Pulaski Quorum Court postpones moratorium vote on high‑impact digital and industrial projects after heated debate and public outcry

The Pulaski County Quorum Court voted to postpone consideration of ordinance 26 I 45 — a proposed 12‑month temporary moratorium on approving high‑impact industrial and high‑intensity digital infrastructure in unincorporated Pulaski County — until the 2nd Tuesday in July after extensive debate and a lengthy public comment period.

The ordinance as read would pause approvals while the county develops a regulatory framework and conditional‑use permit procedure for projects that meet definitions in the draft. Justice Young Baker offered an amendment designed “to allow continuation of economic development” by exempting expansions, modernization and projects already in the pipeline; Judge Wendell Griffin (who read the amendment aloud for the record) emphasized that the amendment “shall not apply to expansion, replacement, modernization, redevelopment, upgrading, repair, or improvement of any currently authorized business” and that the exemption is intended to “preserve existing lawful economic activity and essential services.”

Supporters of the amendment said it addressed unintended consequences that could block ordinary commercial and industrial projects. Opponents warned the moratorium could hinder recruitment of large employers. Jack Thomas, introduced as executive vice president of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, told the court the ordinance “has unintended consequences” and said several recent county projects that generated jobs and tax revenue could have been excluded under the draft language.

Several justices pressed staff and counsel for detail on the ordinance’s thresholds — including a 5‑megawatt electric demand threshold that drew repeated questions — and asked for independent technical briefings on energy, water and public‑safety implications. Planning staff agreed to seek experts; JPs debated whether to delay action to secure neutral witnesses. One JP noted existing county legal advice and cautioned about state‑law exposure.

After the amendment was approved, the court considered motions to table and to postpone. A motion to table failed; a later motion to postpone succeeded on roll call, recorded as 8 ayes, 5 nays and 2 absent. The court’s vote sends the matter back to the committee calendar for the July meeting cycle with instruction to schedule subject‑matter expert briefings beforehand.

The public comment period that followed featured dozens of residents and organizers urging a moratorium or stronger protections for communities near proposed data center sites. Speakers from Sweet Home, Wrightsville, College Station and other neighborhoods described concerns about water usage, potential impacts to drinking water and wastewater systems, effects on the electric grid, noise and low‑frequency impacts, emergency response capacity, and environmental justice. One resident whose property lies near a proposed site described ongoing sanitation disputes; others cited reports from other states with water shortages or emergency calls near operating data centers.

What happens next: staff and the clerk will work to identify independent experts and schedule briefings before the committee reconvenes in July; the ordinance will return to the court’s calendar for further consideration. The court did not adopt a moratorium tonight.