Faulkner County court pauses vote on emergency amendment to crypto-mining ordinance after public outcry and legal caution

Faulkner County justices convened a special meeting to consider proposed ordinance 25-12, an emergency amendment affecting crypto-mining operations and data centers, but recessed before voting after members asked for time to review a revised draft.

The proposed ordinance, described at the meeting as an amendment to ordinance 23-28, was presented by Justice House and moved for consideration by Justice Allison. Public commenters urged stricter enforcement, a moratorium and larger residential setbacks than those allowed under the state law referenced during the meeting (referred to by speakers as “act 174”). Alyssa Brown, a Faulkner County resident, asked the court to extend a 2,000-foot setback requirement to county-enforced zoning and suggested a moratorium while rules are finalized. “These crypto mines produce a lot of noise,” Brown said. “We have a lot of elderly in the area and autistic children which are going to be affected.”

Kevin Taylor, another Bologna resident, told the court the planning commission had rejected a nearby proposal and warned the operator could locate just outside city limits in county territory. “No matter where they put this, if it’s in that same vicinity of that power station, it’s gonna affect all of this,” Taylor said, citing veterans and other residents near the proposed site.

Justice Allison, who moved to consider the ordinance, said recent changes in state law gave the county greater authority than it had in 2023 and that the intent of the revised ordinance was to restore the “teeth” of an earlier local regulation. Allison described additions in the revised draft—distributed at the meeting by Councilor Murphy—that add “noise attenuation plan requirements” and provisions that would bar a data center from commencing operations until it complies with the ordinance. Allison said the revised draft included a list of remedies including injunction or a stay against operations for noncompliance.

Court officials cautioned that litigation over crypto-mining noise is already pending and that comments in the meeting could become part of discovery. A court official noted the transcript of an earlier hearing was already an exhibit in federal court and warned participants to be mindful of ongoing litigation. Mr. Burson (role not specified in the transcript) confirmed earlier proceedings had been used in litigation and that the special meeting likely would be transcribed and could be used likewise.

Before any vote could be taken, a justice requested time to read the new material and the court called a 15-minute recess so members could review the revised ordinance on the table. The motion to consider ordinance 25-12 was on the floor and had been seconded; no final vote was recorded before the recess.

Speakers and participants emphasized both the need to protect residents from continuous noise and the need to craft language that the county can defend in court. Justice House and other justices said staff had begun benchmarking language from other jurisdictions and that additional drafting and vetting would follow. Several public commenters asked the court to coordinate with the Arkansas Association of Counties and to consider a moratorium until enforcement mechanisms and setback distances are settled.

The court did not adopt or reject ordinance 25-12 at the meeting. The next immediate action recorded was the court’s recess to permit justices to read the revised draft; the meeting record shows discussion and a motion but no completed vote by the time of recess.