Quorum Court advances data‑center ordinance amid split legal views

The Pulaski County quorum court voted to advance ordinance 26I56 — a conditional‑use‑permit ordinance aimed at regulating high‑intensity digital infrastructure (data centers) in unincorporated areas — to the full court with a due‑pass recommendation, after extended debate over procedure and substance.

Justice Blackwood, the lead sponsor of the ordinance, framed the proposal as protective rather than prohibitive: "This ordinance does not say no to development; it says that development must be responsible," she said, adding that the rules would protect water, roads, taxpayers and public safety. The court recorded a final vote of 13 ayes and 1 no to send the measure forward for formal consideration at the next business meeting.

The meeting featured a stark legal disagreement over process. The county attorney, recorded in the meeting as Lane, advised the court that "there must first be a recommendation from the planning board" and that planning‑board jurisdiction over land‑use regulations is exclusive under the relevant Arkansas code sections. In contrast, Wendell Griffin, who addressed the court as a judge and served as a drafter and proponent of the ordinance, urged members not to equate initiation with enactment: "Tonight, the quorum court is not enacting anything," Griffin said, arguing that the court may initiate a legislative matter and still receive the planning board's later recommendation.

Several justices asked detailed questions about how the ordinance would apply — thresholds for applicability (megawatts, water use, square footage), what counts as a "material modification," appeals to the quorum court, and how the county would handle confidential trade‑secret information contained in compliance records. Judge Griffin and staff answered technical questions about application contents, the role of independent technical analyses paid for by applicants, and the county's limited authority over certain utility or federal approvals.

The ordinance includes provisions for application contents, public notice, quasi‑judicial hearings, appeal pathways, and cost‑recovery for extraordinary investigations tied to misrepresentations by permit holders. Supporters said the measure creates a defensible, site‑specific review process before irreversible infrastructure commitments are made; opponents and many members of the public warned it would not go far enough to protect water supplies, emergency services and property values.

The planning board has a special meeting scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 13, to review a related draft (26I31/a); Mark Wilson, chairman of the Pulaski County Planning Board, told the court he expected the board to have a recommendation after that meeting. The quorum court's vote forwards 26I56 to the full business meeting where members will take a final vote and may amend the text.

What happens next: the court will hear 26I56 at its full business meeting in two weeks; the planning board intends to meet and issue a recommendation beforehand. Advocates and opponents said they expect the debate to continue into the formal vote.