[00:00:07]
[1.CALL TO ORDER ]
BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY JUSTICE CAPPS.IF YOU CAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND? LET'S PRAY.
BE WITH US AS WE LEAVE HERE. AND OVERALL, WE JUST ASK YOU TO BLESS THE PULASKI COUNTY.
IT'S IN JESUS NAME WE PRAY. AMEN. AMEN.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR STANDING AND PARTICIPATING IN OUR OPENING.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MISS DAVIS IS ABSENT.
MISS CAPPS. HERE. MISS LEWISON. HERE. MISS BLACKWOOD.
HERE. MR. PERSON. MISS MASSEY. CURRY. PRESENT.
MR. KEITH. HERE. MISS WARD. HERE. MISS YOUNG-BAKER IS ABSENT.
MR. ROBINSON. HERE. MR. MCCOY. HERE. AND MISS MEDLOCK IS ABSENT.
SO YOU HAVE 11 MEMBERS PRESENT. 11 MEMBERS PRESENT.
WE CAN DO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTY. IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 5?
[5.APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
SO MOVED. SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE APPROVE OUR MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED BY THE SAME. OUR MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS. SO, AMY, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP IN.
[26-I-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY AUTHORIZING PULASKI COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR AN AKRANSAS COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE GRANT. ]
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO OUR RESOLUTION.IF YOU'LL READ RESOLUTION 26-I-50. A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY AUTHORIZING PULASKI COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR AN ARKANSAS COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE GRANT.
JUSTICE MASSEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? IS THERE ANY REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE [INAUDIBLE] DEPARTMENT HERE TONIGHT? YES, MA'AM. IF YOU. OKAY. IF YOU'LL STEP TO THE PODIUM AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM LAJUAN BEDFORD. I'M THE GRANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PULASKI COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES.
PULASKI COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES IS PREPARING TO APPLY FOR THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, WHICH OPENED ON JULY 1ST AND CLOSES AUGUST 15TH, 2026.
AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PRESENT THE PROJECT TO THE QUORUM COURT AND OBTAIN THE COUNTY JUDGE'S SIGNATURE ON REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING A CERTIFICATION LETTER AND RESOLUTION.
FOR SEVERAL YEARS, PULASKI COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES HAS SUCCESSFULLY OPERATED A YOUTH WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDED THROUGH A GRANT FROM THE STATE. THIS PROGRAM SERVES YOUTH THROUGH STRUCTURED COHORTS LASTING 6, 8 AND 12 WEEKS.
PARTICIPANTS ENGAGED IN PAID WORK EXPERIENCES AT $13 AN HOUR.
MANDATORY LIFE SKILLS AND WORKFORCE READINESS WORKSHOPS.
COLLEGE CAREER AND CULTURAL EXPOSURE TOURS. STRUCTURED MENTORING AND SUPERVISION.
THE PROGRAM PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUTH TO DEVELOP RESPONSIBILITY, BUILD JOB READINESS SKILLS, AND GAIN EXPOSURE TO POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CAREER PATHWAYS.
OUR PROPOSED PROJECT BUILDS ON THE SUCCESSFUL MODEL BY EXPANDING ACCESS TO STRUCTURED YOUTH PROGRAMING THAT INCLUDES EDUCATIONAL ENRICHMENT, LIFE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES IN PULASKI COUNTY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR HOUSEKEEPING, YOUR MICROPHONE'S ALREADY ON.
[00:05:06]
THANK YOU. THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ANY QUESTIONS.SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON RESOLUTION 26-I-50? CALL].
THAT IS 11 AYES, 0 NAYS, 11 AYES, 0 NAYS. WE WILL SEND 26-I-50 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING, JUSTICE MCCOY? I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU AND THE BODY, IF WE WERE TO DO I-49 AND I-51 FIRST, GET THOSE OFF OUR PLATE AND THEN WE CAN GO TO BLACKWOOD'S.
WELL, YOU'RE READING MY MIND. YEAH. OKAY. WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE UP 26-I-49.
[26-I-49 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 25-OR-52 (2026 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO APPROPRIATE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSOR'S AMENDMENT 79 FUND (FUND 3004) INTO THE ASSESSOR'S REAPPRAISAL COST FUND (FUND 3011). ]
SO, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ ORDINANCE 26-I-49.AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 25-OR-52, 2026 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO APPROPRIATE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSOR'S AMENDMENT 79 FUND, FUND 3004 INTO THE ASSESSOR'S REAPPRAISAL COST FUND, FUND 3011 JUSTICE LEWISON.
MOVE THAT WE SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS.
JUSTICE LEWISON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? NOT EXACTLY.
I WAS GOING TO HAVE JANET WARD COME UP. OKAY.
EXPLAIN IT. WELL, I'M SURE SHE'LL BE GLAD. SHE'S A BETTER EXPLAINER.
WELL, GOOD. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. I'M JANET TROUTMAN WARD.
I'M THE PULASKI COUNTY ASSESSOR, AND THIS IS OUR HOUSEKEEPING THAT WE DO.
EVERY YEAR, THIS TIME OF YEAR, WE GET RETURN BACK REAPPRAISAL MONEY MONTHLY.
AND WE DON'T GET IT UNTIL JULY. WE JUST LIVE ON WHAT WE'VE GOT TILL THE NEXT YEAR.
Y'ALL DO THIS ALMOST EVERY YEAR. THIS YEAR IT'S A BIGGER AMOUNT BECAUSE WE'RE IN REAPPRAISAL AGAIN.
BUT ABOUT 154 NOTICES ARE GOING TO DROP IN THE NEXT THREE DAYS ON VALUE.
SO THIS IS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR POSTAGE. ALSO TOO IS TO TAKE CARE OF SOME OF OUR TRAINING.
WE TRY TO DO OUR TRAINING AS THE BEST WAY WE CAN.
ANY WAY WE CAN GET IT FOR FREE FROM THE STATE.
BUT WE HAVE 49 LEVEL FOUR OR HIGHER STATE CERTIFIED APPRAISERS, AND WE HAVE TO KEEP THEM TRAINED UP.
OKAY. IS THERE ANY INDICATION WHAT PROPERTY VALUES ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE THIS TIME? IT'S ALL OVER THE BOARD. OKAY. THERE'S SOME UP, SOME DOWN, AND WE'RE HERE TO HELP.
AND THE BOARD IS HERE TO HELP. IT'S A FORMAL PROCESS, BUT IT'S AN EASY PROCESS.
OKAY. AND WE ARE ALREADY GETTING. WE HAVE GOTTEN A FEW THINGS OUT ON THE STREET, SOME OF THE NOTICES IN THE BIGGER PACKETS, AND WE'RE ALREADY GETTING PEOPLE MAKING APPEAL APPOINTMENTS THERE.
THE PHONES ARE OPEN. ALREADY? IS THIS ARE THESE PREEMPTIVE APPOINTMENTS? OR. WELL, THEY CAN CALL, THEY CAN COME AND WE CAN WORK WITH THEM ON AN INFORMAL.
BUT THEN THEY EVENTUALLY HAVE TO GET TO THE BOARD STARTING AUGUST 1ST.
THAT'S WHEN THEY COME INTO THEIR AUTHORITY. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPLANATION.
THERE SEEMS TO BE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. SO, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. ON 26-I-49.
THAT'S 11 AYES, 0 NAYS. WE WILL SEND 26-I-49 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
CAN EVERYBODY PULL THEIR MICROPHONE? I KNOW AMY'S DOUBLE COUNTING, BUT CAN YOU PULL YOUR MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF YOU JUST SO YOU CAN SPEAK INTO IT? SO IT'S ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT SOMEONE'S LISTENING TO US.
[26-I-51 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 26-OR-02 TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 2723 FERNDALE CUT-OFF FROM R-2 RESIDENTIAL TO 0-1 QUIET OFFICE. ]
[00:10:04]
APPROVE THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 2723 FERNDALE CUTOFF FROM R-2 RESIDENTIAL TO O-1 QUIET OFFICE.JUSTICE LEWISON. WHAT? I MOVE TO SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS. SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 26-I-51 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT CAN. EXPLAIN THIS? EXPLAIN THIS TO US? OKAY, YOU CAN STEP FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE, FOR THE RECORD.
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BODY. JIM CRANER, PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING.
THE APPLICATION WENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD LAST MONTH AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
RECOMMENDED THAT Y'ALL APPROVE THIS. THE PROPERTY WILL TAKE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND REPURPOSE THEM INTO A MICRO SCHOOL WITH ABOUT 30 STUDENTS. THE APPLICANT HAS GOTTEN EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM.
THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED FROM THE WEST PULASKI VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT THE APPLICANT HOPES TO HAVE THOSE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE TIME SCHOOL STARTS IN AUGUST.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY COMMUNITY CONCERNS ABOUT.
I'VE NOT HEARD ONE COMMENT EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CRANER. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 26-I-51? CALL].
11 AYES, 0 NAYS. 11 AYES, 0 NAYS. WE WILL SEND 26-I-51 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION. OKAY, WE'LL JUMP BACK IN.
AND AMY, WOULD YOU READ ORDINANCE 26-I-45, AS AMENDED?
[26-I-45A AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A TWELVE-MONTH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF IDGH-IMP ACT UTILITY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL USE AND HIGH-INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND NOTICE OF INDUSTRIAL IMP ACT AND INTENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 12 MONTH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF HIGH IMPACT UTILITY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL USE AND HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY, PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND NOTICE OF INDUSTRIAL IMPACT AND INTENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.JUSTICE WARD. I RECOMMEND TO SEND TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENTS? JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.
OH ONE THING. YOUR LIGHTS ARE. REMEMBER YOUR MICS ARE ON.
SO JUST RAISE YOUR HAND OR GET MY ATTENTION AND I WILL TRY TO GET TO YOU AS YOU'VE REQUESTED.
JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. GO AHEAD. YES, I WANT TO ADDRESS THE ORDINANCES.
WE HAVE TWO ORDINANCES TONIGHT COMPETING ORDINANCES AGAINST EACH OTHER.
AND SO I WANT TO ADDRESS KIND OF THE DIFFERENCES AND WHAT'S GOING ON.
THE ORDINANCE IS NOT A BAN ON DATA CENTERS. IT'S A TEMPORARY PLANNING THAT GIVES PULASKI COUNTY THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS BEFORE APPROVING PROJECTS UNLIKE ANYTHING WE HAVE REGULATED BEFORE.
ONE OF THE STRENGTHS, I WILL SAY OF ORDINANCE I-45-A, IS IT AS FIRMLY GROUNDED IN ARKANSAS LAW.
IT'S SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE AMENDMENT 55 TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARKANSAS CODE 1414801 AND ARKANSAS ACT 851 OF 2023. THESE REFERENCES RECOGNIZE BOTH THE COUNTY PLANNING
[00:15:02]
AUTHORITY AND THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW.BY DOING SO, THE ORDINANCE DEMONSTRATES THAT PULASKI COUNTY IS EXERCISING AUTHORITY THAT ALREADY EXISTS UNDER ARKANSAS LAW, NOT CREATING NEW AUTHORITY. THE PROPOSED AVAIO PROJECT ILLUSTRATES EXACTLY WHY THIS PLANNING PROCESS IS NECESSARY.
A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT POWER AVAILABILITY, WATER RESOURCES, EMERGENCY RESPONSE, TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, NEIGHBORHOODING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND PUBLIC SERVICE FOR DECADES TO COME.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS THE QUORUM COURT IS NOT SIMPLY TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT.
ORDINANCE-I-45 ACCOMPLISHES THAT BY REQUIRING THE COUNTY TO DEVELOP THE CLEAR STANDARDS BEFORE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS ARE APPROVED. IT ESTABLISHES A PROCESS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW.
UTILITY COORDINATION. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
BY COMPARISON, ORDINANCE I-52 IS MUCH LESS COMPREHENSIVE.
IT CONTAINS FEWER LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS, FEWER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS, AND FEWER SAFEGUARDS.
AS A RESULT, IT WOULD ALLOW A PROJECT LIKE AVAIO TO MOVE THROUGH A LESS RIGOROUS REGULATORY PROCESS THAN I BELIEVE THE CITIZENS OF PULASKI COUNTY DESERVE. THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER AVAIO IS A GOOD COMPANY OR WHETHER DATA CENTERS CREATE JOBS. WE ALL WANT RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE HAVE DONE OUR JOB? HAVE WE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS THAT PROTECT THE ELECTRIC GRID? HAVE WE CONSIDERED THE LONG TERM IMPACTS ON OUR WATER RESOURCES? HAVE WE ENSURED OUR FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ARE PREPARED FOR A FACILITY OF THIS SIZE? HAVE WE ADOPTED REGULATIONS THAT TREAT EVERY DEVELOPER FAIRLY AND CONSISTENTLY? I BELIEVE I-45-A ANSWERS THOSE QUESTIONS RESPONSIBLY.
PLANNING IS NOT ANTI-BUSINESS. RESPONSIBLE PLANNING PROVIDES CERTAINTY FOR DEVELOPERS WHILE PROTECTING TAXPAYERS, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
ONCE THESE FACILITIES ARE APPROVED AND BUILT, THE CONSEQUENCES, GOOD OR BAD, WILL REMAIN WITH OUR COUNTY FOR GENERATIONS. AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE HAVE A DUTY TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE APPROVING PROJECTS OF THIS MAGNITUDE.
SUPPORTING ORDINANCE I-45-A IS NOT A VOTE AGAINST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS A VOTE FOR RESPONSIBLE PLANNING, TRANSPARENCY, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PROTECTING THE LONG TERM INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF PULASKI COUNTY. NOW, BESIDES THIS, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS, HAS PULASKI COUNTY MADE A LEGAL DETERMINATION THAT AVAIO HAS VESTED RIGHTS UNDER ARKANSAS LAW?
[00:20:05]
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. DOMINIQUE LANE. THERE IT IS.YEAH. I'M SORRY. I'M SLEEPING. OKAY. AVAIO, OVIO? AVAIO POTENTIALLY HAS A PROPERTY INTEREST THAT THEY CAN CLAIM, IF PREVENTED FROM CONTINUING THEIR PROJECT. SO THEY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS, IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME.
I'M SAYING THEY POTENTIALLY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS.
I'M SAYING THAT AS AN ATTORNEY, IF I WERE TO LOOK AT THIS LEGAL ISSUE FROM THEIR STANDPOINT, WHICH AS YOUR COUNSEL, IT IS MY JOB TO DO SO.
SURE. IF I'M AN ATTORNEY FOR AVAIO, OVIO, AND MY PROJECT IS HALTED, I AM MOST CERTAINLY LOOKING AT MY LEGAL AVENUES FOR ADDRESS. AND HERE THE ISSUE WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CONSIDERED A TAKING.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT COME IN EITHER BY REGULATION OR BY EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAKE YOUR LAND OR PROPERTY INTEREST WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, NOTICE, THESE KIND OF THINGS.
AND SO WE GAVE THEM A SITE PLAN REVIEW. WHEN I SAY WE, I MEAN THE COUNTY, BECAUSE OUR PLANNING, THE BOARD IS A PART OF THE COUNTY IN DECEMBER OR SO OF 2024 THAT SAID THAT THEY HAD SOME CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR SITE PLAN. BUT AFTER SOME CONDITIONS ARE MET, BARRING INCLUDING SOME CONDITIONS, THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE LIKE APPROVAL FROM THE CORPS.
NOW, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO POTENTIALLY STOP THEIR PROJECT FOR A MOMENT OR FOREVER ADD NEW CONDITIONS.
IT WOULD BE WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO SEEK REMEDIES IN THE COURT.
WHETHER THEY WIN WILL BE UP FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE.
RIGHT. ARE THE APPROVALS FINAL OR CONDITIONAL? DO YOU KNOW? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HAS ONLY BEEN A CONDITIONAL REVIEW OF A SITE PLAN.
THAT IS IT. AND THEY HAVE, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, GIVEN SOME OF THE CONDITIONS, BUT ARE AWAITING OTHER ITEMS THAT THEY NEED. OKAY. BUT TO MY UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON THAT OR IN RELIANCE OF THAT, THEY HAVE BEGUN TO DEVELOP THEIR SITE IN PREPARATION FOR THEIR PROJECT. OKAY. IF AVAIO PROCEEDS UNDER TODAY'S REGULATIONS, WILL FUTURE DATA CENTERS BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF REGULATIONS? I'M NOT CERTAIN I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
IF. CAN YOU SPEAK INTO YOUR MIC, PLEASE? IF OVIO, IF AVAIO PROCEEDS UNDER TODAY'S REGULATIONS.
SO IF WE PUT THEM IN, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN OR WHATEVER, WILL FUTURE DATA CENTERS. BECAUSE IF WE PASS A NEW ORDINANCE THAT SETS UP, YOU KNOW, NEW REGULATIONS WHERE WE WORK OUT NEW REGULATIONS, WILL AVAIO BE UNDER ONE REGULATION AND THE OTHER COMPANY BE UNDER DIFFERENT REGULATIONS? THE SIMPLEST ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT I DO NOT KNOW.
AND THAT WOULD BE FOR THE QUORUM COURT TO DECIDE HOW IT WANTS TO APPLY.
ANY NEW ORDINANCE TO THE AVAIO PROJECT. CERTAINLY, IN LAW, WE HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE A SITUATION COMES UP AND THERE IS A NEW LAW, BUT AN OLDER LAW HAS TO BE APPLIED BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE OCCURRENCE.
AND SO ACCORDING TO. WHAT WORRIES ME, I THINK, IS THAT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TREAT ONE COMPANY DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER COMPANY.
AND SO THIS IS WHAT. AND I AGREE WITH YOU, THAT ISSUE WOULD NEED FURTHER RESEARCH AND BEARING OUT.
YEAH. BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME UP IN COURT, I THINK THAT IF WE.
[00:25:05]
IT IS MY OPINION, MADAM BLACKWOOD, THAT NEITHER OF THE ORDINANCES PROTECT THE COUNTY FROM FUTURE LITIGATION.LITIGATION IS A RISK IN EVERY ACTION. I CANNOT CONFIRM OR DENY THAT WE WON'T BE SUED.
OKAY. FOR EITHER ONE. WHY DOES I-52 CONTAIN FEWER LEGISLATIVE BINDINGS? YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE DRAFTER OF THAT ORDINANCE, MADAM BLACKWOOD.
NO. IF YOU'LL GO AHEAD, I'LL GIVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
YEAH. WHY DOES I-52 CONTAIN THE SAME DETAILED PLANNING PROCESS FOUND IN I-45.
MADAM BLACKWOOD, I DID NOT DRAFT THE ORDINANCE.
OKAY. DOES THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BELIEVE I-45 IS CONSISTENT WITH AMENDMENT 55 AND ARKANSAS CODE 1414801? BOTH MORATORIUM ORDINANCES IS THAT IT POTENTIALLY CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATE AGENCIES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER AREAS SUCH AS UTILITIES, WATER, EVEN EMERGENCY RESPONSES.
WHEN YOU READ 1414801, YOU WILL FIND THAT IT SAYS WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT UNLESS IT HAS BEEN STATED OTHERWISE IN THE CONSTITUTION OR IN STATE LAW. THERE ARE SEVERAL STATE AGENCIES THAT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER AREAS THAT WOULD BE OF CONCERN FOR THE COUNTY, LIKE WHAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN. AND SO MY CONCERN WITH THESE MORATORIUMS IS THAT THEY ENCROACH UPON THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION GIVEN TO OTHER AGENCIES.
IF I CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE, ONE OF THOSE AGENCIES, I THINK WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AND IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT A LOT, BUT I'D LIKE TO MENTION ANOTHER THAT HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT ABSENT FROM THE CONVERSATION.
ONE SUCH AGENCY IS OIL AND GAS. WHEN WE READ THE STATUTES THAT HOUSE WHAT WE KNOW AS THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTER ACT AND THE DIGITAL ASSET MINING ACT, THAT IS IN TITLE 14 AND TITLE 23.
WHEN WE READ THOSE, ESPECIALLY TITLE 23, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY GAVE AUTHORITY OVER THOSE TWO SETS OF STATUTES TO OIL AND GAS.
AND SO MY QUESTION IS, IF WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO SUSPEND APPROVALS OF DATA CENTERS OF VARIOUS TYPES, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALL AI. SOME ARE CRYPTOCURRENCY, SOME ARE.
ACTUALLY THAT THAT IS THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT I KNOW TO BE AI.
I WON'T PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT. OIL AND GAS HAS BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OVER THOSE TWO STATUTES, THOSE TWO STATUTES PURPORT TO GIVE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE.
OKAY. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO. THERE WAS SOME SUGGESTION THAT THEY DO NOT CAUSE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THEY. I FEEL LIKE THEY DO CAUSE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. I THINK THAT THE ELECTRICAL DEMAND IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE YOUR BIGGEST ISSUE.
IF WE GET UP TO ONE GIGAWATT OR 1000 MW, THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THE POWER DEMAND OF A LARGE INDUSTRY FACILITY OR A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF HOMES. SUCH DEMAND MAY REQUIRE NEW SUBSTATIONS, NEW HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES, UPGRADES TO THE ELECTRICAL GRID, SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY THE UTILITY.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAN ANSWER THIS FOR ME OR NOT, BUT WILL THESE UPGRADES AFFECT ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY FOR EXISTING CUSTOMERS? WHO PAYS FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE? COULD ANY COST EVENTUALLY BE BORNE ON THE TAXPAYERS?
[00:30:09]
I ALSO AM CONCERNED ABOUT WATER USE. SOME DATA CENTERS USE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF WATER FOR COOLING, WHILE OTHERS USE AIR COOLED SYSTEMS THAT CONSUME MUCH LESS.WHAT COOLING TECHNOLOGY ARE THEY USING? WHAT IS EXPECTED DAILY? WATER DEMAND. WHAT IS THE ANNUAL WATER DEMAND? WHAT WILL THE WATER, YOU KNOW, COME FROM CENTRAL ARKANSAS WELLS, WATERS, OTHER SOURCES? I MEAN, THIS GOES ON AND ON AND ON. BACKUP GENERATORS AND ER ADMISSIONS.
MOST LARGE DATA CENTERS INSTALL DIESEL OR NATURAL GAS GENERATORS FOR BACKUP POWER.
POTENTIAL CONCERNS OR OMISSIONS DURING TESTING OR EMERGENCIES, DIESEL FUEL STORAGE, NOISE, SPILL PREVENTION. HOW MANY GENERATORS ARE PLANNED, WHAT FUEL THEY USE.
I MEAN WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWERS TO ANY OF THIS.
NOISE, WITHOUT ANY GENERATORS RUNNING CONTINUALLY.
COOLING EQUIPMENT. FANS. TRANSFORMERS. ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS.
WHAT WILL THE NOISE BE TO THE NEARBY HOMES AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS? LAND DISTURBANCE AND HABITAT. WE HAVE GOT TREES, WETLANDS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, EROSION, SEDIMENT RUNOFF.
ALL KINDS OF THINGS LIKE THAT WILL BE AFFECTED.
HEAT. WILL THE WASTEWATER HEAT BE MANAGED? HOW WILL IT BE MANAGED? WELL, COOLING SYSTEMS AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTIES.
FIRE PROTECTION, LITHIUM ION BATTERY SYSTEMS. TRANSFORMERS. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. DIESEL STORAGE CREATES SPECIALIZED FIRE RISKS.
IS THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT ABLE TO HANDLE ALL THIS? SINCE IT'S ONLY A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, I DON'T THINK SO.
TRAFFIC. I MEAN, THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, LONG TERM LAND USE.
THESE GO ON AND ON AND ON. AND THAT IS WHY. I KNOW THAT EVERYBODY FEELS LIKE I-45 IS LENGTHY AND HAS A LOT OF STUFF IN IT, BUT THAT IS WHY IT IS, THAT IS WHY WE PUT THAT IN THERE WAS TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS. I'M TRYING TO LISTEN TO MY CONSTITUENTS.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO BIG BUSINESS.
AND IT'S NOT THAT I HATE BIG BUSINESS. IT'S JUST THAT THE CONSTITUENTS, THIS AFFECTS THEIR LIVES.
THIS AFFECTS THEIR LIVES. [APPLAUSE]. AND WHY WRIGHTSVILLE, WHICH IS THE WORST.
PORTENA. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, SHE'S GOT A, YOU KNOW, HER WHOLE DISTRICT.
SO, I MEAN, THERE ARE SO MANY CONCERNS. AND WHEN YOU WATER DOWN AN ORDINANCE, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT GETTING THE PROTECTION THAT WE DESERVE.
I YIELD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.
JUSTICE CURRY. YES. THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT JUST ADDRESSING 26-I-45.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROLS OVER THINGS BEING REGULATED BY THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OR OIL AND GAS OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ADQ. IF SOMEONE CAN CORRECT ME ON THAT.
ADEQ. SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROLS, AND THOSE ARE DISTINCT DIFFERENCES.
ALSO, I'D LIKE TO SHARE IN 26-I-52, ARTICLE 9, NON RETROACTIVITY. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT HAVE EXECUTED CONTRACTS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANY FINAL APPROVAL.
SO THEREFORE, WE WILL BE STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS TO TRY TO PUT A MORATORIUM.
EVEN WITH THE MORATORIUM, IT DOESN'T STOP THE CURRENT PROCESS WITH AVAIO.
I'D LIKE TO READ MY REBUTTAL FROM THIS STANCE SO THAT I CAN SHARE THE REASONS WHY I HELPED.
I REACHED OUT TO TRY TO DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.
[00:35:01]
THE REVIEW BETWEEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 26-I-55.AND THANK YOU, MADAM ATTORNEY, FOR ADDRESSING YOUR CONCERNS.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT, BECAUSE 26-I-52 IS FOUNDED UPON AND FOLLOWING THE GUIDANCE OF ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. I BELIEVE SOMEONE MISSTATED TODAY MAYBE THAT IT WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW, BUT IT DOES. IT'S STILL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF ARTICLE 1, WHICH SAID THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE PULASKI COUNTY HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND HIGH IMPACT UTILITY INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL USE AND MORATORIUM ORDINANCE BY THE AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 55, ARKANSAS CODE 1414801, AND ARKANSAS CODE PROVISIONS GOVERNING COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND USE AUTHORITY. SO I WANTED TO STATE THAT, FOR THE RECORD.
BOTH ORDINANCES WOULD PUT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS TO ALLOW FURTHER STUDY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LAND USE REGULATION.
BUT IT TAKES DISTINCT POLICY AND LEGAL APPROACHES FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
SO BY US NOT ALLOWING ALSO FOR OUR PLANNING COMMISSION TO BRING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REGULATIONS, WE'RE NOT STOPPING THE ALREADY EXISTING PROJECT, BUT IT WOULD BE FOR ANY FUTURE PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLY APPROVED OR WOULD BE VISITED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT. ALSO, 52 IS MORE NARROWLY TAILORED.
PLANNING MEASURES FOCUS ON LEGAL DEFENSIBILITY UNDER ARKANSAS LAW, PARTICULARLY ACT 851.
IT EMPHASIZED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, STATUTORY LIMITS AND A TEMPORARY PAUSE TO SUPPORT THE FURTHER STUDY THAT'S NEEDED TO GET THE REGULATIONS IN PLACE BY THE COUNTY. ORDINANCE 45 ESTABLISHES A BROADER REGULATORY FRAMEWORK THAT GIVES THE COUNTY GREATER LOCAL DISCRETION, WHICH WE HAVE NO POWER OVER THE LOCAL PART.
FROM A LEGAL APPROACH, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ORDINANCES IS THAT THE OVERALL LEGAL PHILOSOPHY. ORDINANCE 669152, REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE COUNTY IS ACTING ONLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY, AND THAT THE MORATORIUM IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO WHILE REGULATIONS ARE EVALUATED. TWO, 26-I-52 RELIES PRIMARILY ON OBJECTIVES MEASURABLE CRITERIA SUCH AS ELECTRIC DEMANDS, LOAD FACTORS, VOLTAGE, AND WATER USE THRESHOLDS. TWO, AS WE DEAL WITH THE EXEMPTIONS, 26-I-52 SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDS EXEMPTIONS FROM FACILITIES SUCH AS TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, BROADBAND PROJECTS, EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND CERTAIN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS NOT PRIMARILY SUPPORTING HID OPERATIONS. THE BROADER EXEMPTION REDUCED THE LIKELIHOOD OF UNINTENDED IMPACTS OR UNRELATED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WE DO NOT WANT TO PUT WHAT'S IN 26-I-45 BECAUSE IT WOULD ADDRESS EXISTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES WITHIN OUR COUNTY THAT EXIST IN OUR INDUSTRIAL PARK. FIVE. I'D LIKE TO SHARE, WHILE BOTH ORDINANCES IDENTIFY CONCERNS RELATED TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE DEMAND, WATER CONSUMPTION, EMERGENCY SERVICES, WHICH YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT, TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITIES, THESE EMPHASES DO DIFFER.
WE HAVE SO MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD OCCUR WITH NOT ALLOWING
[00:40:05]
THE PROJECT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN PERMIT TO, TO NOT GO FORWARD.BUT WE COULD CONSIDER ONCE OUR PLANNING COMMITTEE COME FORWARD.
SO AT THIS TIME, MAYBE CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO HEARING FROM OUR PLANNING COMMISSION GROUP, WHICH IS TO MEET ON JULY THE 23RD MAKES MORE SENSE IN THAT.
NOW, WE KNOW FROM OUR LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THAT EITHER MORATORIUM MAY PASS THE APPROVAL OF OUR ATTORNEY AT LAW THAT REPRESENT US. TO ME, IT MADE MORE SENSE FOR US TO TABLE BOTH UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT WE HEAR FROM OUR PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT WOULD BE MY APPEAL. BUT THERE ARE DISTINCT DIFFERENCES.
IT WOULD ALLOW THE PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD, WHICH WE HAVE NO LOCAL CONTROL OVER.
THAT'S MY COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JUSTICE WARD.
OKAY, SO FOR THE ATTORNEY, IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, YOU STATED THAT BOTH MORATORIUMS ARE NOT GOOD. SO IF I SAID NOT GOOD, I CERTAINLY DID NOT MEAN THAT. OKAY. I DON'T MEAN TO PUT WORDS IN A LAWYER'S MOUTH.
I DON'T MEAN NOT GOOD, NOT LEGAL. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF GOOD OR BAD.
IT IS MERELY A QUESTION OF WHAT INTRODUCES THE COUNTY TO LEGAL RISK AND WHETHER OR NOT CAN I, AS YOUR ATTORNEY, DEFEND US ON THOSE RISKS. THAT IS THE QUESTION I HAVE TO ASK MYSELF UPON BEING PRESENTED WITH ANYTHING TO SIGN IS THAT CAN I DEFEND THIS? IS THERE SOME LEGAL COURSE THAT I CAN DEFEND? AND WITH BOTH MORATORIUMS, JUST LET'S TAKE AVAIO, OVEO, OUT FOR A MINUTE.
OKAY. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE YEAR SUSPENSION, ONE YEAR TEMPORARY HOLD.
RIGHT. WE'LL CALL IT A BAN. I KNOW WE HAVE WE ARGUE OVER THAT WORD.
THAT BY ITSELF CAUSES ISSUES THAT I SEE LEGALLY AND THAT IT MAY STEP ON THE TOES, IF YOU'LL ALLOW THE VERNACULAR ON ANOTHER STATE AGENCY.
WHEN I SAY MAY, I DO MEAN MAY. THAT'S A YES OR A NO, RIGHT? IT COULD. IT COULD NOT. ONE EXAMPLE I CAN GIVE YOU IS THIS.
THE DEFINITION OF HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND HIGH IMPACT, UTILITY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL USE. WE NEED TO COME UP WITH AN ACRONYM. YES WE DO.
THAT DEFINITION WILL INCLUDE MANY TYPES OF DATA CENTERS, NOT JUST AN AI TYPE OF DATA CENTER, BUT IT COULD INCLUDE DIGITAL ASSET MINING DATA CENTER.
OIL AND GAS HAS PASSED REGULATIONS FOR THE PERMITTING OF DIGITAL ASSET MINING.
SO IF OUR COUNTY ORDINANCE SAYS FOR THIS YEAR, WE'RE NOT DOING ANY PERMITS.
NO, BUT THEY'VE RECEIVED THEIR PERMIT FROM OIL AND GAS.
DOES THAT CONFLICT? THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION I HAVE TO ASK MYSELF.
AND I HAVE TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT I CAN DEFEND THAT IN COURT.
BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, THERE WILL BE SOME RISK OF LITIGATION.
I HOPE TO ADVISE YOU IN A WAY THAT WOULD DECREASE THAT RISK, BUT IT WILL NEVER BE RID OF.
WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE THAT RISK. AND SO THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY JUST THE YEAR SUSPENSION.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AVAIO, OVEIO YET, JUST THAT ONE YEAR SUSPENSION AND HOW IT IS DEFINED AND WHO IT AFFECTS MAY STEP ON THE TOES OF ANOTHER REGULATORY AGENCY WITH AUTHORITY OVER THAT ISSUE.
OKAY. WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN THIS COUNTY, I DON'T THINK WE'VE BEEN DODGING LITIGATION. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS. I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HAVE A JOB IF WE DID.
[00:45:05]
RIGHT. YEAH. BUT MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, ARE YOU WILLING TO REPRESENT US? AS LONG AS I HOLD THIS OFFICE, I WILL REPRESENT YOU TO THE BEST OF MY LEGAL ABILITY.OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. JUST A GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING RULE ASK, IN THE AUDIENCE, WOULD YOU PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ACTUALLY HOLDING UP SIGNS THAT ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS SITTING JUSTICES HERE? THANK YOU. WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH SOME HOT BUTTON ISSUES.
AND I THINK WE'RE DOING THE BEST THAT WE CAN.
AND MAYBE IT'S NOT WHAT YOU FEEL, BUT PLEASE JUST REFRAIN FROM ACTUALLY PERSONALLY DIRECTING SIGNS OR SOMETHING TOWARD A SPECIFIC JUSTICE UP HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
JUSTICE PERSON. FOR THE ATTORNEY. I'M POPULAR TONIGHT.
THE MVP. QUESTION. I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE BEEN READING UP ON THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA CENTERS AS I AS WELL. AND I REALIZED THAT EVERYTHING IS NOT A INFORMATION DATA CENTER, WHICH IS AI AND THOSE SORTS, BUT ALSO THE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRIES ALSO HAVE WHAT WOULD CONSIDER TO BE A DATA CENTER. DOES THE PSC REGULATES THOSE PERMITS AS WELL FOR TELECOM DATA CENTERS? SO THIS IS INTERESTING. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DOES NOT REGULATE DATA CENTERS.
YEAH. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATES UTILITIES AND WATER.
SO HOW THEY FIT INTO THIS EQUATION IS, IF I AM A DATA CENTER AND I AM SEEKING TO BUILD AND OPERATE, AND I OBVIOUSLY NEED UTILITIES, I WOULD GO TO THAT UTILITY SERVICE.
SO JUST. I'M SORRY. I'M SO VERY SORRY TO INTERRUPT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE IS NO ENTITY THAT WILL GOVERN OR A TYPE OF INDUSTRY, IT'S THE UTILITIES THAT THE INDUSTRY NEEDS IS WHAT'S.
NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. OKAY. PLEASE EXPLAIN IT TO ME LIKE I'M FOUR YEARS OLD.
PLEASE. I WILL ENDEAVOR. SO THE UTILITY COMPANIES WILL PROVIDE SERVICES TO DATA CENTERS.
THAT IS BUT ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. THOSE UTILITY COMPANIES, WHEN THEY PROVIDE SERVICES, HAVE TO GO TO THE P&Z, RIGHT? TO GET APPROVALS FOR THOSE.
AS FAR AS THE REGULATORY AGENCY THAT HAS AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THEM TO SAY, HEY, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO OPERATE, AND THAT AGENCY IS GOING TO LIKELY COORDINATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES TO MAKE SURE THEY FOLLOW THE OTHER STEPS.
RIGHT? EXCUSE ME, ATTORNEY, MAY I INTERRUPT YOU, PLEASE? YES. IT'S A SIGN AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT INDIVIDUAL IF THEY'LL PUT IT DOWN OR PUT IT OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. NO, BUT I SAW THE OTHER SIDE. YES, PLEASE PUT THAT OUTSIDE.
THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL PUT IT OUT OF SIGHT. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING YOU. GO AHEAD. RIGHT NOW, GIVING THE LAWS THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY, WHICH ARE ABOUT 11 STATUTES THAT PURPORT TO GOVERN DATA CENTERS, THAT AUTHORITY OVER THOSE STATUTES HAS BEEN PLACED UNDER OIL AND GAS.
AND SO THINGS ARE BEING CREATED AS WE SPEAK AND PROCESSES.
SO BEAR WITH ME. THEY WOULD BE THE PERMITTING BODY.
AND THEN FROM THERE, THEY WOULD HAVE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH TO GET THAT PERMIT FROM THEM.
WHAT OUR JOB IS, OR WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES IS, WHERE DO WE FIT IN? WHERE HAS THE STATE ACTED AND HAVE AUTHORITY AND IN WHAT AREAS HAVEN'T THEY ACTED THAT WE CAN THEN COME IN AND REGULATE THAT? THAT IS THE QUESTION. LEGALLY, THAT IS HEAVIEST ON MY MIND.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I YIELD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? JUSTICE ROBINSON. THANK YOU.
I FEEL YOU BEING IN A TOUGH POSITION THAT YOU'RE IN HAVING TO ADVISE US UP HERE.
NO. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION.
[00:50:09]
SO IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IF WE WERE TO PASS ONE OF THESE, WHICH ONE DO WE NEED TO PASS THAT WOULD BE THE MOST COMFORTABLE LITIGATION WISE? I MEAN, WHICH ONE DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU COULD DEFEND BETTER? BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE COMING DOWN TO. WE'RE COMING DOWN TO WHICH ONE OF THESE PUTS THE MORATORIUM, BUT IS ALSO MORE DEFENDABLE BY THE COUNTY? THAT'S MY QUESTION.I SIMPLY HAVE TO READ THE LAW AND GIVE YOU MY BEST INTERPRETATION.
THAT'S IT. AND ADVISE YOU OF THE RISK. IF I AM PICKING BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND I HAVE ISSUES WITH BOTH OF THEM.
BOTH OF THEM TO ME PRESENT RISK OF LITIGATION THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND.
DEFEND YOU, I WILL, AND TRY TO MY BEST, BUT I CANNOT GUARANTEE THE SUCCESS OF ANY OF THOSE.
THE 24-I-52 PRESENTS LESS LITIGATION RISK, BUT NOT NIL. IT DOES HAVE LITIGATION RISK, BUT IT PRESENTS LESS LITIGATION RISK.
OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. THANK YOU.
I YIELD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUSTICE CAPPS.
OH, I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. JUSTICE CAPPS. I'M SORRY.
GO AHEAD. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ALSO, I APOLOGIZE.
THANK YOU. YOU'RE DOING AN INCREDIBLE JOB. WE APPRECIATE IT.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE LITIGATION RISK, MOSTLY BECAUSE I WANT SOMETHING TO BE IN PLACE.
SO LET'S SAY WE PASS SOMETHING THAT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO DEFEND.
WHAT ARE THE LEGAL OPTIONS OF WHERE IT LANDS IF IT ENDS UP IMMEDIATELY IN SOME LEGAL PROCEEDING? WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL OPTIONS AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ACTIONABILITY OF THE MORATORIUM IF IT IS IN SOME LAWSUIT? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, IF WE WERE TO PASS EITHER OF THE MORATORIUM, EITHER OF THEM.
SO POTENTIALLY SOMEONE CAN FILE A LAWSUIT. THAT LAWSUIT COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN INJUNCTION WHICH WOULD ENJOIN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MORATORIUM UNTIL THE COURT DECIDES ITS LEGALITY.
SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IF I'M WORKING FOR THE OTHER SIDE, THAT'S EXACTLY.
AND I'M NOT. THANK YOU. AS AN ATTORNEY, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD DO IS FILE FOR AN INJUNCTION.
AND SO, IF THAT HAPPENS, WE ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE.
DEEPLY VULNERABLE AGAIN, NO PROTECTIONS. CORRECT? AND WE ARE TALKING HYPOTHETICALS. BUT YES, IN THAT HYPOTHETICAL, THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.
OKAY. THANK YOU, I YIELD. JUSTICE MASSEY. THANK YOU.
SO REALLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE ARE TWO MORATORIUMS. ONE IS JUST SIMPLY TO DEFEAT THE OTHER MORATORIUM TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF HOW THE FIRST MORATORIUM, WHICH IS TO STOP AVAIO FROM GOING THROUGH WITHOUT ANY REGULATION.
SO THE SECOND ONE, THAT'S JUST SIMPLY WHAT IT DOES. IT JUST KEEPS US FROM REGULATING AVAIO.
SO, I MEAN, WHICH IS KIND OF. JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I GUESS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T WANT ANY OTHER DATA CENTERS, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY HELP, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T A MORATORIUM TO DEFEAT ANOTHER MORATORIUM.
AND THEN THE PURPOSE OF THE MORATORIUM JUST GOES DOWN THE DRAIN.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO IF AVAIO STILL GETS TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND WE'VE NOT ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IS WHAT I'M SEEING HERE. I DON'T WANT US TO INCUR ANY LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS.
[00:55:07]
COSTS ARE PASSED ON TO OUR CONSTITUENTS. SO WHEN YOU THINK OF THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO FIGHT. I MEAN, I KNOW.[APPLAUSE]. THIS IS NOT THE ANALOGY THAT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF A BETTER ONE.
BUT IF THEY SAID NO BLACKS ALLOWED, AND THEN WE SAY THE STATE LEGISLATURE SAYS WE CAN'T SUE BECAUSE THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW. WOULD YOU DO THAT? OR WOULD YOU FIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT BLACKS ARE ALLOWED? I YIELD. [APPLAUSE]. JUSTICE CURRY. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY, WE DO WANT TO DEFEND AND BE IN A CORRECT PROCESS. AND I DO HIGHLY RESPECT THE LAW, AND ESPECIALLY IF OUR ATTORNEY IS SAYING THAT SHE WILL DEFEND WHATEVER HAPPENS. BUT WE DON'T WANT TO END WITH THE INTENT FOR US TO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. AND I FEEL THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MORATORIUMS. THERE'S SOME MAJOR DIFFERENCES BECAUSE WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS IF WE GO WITH THE INITIAL MORATORIUM. SO MAYBE, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, WE POSSIBLY NEED TO TABLE THESE ITEMS. GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE UNTIL WE MEET WITH THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE 23RD. AND IF WE HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A SPECIAL MEETING AFTER THAT.
OF COURSE WE MEET THE NEXT DAY. YES, MR. RIGHT. HOW COULD WE HANDLE THAT? SO IF YOU'RE WANTING TO POSTPONE, YOU HAVE TO POSTPONE TO A SPECIFIC DATE.
OKAY. IF YOU'RE WANTING TO TABLE, YOU CAN TABLE IT AND IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED VIA A VOTE.
SO IF YOU'RE WANTING TO POSTPONE IT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PICK A DATE, WHICH.
YES. OKAY. OF THE AGENDA COMMITTEE? OR. THE AGENDA COMMITTEE.
OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THEN, THAT WE TABLE BOTH MORATORIUMS PRESENTED TO OUR NEXT AGENDA MEETING SO THAT WE COULD PROPERLY.
AND THE REASON IS. GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR. OKAY.
WHATEVER THE DATE IS. THE SECOND TUESDAY OF AUGUST.
OKAY, SO YOU HEARD THE MOTION THAT WE TABLE 26-45- A AND 26-I-52 UNTIL OUR NEXT AGENDA MEETING.
POSTPONE? POSTPONE. AND IT FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
OKAY, SO SOMEBODY ELSE TRIED. THANK YOU. I TRIED.
[APPLAUSE]. I YIELD. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
JUSTICE WARD. OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY SOMETHING BACK, AS FAR AS WE ALREADY BEEN ON THE TABLE, OUR AMENDMENT. YEAH. IT WAS ALREADY ON THE TABLE.
WE'RE TRYING TO PICK IT UP OFF THE TABLE TONIGHT.
OKAY. AND I JUST REALLY FEEL, LIKE JUSTICE MASSEY SAID, YOU KNOW, IT COMES A TIME JUST LIKE BACK WHEN ROSA PARKS TOOK THAT SEAT. SHE WASN'T WORRIED ABOUT THE LAW.
THERE'S JUST SOME THINGS THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO DO AND JUST TAKE THAT RISK.
AND HEY, MY THING IS Y'ALL ARE NOT LIVING IN IT.
[01:00:01]
BETWEEN YOU AND JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. AND THAT'S WHY I'M JUST SITTING HERE AND I'M JUST SOAKING IN EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING.I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT, BUT THE ONE THING THAT STUCK OUT TO ME IS THAT STATEMENT.
POOR TINA. RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT.
POOR TINA. JUSTICE. I MEAN, DISTRICT 9 SITS IN THE MIDDLE OF BOTH OF THESE DATA CENTERS. AND IT KIND OF BOTHERS ME THAT WHEN MY OTHER JUSTICES ARE NOT AS SENSITIVE AND TO THE POINT WHERE IF I FEEL LIKE IF I'M GOING TO GO TO WAR AND I'M GOING TO GO AND FIGHT ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MY COMMUNITY, I REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU ALL WOULD COME WITH ME.
THIS IS REAL SENSITIVE. AND I REALLY WISH YOU ALL WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THINK ABOUT YOUR DECISION. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO LIVE NEAR DATA CENTER.
[APPLAUSE]. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DO Y'ALL WANT TO GO AHEAD AND. WE'VE GOT COMMENTS.
DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR THEM AT THIS TIME? WITHOUT OBJECTION? LET'S VOTE UP OR DOWN BOTH ORDINANCES.
AND WE HAVE A SPECIAL ONE TOO. IT'S ONE WE MISSED.
JUSTICE ROBINSON. MR. CRANER, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION, PLEASE? SO THE PROJECT THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU ALL AND WHENEVER IT WAS.
2024. RIGHT. SO I KNOW THEY GAVE A PRESENTATION AND I KNOW I'VE SLEPT SINCE THEN AND FORGOT EVERYTHING, THEY HAVE A PROJECTED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS. HOW MANY BUILDINGS DID THEY ACTUALLY PRESENT TO GET APPROVED? IT WAS ORIGINALLY NINE. THEY REVISED A PLAN FOR SIX.
SO THEY WANT ALL SIX APPROVED RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHAT THE SITE PLAN SHOWS.
BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHENEVER THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN HERE, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THREE ON THE FRONT END.
YEAH, I GUESS THAT WAS GOING TO BE PHASE ONE, BUT.
RIGHT. BECAUSE I GUESS WHERE I WAS LEADING WITH THAT WAS BACK TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.
IF 52 WAS PASSED, WOULD THAT. AND THEN THEY CAME BACK WITH PHASE TWO AND ONE OF THE OTHER THREE BUILDINGS. HOW WOULD WE. I MEAN, HOW WOULD THE COUNTY LOOK AT.
WELL, WE HAVE THIS SET OF RULES FOR THE FIRST THREE AND THIS SET OF RULES FOR THE SECOND THREE.
SO HERE'S WHAT I CAN TELL YOU. IF AVAIO CAME BACK WITH ANOTHER SITE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS BEYOND WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE INITIAL SITE PLAN, IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD BE HELD TO WHATEVER REGULATIONS THAT THE BODY PASSED.
SO IF THEY PASSED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR IT, THE NEW SITE PLAN THAT AVAIO SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THAT ORDINANCE, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT ORDINANCE. SO THE OTHER THREE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT SITE PLAN, IN MY OPINION, WOULD FALL UNDER THE REGULATIONS AT THE TIME.
CLARIFIED? NO, THAT JUST MAKES IT MUDDIER. SO WE'VE GOT A 70 PAGE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND ONE CHAPTER OUT OF THAT BOOK REALLY APPLIES TO WHAT AVAIO HAS SUBMITTED.
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT TO WORK WITH. RIGHT. OKAY.
RIGHT. THINGS LIKE THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE GOT TO WORK WITH.
SO, MADAM ATTORNEY. I'M GONNA JUST KEEP THIS RIGHT HERE.
[01:05:02]
BUT THEY'RE ONLY WANTING TO BUILD THREE AND THREE MORE MAY COME, SIX MORE MAY COME.MR. CRANER IS CORRECT, WHERE WE MAY FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE PORTION OF THE PROJECT IS BEING CONTROLLED BY ONE SET, AND THE OTHER PORTION IS ONE SET OF REGULATION, AND THEN THE OTHER PORTION IS CONTROLLED BY WHATEVER NEW ORDINANCES ARE PASSED.
WHETHER A MORATORIUM IS GRANTED OR NOT, IF WE SET, LET'S SAY, IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS, WE, THE PLANNING BOARD COMES UP WITH A SET OF RULES FOR THE ACRONYM THAT WE'VE YET TO NAME THE.
AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, WE WANT THESE OTHER BUILDINGS, THEN WE WOULD.
THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT UMBRELLA OVER THOSE NEW BUILDINGS.
A DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK OF APPROVAL FOR THOSE. YES.
THE ORDINARY IN THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS. WELL, WE'VE ACTUALLY RUN INTO SIMILAR SITUATIONS BY ADOPTING THE FORMER EJS OF THE CITIES OF LITTLE ROCK AND NORTH LITTLE ROCK, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAVE PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN PLACE THROUGH THE CITY.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE DIFFERENT SETS OF REGULATIONS THAT CAN APPLY TO ONE PROPERTY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I YIELD. OKAY. LET'S TRY THIS A DIFFERENT WAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF LISTENING TO COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, LET ME SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, CHAIRMAN. WE WILL HEAR FROM THOSE PEOPLE TONIGHT, CORRECT? AT THE END, IF. BUT BEFORE, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE.
AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IS ALLOWING THEM TO SPEAK.
BUT IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE GROUP TONIGHT, IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT NOW OR AT THE END.
AT THE END. SO, OKAY, GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.
I'M SORRY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF HEARING THE COMMENTS AT THIS POINT, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
YEAH. BECAUSE. JUSTICE BLACKWOOD JUST GOT REALLY SICK.
AND SO JUST TO SAVE THE MORATORIUM, I THINK I MAY NEED TO PULL IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO DIE BECAUSE OF LACK OF VOTES.
WE'RE MISSING A BUNCH. YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES.
SO IS THAT A MOTION? IS THAT. YEAH. THAT'S A MOTION.
SO WHAT IS YOUR MOTION TO? POSTPONE? POSTPONE IT.
IS YOUR INTENT TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING? IS THAT. YEAH. ONLY BECAUSE JUSTICE BLACKWOOD HAS GOTTEN SICK.
THAT'S FINE. YEAH. SO THAT WOULD BE A PROPER MOTION.
IT IS DEBATABLE. SIMPLE MAJORITY. OKAY. BUT GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR MOTION.
HOLD ON. STATE YOUR MOTION SO WE MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING SAID.
FOR, 26-I-45-A, IF WE CAN POSTPONE THAT MORATORIUM. AND 52. AND 52.
I DON'T REALLY WANT TO SAY 52, BUT. TO THE NEXT MEETING.
SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE POSTPONE.
26-I-45-A UNTIL OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'LL BE TUESDAY, AUGUST THE 11TH.
I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT POSTPONEMENTS EARLIER NEEDING A DATE.
THIS WOULD BE POSTPONING IT TO TUESDAY, AUGUST THE 11TH.
YES. THAT'S THE. CLEAR YOUR SCHEDULES NOW. THAT'S AUGUST THE 11TH.
[01:10:03]
AUGUST 11TH. THANK YOU. SO IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, ANY QUESTIONS? WELL, I'M CURIOUS, WHAT DOES POSTPONING ALLOW AVAIO AND ANYBODY ELSE TO DO? IS THERE. NOTHING WE CAN DO. IS. OR. WHAT WOULD WE.BECAUSE I GUESS WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEY ARE IN THE FINAL APPROVAL STAGE, DO WE? WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS. I BELIEVE THAT IS A QUESTION FOR MR. CRANER. OKAY. MR. CRANER, MAYBE. AS OF TODAY, AVAIO HAS STILL NOT RECEIVED ITS CORPS OF ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR THE THREE WETLAND CROSSINGS.
IF THAT'S THE CASE AND THEY PROVIDE A DOCUMENT STATING THAT AND THAT THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGES, THEN THEY'RE DONE. SO WHAT'S THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT HAPPENING BEFORE AUGUST THE 11TH? I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT. YOU COULDN'T? OKAY. BUT WE'RE RISKING.
BECAUSE. JUSTICE MASSEY. WELL, ACTUALLY, THIS IS FOR JUSTIN.
CAN WE JUST NOT TABLE UNTIL OUR OUR AGENDA MEETING? WHICH IS THE END OF THE MONTH, OUR MAIN MEETING? SO. OUR FULL QUORUM COURT? WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO STEER THE BODY, BUT LET'S SAY IF YOU DID NOT POSTPONE IT AND YOU WERE TO PASS IT OUT OF COMMITTEE, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE IT UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE END OF THE MONTH, IN WHICH CASE YOU COULD VOTE IT UP, VOTE IT DOWN OR POSTPONE IT AS WELL.
DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? YES, I THINK SO.
SO IS THIS A PROPER MOTION? IF I JUST. NEVER MIND.
WITH RECOMMENDATION. BUT I THINK SHE'S ASKING, SHE'S ASKING ABOUT THE MOTION.
AND THEN, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE, WE WOULD DO THE APPROPRIATE WORK TO REMOVE ONE AND PUT THE OTHER ONE, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT NEVER MIND, I'LL GO BACK TO SLEEP.
I'M JUST TRYING TO. NO, I UNDERSTAND. IF THAT IS YOUR.
I WOULD PROBABLY SUGGEST THAT MISS WARD WOULD WITHDRAW HER MOTION IF THAT'S WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO TO ALLOW YOU GUYS TO AMEND TO SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS JUST THE SAME AS A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MOST PART.
YEAH. OKAY. NEVER MIND. OKAY. NEVER MIND. AND I GUESS.
BUT THE DISCUSSION IS WE ONLY NEED, WHAT, EIGHT? OR. WE ONLY NEED EIGHT. YOU ONLY NEED EIGHT TO SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT, NOT THE FULL QUORUM COURT YOU'LL NEED TEN.
SO THAT'S JUST WE'RE DISCUSSING. SO, JUSTICE MCCOY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? I WAS JUST ASKING, CHAIR, IF YOU COULD ENSURE PEOPLE FROM THE AUDIENCE KEEP THEIR VOICES DOWN.
RIGHT. WELL. THERE'S PEOPLE TALKING, AND IF THEY CAN'T, THEN MAYBE THEY NEED TO BE ESCORTED OUTSIDE.
RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING, JUSTIN? OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING, JUSTICE CURRY? NOT AT THIS MOMENT.
OKAY. SO THE MOTION IS THAT WE POSTPONE 26-I-45-A UNTIL AUGUST 11TH. AND WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION.
IF THERE THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION. YEAH, I GOT SOMETHING.
YEAH. I MEAN, BECAUSE I'M THINKING. OH, THIS IS ALMOST LIKE GAMBLING.
AMEND MY MOTION AND IT FAILS, CAN IT STILL GO? WILL IT STILL GO TO AUGUST THE 11TH? NO. I'M SORRY.
I HAD SOMEBODY IN MY EAR. MISS WARD, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESTATE THE QUESTION? OKAY. IF I AMEND MY MOTION AND IT DON'T GET THE EIGHT VOTES, IT WON'T GO TO AUGUST 11TH?
[01:15:01]
NO, THE MOTION TO POSTPONE IF YOU DON'T GET EIGHT VOTES WOULD FAIL, AND THEN YOU WOULD GO RIGHT BACK TO YOUR MAIN MOTION, WHICH IS A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION. OR SEND TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.ALL RIGHT. SO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE IS STILL ON THE TABLE.
AMY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL ON POSTPONING 2026-I-45, AS AMENDED? CALL].
THAT IS 1,2,3,4,5. 5 AYES AND 1,2 3,4,5. 5 NAYS. ELLIOTT FAILS.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON 26-I-45 BEFORE WE VOTE TO SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT? MR. KEITH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT.
OKAY. GO AHEAD. AND HEARING ALL THIS, I GUESS I'LL GIVE MY ANALOGY.
AND I THINK WE HAVE, SAY, TWO CARS. 26-I-45-A.
26. I'M SORRY. YEAH. 26-I-45-A, 26-I-52. WE HAVE TO MAKE IT FROM THE CAROLINAS TO CALIFORNIA.
OKAY? 26-I-45 HAS A SLIGHTLY BAD TIRE.
26-I-45-A HAS A TRANSMISSION ISSUE. 2645 A.
2645 A HAS A BAD BELT. 26-I-52 ALSO HAS A BAD TIRE AND MAYBE A BAD BELT. THE END GOAL IS TO GET FROM CAROLINAS TO CALIFORNIA.
I YIELD. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I GOT ONE.
OKAY. GO AHEAD. JUSTICE WARD. I WANT TO SUGGEST HE TAKE THE BUS.
YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I'LL TAKE A PLANE FOR THAT DISTANCE.
ALRIGHT. SPEED TRAIN. OH MY GOD. SO, IF THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 26-I-45-A? SO YOU HAVE 6 AYES, 3 NAYS AND ONE VOTING PRESENT.
26-52. OKAY, ALRIGHT. CALL FOR THE VOTE. OKAY.
SO WE'LL MOVE TO 26-I-52. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 26-I-52.
[26-I-52 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A TWELVE-MONTH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF HIGH-INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND HIGH-IMPACT UTILITY-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL USE FACILITIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND NOTICE OF INDUSTRIAL IMPACT AND INTENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ]
[01:20:04]
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 12 MONTH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND HIGH IMPACT, UTILITY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL USE FACILITIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY, PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND NOTICE OF INDUSTRIAL IMPACT AND INTENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. JUSTICE CURRY.I MOVE TO APPROVE 26-I-52 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR DUE PASS.
I MOVE. SECOND. THANK YOU. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 26-I-52 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION. JUSTICE CURRY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? NO. OKAY. NO EXPLANATION. WE'LL GO INTO DISCUSSION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS? NO QUESTIONS.
NO COMMENTS. I DO HAVE A COMMENT. OKAY. JUSTICE MASSEY.
I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING YOU FROM THE DATA CENTER, AVAIO, OVEIO, OR HOWEVER YOU PRONOUNCE IT. SO.
AVAIO. SO THAT IS STILL SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH WHETHER THIS PASSES OR NOT.
I YIELD. NO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 26-I-52? SO I HAVE 8 AYES AND 1 NAY AND 1 VOTING PRESENT.
OKAY. 8 AYES. WE WILL SEND 26-I-52 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
THERE'S A LATE FILING. IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION? MOVE APPROVAL TO ACCEPT THE LATE RECOMMENDATION.
YEAH. AND YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE AS WELL.
HOLD ON. THANK YOU. YEAH. LET ME. PARDON ME. OH. EMERGENCY. YEAH. AMY, COULD YOU READ PLEASE READ 26 I 54.
[Additional Item]
JUSTICE CAPPS. YEAH.IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE AMENDMENT? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T.
OR CAN WE HAVE. IS THIS IT? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I HAVE IT.
I JUST HAD THIS ONE. THE TITLE DOES NOT CHANGE.
DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE AMENDMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY? NO. JUST JUST WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO READ. OKAY.
YEAH, WELL, I READ THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE.
OKAY. YOU'RE GOOD. SO CAN WE. JUSTICE LEWISON.
FOR THE AMENDMENT. I MOVE THAT WE SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS IS THAT WE GO.
WE GO. I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE AMENDMENT. YEAH.
CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN? YOU'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE AMEND.
OKAY. I RECOMMEND THAT WE AMEND. 26 I'VE 5426 I 54.
[01:25:03]
SECOND. ALRIGHT. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE AMEND 26 I 54.SO I'M GOING TO ASK JUSTIN IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE I IF THERE'S SOMEBODY FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THAT WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT, OKAY. THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN I AM.
OKAY. POINT OF ORDER, MR. KEITH. YES. IS THIS EMERGENT OR IS THIS ON READING? NO. THERE IS AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE THAT IS ATTACHED TO IT. MISS CAPPS.
THAT'S WHY. GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE IS DEALING WITH HOLIDAY PAY FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS, PEOPLE WHO ARE ESSENTIAL WORKERS.
THE AMENDMENT IS CLARIFYING WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT POLICY DEALING WITH OVERTIME PAY FOR ESSENTIAL WORKERS ON THE ACTUAL HOLIDAY AND TIME AND A HALF PAY ON AN OBSERVED DAY.
FOR EXAMPLE THE 4TH OF JULY FELL ON A SATURDAY.
THE ACTUAL HOLIDAY, THE OBSERVED DAY FOR THE COUNTY WAS A FRIDAY.
WHICH CREATED AN ISSUE, SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WITH THE COUNTY BEING CLOSED, THOSE ESSENTIAL WORKERS THAT HAD TO WORK ON THE DAY WHEN THE COUNTY WAS CLOSED RECEIVE OVERTIME PAY OF A TIME AND A HALF. THEY ALSO HAD TO WORK ON THE ACTUAL HOLIDAY, WHICH PAYS DOUBLE TIME. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD WITH THE COMPTROLLER ABOUT THE CURRENT POLICY AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY IS THEY REQUESTED SOME CHANGES JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON, ON THE POLICY, ON THE HR POLICY TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF ESSENTIAL WORKER WORKS ON A RECOGNIZED, OBSERVED HOLIDAY, WHICH GENERALLY IS WHEN THE HOLIDAY FALLS ON THE WEEKEND, THE OBSERVED DAY IS A MONDAY OR A FRIDAY THAT THOSE ESSENTIAL WORKERS WILL BE PAID THAT TIME AND A HALF ON THAT DAY.
AND SO THIS IS JUST CLARIFYING TO MAKE IT BETTER UNDERSTOOD.
OKAY. OKAY. MAKES SENSE TO ME. ANY, I HAVE A QUESTION.
OKAY. GO AHEAD. JUSTICE ROBINSON. THANKS, SHERIFF.
SO JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, THE 4TH OF JULY, YOUR OFFICERS THAT HAD TO WORK ON THE FOURTH AND THEN ON THE FIFTH OR THE THIRD AND THE FOURTH, DID THEY GET PAID TIME AND A HALF AND THEN DOUBLE TIME OR WHAT? WAS THERE SOME CONFLICT THERE? APPEARS TO BE SOME CONFLICT.
IT HAD BEEN THEY HAD BEEN PAID THAT WAY PREVIOUSLY.
IT'S BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT ON A OBSERVED DAY THAT THEY WOULD GET THE TIME AND A HALF, AND IF THEY WORKED ON THE ACTUAL DAY, THAT THEY WOULD GET THE DOUBLE TIME. BUT WITH IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE WE RAN INTO THIS ISSUE.
AND SO THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE.
AND THE DECISION WAS, WAS MADE THAT WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY IN THE POLICY WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN, AS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN THE PAST. DID YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY OFFICERS THAT HAD TO WORK BOTH DAYS THAT, OR DID, OR DID YOU STAGGER THEM TO WHERE ONE GOT TIME AND A HALF AND ONE GOT DOUBLE TIME.
IT DEPENDS ON THEIR DAYS OFF AND YOU KNOW WHERE THEIR DAYS OFF FELL IF THEY HAD TO WORK.
AND THEN SATURDAY ON THE FOURTH WE ACTUALLY HAD A INCIDENT OCCURRING IN THE EVENT OCCURRING.
AND WE ACTUALLY HAD TO HAVE PEOPLE COME IN TO WORK THAT EVENT BECAUSE IT'S THE 4TH OF JULY.
AND SO WE HAD PEOPLE, ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WORKING ON, ON THAT DAY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. WHERE IS THIS? AND I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T SEE CHASTITY. IS SHE HERE TONIGHT? BECAUSE I'M CURIOUS IF THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED DOWN AT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OR WAS THIS COUNTYWIDE? JUSTIN, ARE YOU AWARE? OKAY. NO IDEA. SO WHERE DO WE KNOW WHERE CHASTITY.
BECAUSE SHE IS HR DIRECTOR. WHERE DOES SHE FALL WITH THIS? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING FROM HER. DO WE KNOW? SHE'S SHE'S ISSUED NO OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT I'VE RECEIVED.
SO I'M ASSUMING SINCE THIS APPLIES TO ALL PUBLIC SAFETY, THAT WOULD BE THE JAIL JUVENILE DETENTION, PROBABLY OEM AS WELL. SO IT'S IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST AS ISOLATED, JUST THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'LL CALL CHASTITY.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? GO AHEAD. JUSTICE CAPPS. SORRY. WAS THIS DRAFTED THROUGH CHASTITY'S OFFICE? WE WE WORKED WITH HUTCHENS OFFICE, AND WHEN WE DRAFTED THE THIS POLICY CHANGE WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH WITH
[01:30:05]
HUTCH. WITH THE CONTROLLER. DID YOU WORK WITH HIM? BECAUSE THERE WAS A FINANCIAL IMPACT. WE WORKED WITH HIM FOR THE CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN OPINION BOTH WAYS OF WHETHER AN ESSENTIAL WORKER WORKED ON A FRIDAY AND THE SATURDAY.WOULD THEY GET PAID REGULAR TIME ON ONE DAY? AND THEN DOUBLE TIME ON SATURDAY.
OR WAS IT JUST THE TIME AND A HALF ON THE FRIDAY IF THEY WORK BOTH DAYS.
AND SO WORKING WITH, WITH HUTCH ON THIS I'M SORRY.
THE CONTROLLER DISCUSSING THIS WE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM HIM SAYING, LET'S WORK ON MODIFYING THE, THE POLICY SO THERE ISN'T ROOM FOR A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
THANK YOU. I YIELD ATTORNEY LANE, WERE YOU CONSULTED? DID YOU HAVE. I KNOW IT DON'T LOOK LIKE THAT.
I KNOW WERE YOU DID YOU HAVE ANY INPUT? THE QUESTION IS, DO I HAVE ANY INPUT? RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE DID YOU HAVE ANY INPUT PRIOR TO THIS MAKING IT TO OUR DESK ON WITH THE HOLIDAY PAY? I GUESS IT WOULD, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE THIRD AS TIME AND A HALF AND THEN SATURDAY AS DOUBLE TIME.
AND THE WAY ANYWAY. PERSONNEL POLICY. I HAVEN'T READ THE PERSONNEL POLICY. I'M JUST CURIOUS.
THE, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT ESSENTIAL WORKERS CAN BE PAID ON BOTH THE DAY WE ARE OBSERVING THE HOLIDAY AND THE DAY OF THE ACTUAL HOLIDAY.
RIGHT. WAS BROUGHT TO ME. OKAY. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THIS AMENDMENT.
OKAY. BUT THE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT TO ME FRIDAY.
I MADE NO SUCH RECOMMENDATION AT THE TIME. I WAS A DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND THE ISSUE WAS WAS SIMPLY BROUGHT TO ME AS A HEADS UP OF WHAT I WOULD HANDLE OR HAVE MAY HAVE TO HANDLE THE NEXT WEEK, WHICH IS THIS WEEK I WAS INFORMED BY OUR HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR THAT SHE BELIEVES THE CURRENT POLICY ONLY ALLOWS FOR YOU TO BE PAID ONCE PER HOLIDAY, AND THAT BEING ON THE DAY IT IS OBSERVED. OKAY.
OKAY. WELL, AND IF I CAN, IF I MAY, WE DID REACH OUT WHEN THIS CAME UP THURSDAY OF LAST WEEK.
WE TALKED TO THE PERSONNEL, TALK TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME, AND WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE INTERPRETATION THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU GET PAID FOR BOTH. THAT WAS THE WAY THE POLICY WAS WRITTEN, AND THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT CONFLICT OF IT COULD BE INTERPRETED A DIFFERENT WAY.
THAT'S WHEN WE WERE APPROACHED TO WORK ON THE POLICY WITH THE CONTROLLER.
OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU, I YIELD ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THERE BEING NONE. THANK YOU SHERIFF.
THANK YOU. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE AMENDMENT FOR 26? I'VE 54. MISS CAPPS, I MISS CAPPS VOTES. YES, MISS LEWISON YES.
MISS LEWISON VOTES YES. MR. PERSON YES. MR. PERSON VOTES YES.
MISS MASSEY I MISS MASSEY VOTES YES. MISS CURRY, I MISS CURRY VOTES YES.
MR. KEITH. YES. MR. KEITH VOTES YES. JUSTICE WARD.
YES. MISS WARD VOTES YES. MR.. ROBINSON AYE. MR. ROBINSON VOTES. YES. MR. MCCOY. HE LEFT. OH, DID NOT SEE THAT.
THANK YOU. MR. ELLIOTT. YES. MR. ELLIOTT VOTES YES.
OF NINE AYES AND 0 NAYS, NINE AYES AND 0 NAYS.
26 EYES, 54 HAS BEEN AMENDED. JUSTICE CAPPS. IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION? I MOVE TO THE ORDINANCE TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT AS AMENDED.
SECOND DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION, I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU.
SECOND, THE MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 26 I'VE 54 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT,
[01:35:04]
AS AMENDED. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED ITEM AT THIS TIME? THERE BEING NONE. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON? 26 I 54, AS AMENDED. MR. ELLIOTT. YES. MR. ELLIOTT VOTES YES.MR. ROBINSON MR. ROBINSON VOTES YES. MISS WARD.
YES. MISS WARD VOTES YES. MR. KEITH YES. MR. KEITH VOTES YES.
MISS CURRY, I MISS CURRY VOTES YES. MISS MASSEY, I MISS MASSIE VOTES YES.
MISS LEWISON YES. MISS LEWISON VOTES YES. AND MISS CAPPS, I MISS CAPPS VOTES YES.
ALL RIGHT. SHOULD BE 123. FOUR. FIVE. SIX. SEVEN.
EIGHT. EIGHT AYES. ZERO KNEES. EIGHT AYES 0 NAYS.
WE WILL SEND 26 I'VE 54, AS AMENDED TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
ALL RIGHT, I AM LOST. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ANYTHING ELSE? IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION? MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE HAVE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
OH ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE FROM THE BAR.
THERE BEING NONE. WE DO HAVE COMMENTS. AND WE WILL HAVE A STRICT THREE MINUTE
[Public Comment ]
ALLOWANCE TONIGHT. SO WHEN I'M TOLD THAT YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP, YOU WILL SEE ME RAISE MY HAND UP.SO FINISH WHATEVER SENTENCE YOU HAVE. SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
FAIR. ALRIGHT, WE'LL START OFF WITH MR. MIKE POE.
PLEASE START THE CLOCK. SO I'VE NEVER REALLY BEEN IMPRESSED WITH TOO MANY POLITICIANS.
LAWYERS? REALLY DOCTORS MOST OF THE TIME. IT'S A LOT OF JUST EDUCATION.
JUST, I GOTTA TELL YOU GUYS, YOU COULD SUE ANYBODY FOR ANYTHING AT ANY TIME.
THIS PERSON DOESN'T HAVE ANY PROOF THAT A VEIL IS GOING TO SUE US.
THEY COULDN'T EVEN PULL OFF A PIZZA PARTY. DUDE, LIKE THEY ARE IDIOTS.
MY MOM STILL WORKS IN LAW MY WHOLE LIFE, 75% OF MY FAMILY IS IN LAW.
BRING THE LAWSUITS TO ME. IF YOU GOT SOME LAWSUITS AGAINST THIS COUNTY, I'M GOING TO LET YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I MIGHT BRING SOME AGAINST SOME FOLKS IN THIS ROOM. I COULD I COULD FOLLOW JUST ABOUT ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM AND COME UP WITH A REASON TO SUE THEM PRETTY QUICKLY.
I CARE ABOUT TINA. I BELIEVE SHE'S ON THE RIGHT SIDE HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE HERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RESPECT THE PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME. I GOTTA RESPECT YOUR ABILITY TO DISAGREE. I WANT TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.
I'M GOING TO GO AS FAST AS I CAN ON THIS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I'M GOING TO PAY ATTENTION. I'M SURE YOU MAY BE AWARE, BUT YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE NEGRO BOYS INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL FIRE OF 1959 IN WRIGHTSVILLE, WHERE 21 CHILDREN, 13 TO 17, DIED IN A BUILDING THAT WAS SET FIRE.
THEY COULDN'T ESCAPE. NEARLY 50 CLAWED THEIR WAY OUT TO TRY AND SURVIVE.
THAT'S THAT'S A JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY WHERE THOSE BLACK CHILDREN DIED, WHERE THAT COMMUNITY WAS FOREVER AFFECTED IN 1959. WE ARE DOING THE SAME THING NOW. YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING.
THIS IS DIGITAL REDLINING. THIS IS DESTROYING THE PROPERTY, DESTROYING THE LIVES OF THESE CHILDREN, NOT RESPECTING THE FACT THAT THESE CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES HAVE BEEN THERE THEIR ENTIRE LIVES, THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. THOSE CHILDREN DIED IN VAIN.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS DATA CENTER. BEING ONE MILE AWAY FROM DAISY BATES.
I MET THE PRINCIPAL. SHE CARES. I MET THE PRINCIPAL OF COLLEGE STATION TWO.
I SPENT 5060 DAYS THE LAST FOUR MONTHS OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY TALKING TO PEOPLE.
AND EVERYBODY'S CONCERNED, EXCEPT FOR SOME MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD AREN'T REALLY GETTING THE MESSAGE.
AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS GETTING THESE MORATORIUMS. LET THEM SUE US, LET THEM SUE US. SO, SO WE, WE, WE'RE GOING TO GET SUED FOR A MORATORIUM.
THAT WAS RIDICULOUS. YOU GUYS JUST, YOU JUST RUINED YOUR CHANCE TO HAVE A LEGACY.
YOU RUINED YOUR CHANCE TO NOT BECOME PARIAHS TO THE, TO THE COMMUNITY.
[01:40:01]
LIKE THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING YOU RIGHT NOW. YOU'RE GOING TO BE ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA THAT DOESN'T PASS A MORATORIUM.THAT'S AN EMBARRASSMENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
OKAY. YOU'RE WELCOME. INDIA. JACKSON.
HELLO. I'M INDIA JACKSON. I LIVE ON 1/45 STREET.
I AM SO CLOSE TO THE DATA CENTER. I SEE THEM CUTTING TREES DOWN AS WE SPEAK.
WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE HAVE SHOWED US THAT YOU DO NOT CARE.
YOU DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR VOTERS WANT. BECAUSE HOW I KNOW YOU DON'T CARE IS WHY DIDN'T YOU LET US SPEAK BEFORE YOU VOTED? YOU, YOU, YOU'RE MAKING UP YOUR MIND WITHOUT EVEN HEARING WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS.
IT'S INSANITY TO ME. I WENT TO THE MEETING YESTERDAY WITH THE VIO.
I ASKED THEM BECAUSE I KNOW THEY'RE RENTING IT OUT.
SO A VIDEO IS NOT THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE AT THESE DATA CENTERS.
THEY'RE RENTING IT OUT. I SAID TO WHO WOULDN'T TELL US WHEN? LET US KNOW. SO YOU'RE LETTING ANYONE, ANY COMPANY MOVE INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DO LORD KNOWS WHAT IT'S INSANITY, ABSOLUTE INSANITY. AND THEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REDUCTION OF THE IMPACT.
THEY HAVE, THE LIGHTS TURNED DOWN, THEY HAVE THE WALL AND EVERYTHING.
AND I ASKED THEM, DO Y'ALL HAVE A CENTER THAT SOMEONE CAN TOUR? OH, WE HAVEN'T BUILT IT BEFORE. OH, SO WE'RE TEST DUMMIES NOW.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE JUST GUESSING. YOU'RE GIVING US THEORIES ONCE AGAIN, WHEN IT COMES TO THE LAWSUIT.
MR.. MIKE POE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO PAY FOR THIS.
SO DID YOU SEE US BAT AN EYE WHEN WE SAID WE'RE GETTING SUED? NO. WHAT Y'ALL DID WAS JUST SHOWED US THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT COVERING YOUR BUTTS RATHER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT WE CARE ABOUT. WE DON'T CARE. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR LIVES.
YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR LIVELIHOOD. AS LONG AS Y'ALL DON'T GET SUED, RIGHT? WHICH IS COMING FROM OUR TAX DOLLARS. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE PROBLEM IS HERE BECAUSE THE LAST MEETING THERE WAS A YES, YES, YES YES, YES. WE'RE ALL GOING TO VOTE FOR IT.
WE JUST NEED MORE TIME. AND THEN WE COME TODAY AND IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT SITUATION.
SO WE'RE GETTING PLAYED LEFT AND RIGHT. IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
THEY ALREADY CONTACTED MY FAMILY TRYING TO BUILD A POWER LINES ACROSS OUR THING.
WE WANTED TO BUILD A RETIREMENT HOME DOWN THERE.
WE HAVE 78 ACRES. WE WANT TO BUILD A RETIREMENT HOME.
WE WANTED TO BUILD A SPOT FOR VETERANS WHO WANTS TO BE THERE NOW IF THAT GOES UP? NO ONE. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO SIT UP HERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH OUR PROPERTY THAT WE BOUGHT A LONG TIME AGO, BEFORE Y'ALL EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THIS DATA CENTER. SO GLAD TO KNOW WHERE YOU STAND.
WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE UP FOR REELECTION. SO GLAD TO KNOW WHERE YOU STAND.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHARISMA. KENDALL.
HELLO. I'M CHARISMA KENDALL. Y'ALL JUST HEARD MY OLDER SISTER SPEAK.
I USUALLY DON'T DO THINGS LIKE THIS. I USUALLY, I'M LIKE THE, THE ONE THAT PUSHES HER TO DO IT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY, AND IT MAKES ME EMOTIONAL.
I WORK IN A HOSPITAL. I WORK AS A TECH. I HAVE SEEN WHAT PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM ASTHMA AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND HEARING LOSS, AND I'VE HELD PEOPLE'S HANDS WHILE THEY DIED.
AND THE FACT THAT Y'ALL, I MEAN, Y'ALL HEAR IT ALL THE TIME ABOUT HOW Y'ALL DON'T CARE.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE SO USED TO DOING BAD THINGS, YOUR HEART GETS HARD.
YEAH. WHEN YOU'RE SO USED TO DOING BAD THINGS, YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT HOW IT IMPACTS ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE ALL YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT IS YOU, YOUR FAMILY, AND YOUR POCKETBOOKS AND YOUR MONEY, BUT YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT IS MY 84 YEAR OLD GRANDMA THAT ALREADY GOT A HARD TIME BREATHING.
WHAT YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT IS MY PARENTS THAT LIVE ON 2805.
THAT'S WHAT YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE IT.
YOU DON'T LIVE IN IT. YOU DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT OR ANYTHING THAT'S WRONG.
LIKE, I DON'T GET HOW YOU GET TO THIS POINT WHERE YOU LITERALLY CAN LOOK AT SOMEBODY AND SAY, I DON'T CARE HOW IT AFFECTS YOU. AMEN. WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IF FOLKS IN OUR GOVERNMENT WEREN'T HAVING CLOSETED DEALS. IF Y'ALL IF Y'ALL WEREN'T HAVING DEALS IN THE DARK AND THEN NOW Y'ALL WANT TO WORRIED ABOUT GETTING SUED.
[01:45:04]
YOU WASN'T THINKING ABOUT GETTING SUED WHEN YOU WERE SIGNING UP CONTRACTS. YOU WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT GETTING SUED WHEN YOU WERE HAVING THEM SECRET MEETINGS. YOU WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT GETTING SUED WHEN YOU WERE LINING YOUR POCKETS. AND I'M NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT Y'ALL AS AN INDIVIDUAL TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT. Y'ALL WEREN'T Y'ALL WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT THAT. AND NOW IT'S LIKE, WELL, LITIGATION, LITIGATION, LITIGATION.WHERE WAS LITIGATION WHEN THE CONTRACTS WERE BEING SIGNED? WHERE WAS THIS THOUGHT PROCESS? WHY IS NOBODY SAYING THIS OUT LOUD? WHERE WAS THE LITIGATION WHEN THE CONTRACTS WERE BEING SIGNED? WHO SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? LET'S TALK TO THE CONSTITUENTS FIRST BEFORE WE SIGN THESE CONTRACTS AND DOT OUR I'S AND CROSS OUR T'S.
LET'S TALK TO THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE IMPACTED.
WHO ASKED THE QUESTIONS? NOBODY WANT TO ASK THE HARD QUESTIONS, BUT Y'ALL SURE WANT TO BE LIKE, LET'S PUSH IT BACK. LET'S POSTPONE IT. CAN WE POSTPONE IT TO THIS? CAN WE POSTPONE IT? HOW MANY TIMES Y'ALL GOING TO POSTPONE IT TILL THIS, THIS DATA CENTER BE BILL.
AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE LIKE, WELL, NOW WE CAN DISCUSS IT. NOW WE CAN PICK IT UP FROM THE TABLE.
THAT'S THE DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE.
WE ARE NOT STUPID. WE ARE NOT DUMB. WE'RE NOT SOME IGNORANT BLACK COUNTRY HICKS IN THE BACKWOODS.
WE ARE ADULTS WHO HAVE LIVED AND BREATHED AND HAVE INVESTED IN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND HOW DARE YOU NOT LISTEN TO US? HOW DARE YOU FLAP YOUR LITTLE GUMS UP HERE? TALK ABOUT LITIGATION, RIGHT? AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO WRIGHTSVILLE.
YOU AIN'T NEVER DID NONE OF THAT. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BLAKE. IS A TYRANNY. THREE MINUTES. HELLO, EVERYONE. THANK YOU.
QUORUM COURT. I LIVE IN DISTRICT SIX OF PULASKI COUNTY.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING US SPEAK. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT IT WAS NOT BEFORE A VOTE WAS MADE.
IT CONTRADICTS YOUR ROLE AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
YOUR ROLE IS TO LISTEN. YES, YOU CAN TAKE OPINIONS FROM EXPERTS.
YES, YOU CAN TAKE OPINIONS FROM FROM YOUR YOUR CITY OFFICIALS.
YOU CAN TAKE OPINIONS FROM YOUR LEGAL LEGAL EXPERT.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LET ANSWER TO US. NOT LEAVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MEETING.
NOT TAKE A VOTE BEFORE YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO HEAR FROM US.
YES, SOME OF THIS YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'VE MAYBE HEARD BEFORE.
MAYBE YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE EMOTIONS THAT WERE BEING PRESENTED IN FRONT OF YOU.
BUT AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, DO WHAT'S RIGHT AND LISTEN TO US FIRST BEFORE YOU MAKE A VOTE.
THAT IS JUST STAND. THAT SHOULD JUST BE STANDARD PROCESS.
SO THAT'S ONE THING. THE OTHER TALKING ABOUT LITIGATION, JUST AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, WHEN WE COMPARE IT TO THE COSTS THAT WILL COME TO THE COUNTY FROM THIS DATA CENTER, FROM DEFENDING IT, FROM DEALING WITH HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM FROM ANY EMERGENCY RESPONSE THAT NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE TO ACTUALLY HANDLE A FIRE OR A SAFETY CONCERN OF THIS MAGNITUDE FOR THIS BUILDING.
WHAT IS THAT COMPARATIVE TO A LITIGATION? WE DON'T KNOW.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING YOU TO PAUSE, TO PUT IN PLACE TIME TO HAVE EFFECTIVE REGULATIONS ON THESE PROJECTS. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. AND IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH ONE OR ANOTHER ORDINANCE, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD LEGAL EXPERT WHO COULD PROBABLY HELP DRAFT GOOD LANGUAGE AROUND IT.
SO MAYBE ASK HER TO HELP DRAFT THAT LANGUAGE.
STOP COMPETING. STOP SAYING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER.
[01:50:05]
WORK TOGETHER AND MAKE SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR US.THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. LYNN FOSTER.
GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS LYNN FOSTER. I'VE LIVED IN PULASKI COUNTY FOR 40 YEARS.
I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, BUT NOW THAT THIS IS ON ITS WAY TO THE QUORUM COURT FULL MEETING THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO MENTION TONIGHT. WHEN WE ALL SAID THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, WE TALKED ABOUT JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I DON'T THINK THE FOLKS IN WRIGHTSVILLE ARE GETTING MUCH JUSTICE RIGHT NOW.
AND NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A DATA CENTER THERE, WHICH YOU CAN HEAR TWO MILES AWAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF A TEXAS DATA CENTER.
THE LIGHTS AT NIGHT ARE SO BRIGHT IT'S BRIGHTER THAN A TOWN.
IT'S CASE LAW. THERE'S NO BRIGHT LINES AS TO WHEN YOU HAVE VESTED RIGHTS OR NOT.
AND I THINK IT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR THAT A VIO CAN COME IN AND NOT MEET WITH WRIGHTSVILLE TILL WHAT, LAST NIGHT? IT'S THE FIRST TIME. NO, NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SAY THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL THESE QUESTIONS.
WHERE'S YOUR ELECTRICAL POWER GOING TO COME FROM? HOW IS IT PRODUCED? HOW MUCH POLLUTION IS IT GOING TO CAUSE? BUT YET THEY HAVE THESE VESTED RIGHTS. AND I THINK MAYBE THE ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING TO GO ON COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY DRAFTED SO THAT IF A VIAL COMES BACK AND CHANGES ANYTHING IT CAN BE HELD TO STRICTER STANDARDS.
SO THAT'S BASICALLY ALL THAT I'D LIKE TO SAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALICIA WATSON. I'M JUST GOING TO START BY SAYING IT'S SO DISRESPECTFUL THAT WE DIDN'T GET TO SPEAK BEFORE Y'ALL VOTED.
WHAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF RIGHT NOW IS POLITICAL REDLINING.
WHEN BILLIONAIRE TECH CORPORATIONS KNOCK ON OUR DOOR, OUR LEADERSHIP DOESN'T LOOK AT THIS RESOURCE DRAINING MONSTROSITY AND DOESN'T PUT IT IN CHANEL OR MAYBE ON COLONEL GLENN, BUT INDEED PUTS IT IN WRIGHTSVILLE, FIVE MILES APART BY TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS THAT ARE 80% BLACK. LET'S BE CLEAR POLITICAL REDLINING.
THEY CHOOSE THEY AS IN THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THEY CHOOSE TO DUMP THE ENVIRONMENTAL BURDEN, THE CONSTANT LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, AND THE MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF DAILY WATER DEPLETION DIRECTLY ONTO OUR MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES.
BY DOING SO, YOU ARE ATTACKING THE MOST VULNERABLE OF OUR CHILDREN, FORCING THEM TO LIVE, TO PLAY, AND TO LEARN. NEXT TO A RESOURCE DEVOURING WAREHOUSE THAT OFFERS VIRTUALLY ZERO LONG TERM JOBS.
LET'S LOOK AT HOW OUR CITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ARE BEING STRIPPED OF BASIC REVENUE.
ENTERGY IN THE HOUSE RIGHT. YOU CHARGE NORMAL PEOPLE 5.2% UTILITY FRANCHISE FEE.
BUT YET YOU CUT A DEAL FOR 0.25 TO THE MILLIONAIRES.
OKAY, I SEE YOU. CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER USUALLY CHARGES PEOPLE 10% FRANCHISE FEE.
AND THEY DROPPED IT TO ZERO. THE LITTLE ROCK WATER RECLAMATION AUTHORITY FOLLOWED SUIT AS WELL, DROPPING ITS OWN FEE DOWN TO ZERO. THINK ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF INSANITY THAT THIS IS, THAT THE HEAVIEST CONSUMERS OF OUR ELECTRICITY GET THE MOST AGGRESSIVE GIFTS AND BENEFITS. AND WHO IS PAYING FOR THE MASSIVE GRID UPGRADE? WE ARE. ENERGY SUCCESSFULLY LOBBIED THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PASS THE GENERATION GENERATING ARKANSAS JOBS ACT.
THIS CORPORATE HANDOUT COMPLETELY UPENDED CONSUMER PROTECTION BY ALLOWING UTILITIES TO CHARGE EVERY DAY CONSTITUENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS.
SO WHEN THEY TELL US IT'S NOT COSTING US, IT'S A LIE.
THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO WAIT FOR A PROJECT TO BE USED AND USEFUL TO BILL US BECAUSE OF YOUR CHOICES.
[01:55:09]
YOU ARE FORCING GRANDMOTHERS ON FIXED INCOMES TO PAY HIGHER UTILITY BILLS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.WE ASKED FOR A MORATORIUM AND YOU'LL HAVE TO FIGHT ABOUT THAT.
I'M HERE FOR THE KIDS AND I'M HERE FOR THE FAMILY.
AND YOU GUYS ARE RUINING COMMUNITIES. PUT IT IN YOUR BACKYARD.
PUT YOUR KIDS AT THAT SCHOOL. DON'T DO IT TO US.
GREAT. THANK YOU, MISS WATSON. ADEA OR THE EARS.
HELLO, MY NAME IS EDDIE DIAZ. OKAY. THE MAJORITY OF THE QUORUM COURT HAS VERBALLY EXPRESSED SUPPORT OF A MORATORIUM, BUT THE FEW WHO ARE HESITANT TO ACTUALLY PASS IT ATTRIBUTE THEIR INACTION TO NEEDING TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE RIGHT.
WHILE I APPRECIATE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND BIG DECISIONS, I FIND MYSELF FRUSTRATED WITH THE LACK OF SPECIFIC ARTICULATED HANG UPS THAT ARE CAUSING THE HESITATION. WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE AREAS YOU REQUIRE? INFORMATION, MORE INFORMATION ABOUT? I PROMISE YOU THAT I AND MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE THE DATA THAT YOU FEEL LIKE YOU ARE LACKING, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, CAN USE THEIR RESOURCES AND CONNECTIONS TO ASSIST IN GETTING IT TO YOU, BUT WITHOUT HAVING DIRECT QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.
EVERYONE IS DESPERATELY THROWING WHATEVER THEY HAVE AT YOU TO SEE IF ANYTHING STICKS. BY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING WHAT YOU NEED TO FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO PASS A MORATORIUM, YOU ARE GIVING US THE TRANSPARENCY THAT WE WERE DENIED WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT ALLOWED SHADY BACKDOOR DEALS WITH MEGA CORPORATIONS. IT ALSO ALLOWS PEOPLE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ACTION, SO WE NO LONGER FEEL POWERLESS IN OUR SITUATION AND PROVES THAT YOU ARE WORKING WITH US.
INSTEAD OF SAYING JUST ENOUGH TO APPEASE YOUR VOTING GROUP WITHOUT TAKING ANY MEANINGFUL ACTION TO ALIENATE THESE CORPORATIONS FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN. I WILL TOUCH ON THE TWO TALKING POINTS I'VE HEARD THE MOST FROM JUSTICES IN THE PAST MEETING. THE REST OF MY RESEARCH CAN BE SENT TO WHOMEVER WANTS IT.
ONCE CONCERNS ARE SPECIFIED. LEGAL CONCERNS. A MORATORIUM IS NOT A BAN.
DATA CENTERS DO NOT HAVE A LEGAL DEFINITION AT 851.
IF THIS ORDINANCE AND THIS WAS IN REGARDS TO 26-I-45-A BUT STILL, IF THIS ORDINANCE HAS ANY POTENTIAL LOOPHOLES, IT CAN ALWAYS BE AMENDED.
THIS WILL NOT PROTECT YOU FROM LITIGATION, AS MANY CITIZENS ACROSS THE NATION HAVE BEGUN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO HAVE ALLOWED DATA CENTERS TO COME IN AGAINST THEIR WISHES. MOVING ON TO DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS, BOTH DATA CENTER PROJECTS ARE PROPOSED IN PULASKI COUNTY ALL FOR.
NO TANGIBLE ANSWERS FOR WHAT JOBS THEY WILL PROVIDE LONG TERM.
BOTH THESE COMPANIES HAVE OTHER PROJECTS OF SIMILAR SIZES, AND COULD CROSS-REFERENCE THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER AI COMPANIES TO DETERMINE STAFFING EXPECTATIONS, BUT THEY REFUSE TO OFFER ANY NUMBERS.
THAT'S EITHER BECAUSE, ONE, THEY KNOW THE NUMBERS AREN'T GOING TO BE GOOD ENOUGH. TWO, THEY WANT US TO SAY A NUMBER FIRST. THAT'S LOWER THAN WHAT THEY BUDGETED FOR, SO THEY CAN GIVE US AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE, OR THREE. AND EVEN MORE DISTURBINGLY, THIS INDUSTRY IS TOO UNSTABLE AND VOLATILE FOR THEM TO FIGURE OUT THE BASELINE LOGISTICS FOR OPERATION. THESE COMPANIES ALREADY HAVE FLEET CONTRACTS READY FOR APPROVAL, AND THE ONLY POWER THAT WE HAVE IS THAT WE ARE STILL AT THE BARGAINING TABLE TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THAT CONTRACT SAYS. WE CAN LEVERAGE EVEN MORE POWER TO MAKE IT A FAIR FIGHT BY ADDING TIME TO OUR SIDE.
A MORATORIUM ALLOWS FOR MORE TIME TO CREATE A LIST OF DEMANDS THAT THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO.
BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S ALREADY ON ITS WAY OUT.
ALL WHILE WE'RE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG AND CLEANING UP THEIR MESS.
IF THEY WEREN'T WORRIED ABOUT THIS INDUSTRY BEING TEMPORARY, THEY WOULDN'T BE TRYING TO ESTABLISH AS MANY PROJECTS EVERYWHERE THEY CAN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. AND IF IT'S NOT TEMPORARY AND TRULY DOES STAND THE TEST OF TIME, 12 MONTHS IS NOT A LONG TIME TO MAKE THEM MAKE SURE THAT THESE FACILITIES ARE THE RIGHT FIT FOR PULASKI COUNTY. IT GIVES THEM PLENTY OF TIME TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS AND DO THE NECESSARY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO GIVE CONCRETE ANSWERS, TO MAKE SURE IT'S SUSTAINABLE FOR US LIKE THEY CLAIM THEY WANT TO BE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. GRIFFIN. I THINK I'M LEAVING. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN KEEFE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WENDELL GRIFFIN.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THREE THINGS A MINUTE, A PIECE.
FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT, PLEASE.
PEOPLE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS, TO INCLUDE THEIR DISAGREEMENT AND THEIR OPPOSITION AND DISPLEASURE WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS. THERE'S CASE LAW ON THAT. YOU CAN CUSS A POLICEMAN IN PUBLIC.
AND SO TO TELL PEOPLE THEY CANNOT EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS IS A VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT.
[02:00:03]
THAT'S THE FIRST THING. SECOND THING RESOLUTION IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT LITIGATION, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST BOUGHT ONE. YOU READY FOR IT? LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU, AS THE ONE PERSON IN THIS ROOM WHO HAS, BESIDES LYNN FOSTER, WHO HAS TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE TEST FOR THIS IS RATIONAL BASIS.AND THE STANDARD OF THE MORATORIUM YOU APPROVED HAS THE MOST LITIGIOUS ASPECT OF RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW BECAUSE IT IS SO ATTENUATED FROM ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT YOU CANNOT SAY WHAT IS RATIONAL.
LET ME GIVE YOU EXAMPLE. THE RESOLUTION YOU YOU YOU MENTIONED SAYS IT SHALL NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT HAVE EXECUTED A CONTRACT FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE. THAT IS NOT SPECIFIC. WHEN I APPLY FOR SERVICE AT MY RESIDENCE, I CAN GET THAT.
IT DOES NOT FIT THIS ISSUE AND IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEXUS TO ANY LAND USE CONTEXT. IT HAS NO NEXUS TO ANY LAND USE IMPACT, AND HAS NO NEXUS TO ANYTHING ELSE IN THE MORATORIUM. SO EVERY LAW PROFESSOR AND LAW JUDGE WHO READS THAT IS GOING TO SAY, WHERE IS THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE LAND USE IMPACTS AND THE CONTRACT FOR UTILITY SERVICES? AND TEN TIMES OUT OF TEN, THEY WON'T FIND IT.
GUESS WHAT? CONGRATULATIONS. BY CONTRAST.
TO THE CONTEXT. IT'S A TERM IN THE INDUSTRY. IT ALSO REQUIRES UTILITY STUDY ACCEPTANCE AND.
IT WAS DEFINED. IF YOU SHOOT AT NOTHING, YOU ALWAYS HIT IT.
THAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A GREAT SHOT. IT MEANT YOU HAD LOW AIM.
AND SOMEBODY SAID, SOMEBODY SAID LOW AIM. LOW AIM IS A WORSE SITUATION.
I WILL CLOSE ON THIS. IT'S ONE THING TO AIM LOW WHEN YOU'RE SHOOTING AT NOTHING THAT MATTERS.
WHEN YOU AIM LOW AND PEOPLE'S LIVES AND FUTURES MATTER.
IT HURTS WHEN YOU HAVE AIM LOW AND SAID, WE WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO DO A VERY GOOD STUDY AND YOU WILL EXEMPT SPECULATIVE AND LET'S JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS.
A BIO IS SPECULATIVE. IT HAS NOT COMPLETED FINAL UTILITY STUDY ACCEPTANCE.
IT HAS NOT COMPLETED ITS WETLAND PERMISSIONS.
AND THEREFORE TONIGHT YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED TO PASS A MORATORIUM AMENDMENT ORDINANCE THAT EXEMPTS THE ONE DATA FACILITY THAT HAS A WETLANDS PROBLEM IN ITS FACE AND THE OWN YOUR OWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAID SO BECAUSE IN DECEMBER OF 2024, THEY CONDITIONED APPROVAL BASED UPON GETTING CORPS OF ENGINEERING PERMISSION FROM THE WETLANDS.
SO GUESS WHAT? THEY HAD ALMOST TWO YEARS TO GET IT.
DIDN'T GET IT. AND YOU NOW SAID, OKAY, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE A MORE EXACTING MORATORIUM.
CONGRATULATIONS. YOU HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF PROVING THAT YOU DO NOT SERVE THE PEOPLE. YOU ARE MORE INTERESTED. YOU ARE MORE INTERESTED IN PLAYING THE PEOPLE.
LAST THING, LAST THING. BE CAREFUL HOW YOU PLAY WITH PEOPLE.
BECAUSE THE RECORD ACROSS THE NATION IS THAT VOTERS ARE NOT TOLERANT NOR FORGIVING. POINT OF ORDER. I'D LIKE TO LET IT BE KNOWN THAT I OBSERVED THE
[02:05:10]
COUNTY ATTORNEY IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY AND ON PUBLIC RECORD, THAT IF SHE DOES NOT CLEARLY SAY THAT SHE IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNTY AND HERE FOR OUR PROTECTION AND WILLING TO TAKE A LAWSUIT AND OR POTENTIALLY ONE OF THE CAUSES AND DISRUPTIONS THAT WE DIDN'T GET A MORATORIUM PASSED BECAUSE SHE FAVORED ONE OVER THE OTHER. THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION COULD HAVE HAPPENED SOMEWHERE ELSE.THAT'S WHAT'S UP. THANK YOU, JUDGE GRIFFIN. THANK YOU.
THREE MINUTES. THREE MINUTES WITH YOU. SO MY NAME IS ROBIN DEESE. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH Y'ALL THIS EVENING.
IN MY OPINION, THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WHEN INVITING INDUSTRY THAT ENCOMPASSES ALL ASPECTS OF POLLUTION AND WILL DESTROY OUR NATURAL RESOURCES. THIS IS COMMON SENSE AND COMMON SCIENCE.
I KNOW THAT YOUR GOAL IS NOT TO BE SUED, BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU WILL GET SUED.
AS TECHNOLOGY CHANGES, SO WILL THE NEED FOR INCREASED RESOURCES.
SO OUTCOMES OF ONGOING CASES AGAINST THE INDUSTRY IS LIMITED.
SHE PARTNERS WITH SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, WHO ALSO PARTNERS WITH AVAYA.
BY THE WAY. AND THEN SHE'S IN IOWA. THEIR LOCAL OFFICIALS DISCOVERED 40 UNPERMITTED WELLS. SO THOSE ARE YOUR CLOSED LOOP WATER SYSTEMS? YEAH. IMPERIAL VALLEY DATA CENTER, ALSO A CLOSED LOOP WATER SYSTEM.
THEY ARE USING WALSH GROUP FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, WHO ALSO PARTNERS WITH AVAYA.
AND THE DEVELOPER SUED. THEIR CITY AND THEIR STATE TO GET AN ADDITIONAL 260 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER FROM THE COLORADO RIVER ANNUALLY. SO YOU WILL GET SUED.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF IF WE HAVE ANY RESOURCES LEFT.
I'D LIKE TO READ TO YOU A DEFINITION, AND IT'S ABOUT COMPANIES AND OTHER PEOPLE, ENTITIES THAT INVOLVE ACTS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN LIFE. IT APPEARS TO BE INTENDED TO INTIMIDATE OR COERCE A CIVILIZATION OR POPULATION.
THEY LIKE TO INFLUENCE THE POLICY OF GOVERNMENT BY INTIMIDATION OR COERCION.
THIS IS DOMESTIC TERRORISM. SO I'M SURE THAT MY TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO PLACE CONSTRAINTS ON $1 BILLION PROJECT.
THE THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE LITIGATION OR THAT THAT WOULD EVEN BE A QUESTION.
IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO COME DOWN TO LITIGATION.
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S WORTH FIGHTING IS IRREGARDLESS THE PROJECT IS INJURIOUS TO YOUR COMMUNITY.
IT IS GOING TO BE EXTRACTED. THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE EVERY OUNCE OF GROUNDWATER THAT THEY CAN.
THEY'RE GOING TO PLACE AN IMMEASURABLE BURDEN ON THE ELECTRIC GRID.
[02:10:05]
WITHOUT QUESTION, YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO PLACE CONSTRAINTS ON THEM, AND YOU PURPOSEFULLY CHOSE TO GO WITH A TOOTHLESS VERSION.RIGHT NOW, IN AMERICA, WE HAVE OVER 5000 DATA CENTERS.
CHINA, WHO IS PURPORTED TO BE OUR COMPETITOR, HAS LESS THAN 500.
IF YOU GET ON CHATGPT, OPEN AI. [APPLAUSE]. ANY AI SYSTEM AND YOU PUT IN A REQUEST, IT'S NOT GOING TO TELL YOU, HEY, COME BACK IN 15 MINUTES, TRY AGAIN LATER.
WE DON'T WANT IT. YOU CANNOT RECOUP YOUR CAPEX BY SELLING US TRINKETS.
YOU HAVE TO RELY ON COMMERCIAL SERVICES THAT THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO SERVE.
THAT IS EXCLUSIVELY SURVEILLANCE. [APPLAUSE].
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR BUILDING ANOTHER DATA CENTER ON US SOIL, FOR ALLOWING ANY OTHER PROJECTS TO TAKE ANY MORE RESOURCES THAN THEY HAVE ALREADY EXTRACTED. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION, NOT FOR ALLOWING THE PROJECT TO CONTINUE, NOT FOR REFUSING TO FIGHT, NOT FOR PASSING A TOOTHLESS RESOLUTION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. [APPLAUSE]. THANK YOU, SIR.
HOW ARE YOU DOING THIS EVENING? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
ONE FIRST STARTS WITH THE COUNCIL. SO WHEN THIS CAME THROUGH AND WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT BEING SUED BY THE COMPANY, IS THERE NOT CONDITIONS WITHIN THESE AGREEMENTS THAT SAYS IF YOU DO NOT DISCLOSE POTENTIAL HARM AND DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENT, HUMANS, ETC., THAT YOU CANNOT GET OUT OF THOSE AGREEMENTS? DEPARTMENT. I WILL SAY THAT IT CAME WITH CONDITIONS.
IF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, THAT IS THE REASON WHY IT IS NOT MOVED FORWARD AS OF YET.
SO THAT IS A NORMAL PROCESS, YES. THANK YOU. THE OTHER QUESTION IS RELATED TO COST BENEFITS.
HAS THIS COMMITTEE SEEN A COST BENEFITS BREAKDOWN FROM AVAIO ON WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE TO THE COMMUNITY? I MEAN, HOW MANY PERMANENT JOBS ARE THEY BRINGING HERE? WHAT KIND OF RESOURCES, TAXES. YES. ANYTHING? ANY PERMANENT JOBS? HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING YOU CAN TELL ME ABOUT? THERE'S A BROCHURE. I'M SORRY? THERE'S INFORMATION OUT THERE.
DO YOU HAVE IT AND DO YOU SHARE IT, WHEN YOU HAVE A MEETING LIKE THIS? NO, SIR. NO, SIR. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW.
[APPLAUSE]. OKAY. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO CLAIM OUR ATTENTION, WE ARE ADJOURNED. ALRIGHTY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.