Quorum Court rejects 12‑month moratorium on high‑intensity data centers after heated debate

The Pulaski County Quorum Court voted no on ordinance 26I52, a proposed 12‑month temporary moratorium on approvals for high‑intensity digital infrastructure in unincorporated Pulaski County. The ordinance was introduced as an emergency measure to give staff and the planning board time to draft conditional‑use and industrial‑impact regulations; after debate and a roll call the ordinance failed to pass.

Supporters said the moratorium would pause approvals while the county develops rules to protect water, air and grid stability. Justice Curry moved for adoption; discussion centered on a retroactivity clause that would exempt projects with prior executed utility contracts or final county approvals. The county attorney said the clause was legally permissible but left regulatory choices for the court. Justice 8 (county attorney) summarized the ordinance's effect: "The ordinance as amended, all it does is create a suspension for 1 year so that regulation can be passed."

Opponents warned that the moratorium, as drafted, might not halt an ongoing project (referred to in the meeting as Avaya/Avaya/Aveo) that proponents say has already begun phase‑1 work. Justice Keith asked whether future regulations could be applied after construction phases; proponents answered that subsequent phases would be subject to later regulations. An amendment clarifying non‑retroactivity and notice to entities was proposed by Justice Person but failed on roll call (8 nays, 6 ayes). Ultimately the full ordinance did not obtain the votes required to pass.

The failure came after a prolonged public comment period during which residents repeatedly urged a stricter or exclusion‑free moratorium. Speaker Dustin Schreiner told the court, "This moratorium should have been voted down," saying the floor language did not impose meaningful restrictions. Others warned about potential impacts on drinking water, wetlands and energy reliability and urged the court to pursue stronger protections and consider expert input before approving any data center permits.

The court did not adopt a substitute moratorium during the meeting; several justices asked the planning board for an update and staff said they would research possible tours, panels and technical assistance to inform regulation drafting. The county judge closed the business portion of the meeting and opened public comment but the court left no immediate regulatory action in place.