Court declines immediate vote on 12‑month moratorium for high‑impact data centers after procedural motion fails; residents urge pause

A proposed 12‑month moratorium on high‑impact, utility‑intensive industrial uses and high‑intensity digital infrastructure in unincorporated Pulaski County did not receive immediate floor consideration after a procedural motion to discharge the agenda committee failed at the June 23 Quorum Court meeting.

The moratorium ordinance (filed as item 26I45 as amended) was read by the clerk. A member moved to discharge the agenda committee for immediate consideration; the parliamentarian explained that because there was no prior notice the motion required a two‑thirds vote of the full 15‑member body (10 votes). The motion was put to an immediate roll call and failed (the clerk recorded 7 ayes, 5 nays, 2 absent). As a result the ordinance remains under the committee's control rather than coming to an immediate up‑or‑down floor vote.

Public comment that followed was strongly in favor of a moratorium. India Jackson told the court: “We need a moratorium. Know that whatever you decide will be remembered.” Demita Riley, a longtime Riceville resident, raised health, property‑value and water concerns and asked why two data centers were being considered within 10 miles of each other. John McNally, treasurer for Oak Grove Fire Department No. 25, explained a separate resolution to raise that district’s intake cap was not a new tax but a higher allowable amount to accommodate rising costs.

Other commenters made targeted allegations about local approvals and the involvement of corporate actors. A speaker who identified herself as an occupational therapist said county officials had brokered special exemptions and alleged secrecy and nondisclosure agreements; she stated the proposed campus would place noise and pollution adjacent to Daisy Bates Elementary School. Several speakers used variant names from the record for the developer/campus (transcript alternately refers to the project as “Veil,” “Avaya” and “Aveo”); the court record presented those forms of the name in public testimony but did not supply a unified company identification during the meeting.

Why this matters: The moratorium would pause permitting and approvals for major data‑center and similar infrastructure while the county develops a conditional‑use and notice framework. Residents from affected neighborhoods framed the issue as one of environmental justice, water and public‑health protection, and called for more transparent public engagement and fuller study before further approvals.

Because the discharge motion failed, the proposed moratorium will remain with the agenda committee; several justices signaled they intend to study the proposal further and revisit it at a later meeting. The court closed the meeting after public comment.