.
73.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) is not
consistent with any comprehensive planning or any municipal master plan published by the City.
74.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the parcels to I-1 (industrial) treats these
seven parcels and the established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
20
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT I - Rezoning is Unlawful Spot ZoningPage 21 justification.
75.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial)
constitutes unlawful spot zoning.
76.
Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle, Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels, as
owners and occupants of established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision, have vested property interests and are adversely
affected and aggrieved by the City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels because the
permitted uses allowed by I-1 (industrial) zoning will adversely affect their health, the
environment, and their property values.
77.
Wake Up Jeffco’s members and supporters include Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle,
Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels, as well as other persons who are owners and
occupants of several of the established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision.
78.
Wake Up Jeffco is adversely affected and aggrieved by the City Council’s
decision to rezone the seven parcels because the permitted uses allowed by I-1 (industrial)
zoning will adversely affect it members’ and supporters’ health, the environment, and their
property values.
79.
Wake Up Jeffco’s interests and concerns are representative of the interests and
concerns of its members and supporters, including those who are owners and occupants of
established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and Ashford Place in the
Ashford Place Subdivision.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
21
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision a different manner without any legalPage 22 Declare the City Council’s November 27, 2025 decision to rezone the
seven parcels constitutes unlawful spot zoning;
B.
Declare that such rezoning is unlawful and void;
C.
Declare the seven parcels retain the original zoning designations as R-1 or
D.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
E.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
N-1;
22
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
A.Page 23 80.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
81.
Section 89.020, RSMo authorizes the City to enact zoning ordinances and to
79.
rezone parcels “[f]or the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the
community.”
82.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) does not
promote “health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community.”
83.
There is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City Council’s
decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) promotes “health, safety, morals or the
general welfare of the community.”
84.
Because there is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City
Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) promotes “health, safety, morals
or the general welfare of the community,” such decision is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable,
and unlawful under §§ 89.020 and 536.140, RSMo.
85.
Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle, Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels, as
owners and occupants of established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision, have vested property interests and are adversely
affected and aggrieved by the City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels because the
permitted uses allowed by I-1 (industrial) zoning will adversely affect their health, the
environment, and their property values.
86.
Wake Up Jeffco’s members and supporters include Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle,
Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels, as well as other persons who are owners and
23
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT II - Rezoning Unlawful under §§ 89.020 and 536.140, RSMoPage 24 Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision.
87.
Wake Up Jeffco is adversely affected and aggrieved by the City Council’s
decision to rezone the seven parcels because the permitted uses allowed by I-1 (industrial)
zoning will adversely affect it members’ and supporters’ health, the environment, and their
property values.
88.
Wake Up Jeffco’s interests and concerns are representative of the interests and
concerns of its members and supporters, including those who are owners and occupants of
established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and Ashford Place in the
Ashford Place Subdivision.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find there is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City
Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) promotes “health, safety, morals
or the general welfare of the community;”
B.
Declare that such rezoning is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and
C.
Declare the seven parcels retain the original zoning designations as R-1 or
D.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
E.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
unlawful;
N-1;
24
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
occupants of several of the established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court andPage 25 89.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
90.
Festus City Code, Section 123.020.A states, “All meetings, records and votes are
88.
open to the public, except that any meeting, record or vote relating to one (1) or more of the
following matters, as well as other materials designated elsewhere in this Chapter, shall be closed
unless the public governmental body votes to make them public . . .”
91.
Festus City Code, Section 123.010 defines the term “Public Business” as “All
matters which relate in any way to performance of the City's functions or the conduct of its
business.”
92.
Festus City Code, Section 123.010 defines the term “Public Governmental Body”
to include the City Council and “Any department or division of the City.”
93.
Festus City Code, Section 123.010 defines the term “Public Meeting” as “Any
meeting of a public governmental body subject to this Chapter at which any public business is
discussed, decided or public policy formulated, whether such meeting is conducted in person or
by means of communication equipment including, but not limited to, conference call, video
conference, Internet chat or Internet message board.”
94.
The City Council, Mayor, City Administrator, Building and Planning Department,
and Public Work Department are “Public Governmental Bodies” under Festus City Code, Section
123.010.
95.
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail between CRG and the City Administrator, Building and Planning Director, Public Works
25
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT III - Violations of Festus City Code, Sections 123.020 and 123.040Page 26 Business” under Festus City Code, Section 123.010.
96.
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail that occurred between August 4, 2025 through March 30, 2026 between City officials and
CRG concerning the data center project constituted “Public Business” as defined in Festus City
Code, Section 123.010.
97.
Festus City Code, Section 123.040.A states, “All public governmental bodies shall
give notice of the time, date and place of each meeting and its tentative agenda in a manner
reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered, and if the meeting will
be conducted by telephone or other electronic means, the notice of the meeting shall identify the
mode by which the meeting will be conducted and the designated location where the public may
observe and attend the meeting. . . .”
98.
The City did not post any Public Notice advising the public of any of the multiple
discussions, meetings, telephone calls, video calls, text messages, and e-mails conducted
between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30, 2026.
99.
The City failed to post reasonable Public Notice of the multiple Public Meetings
held between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30, 2026.
100.
The City’s failure to post reasonable Public Notices of these multiple Public
Meetings with CRG was done purposely with the intent to keep the meetings secret from the
general public.
101.
The City’s failure to post reasonable Public Notices of these multiple Public
Meetings with CRG are violations of Festus City Code, Sections 123.020.A and 120.040.A.
26
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Director, and any other City official concerning the data center project constitutes “PublicPage 27 Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s failure to comply
with Festus City Code, Sections 123.020.A and 120.040.A because they have been denied the
opportunity for any meaningful public participation at the earliest possible time in connection
with the City’s review of the data center project.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find that the City failed to post reasonable Public Notices of the multiple
Public Meetings held between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30,
2026 in violation of the Festus City Code, Section 123.020 and 123.040;
B.
Find such failures to post reasonable Public Notices were done purposely
with the intent to keep the Public Meetings secret from the public;
C.
Enjoin the City from taking any action based upon the rezoning of the
seven parcels because such rezoning decision was predicated on the City’s violations of Festus
City Code, Section 123.020;
D.
Enjoin the City from taking any action based upon the Infrastructure
Development Agreement because the decision approving such agreement is predicated upon the
City’s violations of Festus City Code, Section 123.020;
E.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
F.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
27
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
102.Page 28 103.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
104.
It is the public policy of the State of Missouri that meetings, records, votes,
102.
actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise
provided by law. Section 610.011.1, RSMo. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally
construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy. Id.
105.
Except as otherwise provided by law, all public meetings of public governmental
bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in section 610.020, all public records of public
governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in
sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes of public governmental bodies shall be
recorded as set forth in section 610.015. Section 610.011.2, RSMo.
106.
The City Council, Mayor, City Administrator, Building and Planning Department,
Public Works Department, and any other City official constitute a “Public Governmental Body”
as defined in § 610.010, RSMo.
107.
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail between CRG and the City Administrator, Building and Planning Director, Public Works
Director, Mayor, City Council and any other City official concerning the data center project
constitutes “Public Business” as defined in § 610.010, RSMo.
108.
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail between CRG and the City Administrator, Building and Planning Director, Public Works
Director, Mayor, City Council and any other City official concerning the data center project
constitutes a “Public Meeting” as defined in § 610.010, RSMo.
28
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT IV - Violations of the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMoPage 29 Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail between CRG and the City Administrator, Building and Planning Director, Public Works
Director, Mayor, City Council and any other City official concerning the data center project is
subject to the provisions in the Missouri Open Records Law, § 610.010 et seq., RSMo.
110.
The City did not post any Public Notice advising the public of any of the multiple
Public Meetings conducted between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March
30, 2026.
111.
The City failed to post reasonable Public Notice of the multiple Public Meetings
held between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30, 2026.
112.
The City’s failure to post reasonable Public Notices of these multiple Public
Meetings with CRG was done purposely with the intent to keep the meetings secret from the
general public.
113.
The City’s failure to post reasonable Public Notices of these multiple Public
Meetings with CRG are violations of §§ 610.011 and 610.020, RSMo.
114.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s violations of §§
610.011 and 610.020, RSMo because they have been denied the opportunity for any meaningful
public participation at the earlier opportunity in connection with the City’s review of the data
center project.
115.
The public interest in the enforcement of the policy of §§ 610.010 to 610.026,
RSMo outweighs any interest of the City in sustaining the validity of the November 27, 2025
rezoning decision and the March 30, 2026 approval of the Infrastructure Development
Agreement.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
29
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
109.Page 30 Find that the City failed to post reasonable Public Notices of the multiple
Public Meetings held between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30,
2026 in violation of §§ 610.011 and 610.020, RSMo.;
B.
Find that such failures to post reasonable Public Notices were done
purposely with the intent to keep the Public Meetings secret from the public;
C.
Pursuant to § 610.027.5, invalidate the November 27, 2025 rezoning
decision and enjoin the City from taking any action based upon the rezoning of the seven parcels
because such rezoning decision was predicated on the City’s violations of §§ 610.011 and
610.020, RSMo.;
D.
Pursuant to § 610.027.5, invalidate the March 30, 2026 decision approving
the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” and enjoin the City from taking any action based
upon the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” because the decision approving such
agreement is predicated upon the City’s violations of §§ 610.011 and 610.020, RSMo.;
E.
Impose a fine against the City in the amount of $5,000.00 per each and
every purposeful violation of the Missouri Open Records Law;
F.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
G.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
30
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
A.Page 31 116.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
117.
On March 20, 2026, the City posted Public Notice of a “Special Meeting” to
115.
occur on March 30, 2026 to consider the conceptual “framework” of an agreement with CRG.
118.
Late in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026, the City released a copy of a 29-
page “Infrastructure Development Agreement” between the City and CRG, and posted a revised
Public Notice for the March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.”
119.
On March 30, 2026, the City Council held a “Special Meeting” where the City
Council considered and approved the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” between the City
and CRG.
120
The City Council’s consideration and vote on the “Infrastructure Development
Agreement” was not reflected in the original Public Notice of the March 30, 2026 “Special
Meeting” to consider the “framework” of an agreement.
121.
The revised Public Notice for the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting,”
which was published late in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026 and included the 29-page,
single spaced “Infrastructure Development Agreement,” failed to reasonably advise the public as
to the matters to be considered by the City Council and failed to afford sufficient time for
Plaintiffs and the general public to review and analyze the “Infrastructure Development
Agreement,” in violation of § 610.020, RSMo.
122.
The public interest in the enforcement of the policy of sections 610.010 to
610.026 outweighs any interest of the City in sustaining the validity of the March 30, 2026
approval of the Infrastructure Development Agreement.
31
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT V – City’s Failure Under § 610.020, RSMo
to Post Proper Public Notice of March 30, 2026 Special MeetingPage 32 The City’s failure to timely provide Plaintiffs and the public with a copy of the
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” was purposeful.
124.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s failure to comply
with § 610.020, RSMo because the issuance of the revised Public Notice late on a Friday
afternoon was purposely designed to minimize the public’s and Plaintiffs’ opportunity to conduct
any meaningful review of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement.”
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find the Public Notice posted by the City on March 20, 2026 advised the
public that a “special meeting” would occur on March 30, 2026 at which time the City Council
would consider the conceptual “framework” of an agreement with CRG;
B.
Find the Public Notice posted by the City on March 20, 2026 failed to
reasonably advise the public that the City Council would consider and vote on an “Infrastructure
Development Agreement” during the March 30, 2026 “special meeting;”
C.
Find the March 20, 2026 Public Notice failed to comply with § 610.020,
D.
Pursuant to § 610.027.5, RSMo, invalidate the City Council’s approval of
RSMo;
the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” and enjoin the City from taking any action based
on the “Infrastructure Development Agreement;”
E.
Impose a fine against the City in the amount of $5,000.00 per each and
every purposeful violation of the Missouri Open Records Law;
F.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
G.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
32
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
123.Page 33 125.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
126.
In proposing amendments to the City’s zoning ordinances, the City is required to
124.
provide “At least fifteen days' notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in
an official paper or a paper of general circulation in such municipality.” Section 89.050, RSMo.
127.
On November 7, 2025, the City caused to be published a notice of a hearing to be
held on November 24, 2025 for the purpose of rezoning certain parcels to I-1 (industrial.).
128.
The November 7, 2025 notice was published in “The Countian.”
129.
“The Countian” is a publication that publishes legal notices and legal information
for attorneys.
130.
“The Countian”” is not “an official paper or a paper of general circulation” in
Festus, Missouri.
131.
The City’s November 7, 2025 notice of the November 24, 2025 hearing failed to
comply with the notice requirements in § 89.050, RSMo.
132.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s failure to publish
notice of the November 24, 2025 meeting in “The Countian,” which is not a newspaper of
general circulation in Jefferson County, because the general public and Plaintiffs are not
attorneys, are not employed in the legal field, would not be expected to read “The Countian,”
and, as a result, they were denied the opportunity to attend and participate in the November 24,
2025 meeting.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
33
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT VI – City’s Failure Under § 89.050, RSMo
to Properly Publish Public Notice of November 24, 2025 Public MeetingPage 34 Find “The Countian” is not an official paper or a paper of general
circulation” in Festus, Missouri or in Jefferson County, Missouri;
B.
Find the City’s notice of the November 24, 2025 hearing on the rezoning
requests failed to comply with § 89.050, RSMo;
C.
Because the City’s notice of the November 24, 2025 hearing is defective,
invalidate the City’s November 24, 2025 decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial);
D.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
E.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
34
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
A.Page 35 133.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
134.
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding
132.
which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present
their objections. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
135.
The City failed to timely disclose and provide access to the “Infrastructure
Development Agreement” prior to the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.”
136.
While the City disclosed a copy of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement,”
such disclosure did not occur until late in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026.
137.
Plaintiffs and the general public were afforded an insufficient amount of time to
adequately review and analyze the provisions in the 29-page, single-spaced “Infrastructure
Development Agreement” prior to the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.”
138.
The City’s action in disclosing the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” late
in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026 in advance of the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special
Meeting” was done purposely with the intent to minimize public knowledge and public
opposition to the “Infrastructure Development Agreement.”
139.
The City Council’s consideration and vote to approve the “Infrastructure
Development Agreement” during the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting” without
affording Plaintiffs and the general public sufficient time to adequately review and analyze the
provisions in such agreement failed to afford Due Process and is unconstitutional in violation of
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
35
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT VII – The City’s Decision Approving the
the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” was UnconstitutionalPage 36 Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s failure to afford
Plaintiffs and the general public sufficient time to review and analyze the “Infrastructure
Development Agreement.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find the City’s action in disclosing the “Infrastructure Development
Agreement” late in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026 in advance of the Monday, March
30, 2026 “Special Meeting” was done purposely with the intent to minimize public knowledge
and public opposition to the “Infrastructure Development Agreement;”
B.
Find Plaintiffs and the general public were afforded an insufficient amount
of time to adequately review and analyze the provisions in the 29-page, single-spaced
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” prior to the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special
Meeting;”
C.
Find the City Council’s consideration and vote to approve the
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” during the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting”
without affording Plaintiffs and the general public sufficient time to adequately review and
analyze the provisions in such agreement is unconstitutional in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution;
D.
Invalidate the “Infrastructure Development Agreement;”
E.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
F.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
36
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
140.Page 37 141.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
142.
When CRG first contacted the City on or about August 4, 2025, CRG knew or
140.
reasonably should have known the City and City officials were required to comply with the
provisions in the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo.
143.
Between August 4, 2025 to March 30, 2026, CRG and the City knowingly
discussed the data center project on multiple occasions during which they agreed to: (i) a
“contract zoning” agreement for the City to enact certain amendments to the City’s zoning code
to accommodate a data center as an authorized use for the benefit of CRG; (ii) an agreement for
the City to annex the five parcels into the City limits for the benefit of CRG; (iii) a “contract
zoning” agreement for the City to rezone the five parcels to be annexed and the two parcels
already in the City limits for the benefit of CRG, and (iv) an agreement to enter into a formal
development agreement between CRG and the City, and such actions were done with knowledge
of the City’s requirements under the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo.
144.
The actions of CRG and the City in facilitating meetings with the City Council in
small groups comprising less than a quorum were done so the City would not publish any Public
Notice under the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo, of the data center project
discussions and meetings for the purpose of keeping the data center project secret from the
public.
145.
The actions of CRG and the City in keeping information regarding the
annexation and rezoning “private” were done so the City would not publish any Public Notice
37
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT VIII - Collusion between CRG and the CityPage 38 discussions for the purpose of keeping the data center project secret from the public.
146.
The City’s actions between August 4, 2025 to November 7, 2025 (when the “cat
was out of the bag”) in failing to post reasonable Public Notices and trying to mislead Plaintiffs
and the public by stating “no data center developer has submitted any plans,” or words to that
effect, were all acts done for the purpose of preventing Plaintiffs and the public from acquiring
knowledge of the discussions, meetings, and agreements between CRG and the City concerning
the data center project.
147.
The City had actual knowledge all these discussions and meetings with CRG
concerning the data center project were subject to the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610,
RSMo, as evidenced by the City Administrator initially arranging for the City Council members
to attend meetings with CRG in small groups comprising less than a quorum. Exhibit 1 - City’s
Published Documents 0005, 0008.
148.
The City had actual knowledge all these discussions and meetings with CRG were
subject to the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo, as evidenced by the Building
and Planning Director’s e-mail of September 25, 2025 to CRG advising that although his
planning and zoning report was completed, such report “isn’t public until we post the agenda
until aprox. November 17th.” Exhibit 1 - City’s Published Documents 0091- 0092.
149.
The City had actual knowledge all these discussions and meetings with CRG
concerning the data center were subject to the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo,
as evidenced by the City Administrator’s e-mail dated November 7, 2025 to CRG and the City
Attorney, when he stated, “… the cat is out of the bag.” Exhibit 1 - City’s Published Documents
0106.
38
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
under the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo, of the data center projectPage 39 The actions of CRG and the City in conducting multiple “closed door”
discussions and meetings concerning the data center project comprised an agreement between
CRG and the City in which the City was to purposely evade compliance with the requirements of
the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo for the purpose of keeping the data center
project secret from the public so as to minimize opposition for CRG’s project.
151.
Because the actions of CRG and the City in conducting multiple “closed door”
discussions and meetings and City taking certain actions to facilitate the data center project
required the City’s purposeful failures to comply with the requirements of the Missouri Open
Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo, the actions of CRG and the City were collusive.
152.
There is no legal justification for the City to keep the multiple discussions and
meetings between CRG and the City regarding the data center project secret from the public or
for the City to fail to comply with the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo.
153.
The primary reason why CRG and the City kept the discussions and meetings
regarding the data center project secret from the public as long as possible and for the City to fail
to comply with the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, was to minimize public
knowledge and public opposition to the data center project, which had caused CRG to previously
end discussions for a similar data center project in St. Charles County, Missouri.
154.
The City’s decisions: (i) to amend the City’s zoning code to accommodate a data
center, (ii) to annex the five parcels into the City limits, (iii) to rezone the five annexed parcels
and two parcels already in the City limits, and (iv) the approval of the “Infrastructure
Development Agreement,” were all the result of the collusion between CRG and the City for the
City to purposefully evade compliance with the requirements in the Missouri Open Records Law,
Chapter 610, RSMo for the purpose of keeping the data center project secret from the public.
39
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
150.Page 40 Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by multiple “closed door”
meetings and discussions between CRG and the City concerning the data center project because
they were denied reasonable opportunity for public participation.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find both CRG and the City knew or reasonably should have known that
the multiple discussions and meetings between CRG and the City concerning the data center
project were subject to the Missouri Open Records Law;
B.
Find on each of the multiple occasions alleged herein, the actions of the
City (i) to amend the City’s zoning code to accommodate a data center, (ii) to annex the five
parcels into the City limits, (iii) to rezone the five annexed parcels and two parcels already in the
City limits, and (iv) the approval of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement,” were all the
result of collusion between CRG and the City to purposefully evade the City’s compliance with
the requirements in the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo and to keep the data
center project secret from the public;
C.
Find on each of the multiple occasions alleged herein, the City acted
purposely and such actions were done in violation of §§ 610.011 and 610.020, RSMo;
D.
Invalidate the City’s decisions to rezone the seven parcels to I-1
(industrial) and revert the zoning classifications of such parcels to their previous classifications,
either to R-1 and N-1;
E.
Invalidate the “Infrastructure Development Agreement;”
F.
Enjoin CRG and the City from taking any action based upon the rezoning
of the seven parcels because such rezoning decision was predicated on the collusion between
CRG and the City;
40
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
155.Page 41 Enjoin CRG and the City from taking any action based upon the
Infrastructure Development Agreement because the decision approving such agreement is
predicated upon the collusion between CRG and the City;
H.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
I.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
41
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
G.Page 42 156.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
157.
Between August 4, 2025 to March 30, 2026, CRG and the City knowingly
155.
discussed the data center project and agreed to: (i) a “contract zoning” agreement for the City to
enact certain amendments to the City’s zoning code to accommodate a data center as an
authorized use for the benefit of CRG; (ii) an agreement for the City to annex the five parcels
into the City limits for the benefit of CRG; (iii) a “contract zoning” agreement for the City to
rezone the five parcels to be annexed and the two parcels already in the City limits for the benefit
of CRG, and (iv) an agreement to enter into a formal development agreement between CRG and
the City, and such actions were done with knowledge of the City’s requirements under the
Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo.
158.
These actions of CRG and the City constituted an agreement by two or more
persons to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means, i.e. the City’s performance of acts
done for the benefit of CRG with the City’s purposeful failures to comply with the requirements
in the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610.
159.
These actions of CRG and the City constitute a civil conspiracy.
160.
The actions of the City: (i) to amend the City’s zoning code to accommodate a
data center for the benefit of CRG, (ii) to annex the five parcels into the City limits for the
benefit of CRG, (iii) to rezone the five annexed parcels and two parcels already in the City limits
for the benefit of CRG; and (iv) the approval of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement,”
were all overt acts in furtherance of the civil conspiracy.
42
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT IX – Civil ConspiracyPage 43 Plaintiffs are adversely affected, aggrieved, and have incurred damages as a result
of the civil conspiracy and the overt acts performed in furtherance of the civil conspiracy by
Defendants.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find the actions of CRG and the City constituted an agreement by two or
more persons to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means, i.e. the City’s purposeful
failures to comply with the requirements in the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610;
B.
Find the actions of CRG and the City constitute a civil conspiracy;
C.
Find the actions of the City: (i) to amend the City’s zoning code to
accommodate a data center for the benefit of CRG, (ii) to annex the five parcels into the City
limits for the benefit of CRG, (iii) to rezone the five annexed parcels and two parcels already in
the City limits for the benefit of CRG; and (iv) the approval of the “Infrastructure Development
Agreement,” were all overt acts in furtherance of the civil conspiracy;
D.
Find Plaintiffs have incurred damages as a result of the civil conspiracy
and the overt acts performed in furtherance of the civil conspiracy;
E.
Enjoin CRG and the City from conducting or performing any actions
predicated on or resulting from any of the overt acts performed in furtherance of the civil
conspiracy;
F.
Award Plaintiffs their actual and special damages;
G.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
H.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
43
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
161.Page 44 162.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
163.
“The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. . .
161.
This right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending
and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.” Mullane v.
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950).
164.
Festus City Code, Section 115.160 concerns “Order of Business” and states,
165.
Festus City Code, Section 115.130 concerns “Special Meetings” and states,
44
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT X – City Lacks Legal Authority to
Ban Public Comments in a “Special Meeting”Page 45 The City issued a Public Notice dated March 27, 2026 for the March 30, 2026
“Special Meeting,” which stated,
166.
Contrary to Festus City Code, Sections 115.130 and 115.160, which allow for
“Visitor remarks,” the City attempted to restrict the ability of Plaintiffs and the public to make
“Visitor remarks” at the March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.”
45
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
165.Page 46 Any blanket restriction imposed by the City in a “Special Meeting” to restrict
“Visitor remarks” on the matter to be considered is an unconstitutional Prior Restraint on
permitted speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Festus City Code, Sections 115.130 and 115.160.
168.
Any blanket restriction imposed by the City in a “Special Meeting” to restrict
“Visitor remarks” on the matter to be considered is a violation of the Due Process Clause in the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
169.
Although the City did allow for some “Visitor remarks” during the March 30,
2026 “Special Meeting,” the City arbitrarily and unreasonably cut-off all public comments at
approximately 9:00 p.m., which denied Plaintiffs and members of the public the opportunity to
address the City Council on the matter being considered.
170.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s denial of the
opportunity for “Visitor remarks” during the March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting” because such
denial denies Plaintiffs of the right to meaningful public participation, in violation of the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Festus City Code, Sections
115.130 and 115.160.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Declare the City lacks legal authority to impose a blanket restriction on
allowing public comments on the matter to be considered by the City during a “Special
Meeting;”
B.
Declare any blanket restriction imposed by the City on allowing public
comments on the matter to be considered by the City during a “Special Meeting” is an
46
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
167.Page 47 United States Constitution;
C.
Declare any blanket restriction imposed by the City on allowing public
comments on the matter to be considered by the City during a “Special Meeting,” is a violation
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the United States Constitution;
D.
Declare any blanket restriction imposed by the City on allowing public
comments on the matter to be considered by the City during a “Special Meeting,” is a violation
of Festus City Code, Sections 115.130 and 115.160.
E.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
F.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
47
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
unconstitutional Prior Restraint on permitted speech in violation of the First Amendment of thePage 48 171.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
172.
In the “Public Statement” issued by the City on March 20, 2026,27 the Mayor
170.
stated, inter alia,
173.
Contrary to the Mayor’s statement, the City does not receive $53 million annually
because the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states the “Community Benefit Payments”
to the City do not begin until “the first full tax year commencing after the date the City issues the
first certificate of occupancy for the Project.”
174.
Contrary to the Mayor’s statement, any community benefit payments are not
guaranteed because the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states “no Community
Development Payment shall be due to the City if the Project does not receive a personal property
tax abatement” from the Jefferson County Port Authority.
175.
Contrary to the Mayor’s statement, any payment for a new Fire Station would not
occur for several years because the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states the payment
27
A copy of the Public Statement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.
48
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT XI – The Decision Approving the
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” is
Arbitrary, Capricious, Unreasonable and Unlawful
in Violation of § 536.140, RSMoPage 49 the commencement of vertical construction for the Project.”
176.
In the “Public Statement,” the Mayor also states,
177.
Concerning water usage, the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states
“Developer shall purchase water exclusively from the City to the extent that the City can supply
water at the volumes and pressures, and by the date or dates, required to meet the Project’s buildout schedule,” but “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer may construct public wells to
serve the Project.”
178.
There is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City has obtained or
reviewed any information concerning the estimated water usage by the data center, the ability of
the City’s water infrastructure to provide water to the data center, or any hydrogeologic
information concerning the ability of the underlying aquifer to supply water to the data center in
the event the City’s water supply is insufficient to meet the data center’s demands.
179.
There is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City has obtained or
reviewed any information concerning the estimated electricity demand, consumption, and usage
by the data center, the ability of Ameren and other suppliers to supply the data center’s demand
for electricity, and the effects to the City’s ratepayers in the event the data center’s demand for
electricity is so substantial that Ameren and other suppliers are required to construct and operate
additional electrical generating and distribution systems to service the data center.
49
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
for the “Fire Station Contribution shall be paid by Developer in a single lump sum on or beforePage 50 There is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City has obtained or
reviewed any information concerning the potential effects of the proposed data center with
respect to noise, excessive heat, the effects on listed endangered species, air emissions, water
discharges, and other environmental and public health impacts.
181.
The “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states “Developer shall establish a
voluntary buyout program covering the eleven (11) residences on Glenkee Court,” but any
affected resident who desires to participate in such buyout program is required to only use an
appraisal “obtained from one of a pool of three appraisers” who are paid by the Developer.
182.
The City’s approval of the voluntary buyout program is arbitrary, capricious and
unfair to Plaintiffs who are residents along Glenkee Court because they are denied the
opportunity to obtain a fair and unbiased appraisal from an appraiser who is not employed by
CRG and a 10% premium is wholly insufficient to pay for all the relocation costs likely to be
incurred by these Plaintiffs who would be required to purchase and move to a new residence.
183.
Because of the lack of competent and substantial evidence showing the City has
investigated the foregoing significant issues relating to the data center, the City’s March 30, 2025
decision to approve the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” is arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, and unlawful in violation of § 536.140, RSMo.
184.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s approval of the
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” without fully investigating all reasonably available
information regarding water demand, water, water consumption, and water usage;
hydrogeological conditions; electricity demand, consumption, and usage; environmental impacts;
and the inherent unfairness of the buyout program utilizing the Developer’s appraisals in lieu of
independent third party appraisers.
50
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
180.Page 51 A.
Declare that because of the discrepances between what the City apparently
believes the Infrastructure Development Agreement does and its actual provisions, the City’s
decision to approve the Infrastructure development Agreement is arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, and unlawful;
B.
Declare that because there is no competent and substantial evidence
showing that the City obtained any information regarding water demand, consumption, and
usage; hydrogeological conditions; electricity demand, consumption, and usage; environmental
impacts; and the inherent unfairness of the buyout program utilizing the Developer’s appraisals
in lieu of independent third party appraisers, the City’s decision to approve the Infrastructure
development Agreement is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and unlawful;
C.
Enjoin CRG and the City from conducting or performing any actions
predicated on the Infrastructure Development Agreement;
D.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
E.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
51
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:Page 52 185.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
186.
Festus City Code, Section 405.555 states, inter alia,
187.
The City has a ministerial, non-discretionary duty to comply with Festus City
184.
Code, Section 405.555.
188.
Plaintiffs, its members and supporters, and other Festus residents have submitted
over 300 Complaints pursuant to Festus City Code, Section 405.555.B to the City’s Planning &
Zoning Commission alleging that the data center’s use of property will create or is likely to
create or otherwise produce dangerous, injurious, and noxious hazards or conditions.
52
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT XII - City’s Failure to Comply with
Festus City Code, Section 405.555Page 53 These over 300 Complaints under Festus City Code, Section 405.555.B allege
concerns relating to effects on real property values; effects on health; effects on water usage, the
availability of water resources, and water rates; effects on electricity usage and future electric
rates; effects of noise; and effects of electromagnetic radiation.
190.
These over 300 Complaints under Festus City Code, Section 405.555.B request
the City conduct studies relating to: Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments;
Cultural Resources investigation; Natural Heritage investigation into presence of endangered and
protected species; hydrogeological investigation concerning water usage and future availability;
anticipated electricity usage, future availability, and future rate impacts; sound investigation
concerning auditory impacts; real estate study including appraisals for all residential and
commercial properties within a one-mile radius and potential effects on future property values;
and electromagnetic radiation emissions.
191.
The City has failed to take any action of any kind to comply with the express
mandatory, non-discretionary obligations in Festus City Code, Section 405.555.
192..
The City’s failure to take any action of any kind under Festus City Code, Section
405.555 is deliberate and intentional.
193.
Plaintiffs, its members and supporters, are adversely affected and aggrieved by
the City’s failure to comply with Festus City Code, Section 405.555.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Declare the City has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to comply with
Festus City Code, Section 405.555;
B.
Find the City has received over 300 Complaints under Festus City Code,
Section 405.555;
53
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
189.Page 54 Find the City has deliberately and intentionally failed to comply with
Festus City Code, Section 405.555;
D.
Order the City to comply with Festus City Code, Section 405.555 and
investigate the over 300 Complaints;
E.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
F.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
JEFFERY LAW GROUP, LLC
/s/ Stephen G. Jeffery
Stephen G. Jeffery, MBE 29949
400 Chesterfield Center, Suite 400
Chesterfield, Missouri 63017-4800
(855) 915-9500 – Toll-Free Phone
E-mail: sjeffery@jefferylawgroup.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
54
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
C.
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
STATE OF MISSOURI
STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel.
WAKE UP JEFFCO, LLC,
SHERMAN DOYLE,
VERNON VALISH,
SHARON VALISH,
ROZILYN DANIELS,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF FESTUS, MISSOURI,
Serve: City Clerk
711 W Main Street
Festus, MO 63028
CRG ACQUISITION, LLC,
Serve: Registered Agent
8640 Evans Ave
St. Louis, MO 63134
DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. ____________
Division _____
PETITION
COMES NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 87
and 92, §§ 536.150 and 610.027, RSMo, and for its Petition states:
Parties
1.
Plaintiff - Wake Up Jeffco, LLC (“Wake Up Jeffco”) is a Missouri limited liability
company in good standing. Plaintiff was organized on February 11, 2026. Prior to its
organization, Wake Up Jeffco’s members and supporters operated as an unincorporated
association. Wake Up Jeffco’s business purposes include promoting educational and public
awareness regarding any proposed data center or any related facility that may be located in or
near Festus, Missouri or in Jefferson County, Missouri, retaining accountants, legal counsel and
1
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
26SL-CC03024
PDF Page 3
and other legal and/or administrative activities regarding the Company and its activities.
2.
Wake Up Jeffco’s members and supporters are Missouri residents, property
owners, and taxpayers who reside in and near Festus, Missouri. Wake Up Jeffco and its
members and supporters are adversely affected and aggrieved by the acts of Defendants as set
forth in the Petition.
3.
Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle, Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels are
taxpayers, property owners, and residents of Festus, Missouri, whose properties are located on
Glenkee Court in the immediate vicinity of the proposed data center project. Plaintiffs Sherman
Doyle, Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels have vested property interests that are
adversely affected and aggrieved by the acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth in the
Petition.
4.
Defendant - CRG Acquisition, LLC (“CRG”) is a Missouri limited liability
company in good standing. CRG’s principal place of business and registered agent are located in
St. Louis County, Missouri. According to its website, CRG “is a real estate development and
investment firm” that develops “scalable, high-performance data centers.”
5.
Defendant - City of Festus, Missouri (“City”) is a third class city located in
Jefferson County, Missouri.
6.
The City’s governing body is the eight member City Council and the Mayor.
Jurisdiction and Venue
7.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter in accordance with Article III, § 3 of
the Missouri Constitution. Venue is appropriate in accordance with § 508.010.2(2), RSMo
because CRG’s principal place of business and registered agent are located in St. Louis County.
2
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
other persons to provide assistance to the Company in its activities, and participating in litigation
PDF Page 4
Facts Regarding Data Centers
8.
Data centers are large buildings that house rows of computer servers,
data storage systems and networking equipment, as well as the equipment used for
power and cooling systems.1
9.
AI data centers are built to run around the clock, with no tolerance for downtime.
As a result, to ensure service continuity during grid outages, the rapid growth of AI data centers
is accompanied by a surge in on-site backup generator installations. . . . The high emission rate
from diesel backup generators, combined with extended operation for maintenance and nonemergency load shedding, could pose serious health risks to communities near large data
centers.2
10.
According to a recent report by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S.
data centers are projected to account for 6.7% to 12.0% of the nation’s total electricity
consumption by 2028, up from 4.4% in 2023. As data centers continue to rely on the power grid
as a primary energy supply, their soaring energy consumption could impose a substantial public
health burden, driving the total health impact of U.S. data centers up to around $20 billion per
year by 2028.3
11.
A typical AI-focused hyperscale data center annually consumes as much
electricity as 100,000 households.4
Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/ 2025/10/24/what-we-knowabout-energy-use-at-us-data-centers-amid-the-ai-boom/.
2 Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2025/11/mitigating-the-public-health-impacts-of-aidata-centers.
3 Id.
4 Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/ 2025/10/24/what-we-knowabout-energy-use-at-us-data-centers-amid-the-ai-boom/.
1
3
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Statement of Facts
PDF Page 5
Most of the electricity used by data centers – about 60% on average, . . . powers
the servers that process and store digital information. . . The next-largest component of energy
use at data centers are the cooling systems that prevent servers from overheating.5
13.
Cooling systems consume 30-40% of total data center power, making them the
second-largest electricity user. All IT equipment generates heat during operation, and
maintaining optimal temperatures (typically 68-77°F) is critical for preventing equipment
failure.6
14.
The siting of AI data centers, especially those with on-site diesel generators and
pollutant-intensive power generation, can directly worsen local air quality and health. . . To
minimize the health burden, data center developers and operators should strategically choose
locations that avoid exacerbating air pollution or health risks, guided by comprehensive, sciencebased health impact analyses.7
15.
Hyperscale AI data centers have a remarkable impact on their local regions, which
is consistent across the data centers worldwide and extends for several kilometers around the AI
hyperscalers. The consistency, scale and extent of these effects creates local climate zones
induced by data centers - the data heat island effect.8
16.
The data heat island effect could affect the welfare, healthcare, energy, and demo-
graphic systems. Since the trends of data center energy consumption are expected to show a
steep growth in the foreseeable future, the data heat island effect could solidly become an
Id.
Independent Alliance of the Electrical Industry (IAEI), https://iaeimagazine.org/ electricalfundamentals/how-much-electricity-does-a-data-center-use-complete-2025-analysis/.
7 Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2025/11/mitigating-the-public-health-impacts-of-aidata-centers.
8 Marinoni, A., Lio, P., Cambria, E. (2026). The Data Heat Island Effect: Quantifying the Impact
of AI Data Centers in a Warming World. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20897.
5
6
4
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
12.
PDF Page 6
having a robust impact on communities at local, regional, and international level.9
Facts Regarding the City’s Involvement with CRG
17.
According to an e-mail dated August 8, 2025 from Christopher P. McKee
(President, CRG) and an e-mail dated November 11, 2025 from Gregory Camp (City
Administrator), CRG first approached the City concerning a data center project to be located
along U.S. Highway 67 at County Highway CC on or about August 4, 2025.10
18.
On August 7, 2025, CRG met with the City Administrator, the City’s Building and
Planning Director, and the City’s Public Works Director to discuss the data center project.11
19.
In an e-mail dated August 8, 2025 to the Mayor and City Council, the City
Administrator stated, in part,
CONFIDENTIAL – Data Center Discussion – On Thursday Building and Planning
Director Mark Harris, Public Works Director Michael Christopher and myself, along
with Doug Bjornstad from Jefferson County Public Sewer District met with Chris
McKee, Chief Development Officer-CRG, Natasha Das, Vice-President-CRG, and
George Stock, President-Stock& Associates Consulting Engineers about their
assembly of several large tracts off of CC Highway and US67 for the purpose of a
data center. The location has large appeal due to the availability/proximity of high
voltage from Ameren. Our discussion covered annexation, zoning, development,
utilities and more. The proposed location may come before P&Z and City Council
as soon as September/October. A map of the area is attached.
20.
In an e-mail dated August 29, 2025 to Natasha Das (CRG), the City Building and
Planning Director stated,
Natasha
Here is the timetable I have:
Id.
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0101 and 0155 (https://www.festusmo.gov/
DocumentCenter/View/2358/Responsive-Records-3).
11 See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0101 and 0155.
9
10
5
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
additional factor for environmental and industrial sustainability in the changing climate, hence
PDF Page 7
All meetings are held at City Hall (P &Z 6:30 p.m.; Council 6:00 p.m. w/ hearings
normally 10 mins before at 5:50 p.m.)
I’ve attached the ordinance as well.
Have a great weekend.12
21.
In reply to the Building and Planning Director’s e-mail, Natasha Das (CRG)
stated GRG preferred a different timeline:
Mark,
Thanks for the call. As discussed, we’d appreciate it if we could pursue the below
timeline, instead.
Can you please confirm that works from your end? Also, please confirm the
publication deadline and whether any notices have gone out or been requested with
respect to the original 9/22 Council meeting. Thanks, again, for all of your help.
10/16 - P&Z for revision of Zoning Code
10/27 – Council for revision of zoning code
11/10 – Annexation Council
11/20 – P&Z for Zoning on all property
11/24 – Rezoning Council13
22.
In an e-mail dated September 4, 2025 to the Mayor and City Council, the City
Administrator made arrangements for Council members to meet with CRG in small groups:
All,
The City has been in talks with CRG Development regarding a Data Center project at
US67 and CC Highway. The project is substantial not just for Festus but for
Jefferson County. We are setting up stakeholder meetings with the
12
13
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0090.
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0088 - 0089.
6
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
09/11 - P&Z for revision of Zoning Code
09/22 – Council for revision of zoning code
10/14 (Tuesday) – Annexation Council
10/16 – P&Z for Zoning on all property
10/27 – Rezoning Council
PDF Page 8
Have a great day!14
23.
In an e-mail dated September 8, 2025 to the City Administrator and City Building
and Planning Director, Natasha Das (CRG) asked about the small group meetings:
Greg, Mark – hope you both had a wonderful weekend!
I’m following up on a few items:
- Checking to see how the schedule is looking for next Monday? Is there
anyone who was on the list that you were unable to get ahold of?15
24.
In his reply to Natasha Das’ e-mail, the City Administrator confirmed the small
group meetings: “Right now, I have groups of 3 starting at 9am and done by 3p (break for
lunch) hope to have it finalized tomorrow.”16
25.
In a text message conversation on September 12, 2025 (Exhibit 1 - 185), two City
officials, whose identities are currently unknown, stated CRG is “prepared” for the “NIMBAs:”17
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0005.
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0072.
16 See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0070 - 0071.
17 “NIMBa” is likely a typographical error for “NIMBY,” meaning opponents to the project, i.e.
“not in my back yard.”
14
15
7
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
development team to discuss the project and answer questions - would like to see if
you are available on September 15th or 17th? If you could give me a couple of
date/times, since we have to limit how many Councilmembers can attend at the
same time.
PDF Page 9
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
8
PDF Page 10
On September 15, 2025, the Mayor and members of the City Council met in
groups of three persons or less with CRG for the specific purpose of discussing the data center
project, including amending the City zoning ordinance to accommodate data centers, annexing
certain properties into the City, and rezoning of several parcels for industrial use.18
27.
In an e-mail dated September 22, 2025 to the City Administrator, Chris McKee
(CRG) provided proposed Ordinance revisions to the City:
Good morning, Greg,
I hope you had a pleasant weekend. Could we find some time today to discuss the
proposed ordinance revisions? We reviewed them in detail on Friday and have a few
comments we'd like to share.
Additionally, could you please send us the contact information for the individuals
we met with last week? We would like to follow up with them on any further
questions they might have.
Thank you.
Chris19
28.
In an e-mail dated September 25, 2025 to the City Administrator and Building and
Planning Director, Natasha Das (CRG) confirmed the requested annexation and rezoning efforts
“will not go public:”
Mark, please see below. This will not go public until the notices that we handle
ourselves related to the rezoning, correct? Thanks.
Stockham
18-6.0-13.0-0-002-026 (in Festus)
Dietrich
18-6.0-14.0-0-000-001 (to be annexed)
18-6.0-23.0-0-000-004 (to be annexed)
See “CRG Stakeholder Meetings - September 15, 2025,” Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents
0306, 0307.
19 See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0100.
18
9
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
26.
PDF Page 11
Fadler
18-6.0-23.0-0-000-003 (to be annexed)
18-6.0-14.0-0-000-006 (to be annexed)20
29.
In reply to Natasha Das’ September 25, 2025 e-mail, the City Building and
Planning Director confirmed he would not release his report to the public:
Thank you.
I am simply preparing my report with this information. My report isn’t public until we
post the agenda aprox. November 17th.21
30.
In a text message conversation on October 9, 2025 (Exhibit 1 - 188), two City
officials, whose identities are currently unknown, discussed not having a public meeting in
connection with the annexation and how the public is likely unaware of the annexation:
20
21
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0092.
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0091.
10
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Hammon
18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019.01 (in Festus)
18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019 (to be annexed)
PDF Page 12
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
31.
On multiple occasions between September 15, 2025 to October 27, 2025, the City
Council conducted public meetings in which closed sessions occurred during which the data
center project was discussed.
32.
Between September 15, 2025 to December 31, 2025, several City Council
members and other City officials traveled out-of-State for the specific purpose of visiting
different data center, with travel expenses paid by third party economic development groups.22
On information and belief, it is likely CRG reimbursed these economic development groups
for all travel expenses incurred by City officials.
22
11
PDF Page 13
On October 16, 2025, the City Planning and Zoning met and recommended
approval of certain amendments to the Festus City Code, Section 405.010 - Definitions, Section
405.185 - Regulation of Data Centers, and Section 405.390 - Data Centers.
34.
These specific amendments to the Festus City Code were proposed by CRG.
35.
On October 27, 2025, the City Council enacted Ordinance 4858 approving
amendments to the Festus City Code, Sections 405.010 - Definitions, Section 405.185 Regulation of Data Centers, and Section 405.390 - Data Centers.
36.
In a text message conversation on October 28, 2025 (Exhibit 1 - 194 - 194), two
City officials, whose identities are currently unknown referred to opponents to the data center
project as a “sideshow of uneducated people:”
12
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
33.
PDF Page 14
In an e-mail dated November 3, 2025 to the City Attorney, City Administrator,
and Building and Planning Director, Brandon Moonier (Thurman Law Firm representing CRG),
transmitted the documents to be executed by the City in connection with the annexation and
rezoning:
Gents:
Would appreciate your eyes on the attached. It’s the proposed annexation/rezoning
documentation for the 5 parcels outside of the City limits.
If acceptable as to form, I will arrange for signatures.
Thanks,
BTM23
38.
On or about November 5, 2025, applications for rezoning were submitted for the
seven parcels comprising the location of the proposed data center.
39.
These seven parcels included five parcels proposed for annexation and parcel
numbers 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-026 and 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019.01, which were already located
within the City limits.
40.
The rezoning applications were prepared by and signed as “Applicant” by CRG’s
consultant.
41.
On or about November 6, 2025, requests for annexation were submitted to the
City by the owners of the five parcels outside the City limits where the proposed data center
location was located.
42.
The parcel numbers for these five parcels are: 18-6.0-14.0-0-000-001; 18-6.0-
23.0-0-000-004; 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019; 18-6.0-23.0-0-000-003; and 18-6.0-14.0-0-000-006.
23
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0003.
13
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
37.
PDF Page 15
The forms requesting these annexations were prepared by CRG’s consultant.
44.
The five parcels were located in unincorporated Jefferson County and were zoned
N-1 (non-urban) under the Jefferson County zoning ordinance.
45.
In an e-mail dated November 7, 2025 to Chris McKee (CRG), Brian Malone (City
Attorney), Brandon Moonier (Thurman Law Firm representing CRG), Natasha Das (CRG), and
Mark Harris (City Building and Planning Director), the City Administrator admitted “the cat is
out of the bag” about the public’s knowledge of the data center project:
All,
With the agenda/annexation posted – the direct question posted to me by Ben
Menendez (Facebook page JeffCo Voters Voices For Responsible Development),
is it safe to assume this is for the Festus Data Center?
At some point the cat is out of the bag – while the zoning is not I1, that is certainly
the intent.
Thoughts on a response?24
46.
In a text message conversation on November 7, 2026 (Exhibit 1 - 196), two City
officials, whose identities are currently unknown, confirmed another meeting with CRG:
24
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0106.
14
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
43.
PDF Page 16
On November 10, 2025, the City Council enacted Ordinance 4860 which annexed
these five parcels into the City.
48.
On November 12, 13, and 17, 2025, several members of the City Council,
Planning and Zoning Commission, and other City officials met with CRG for the specific
purpose of discussing the data center project.25
49.
In a text message conversation on November 16, 2025 (Exhibit 1 - 198 - 199),
two City officials, whose identities are currently unknown, discussed a way to mislead the public
about CRG’s data center project and how they must “keep the flock herded:”
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0111 - 0112 (e-mail dated November 10, 2025 from
Gregory Camp (City Administrator) to Brian Malone (City Attorney), Brandon Moonier
(Thurman Law Firm representing CRG), Chris McKee (CRG), and Natasha Das (CRG).
25
15
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
47.
PDF Page 17
On November 20, 2025, the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission met and
recommended approval of all the rezoning applications.
51.
In an e-mail dated November 22, 2025 to the City Administrator, Councilperson
Templeton asked whether there could be a pause to allow for an open house for the public:
Greg,
I realize we can’t conduct studies, as we don’t have an actual proposal, but is there
value to having an open house to openly discuss the data we have, the research
conducted and the potential facility that could be built? I realize this would delay
the process, but is it worth the time and effort to help with community opposition?
I’m concerned the speed of this process is causing things to spiral.
Thank you,
Staci Templeton26
52.
Contrary to Councilperson Templeton’s request, the City did not conduct any
open house to “openly discuss the data center.”
53.
In a text message conversation that occurred prior to the Monday, November 27,
2025 City Council meeting (Exhibit 1 - 200 - 202), two City officials, whose identities are
currently unknown, discussed restricting public participation at the upcoming Council meeting
by limiting the number of public comments:
26
See Exhibit 1 - City’s Posted Documents 0079.
16
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
50.
PDF Page 18
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
54.
On November 27, 2025, the City Council enacted Ordinance 4867 which rezoned
the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial).
17
PDF Page 19
On or about December 9 - 10, 2025, City Council members Venz and Tinnin
traveled out-of-State for the specific purpose of visiting a data center located in Omaha,
Nebraska.
56.
On February 26, 2026, the City Council retained MarksNelson Advisors for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement with CRG concerning the data center project.
57.
On March 9, 2026, the City Council held a public meeting during which a closed
session was conducted to discuss the data center project.
58.
On March 17, 2026, the City Council met in closed session with CRG and
MarksNelson Advisors.
59.
On March 20, 2026, the City issued a Statement announcing a “framework” had
been reached concerning an agreement between the City and CRG. A COPY OF THE City’s
Statement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.
60.
On March 20, 2026, the City posted Public Notice of a “Special Meeting” to
occur on March 30, 2026 to consider the “framework” of an agreement with CRG.
61.
On Monday, March 23, 2026, the City Council conducted a public hearing at the
Festus High School at which time the City Council heard public comments on “the framework.”
62.
During an interview on KMOV-TV on March 23, 2026, the Mayor stated, “…
we’ve been open and above board about all of this. There have been no closed meetings; no
behind the door meetings.”
63.
On the afternoon of Friday, March 27, 2026, the City released a copy of a 29-
page, single-spaced “Infrastructure Development Agreement” between the City and CRG.
18
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
55.
PDF Page 20
On the afternoon of Friday, March 27, 2026, the City issued a revised Public
Notice for the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.” A copy of the revised Public Notice
is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3.
65.
On Monday, March 30, 2026, the City Council conducted a “Special Meeting” at
which the City Council approved the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” by a 6 - 2 vote. A
copy of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” is attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit 4.
19
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
64.
PDF Page 21
66.
Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
67.
Prior to the City’s rezoning decision on November 27, 2025, the two parcels in the
65.
City limits, parcels 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-026 and 18-6.0-13.0-0-002-019.01, were zoned R-1
(residential).
68.
Prior to the City’s rezoning decision on November 27, 2025, the five parcels
which were annexed into the City were zoned N-1 (non-urban) by Jefferson County.
69.
These seven rezoned parcels are adjacent to established, occupied residential
properties located along Glenkee Court and Ashford Place known as Ashford Place Subdivision
in Festus, Missouri.
70.
At the time of the November 27, 2025 decision to rezone these properties, there
are no parcels in the immediate vicinity of the seven rezoned parcels that are zoned I-1
(industrial) or that currently contain any established industrial uses.
71.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial)
primarily benefits each individual property owner of each parcel and CRG.
72.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) does not
serve the broader community interest.
73.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) is not
consistent with any comprehensive planning or any municipal master plan published by the City.
74.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the parcels to I-1 (industrial) treats these
seven parcels and the established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
20
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT I - Rezoning is Unlawful Spot Zoning
PDF Page 22
justification.
75.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial)
constitutes unlawful spot zoning.
76.
Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle, Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels, as
owners and occupants of established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision, have vested property interests and are adversely
affected and aggrieved by the City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels because the
permitted uses allowed by I-1 (industrial) zoning will adversely affect their health, the
environment, and their property values.
77.
Wake Up Jeffco’s members and supporters include Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle,
Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels, as well as other persons who are owners and
occupants of several of the established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision.
78.
Wake Up Jeffco is adversely affected and aggrieved by the City Council’s
decision to rezone the seven parcels because the permitted uses allowed by I-1 (industrial)
zoning will adversely affect it members’ and supporters’ health, the environment, and their
property values.
79.
Wake Up Jeffco’s interests and concerns are representative of the interests and
concerns of its members and supporters, including those who are owners and occupants of
established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and Ashford Place in the
Ashford Place Subdivision.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
21
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision a different manner without any legal
PDF Page 23
Declare the City Council’s November 27, 2025 decision to rezone the
seven parcels constitutes unlawful spot zoning;
B.
Declare that such rezoning is unlawful and void;
C.
Declare the seven parcels retain the original zoning designations as R-1 or
D.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
E.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
N-1;
22
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
A.
PDF Page 24
80.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
81.
Section 89.020, RSMo authorizes the City to enact zoning ordinances and to
79.
rezone parcels “[f]or the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the
community.”
82.
The City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) does not
promote “health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community.”
83.
There is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City Council’s
decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) promotes “health, safety, morals or the
general welfare of the community.”
84.
Because there is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City
Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) promotes “health, safety, morals
or the general welfare of the community,” such decision is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable,
and unlawful under §§ 89.020 and 536.140, RSMo.
85.
Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle, Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels, as
owners and occupants of established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision, have vested property interests and are adversely
affected and aggrieved by the City Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels because the
permitted uses allowed by I-1 (industrial) zoning will adversely affect their health, the
environment, and their property values.
86.
Wake Up Jeffco’s members and supporters include Plaintiffs Sherman Doyle,
Vernon Valish, Sharon Valish, and Rozilyn Daniels, as well as other persons who are owners and
23
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT II - Rezoning Unlawful under §§ 89.020 and 536.140, RSMo
PDF Page 25
Ashford Place in the Ashford Place Subdivision.
87.
Wake Up Jeffco is adversely affected and aggrieved by the City Council’s
decision to rezone the seven parcels because the permitted uses allowed by I-1 (industrial)
zoning will adversely affect it members’ and supporters’ health, the environment, and their
property values.
88.
Wake Up Jeffco’s interests and concerns are representative of the interests and
concerns of its members and supporters, including those who are owners and occupants of
established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and Ashford Place in the
Ashford Place Subdivision.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find there is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City
Council’s decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial) promotes “health, safety, morals
or the general welfare of the community;”
B.
Declare that such rezoning is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and
C.
Declare the seven parcels retain the original zoning designations as R-1 or
D.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
E.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
unlawful;
N-1;
24
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
occupants of several of the established, occupied residential properties along Glenkee Court and
PDF Page 26
89.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
90.
Festus City Code, Section 123.020.A states, “All meetings, records and votes are
88.
open to the public, except that any meeting, record or vote relating to one (1) or more of the
following matters, as well as other materials designated elsewhere in this Chapter, shall be closed
unless the public governmental body votes to make them public . . .”
91.
Festus City Code, Section 123.010 defines the term “Public Business” as “All
matters which relate in any way to performance of the City's functions or the conduct of its
business.”
92.
Festus City Code, Section 123.010 defines the term “Public Governmental Body”
to include the City Council and “Any department or division of the City.”
93.
Festus City Code, Section 123.010 defines the term “Public Meeting” as “Any
meeting of a public governmental body subject to this Chapter at which any public business is
discussed, decided or public policy formulated, whether such meeting is conducted in person or
by means of communication equipment including, but not limited to, conference call, video
conference, Internet chat or Internet message board.”
94.
The City Council, Mayor, City Administrator, Building and Planning Department,
and Public Work Department are “Public Governmental Bodies” under Festus City Code, Section
123.010.
95.
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail between CRG and the City Administrator, Building and Planning Director, Public Works
25
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT III - Violations of Festus City Code, Sections 123.020 and 123.040
PDF Page 27
Business” under Festus City Code, Section 123.010.
96.
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail that occurred between August 4, 2025 through March 30, 2026 between City officials and
CRG concerning the data center project constituted “Public Business” as defined in Festus City
Code, Section 123.010.
97.
Festus City Code, Section 123.040.A states, “All public governmental bodies shall
give notice of the time, date and place of each meeting and its tentative agenda in a manner
reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered, and if the meeting will
be conducted by telephone or other electronic means, the notice of the meeting shall identify the
mode by which the meeting will be conducted and the designated location where the public may
observe and attend the meeting. . . .”
98.
The City did not post any Public Notice advising the public of any of the multiple
discussions, meetings, telephone calls, video calls, text messages, and e-mails conducted
between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30, 2026.
99.
The City failed to post reasonable Public Notice of the multiple Public Meetings
held between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30, 2026.
100.
The City’s failure to post reasonable Public Notices of these multiple Public
Meetings with CRG was done purposely with the intent to keep the meetings secret from the
general public.
101.
The City’s failure to post reasonable Public Notices of these multiple Public
Meetings with CRG are violations of Festus City Code, Sections 123.020.A and 120.040.A.
26
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Director, and any other City official concerning the data center project constitutes “Public
PDF Page 28
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s failure to comply
with Festus City Code, Sections 123.020.A and 120.040.A because they have been denied the
opportunity for any meaningful public participation at the earliest possible time in connection
with the City’s review of the data center project.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find that the City failed to post reasonable Public Notices of the multiple
Public Meetings held between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30,
2026 in violation of the Festus City Code, Section 123.020 and 123.040;
B.
Find such failures to post reasonable Public Notices were done purposely
with the intent to keep the Public Meetings secret from the public;
C.
Enjoin the City from taking any action based upon the rezoning of the
seven parcels because such rezoning decision was predicated on the City’s violations of Festus
City Code, Section 123.020;
D.
Enjoin the City from taking any action based upon the Infrastructure
Development Agreement because the decision approving such agreement is predicated upon the
City’s violations of Festus City Code, Section 123.020;
E.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
F.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
27
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
102.
PDF Page 29
103.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
104.
It is the public policy of the State of Missouri that meetings, records, votes,
102.
actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise
provided by law. Section 610.011.1, RSMo. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally
construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy. Id.
105.
Except as otherwise provided by law, all public meetings of public governmental
bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in section 610.020, all public records of public
governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in
sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes of public governmental bodies shall be
recorded as set forth in section 610.015. Section 610.011.2, RSMo.
106.
The City Council, Mayor, City Administrator, Building and Planning Department,
Public Works Department, and any other City official constitute a “Public Governmental Body”
as defined in § 610.010, RSMo.
107.
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail between CRG and the City Administrator, Building and Planning Director, Public Works
Director, Mayor, City Council and any other City official concerning the data center project
constitutes “Public Business” as defined in § 610.010, RSMo.
108.
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail between CRG and the City Administrator, Building and Planning Director, Public Works
Director, Mayor, City Council and any other City official concerning the data center project
constitutes a “Public Meeting” as defined in § 610.010, RSMo.
28
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT IV - Violations of the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo
PDF Page 30
Each and every discussion, meeting, telephone call, video call, text message, and
e-mail between CRG and the City Administrator, Building and Planning Director, Public Works
Director, Mayor, City Council and any other City official concerning the data center project is
subject to the provisions in the Missouri Open Records Law, § 610.010 et seq., RSMo.
110.
The City did not post any Public Notice advising the public of any of the multiple
Public Meetings conducted between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March
30, 2026.
111.
The City failed to post reasonable Public Notice of the multiple Public Meetings
held between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30, 2026.
112.
The City’s failure to post reasonable Public Notices of these multiple Public
Meetings with CRG was done purposely with the intent to keep the meetings secret from the
general public.
113.
The City’s failure to post reasonable Public Notices of these multiple Public
Meetings with CRG are violations of §§ 610.011 and 610.020, RSMo.
114.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s violations of §§
610.011 and 610.020, RSMo because they have been denied the opportunity for any meaningful
public participation at the earlier opportunity in connection with the City’s review of the data
center project.
115.
The public interest in the enforcement of the policy of §§ 610.010 to 610.026,
RSMo outweighs any interest of the City in sustaining the validity of the November 27, 2025
rezoning decision and the March 30, 2026 approval of the Infrastructure Development
Agreement.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
29
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
109.
PDF Page 31
Find that the City failed to post reasonable Public Notices of the multiple
Public Meetings held between City officials and CRG between August 4, 2025 and March 30,
2026 in violation of §§ 610.011 and 610.020, RSMo.;
B.
Find that such failures to post reasonable Public Notices were done
purposely with the intent to keep the Public Meetings secret from the public;
C.
Pursuant to § 610.027.5, invalidate the November 27, 2025 rezoning
decision and enjoin the City from taking any action based upon the rezoning of the seven parcels
because such rezoning decision was predicated on the City’s violations of §§ 610.011 and
610.020, RSMo.;
D.
Pursuant to § 610.027.5, invalidate the March 30, 2026 decision approving
the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” and enjoin the City from taking any action based
upon the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” because the decision approving such
agreement is predicated upon the City’s violations of §§ 610.011 and 610.020, RSMo.;
E.
Impose a fine against the City in the amount of $5,000.00 per each and
every purposeful violation of the Missouri Open Records Law;
F.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
G.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
30
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
A.
PDF Page 32
116.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
117.
On March 20, 2026, the City posted Public Notice of a “Special Meeting” to
115.
occur on March 30, 2026 to consider the conceptual “framework” of an agreement with CRG.
118.
Late in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026, the City released a copy of a 29-
page “Infrastructure Development Agreement” between the City and CRG, and posted a revised
Public Notice for the March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.”
119.
On March 30, 2026, the City Council held a “Special Meeting” where the City
Council considered and approved the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” between the City
and CRG.
120
The City Council’s consideration and vote on the “Infrastructure Development
Agreement” was not reflected in the original Public Notice of the March 30, 2026 “Special
Meeting” to consider the “framework” of an agreement.
121.
The revised Public Notice for the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting,”
which was published late in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026 and included the 29-page,
single spaced “Infrastructure Development Agreement,” failed to reasonably advise the public as
to the matters to be considered by the City Council and failed to afford sufficient time for
Plaintiffs and the general public to review and analyze the “Infrastructure Development
Agreement,” in violation of § 610.020, RSMo.
122.
The public interest in the enforcement of the policy of sections 610.010 to
610.026 outweighs any interest of the City in sustaining the validity of the March 30, 2026
approval of the Infrastructure Development Agreement.
31
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT V – City’s Failure Under § 610.020, RSMo
to Post Proper Public Notice of March 30, 2026 Special Meeting
PDF Page 33
The City’s failure to timely provide Plaintiffs and the public with a copy of the
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” was purposeful.
124.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s failure to comply
with § 610.020, RSMo because the issuance of the revised Public Notice late on a Friday
afternoon was purposely designed to minimize the public’s and Plaintiffs’ opportunity to conduct
any meaningful review of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement.”
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find the Public Notice posted by the City on March 20, 2026 advised the
public that a “special meeting” would occur on March 30, 2026 at which time the City Council
would consider the conceptual “framework” of an agreement with CRG;
B.
Find the Public Notice posted by the City on March 20, 2026 failed to
reasonably advise the public that the City Council would consider and vote on an “Infrastructure
Development Agreement” during the March 30, 2026 “special meeting;”
C.
Find the March 20, 2026 Public Notice failed to comply with § 610.020,
D.
Pursuant to § 610.027.5, RSMo, invalidate the City Council’s approval of
RSMo;
the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” and enjoin the City from taking any action based
on the “Infrastructure Development Agreement;”
E.
Impose a fine against the City in the amount of $5,000.00 per each and
every purposeful violation of the Missouri Open Records Law;
F.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
G.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
32
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
123.
PDF Page 34
125.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
126.
In proposing amendments to the City’s zoning ordinances, the City is required to
124.
provide “At least fifteen days' notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in
an official paper or a paper of general circulation in such municipality.” Section 89.050, RSMo.
127.
On November 7, 2025, the City caused to be published a notice of a hearing to be
held on November 24, 2025 for the purpose of rezoning certain parcels to I-1 (industrial.).
128.
The November 7, 2025 notice was published in “The Countian.”
129.
“The Countian” is a publication that publishes legal notices and legal information
for attorneys.
130.
“The Countian”” is not “an official paper or a paper of general circulation” in
Festus, Missouri.
131.
The City’s November 7, 2025 notice of the November 24, 2025 hearing failed to
comply with the notice requirements in § 89.050, RSMo.
132.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s failure to publish
notice of the November 24, 2025 meeting in “The Countian,” which is not a newspaper of
general circulation in Jefferson County, because the general public and Plaintiffs are not
attorneys, are not employed in the legal field, would not be expected to read “The Countian,”
and, as a result, they were denied the opportunity to attend and participate in the November 24,
2025 meeting.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
33
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT VI – City’s Failure Under § 89.050, RSMo
to Properly Publish Public Notice of November 24, 2025 Public Meeting
PDF Page 35
Find “The Countian” is not an official paper or a paper of general
circulation” in Festus, Missouri or in Jefferson County, Missouri;
B.
Find the City’s notice of the November 24, 2025 hearing on the rezoning
requests failed to comply with § 89.050, RSMo;
C.
Because the City’s notice of the November 24, 2025 hearing is defective,
invalidate the City’s November 24, 2025 decision to rezone the seven parcels to I-1 (industrial);
D.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
E.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
34
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
A.
PDF Page 36
133.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
134.
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding
132.
which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present
their objections. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
135.
The City failed to timely disclose and provide access to the “Infrastructure
Development Agreement” prior to the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.”
136.
While the City disclosed a copy of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement,”
such disclosure did not occur until late in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026.
137.
Plaintiffs and the general public were afforded an insufficient amount of time to
adequately review and analyze the provisions in the 29-page, single-spaced “Infrastructure
Development Agreement” prior to the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.”
138.
The City’s action in disclosing the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” late
in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026 in advance of the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special
Meeting” was done purposely with the intent to minimize public knowledge and public
opposition to the “Infrastructure Development Agreement.”
139.
The City Council’s consideration and vote to approve the “Infrastructure
Development Agreement” during the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting” without
affording Plaintiffs and the general public sufficient time to adequately review and analyze the
provisions in such agreement failed to afford Due Process and is unconstitutional in violation of
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
35
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT VII – The City’s Decision Approving the
the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” was Unconstitutional
PDF Page 37
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s failure to afford
Plaintiffs and the general public sufficient time to review and analyze the “Infrastructure
Development Agreement.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find the City’s action in disclosing the “Infrastructure Development
Agreement” late in the afternoon on Friday, March 27, 2026 in advance of the Monday, March
30, 2026 “Special Meeting” was done purposely with the intent to minimize public knowledge
and public opposition to the “Infrastructure Development Agreement;”
B.
Find Plaintiffs and the general public were afforded an insufficient amount
of time to adequately review and analyze the provisions in the 29-page, single-spaced
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” prior to the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special
Meeting;”
C.
Find the City Council’s consideration and vote to approve the
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” during the Monday, March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting”
without affording Plaintiffs and the general public sufficient time to adequately review and
analyze the provisions in such agreement is unconstitutional in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution;
D.
Invalidate the “Infrastructure Development Agreement;”
E.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
F.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
36
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
140.
PDF Page 38
141.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
142.
When CRG first contacted the City on or about August 4, 2025, CRG knew or
140.
reasonably should have known the City and City officials were required to comply with the
provisions in the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo.
143.
Between August 4, 2025 to March 30, 2026, CRG and the City knowingly
discussed the data center project on multiple occasions during which they agreed to: (i) a
“contract zoning” agreement for the City to enact certain amendments to the City’s zoning code
to accommodate a data center as an authorized use for the benefit of CRG; (ii) an agreement for
the City to annex the five parcels into the City limits for the benefit of CRG; (iii) a “contract
zoning” agreement for the City to rezone the five parcels to be annexed and the two parcels
already in the City limits for the benefit of CRG, and (iv) an agreement to enter into a formal
development agreement between CRG and the City, and such actions were done with knowledge
of the City’s requirements under the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo.
144.
The actions of CRG and the City in facilitating meetings with the City Council in
small groups comprising less than a quorum were done so the City would not publish any Public
Notice under the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo, of the data center project
discussions and meetings for the purpose of keeping the data center project secret from the
public.
145.
The actions of CRG and the City in keeping information regarding the
annexation and rezoning “private” were done so the City would not publish any Public Notice
37
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT VIII - Collusion between CRG and the City
PDF Page 39
discussions for the purpose of keeping the data center project secret from the public.
146.
The City’s actions between August 4, 2025 to November 7, 2025 (when the “cat
was out of the bag”) in failing to post reasonable Public Notices and trying to mislead Plaintiffs
and the public by stating “no data center developer has submitted any plans,” or words to that
effect, were all acts done for the purpose of preventing Plaintiffs and the public from acquiring
knowledge of the discussions, meetings, and agreements between CRG and the City concerning
the data center project.
147.
The City had actual knowledge all these discussions and meetings with CRG
concerning the data center project were subject to the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610,
RSMo, as evidenced by the City Administrator initially arranging for the City Council members
to attend meetings with CRG in small groups comprising less than a quorum. Exhibit 1 - City’s
Published Documents 0005, 0008.
148.
The City had actual knowledge all these discussions and meetings with CRG were
subject to the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo, as evidenced by the Building
and Planning Director’s e-mail of September 25, 2025 to CRG advising that although his
planning and zoning report was completed, such report “isn’t public until we post the agenda
until aprox. November 17th.” Exhibit 1 - City’s Published Documents 0091- 0092.
149.
The City had actual knowledge all these discussions and meetings with CRG
concerning the data center were subject to the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo,
as evidenced by the City Administrator’s e-mail dated November 7, 2025 to CRG and the City
Attorney, when he stated, “… the cat is out of the bag.” Exhibit 1 - City’s Published Documents
0106.
38
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
under the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo, of the data center project
PDF Page 40
The actions of CRG and the City in conducting multiple “closed door”
discussions and meetings concerning the data center project comprised an agreement between
CRG and the City in which the City was to purposely evade compliance with the requirements of
the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo for the purpose of keeping the data center
project secret from the public so as to minimize opposition for CRG’s project.
151.
Because the actions of CRG and the City in conducting multiple “closed door”
discussions and meetings and City taking certain actions to facilitate the data center project
required the City’s purposeful failures to comply with the requirements of the Missouri Open
Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo, the actions of CRG and the City were collusive.
152.
There is no legal justification for the City to keep the multiple discussions and
meetings between CRG and the City regarding the data center project secret from the public or
for the City to fail to comply with the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo.
153.
The primary reason why CRG and the City kept the discussions and meetings
regarding the data center project secret from the public as long as possible and for the City to fail
to comply with the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, was to minimize public
knowledge and public opposition to the data center project, which had caused CRG to previously
end discussions for a similar data center project in St. Charles County, Missouri.
154.
The City’s decisions: (i) to amend the City’s zoning code to accommodate a data
center, (ii) to annex the five parcels into the City limits, (iii) to rezone the five annexed parcels
and two parcels already in the City limits, and (iv) the approval of the “Infrastructure
Development Agreement,” were all the result of the collusion between CRG and the City for the
City to purposefully evade compliance with the requirements in the Missouri Open Records Law,
Chapter 610, RSMo for the purpose of keeping the data center project secret from the public.
39
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
150.
PDF Page 41
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by multiple “closed door”
meetings and discussions between CRG and the City concerning the data center project because
they were denied reasonable opportunity for public participation.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find both CRG and the City knew or reasonably should have known that
the multiple discussions and meetings between CRG and the City concerning the data center
project were subject to the Missouri Open Records Law;
B.
Find on each of the multiple occasions alleged herein, the actions of the
City (i) to amend the City’s zoning code to accommodate a data center, (ii) to annex the five
parcels into the City limits, (iii) to rezone the five annexed parcels and two parcels already in the
City limits, and (iv) the approval of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement,” were all the
result of collusion between CRG and the City to purposefully evade the City’s compliance with
the requirements in the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo and to keep the data
center project secret from the public;
C.
Find on each of the multiple occasions alleged herein, the City acted
purposely and such actions were done in violation of §§ 610.011 and 610.020, RSMo;
D.
Invalidate the City’s decisions to rezone the seven parcels to I-1
(industrial) and revert the zoning classifications of such parcels to their previous classifications,
either to R-1 and N-1;
E.
Invalidate the “Infrastructure Development Agreement;”
F.
Enjoin CRG and the City from taking any action based upon the rezoning
of the seven parcels because such rezoning decision was predicated on the collusion between
CRG and the City;
40
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
155.
PDF Page 42
Enjoin CRG and the City from taking any action based upon the
Infrastructure Development Agreement because the decision approving such agreement is
predicated upon the collusion between CRG and the City;
H.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
I.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
41
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
G.
PDF Page 43
156.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
157.
Between August 4, 2025 to March 30, 2026, CRG and the City knowingly
155.
discussed the data center project and agreed to: (i) a “contract zoning” agreement for the City to
enact certain amendments to the City’s zoning code to accommodate a data center as an
authorized use for the benefit of CRG; (ii) an agreement for the City to annex the five parcels
into the City limits for the benefit of CRG; (iii) a “contract zoning” agreement for the City to
rezone the five parcels to be annexed and the two parcels already in the City limits for the benefit
of CRG, and (iv) an agreement to enter into a formal development agreement between CRG and
the City, and such actions were done with knowledge of the City’s requirements under the
Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610, RSMo.
158.
These actions of CRG and the City constituted an agreement by two or more
persons to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means, i.e. the City’s performance of acts
done for the benefit of CRG with the City’s purposeful failures to comply with the requirements
in the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610.
159.
These actions of CRG and the City constitute a civil conspiracy.
160.
The actions of the City: (i) to amend the City’s zoning code to accommodate a
data center for the benefit of CRG, (ii) to annex the five parcels into the City limits for the
benefit of CRG, (iii) to rezone the five annexed parcels and two parcels already in the City limits
for the benefit of CRG; and (iv) the approval of the “Infrastructure Development Agreement,”
were all overt acts in furtherance of the civil conspiracy.
42
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT IX – Civil Conspiracy
PDF Page 44
Plaintiffs are adversely affected, aggrieved, and have incurred damages as a result
of the civil conspiracy and the overt acts performed in furtherance of the civil conspiracy by
Defendants.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Find the actions of CRG and the City constituted an agreement by two or
more persons to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means, i.e. the City’s purposeful
failures to comply with the requirements in the Missouri Open Records Law, Chapter 610;
B.
Find the actions of CRG and the City constitute a civil conspiracy;
C.
Find the actions of the City: (i) to amend the City’s zoning code to
accommodate a data center for the benefit of CRG, (ii) to annex the five parcels into the City
limits for the benefit of CRG, (iii) to rezone the five annexed parcels and two parcels already in
the City limits for the benefit of CRG; and (iv) the approval of the “Infrastructure Development
Agreement,” were all overt acts in furtherance of the civil conspiracy;
D.
Find Plaintiffs have incurred damages as a result of the civil conspiracy
and the overt acts performed in furtherance of the civil conspiracy;
E.
Enjoin CRG and the City from conducting or performing any actions
predicated on or resulting from any of the overt acts performed in furtherance of the civil
conspiracy;
F.
Award Plaintiffs their actual and special damages;
G.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
H.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
43
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
161.
PDF Page 45
162.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
163.
“The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. . .
161.
This right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending
and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.” Mullane v.
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950).
164.
Festus City Code, Section 115.160 concerns “Order of Business” and states,
165.
Festus City Code, Section 115.130 concerns “Special Meetings” and states,
44
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT X – City Lacks Legal Authority to
Ban Public Comments in a “Special Meeting”
PDF Page 46
The City issued a Public Notice dated March 27, 2026 for the March 30, 2026
“Special Meeting,” which stated,
166.
Contrary to Festus City Code, Sections 115.130 and 115.160, which allow for
“Visitor remarks,” the City attempted to restrict the ability of Plaintiffs and the public to make
“Visitor remarks” at the March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting.”
45
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
165.
PDF Page 47
Any blanket restriction imposed by the City in a “Special Meeting” to restrict
“Visitor remarks” on the matter to be considered is an unconstitutional Prior Restraint on
permitted speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Festus City Code, Sections 115.130 and 115.160.
168.
Any blanket restriction imposed by the City in a “Special Meeting” to restrict
“Visitor remarks” on the matter to be considered is a violation of the Due Process Clause in the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
169.
Although the City did allow for some “Visitor remarks” during the March 30,
2026 “Special Meeting,” the City arbitrarily and unreasonably cut-off all public comments at
approximately 9:00 p.m., which denied Plaintiffs and members of the public the opportunity to
address the City Council on the matter being considered.
170.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s denial of the
opportunity for “Visitor remarks” during the March 30, 2026 “Special Meeting” because such
denial denies Plaintiffs of the right to meaningful public participation, in violation of the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Festus City Code, Sections
115.130 and 115.160.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Declare the City lacks legal authority to impose a blanket restriction on
allowing public comments on the matter to be considered by the City during a “Special
Meeting;”
B.
Declare any blanket restriction imposed by the City on allowing public
comments on the matter to be considered by the City during a “Special Meeting” is an
46
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
167.
PDF Page 48
United States Constitution;
C.
Declare any blanket restriction imposed by the City on allowing public
comments on the matter to be considered by the City during a “Special Meeting,” is a violation
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the United States Constitution;
D.
Declare any blanket restriction imposed by the City on allowing public
comments on the matter to be considered by the City during a “Special Meeting,” is a violation
of Festus City Code, Sections 115.130 and 115.160.
E.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
F.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
47
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
unconstitutional Prior Restraint on permitted speech in violation of the First Amendment of the
PDF Page 49
171.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
172.
In the “Public Statement” issued by the City on March 20, 2026,27 the Mayor
170.
stated, inter alia,
173.
Contrary to the Mayor’s statement, the City does not receive $53 million annually
because the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states the “Community Benefit Payments”
to the City do not begin until “the first full tax year commencing after the date the City issues the
first certificate of occupancy for the Project.”
174.
Contrary to the Mayor’s statement, any community benefit payments are not
guaranteed because the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states “no Community
Development Payment shall be due to the City if the Project does not receive a personal property
tax abatement” from the Jefferson County Port Authority.
175.
Contrary to the Mayor’s statement, any payment for a new Fire Station would not
occur for several years because the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states the payment
27
A copy of the Public Statement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.
48
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT XI – The Decision Approving the
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” is
Arbitrary, Capricious, Unreasonable and Unlawful
in Violation of § 536.140, RSMo
PDF Page 50
the commencement of vertical construction for the Project.”
176.
In the “Public Statement,” the Mayor also states,
177.
Concerning water usage, the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states
“Developer shall purchase water exclusively from the City to the extent that the City can supply
water at the volumes and pressures, and by the date or dates, required to meet the Project’s buildout schedule,” but “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer may construct public wells to
serve the Project.”
178.
There is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City has obtained or
reviewed any information concerning the estimated water usage by the data center, the ability of
the City’s water infrastructure to provide water to the data center, or any hydrogeologic
information concerning the ability of the underlying aquifer to supply water to the data center in
the event the City’s water supply is insufficient to meet the data center’s demands.
179.
There is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City has obtained or
reviewed any information concerning the estimated electricity demand, consumption, and usage
by the data center, the ability of Ameren and other suppliers to supply the data center’s demand
for electricity, and the effects to the City’s ratepayers in the event the data center’s demand for
electricity is so substantial that Ameren and other suppliers are required to construct and operate
additional electrical generating and distribution systems to service the data center.
49
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
for the “Fire Station Contribution shall be paid by Developer in a single lump sum on or before
PDF Page 51
There is no competent and substantial evidence showing the City has obtained or
reviewed any information concerning the potential effects of the proposed data center with
respect to noise, excessive heat, the effects on listed endangered species, air emissions, water
discharges, and other environmental and public health impacts.
181.
The “Infrastructure Development Agreement” states “Developer shall establish a
voluntary buyout program covering the eleven (11) residences on Glenkee Court,” but any
affected resident who desires to participate in such buyout program is required to only use an
appraisal “obtained from one of a pool of three appraisers” who are paid by the Developer.
182.
The City’s approval of the voluntary buyout program is arbitrary, capricious and
unfair to Plaintiffs who are residents along Glenkee Court because they are denied the
opportunity to obtain a fair and unbiased appraisal from an appraiser who is not employed by
CRG and a 10% premium is wholly insufficient to pay for all the relocation costs likely to be
incurred by these Plaintiffs who would be required to purchase and move to a new residence.
183.
Because of the lack of competent and substantial evidence showing the City has
investigated the foregoing significant issues relating to the data center, the City’s March 30, 2025
decision to approve the “Infrastructure Development Agreement” is arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, and unlawful in violation of § 536.140, RSMo.
184.
Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by the City’s approval of the
“Infrastructure Development Agreement” without fully investigating all reasonably available
information regarding water demand, water, water consumption, and water usage;
hydrogeological conditions; electricity demand, consumption, and usage; environmental impacts;
and the inherent unfairness of the buyout program utilizing the Developer’s appraisals in lieu of
independent third party appraisers.
50
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
180.
PDF Page 52
A.
Declare that because of the discrepances between what the City apparently
believes the Infrastructure Development Agreement does and its actual provisions, the City’s
decision to approve the Infrastructure development Agreement is arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, and unlawful;
B.
Declare that because there is no competent and substantial evidence
showing that the City obtained any information regarding water demand, consumption, and
usage; hydrogeological conditions; electricity demand, consumption, and usage; environmental
impacts; and the inherent unfairness of the buyout program utilizing the Developer’s appraisals
in lieu of independent third party appraisers, the City’s decision to approve the Infrastructure
development Agreement is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and unlawful;
C.
Enjoin CRG and the City from conducting or performing any actions
predicated on the Infrastructure Development Agreement;
D.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
E.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
51
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
PDF Page 53
185.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 to
186.
Festus City Code, Section 405.555 states, inter alia,
187.
The City has a ministerial, non-discretionary duty to comply with Festus City
184.
Code, Section 405.555.
188.
Plaintiffs, its members and supporters, and other Festus residents have submitted
over 300 Complaints pursuant to Festus City Code, Section 405.555.B to the City’s Planning &
Zoning Commission alleging that the data center’s use of property will create or is likely to
create or otherwise produce dangerous, injurious, and noxious hazards or conditions.
52
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
COUNT XII - City’s Failure to Comply with
Festus City Code, Section 405.555
PDF Page 54
These over 300 Complaints under Festus City Code, Section 405.555.B allege
concerns relating to effects on real property values; effects on health; effects on water usage, the
availability of water resources, and water rates; effects on electricity usage and future electric
rates; effects of noise; and effects of electromagnetic radiation.
190.
These over 300 Complaints under Festus City Code, Section 405.555.B request
the City conduct studies relating to: Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments;
Cultural Resources investigation; Natural Heritage investigation into presence of endangered and
protected species; hydrogeological investigation concerning water usage and future availability;
anticipated electricity usage, future availability, and future rate impacts; sound investigation
concerning auditory impacts; real estate study including appraisals for all residential and
commercial properties within a one-mile radius and potential effects on future property values;
and electromagnetic radiation emissions.
191.
The City has failed to take any action of any kind to comply with the express
mandatory, non-discretionary obligations in Festus City Code, Section 405.555.
192..
The City’s failure to take any action of any kind under Festus City Code, Section
405.555 is deliberate and intentional.
193.
Plaintiffs, its members and supporters, are adversely affected and aggrieved by
the City’s failure to comply with Festus City Code, Section 405.555.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court:
A.
Declare the City has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to comply with
Festus City Code, Section 405.555;
B.
Find the City has received over 300 Complaints under Festus City Code,
Section 405.555;
53
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
189.
PDF Page 55
Find the City has deliberately and intentionally failed to comply with
Festus City Code, Section 405.555;
D.
Order the City to comply with Festus City Code, Section 405.555 and
investigate the over 300 Complaints;
E.
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
F.
Award such further relief the Court deems appropriate.
JEFFERY LAW GROUP, LLC
/s/ Stephen G. Jeffery
Stephen G. Jeffery, MBE 29949
400 Chesterfield Center, Suite 400
Chesterfield, Missouri 63017-4800
(855) 915-9500 – Toll-Free Phone
E-mail: sjeffery@jefferylawgroup.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
54
Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 08, 2026 - 05:43 PM
C.
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
