Pulaski County planning board reviews broad rules for large data centers after residents raise health, water and equity concerns

The Pulaski County Planning Board spent its June 25 meeting focused on draft measures to regulate high‑intensity digital infrastructure — large data centers and AI campuses — in unincorporated parts of the county.

Judge Wendell Griffin, who authored the resolutions and ordinances under review, told the board the package aims to establish a rational, evidence‑based framework to address impacts the county currently lacks rules for. The measures include resolution 26I32, which would treat large digital facilities as heavy industrial uses for land‑use review; resolution 26I33, which would designate the Port of Little Rock–Sweet Home corridor as a regional infrastructure impact corridor; ordinance 26I31, which would require conditional‑use permits with application, monitoring and decommissioning plans; and ordinance 26I34, a Notice of Industrial Impact and Intent (NOII) requirement to give the county predevelopment notice.

Griffin repeatedly used the Avaya campus proposed near Pratt Road as an example. He described a 150‑megawatt initial phase and said the site is projected at 760 acres; he said build‑out could reach 1 gigawatt. Griffin and multiple speakers emphasized three practical risk areas: electricity (substation and transmission upgrades and possible rate impacts), water for cooling and wastewater treatment, and fire response — including the potential need for more than volunteer department resources when large backup generators or lithium‑battery systems are involved.

Public commenters pressed those points. An occupational therapist and a psychotherapist described worries about low‑frequency noise and its effects on children’s attention and long‑term learning, and several residents warned of property devaluation and ecosystem impacts. AD Diaz and others raised concerns that utility customers could be asked to subsidize infrastructure for large corporate users.

The ordinances specify thresholds and procedural steps: Griffin said the county would treat developments that meet any threshold as regionally significant — electrical demand of 10 megawatts or greater, facility size of 100,000 square feet or greater, or water demand of 100,000 gallons per day. He described a conditional‑use permit filing package that would include electrical load analyses, water sourcing and wastewater plans, noise and fire protection studies, a decommissioning plan and fee schedules. Griffin proposed base application fees (example: $25,000) and escrow/monitoring fees (example: minimum escrow $100,000; monitoring $6,000–$24,000 annually), and estimated administrative and review costs of roughly $75,000–$230,000 per application.

Ordinance 26I34 would require a NOII filing at least 90 days before permit application, utility connections or site disturbance, and would trigger county review and notification to utilities, water authorities and rural fire districts. Griffin said the package would also require the applicant to produce sufficient evidence that the project will not materially subsidize electrical infrastructure costs borne by other ratepayers; if the county cannot make that written finding, it could deny the application or require mitigation such as developer‑funded infrastructure or reimbursement agreements.

Deputy County Attorney Dominique Lane told the board that while state statutes reference regulation of digital asset mining (cryptocurrency) and provide some local government authority, those statutes do not clearly cover the AI‑scale data centers discussed at the meeting. She recommended further legal research to clarify local authority before final action.

Board members asked staff to draft a map for the corridor designation, requested clarifications on notice language and appeals, and discussed whether the county should require tighter language on groundwater and visual buffers. Griffin said he will circulate revised drafts and suggested the board set a follow‑up special evening meeting in July to continue deliberations.

The board did not take a final vote on the resolutions or ordinances; the meeting was an information‑gathering session and public hearing intended to inform later recommendations to the quorum court.

What happens next: the planning board will schedule a follow‑up meeting in July to refine the measures and receive revised language and additional legal guidance before forwarding recommendations to the quorum court.