[1. CALL TO ORDER ]
          [00:00:06]
          WE'RE GOING TO OPEN OUR MEETING WITH THE, AN INVOCATION BY JUSTICE PERSON FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, IF YOU CAN. WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND? DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO DO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTY TODAY. THE LORD LOOK OVER OUR STATE, OUR COUNTRY, THIS PLANET. DEAR GOD AND DEAR GOD, PLEASE, DEAR LORD. THE LORD, PLEASE GRANT US DISCERNMENT, GRANT US DECORUM, GRANT US PATIENCE. THESE BLESSINGS. WE ASK YOUR NAME. 
          AMEN. AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR STANDING THAT WAS ABLE TO STAND TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR OPENING. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MS. DAVIS. HERE. MS. CAPPS? HERE. 
          MS. LEWISON. HERE. MS. BLACKWOOD. HERE. MR. PERSON. 
          HERE. MS. MASSEY IS ABSENT. MS. CURRY. MR. KEITH. 
          HERE. MS. WARD. HERE. MS. YOUNG-BAKER. HERE. MR. ROBINSON IS ABSENT. MR. MCCOY. HERE. MR., MR. ELLIOTT. 
          HERE. AND MR. ROBINSON HAS ARRIVED. MR. ROBINSON IS HERE. 
          AND MS. MEDLOCK IS ABSENT. 
          SO, YOU HAVE 12 PRESENTS, 12 PRESENT. WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT BUSINESS. JUST A REMINDER TO ALL OF THE JUSTICES, YOUR MICROPHONES ON. SO, IF YOU'LL JUST LET ME SEE YOUR HAND IF THERE'S ANY CONVERSATION YOU WANT TO HAVE. IS THERE A 
          [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 5? 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? OUR MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED FROM OUR LAST MEETING. I SEE 
          [6. PLANNING DEPARTMENT UPDATE]
WE'RE AT ITEM SIX. THERE'S A, AN UPDATE FROM MR. JIM CRANOR. IS HE HERE? NO. NO, HE'S NOT HERE. 
          I AM NOT JIM CRANOR. I AM TAB TOWNSELL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. JUST WANT TO REPORT TO YOU AND I'M GOING TO DIVIDE THIS UP, MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD. OKAY. 
          IF YOU DON'T MIND? OKAY, THAT'S FINE. I'LL LET YOU KNOW THAT JIM CRANOR HAS RESIGNED. IT'S EFFECTIVE AUGUST 21ST. 
          BUT HE'S HAD A MEDICAL CRISIS IN HIS FAMILY. HE'S TAKING FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE THESE NEXT TWO WEEKS. SO, HE IS GONE. I WILL TEMPORARILY BE TAKING OVER DUTIES IN THE PLANNING BOARD. AND THAT'S INTERESTING. 
          THAT SAID, WE ARE PROBABLY LOOKING AT OPTIONS OF BRINGING PEOPLE IN TO HELP US GET THROUGH THIS PERIOD OF TIME. 
          OKAY. AS WE'VE GOT A LOT OF BUSINESS TO TAKE CARE OF AND ADJUDICATE AS A DEPARTMENT. 
          OKAY. I'D LIKE TO BRING UP MARK WILSON, WHO'S THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD, TO GIVE YOU MORE OF A SUBSTANTIVE UPDATE OF THE DELIBERATIONS OF THAT BOARD. MARK. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU ALL TONIGHT. 
          AND I'D FIRST LIKE TO SAY MR. JIM CRANOR DID AN EXCELLENT JOB FOR, FOR OUR PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, LED OUR, I MEAN, HELPED ASSISTED OUR MEETINGS. I'VE SERVED ON THE PLANNING BOARD FOR OVER 10 YEARS WITH A SHORT GAP, BUT HE ALWAYS HANDLED THINGS PROFESSIONALLY AND ETHICALLY, AND I'M SAD TO SEE HIM GO. 
          BUT AS TAB STATED, I'M MARK WILSON. I SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING BOARD. AND OUR MISSION, PER OUR BYLAWS, IS TO COORDINATE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY. SO, A FEW MONTHS AGO, WE WERE CHARGED BY THE QUORUM COURT TO REVIEW JUSTICE BLACKWOOD'S PROPOSED ORDINANCE, 26I31, AND AMENDED TO HER CREDIT TO 26I31A, BASED ON SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT WE HAD. AND OUR JOB WAS TO REVIEW IT, OFFER SUGGESTIONS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AND GIVE OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSAL. AND WE'VE HELD TWO SPECIAL MEETINGS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IN JUNE AND JULY. AND BETWEEN JUNE AND JULY WE HAD SOME CLARIFICATIONS. AND WE HAVE A THIRD MEETING THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR THIS THURSDAY, AUGUST 13TH, AT 6PM IN THESE CHAMBERS. AND SINCE I SEE THE ORDINANCE IS ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA FOR A VOTE, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IF THE QUORUM COURT IS MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT OUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS A 
          [00:05:02]
NEED FOR US TO HAVE OUR THIRD MEETING ON THURSDAY OR IF YOU'RE NOT SEEKING OUR RECOMMENDATION, HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED? OKAY. 
          JUSTICE. I RECOGNIZE, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. WE ARE STILL GOING TO, YOU KNOW, LISTEN TO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS GET THIS ON THE FULL QUORUM COURT AGENDA, WHICH WILL BE. OKAY. 
          IN TWO WEEKS. AND SO, WE ARE, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO. YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND HOLD YOUR MEETING. YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND GET. GIVE US RECOMMENDATIONS. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THIS ON THE FULL QUORUM COURT. AND IT WAS UNFORTUNATE, I KNOW, BECAUSE I DID CALL AND SEE IF YOU GUYS COULD HAVE A MEETING EARLIER. AND, AND THAT TOLD ME THAT BY THE RULES, LIKE YOU GUYS COULD NOT. IF I COULD CLARIFY, THAT'S THE TWO WEEKS' NOTICE FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING WOULD, WOULD BE, WAS THE THIRD, WAS THE 13TH. SO, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO. 
          RIGHT. RIGHT. BEFORE THIS. 
          OKAY. SO, THAT'S. SO, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THIS MOVED ON TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT AND THEN WE CAN DO A VOTE THEN. 
          AND YOU WILL HAVE MET BEFORE FOR THAT SO YOU CAN GIVE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. SO, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE VERBIAGE IN THE ORDINANCE AFTER OUR MEETING IF. IF YOU WERE SO MOVED BY OUR, WE COULD MAKE AMENDMENTS IF WE NEEDED TO. OKAY. CERTAIN. OKAY. I THINK I'M GOOD. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I THINK I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? WAS THAT IT? NO. OKAY. JUSTICE YOUNG-BAKER. 
          I'M SORRY IT'S LATE. 
          YOUNG-BAKER. SO, MARK, IN TWO WEEKS, YOU GUYS WILL DEFINITELY HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PRESENT. MY HOPE IS WE'LL HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BY THE END OF OUR DELIBERATIONS ON THURSDAY. OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO PROMISE THAT, BUT I, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE. YEAH. YEAH. 
          OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. LET ME TRY THIS. AND JUSTICE ELLIOTT. 
          OKAY. I'D LIKE TO. 
          ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE. THIS ORDINANCE IS VERY TECHNICAL. 
          JUSTICE ELLIOT. SO, WE'RE RIGHT. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST ON. 
          ON THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PLAN AND GETTING INFORMATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. SO, WE'RE NOT TO THAT ORDINANCE YET. SO, I'M GOING TO DEFINITELY RECOGNIZE YOU. I GOT YOU. OKAY. SO, THAT WAS YOU? THAT'S ALL YOU WANTED TO SAY? ABOUT, YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ORDINANCE? YEAH. 
          OKAY. I'LL MAKE SURE I GET YOU THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          JUSTICE CURRY. YES. I'D LIKE TO ASK FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE WITH OUR ATTORNEY, PROCEDURAL WISE OR MAYBE I SHOULD ASK JUSTIN. WOULD THAT BE THE PROPER WAY FOR US TO HANDLE THIS? WITH US MOVING FORWARD WITH THE VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE VERSUS NOT HEARING FROM. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF IT. YOU RECOGNIZE JUSTICE? I'M KIND OF ASKING. YES. PROCEDURALLY, IN MY OPINION, THIS IS OUT OF ORDER. THERE MUST FIRST BE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD WHO HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. AND THEN IT CAN COME TO THE AGENDA AND THEN TO THE QUORUM COURT. WHAT I AM CITING, IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME SOME TIME. 
          WE ESTABLISH THE PLANNING BOARD. YES, SIR. WE ESTABLISHED THE PLANNING BOARD IN APRIL OF 1981. THEY WERE GIVEN POWERS AND DUTIES PURSUANT TO THEN 17-1107. NOW, THAT IS CODIFIED AS 1417, 203, 201 EX SEQUENTIAL. 
          SO, THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THOSE STATUTES. SO, I'M LOOKING AT 14-17-203 THROUGH 210. 210 IS SPECIFIC TO THIS ONE. IT SAYS THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING BOARD SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE ZONING AND PLANNING JURISDICTION OVER ALL UNINCORPORATED AREAS LYING WITHIN A COUNTY AND ALONG THE NAVIGABLE. EXCUSE ME. 
          STREAM. SO, WHEN WE HAVE A STAT. WE ARE. ORDINANCE GAVE THE PLANNING BOARD POWER SUBJECT TO THE STATUTES. THE STATUTES GIVE THEM EXCLUSIVE ZONING AND PLANNING 
          [00:10:02]
JURISDICTION TO CIRCUMVENT THEIR JURISDICTION TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE PROCESS OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION, THEN TO THE AGENDA, THEN TO THE QUORUM COURT. WE HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE TO ASSUME THOSE DUTIES. AND THAT I AM READING FROM 14-17- 203. IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION F, IT SAYS COUNTY QUORUM COURT MAY ELECT TO ASSUME THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD. 
          SUCH A DETERMINATION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED BY ORDINANCE. SO, IN MY OPINION, BASED JUST ON A REGULAR READING OF THE LAW, THIS. VOTING ON 26I56, BECAUSE IT IS A ORDINANCE OR A REGULATION THAT FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD, IT IS OUT OF ORDER. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, JUSTICE CURRY? NO. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. 
          PLEASE ALLOW THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT JUSTICE MASSEY AND JUSTICE MEDLOCK HAVE ARRIVED. 
          JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. SO, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW, IS THAT THE QUORUM COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER ANY TYPE OF LAND USE IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME. WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD AND I SPECIFICALLY, IF WE LOOK AT. 
          IN THAT SAME SET OF STATUTES, IF WE LOOK AT 14-17-209, IT SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO PREPARE OR CALLS TO BE PREPARED ZONING ORDINANCES FOR ALL OR PART OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY, WHICH ORDINANCE SHALL INCLUDE BOTH THE MATH AND TEXT. AND THEN IT LISTS OUT THE AREAS OF REGULATION. 
          SUBSECTION E THERE SAYS THE USES OF LAND, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. AND SO, THIS IS A LAND USE TYPE REGULATION. IT FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION PER OUR ARKANSAS STATUTORY CODE. I HAVE NO OPINION OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE LAW SAYS. JURISDICTION. SO, WHEN WE DID OUR WATER PROJECT AND WE DID ALL THAT, THAT WAS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. 
          EVERYTHING WE DID, I WAS NOT HERE FOR THE WATER PROJECT. WELL, YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT IT SINCE IT'S BEEN GOING. IT WENT ON FOR A LONG TIME, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON IT. I WAS NOT HERE FOR THE ACTUAL HOW THAT CAME ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW. DID THAT NOT COME FROM A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR PLANNING BOARD? YOU KNOW, WHAT WE DID WAS ZONING. 
          WE ZONED. I MEAN, WE ACTUALLY DID THAT IN OUR, AND WE HAVEN'T WE DONE ZONING RECENTLY, DIDN'T WE? YOU KNOW, NOT IN MY TENURE, SHORT TENURE, COUNTY ATTORNEY. OKAY. OKAY. 
          BUT IT. YES. AND PRIOR TO BECOMING COUNTY ATTORNEY, I WAS LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR LITIGATION. OKAY, SO YOU'RE. YOU'RE NOT AN EXPERT IN. IN LAND USE, ARE YOU? I WOULD NEVER SAY I WAS. OKAY. I CAN ONLY DO A READING OF THE LAW AND WHAT IT SAYS. 
          OKAY. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'S AN EXPERT IN LAND USE. I THINK WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE THAT MIGHT BE AN EXPERT THAT COULD AT LEAST GIVE US AN OPINION ON THAT. ARE WE, ARE WE. I THINK WE'RE GOING DOWN WELL, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS. I COULD BRIEFLY. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON IT, BUT I'VE LOOKED AT THIS ALL DAY. I AM AN ATTORNEY. I COULD BRIEFLY TELL YOU THAT I THINK THAT THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTER ACT, WHICH LEAVES IT TO THE COUNTIES TO REGULATE DATA CENTERS, HAS GIVEN YOU THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ORDINANCES LIKE THIS. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WHEN THE ZONING STATUTES THAT YOU REFERENCED. OKAY, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. OKAY, HOLD ON, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. THIS. IF I COULD CLARIFY. I'VE GOT. OKAY, I'M GOING TO LET YOU CLARIFY THAT. BUT. 
          BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF 26I56 IS VOTED ON AND IS SENT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT AND IT'S OUT OF ORDER OR IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE, WHAT'S THE REPERCUSSION TO THE COUNTY OR THE COUNTY OF THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS SUCH. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE REPERCUSSIONS. IT IS SIMPLY MY DUTY TO TELL YOU. OKAY. WHAT IS LEGAL AND WHAT IS NOT. OKAY. 
          AND BASED ON A READING OF THE LAW, WE'RE OUT 
          [00:15:01]
OF ORDER. WE'RE PROCEDURALLY OUT OF ORDER. OKAY. 
          TO ANSWER THE MADAM ATTORNEYS' COMMENTS ARE THIS REGULATION IS BASED ON THE COUNTY'S LAND USE AUTHORITY, AND THE COUNTY DOES HAVE LAND USE AUTHORITY. IT HAS TOLD ME IT DIDN'T. NO, NO, MA'AM I DID NOT. IT SEATED THAT IT CEDED THAT IT GAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE PLANNING BOARD IN 1981, AND FROM THE PLANNING BOARD WE RECEIVED RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN FROM THERE WE VOTE ON THEM. 
          SO, WE'VE SET UP A PROCESS IN PULASKI COUNTY, A STATUTORY PROCESS IN PULASKI COUNTY OF HOW WE REVIEW LAND USE TYPE REGULATIONS. WHAT I AM TELLING THE COURT TODAY IS TO VOTE ON A MEASURE WITHOUT IT FIRST COMING FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IS PROCEDURALLY OUT OF ORDER PER THE STATUTE, PER THE STATUTORY LAW, PROCEDURALLY OUT OF ORDER. 
          BUT IT, I GUESS IT'S, ARE YOU SAYING IT'S AGAINST THE LAW? I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M. I AM SAYING THAT THE EXCLUSIVE. I'M SAYING THAT THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE AND RECOMMEND REGULATIONS THAT FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE PLAN, OF THE PLANNING BOARD BELONG. 
          IT BELONGS TO THEM. RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY. I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I GUESS I'M TRYING TO SAY IS WE'VE HAD THIS. I THINK THIS IS WHAT OUR FOURTH OR FIFTH MONTH THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AN ORDINANCE OUT. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A REGULATION HAS COME BEFORE WE WERE CONSIDERING A MORATORIUM. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A REGULATION IS. I'M NOT KEEPING ANYTHING FROM YOU. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A REGULATION HAS COME BEFORE THE AGENDA. NO, IT IS NOT. NO, WE'VE. I BROUGHT UP I31 AND I BROUGHT UP I34. I BROUGHT THESE UP IN THE BEGINNING. YEAH, SO THEY WERE BROUGHT UP FIRST. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE. WAS I THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME? YES. 
          YES. YOU? NO. NO. THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. NO, BUT. 
          BUT HERE'S THE THING. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO. TO HAVE WENDELL COME UP AND. AND. AND TELL US WHAT. 
          WHAT THE LAW IS ON THIS. 
          CHAIRMAN, MY NAME IS WENDELL GRIFFEN. YES, SIR. 
          WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO ATTORNEY LANE, I WOULD LIKE TO REFER THE MEMBERS OF QUORUM COURT TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ENACTMENT, WHICH IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE, AND INITIATION. THAT IS NOT A CASUAL DISTINCTION. TONIGHT, THE QUORUM COURT IS NOT ENACTING ANYTHING. I PAUSE FOR EFFECT BY YOUR OWN PROCEDURES. AS MS. LANE KNOWS, TONIGHT IS AN AGENDA MEETING. 
          AND BY WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS A MEETING IN TWO DAYS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE, NOR IN THE CASE LAW ON THAT STATUTE THAT PRECLUDES A LEGISLATIVE BODY FROM INITIATING A LEGISLATIVE MATTER AND NOT ENACTING IT BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD MEETS. PLANNING BOARD DO NOT REQUIRE A DO-PASS OF ANY MEASURE. THEY ARE MERELY A PRELIMINARY REFERRAL IN THE STATUTE. THE FORDYCE CASE I CITE TO YOU, I'LL GIVE YOU THE SITE FULLY. 
          AND SO, THE DISTINCTION NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND. TONIGHT, THE QUORUM COURT IS MERELY INITIATING ITS USUAL PROCESS THAT IT TAKES EVERY TIME IT ENACTS A MEASURE. IT NEVER ENACTS A MEASURE AT ITS AGENDA MEETING. THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN THIS QUORUM COURT ENACT A MEASURE AS AGENDA MEETING. I DARE MY LEARNED COUNCIL TO CITE A SITUATION WHERE THE QUORUM COURT HAS ENACTED A MEASURE AT ITS AGENDA MEETING. AND TO JUSTICE BLACKWOOD'S POINT, ON MAY 12, THIS BODY RECEIVED IN ITS AGENDA MEETING ITEM 2 6-I31, WHICH WAS A CONDITIONAL 
          [00:20:01]
USE PERMIT ORDINANCE, AND ITEM 26-34, A NOTICE OF INDUSTRIAL INTENT ORDINANCE. 
          ALL OF THOSE WERE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BODY. I CLOSE WITH THIS MEASURE. THERE IS NOTHING IMPROPER ABOUT THE QUORUM COURT DOING WHAT IT PROPERLY ALWAYS DOES, INITIATING A DELIBERATION ON WHAT IT WILL LATER ENACT. 
          THERE IS A TWO-WEEK TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THIS NIGHT AND AUGUST 25TH. THERE IS A TWO-DAY TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THIS NIGHT AND THE PLANNING BOARD SCHEDULED MEETING. AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO IMPROPRIETY, NOR IS THERE ANY ILLEGALITY. 
          THIS IS MERELY THE LATEST, MOST RECENT EFFORT TO BASICALLY SLOW THE PROCESS. 
          ENOUGH ALREADY. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE? OH, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO. OKAY. 
          BECAUSE ACTUALLY, THIS WAS JUST A REPORT FROM THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. 
          SO, WE'RE GETTING OFF TO A GOOD START. DID ANYONE, ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, NO. SO, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE WITH ITEM SIX, WE HAD THAT QUESTION. 
          MARK WILSON. MR. WILSON. OKAY. 
          YES, SIR. YOU CAN. MR. WILSON, JUST. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, YOU DO INTEND FOR US TO MEET ON THURSDAY AND OFFER OUR RECOMMENDATIONS? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WILSON. ALL RIGHT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO CLAIM OUR ATTENTION ON ITEM SIX, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS FOR ITEM SEVEN. WE'LL MOVE ON 
          [Additional Item 1]
TO ITEM EIGHT, NEW BUSINESS. 
          WE HAVE A SERIES OF LATE FILINGS. SO, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, AND TAKE UP THE LATE FILINGS FIRST BEFORE WE MOVE TO OUR, OH, YEAH, MOTION. IS THERE A MOTION? YEAH. SO MOVED. SECOND. SECOND. 
          OBJECTION. ALL RIGHT. 
          WITHOUT OBJECTION. YEAH, I GOT YOU. I GOT YOU. JUSTICE ELLIOTT. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE. 
          WOULD YOU PLEASE READ ITEM 26I58. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 25 OR 522026 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS TO RECOGNIZE AN APPROPRIATE DRUG COURT FOUNDATION GRANT FUNDS FOR THE 11TH DIVISION CIRCUIT COURT. JUSTICE LEWISON, MOVE IT TO THE QUORUM COURT WITH A DO-PASS. SECOND. OH, CAN I TALK ABOUT IT? NO, HOLD ON. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 26I58 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND YOU CAN. YOU CAN DISCUSS IT OR TELL ME WHAT IT'S ABOUT IF YOU GET JUST A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOUR MICROPHONE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU. SORRY. THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. IS TRACY DAVISON HERE? WE STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU. CAN YOU SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE? TRACY DAVISON HERE? SHE, SHE'S GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. HI. THANK YOU ALL, GUYS, FOR LETTING US COME IN. I KNOW IT WAS A LATE ITEM AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT WE WERE GIFTED $2,000 FROM THE CRAFT AND TOLL FOUNDATION. CRAFT AND TOLL IS A ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM AND THEY HAVE A FOUNDATION. AND WE MET ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN THAT WORKED THERE AT A LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE AND HE ASKED FOR US TO FILL OUT THE APPLICATION FOR THE FOUNDATION FUNDS. AND SO, I DID WROTE A SMALL LITTLE GRANT AND WE WERE GIVEN $2,000. 
          SO, THAT WE COULD BE USED FOR OUR PARTICIPANTS MAINLY WILL GO TO USE FOR. THEY ALWAYS GET GOODIE BAGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR, FOR GRADUATION. WE ARE ALSO GOING TO USE THOSE THAT MONEY FOR MRT BOOKS, WHICH IS MORAL RECOGNITION TRAINING. IT IS A FORM OF THERAPY THAT'S USED WITH OUR PARTICIPANTS IN THEIR GROUPS AND SO, THAT WE'LL BE BUYING THE WORKBOOKS BECAUSE EACH ONE GETS THEIR OWN WORKBOOK. SO, WE'LL BE BUYING WORKBOOKS WITH THE MONEY AND ALSO BE PURCHASING TRAVEL BAGS. 
          WE HAVE MOST. A LOT OF OUR PARTICIPANTS COME STRAIGHT OUT OF JAIL AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. THEY DON'T HAVE DEODORANT, THEY DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, SHAMPOO AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, WE GET TRAVEL KITS AND SO, THAT THEY CAN HAVE THOSE AND TAKE THOSE INTO THEIR TRANSITIONAL LEAVING OR THEIR INPATIENT TREATMENT SO THAT 
          [00:25:01]
THOSE OF FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR THOSE THINGS. 
          ALREADY GIVEN THE CHECK TO THE TREASURER, SO IT'S ALREADY THERE, SO. 
          OKAY, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. THANK YOU. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPLANATION. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO COMMENTS. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 26I58? YES. MS. CAPPS? AYE. MS. LEWISON? YES. I'M SORRY. MS. DAVIS VOTES AYE. 
          MS. CAPPS VOTES AYE. MS. LEWISON VOTES YES. AND MS. BLACKWOOD? AYE. BLACKWOOD VOTES YES. MR. PERSON? YES. MR. MS. MASSEY? AYE. MS. MASSEY VOTES YES. MS. CURRY? AYE. MR. KEITH VOTES YES. SORRY, IT'S BEEN A DAY. I'M SO SORRY. MR. KEITH? YES. OKAY. MR. KEITH DOES VOTE YES. MS. WARD? YES. MS. VOTE. 
          WARD VOTES YES. MS. YOUNG- BAKER. YES. MS. YOUNG-BAKER VOTES YES. MR. ROBINSON? YES. 
          MR. ROBINSON VOTES YES. MR. MCCOY? YES. MR. MCCOY VOTES YES. MR. ELLIOT? YES. MR. ELLIOTT VOTES YES. AND MS. MEDLOCK? YES. SO, THAT IS 14 I 0 NAYS. 14 AYES. WE WILL SEND 26I58 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. 
          [Additional Item 2]
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ RESOLUTION 26I59, A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE PULASKI COUNTY JUDGE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR AN ARKANSAS COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE GRANT. I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS FOR THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. 
          SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 26I59 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. 
          JUSTICE JUSTIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? NOT JUSTICE JUSTIN, BUT THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, THIS IS A GRANT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR LAST YEAR. THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE THE GRANT. SO, IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. THERE'S NO OBLIGATION TO THE COUNTY. 
          THE MATCHING FUND WILL BE PICKED UP BY THE NON-PROFIT PROVIDENCE PARK. ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. 
          AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 20, RESOLUTION 26I59? MS. MEDLOCK. HI. MS. MEDLOCK VOTES YES. MR. ELLIOTT? YES. 
          MR. ELLIOTT VOTES YES. MR. MCCOY? YES. MR. MCCOY VOTES YES. MR. ROBINSON? YES. MR. ROBINSON VOTES YES. MS. YOUNG-BAKER? YES. MS. YOUNG-BAKER VOTES YES. MS. WARD? YES. MS. WARD VOTES YES. 
          MR. KEITH? YES. MR. KEITH VOTES YES. MS. CURRY? AYE. MS. CURRY? VOTES YES. MS. MASSEY? AYE. MS. MASSEY VOTES YES. 
          MR. PERSON? YES. VOTES YES. 
          MR., MS. BLACKWOOD? NO. MS. BLACKWOOD VOTES NO. MS. LEWISON? YES. MS. LEWISON VOTES YES. MS. CAPPS? AYE. MS. CAPPS VOTES YES. AND MS. DAVIS? YES. MS. DAVIS VOTES YES. SO, THAT WOULD BE 13 AYES AND ONE NAY. 13 AYES. ONE DAY WE WILL SEND 26I59 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. 
          [Additional Item 3]
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ RESOLUTION 26I60, A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY ACKNOWLEDGING THE BALLOT INITIATIVE ALLOWING THE CITIZENS OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REPLACE THE CURRENT AT LARGE CITY COUNCIL VOTING SYSTEM WITH A WARD-BASED SYSTEM. 
          JUSTICE YOUNG-BAKER, I RECOMMEND A, MY BRAIN JUST DIED. HOLD ON. SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR A DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. SECOND. 
          SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND RESOLUTION 26I60 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. 
          JUSTICE YOUNG-BAKER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN OR DO YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TO EXPLAIN FOR YOU? SO BASICALLY, WHAT THIS WAS A. A BALLOT INITIATIVE PROCESS WHERE THERE WERE PEOPLE, CITIZENS, CONSTITUENTS, RESIDENTS THAT WANTED TO GO TO A WARD-BASED VOTING SYSTEM VERSUS AT LARGE. SO, THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO VOTE IN, THEY WANTED THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO BE IN THEIR WARD AND VOTE ONLY ON THAT PARTICULAR PERSON VERSUS THE WHOLE CITY VOTING ON ELECTED OFFICIALS. SO, THEY DID A BALLOT INITIATIVES. THEY WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED SIGNATURES FOR THEIR BALLOTS. AND SO, THE PROCESS NOW IS THAT WE NEED TO PASS A RECOMMENDATION, BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO GARNISH THEIR SIGNATURES, 
          [00:30:01]
GET THEIR AFFIDAVITS, TURN IT INTO THE CLERK'S OFFICE. AND SO, THIS IS THE NEXT STEP. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, JUSTICE YOUNG-BAKER. JUSTICE ROBINSON. THANK YOU. SO, I LIVE IN JACKSONVILLE AND IT'S KIND OF TROUBLING THAT THIS INITIATIVE BYPASSED ME. 
          JUSTICE YOUNG-BAKER HAS EVERYTHING SOUTH OF GRAHAM ROAD, THAT IS HER DISTRICT. I'M EVERYTHING NORTH OF GRAHAM ROAD, IF YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS. I WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL IN JACKSONVILLE FOR FOUR YEARS AS AN ALDERMAN. 
          AND SO, I JUST SO Y' ALL KNOW, DO NOT SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION. 
          I THINK IT WILL CAUSE DIVISION WITHIN THE CITY BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO END UP SEPARATING THE CITY INTO WARDS THAT WILL ONLY BE REPRESENTED BY THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS. 
          AND SO, WITH THAT, I JUST LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE, JUSTICE ROBINSON? NO. 
          ALL RIGHT, JUSTICE YOUNG-BAKER. SO, JUST FOR 100% TRANSPARENCY, I AM A MEMBER OF THE NAACP OF JACKSONVILLE WHO LED THIS INITIATIVE, AND I DID SPEAK TO MR. ROBINSON AND LET HIM KNOW THAT I WAS DOING THIS INITIATIVE WITH THEM AND ASKED HIM IF HE SUPPORTED IT. HE DID TELL ME, NO, HE DID NOT SUPPORT IT. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A GOOD THING, BECAUSE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW HAS A STAKE IN THEIR WARD, AND THE PERSON THAT REPRESENTS YOU IN YOUR PARTICULAR WARD, THEY ARE GOING TO BE THE BEST PERSON TO LOOK OUT FOR YOUR INTEREST AND BE YOUR VOICE. PLEASE, I ASK YOU TO PLEASE REFRAIN FROM COMMENTS AGAIN. YOU'LL GET THE AUDIENCE AT THE END. 
          YOU'LL GET OR WHEN APPROPRIATE, YOU'LL GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU CHOOSE TO. SO, PLEASE ALLOW US TO WORK UP HERE. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO. I YIELD. 
          OKAY. OKAY. JUSTICE CAPPS. I'M UNSURE IF THIS IS FOR THE CHAIR JUSTIN POTENTIALLY, BUT GIVEN THAT THIS IS A RESOLUTION, IT IS JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY MET THE CRITERIA. AM I CORRECT? AND SO, WE HAVE SIGNED DOCUMENTATION FROM TERRY HOLLINGSWORTH OF COUNTY CLERK THAT SAID THEY'VE MET THE CRITERIA. AND SO, THIS IS JUST ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THAT. THANK YOU. I YIELD. 
          JUSTICE DAVIS, I THINK MY QUESTION IS. WELL, MY QUESTION. 
          SO, LITTLE ROCK HAS AT LARGE, RIGHT. THE CITY COUNCIL IS, WE REPRESENT OUR, WHERE WE LIVE, SO THEY'RE TRYING TO BE MORE LIKE US. OKAY. I YIELD. 
          OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THERE BEING NONE. 
          AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL A ROLL ON RES. RESOLUTION 26I60 MS. DAVIS? YES. MS. DAVIS VOTES YES. MS. CAPPS? AYE. MS. CAPPS VOTES YES. MS. LEWISON? YES. 
          MS. LEWISON VOTES YES. MS. BLACKWOOD? AYE. MS. BLACKWOOD VOTES YES. MR. PERSON. YES. 
          PERSON VOTES YES. MS. MASSEY? AYE. MS. MASSEY VOTES YES. 
          MS. CURRY? AYE. MS. CURRY VOTES YES. MR. KEITH? YES. MR. KEITH VOTES YES. MS. WARD? YES. MS. WARD VOTES YES. MS. YOUNG-BAKER? YES. MS. YOUNG-BAKER VOTES YES. MR. ROBINSON? NO. MR. ROBINSON VOTES NO. MR. MCCOY? YES. MR. MCCOY VOTES YES. MR. ELLIOT? YES. MR. ELLIOT VOTES YES. 
          AND MS. MEDLOCK? AYE. MS. MEDLOCK VOTES YES. SO, THAT IS 13 AYES AND 1 NO. 13 AYES, 1 NO. WE WILL SEND 26I60 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE RECOMMENDED DO-PASS. 
          [26-I-56  AN ORDINANCE REGULATING HIGH-INTENSITY DIGITAL  INFRASTRUCTURE USES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI  COUNTY; CLASSIFYING SUCH USES AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL;  ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS; PROVIDING  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, COST RECOVERY, INSPECTION,  MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT, DECOMMISSIONING, AND OTHER  SAFEGUARDS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ]
AMY, WILL JUMP BACK ON OUR REGULAR SCHEDULE. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ ORDINANCE 26I56. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE USES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY. CLASSIFYING SUCH USES AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. 
          ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, PROVIDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, COST RECOVERY, INSPECTION, MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT, DECOMMISSIONING AND OTHER SAFEGUARDS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, SIR. 
          JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO-PASS. SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 26I56 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. 
          JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? YES. THIS IS A 
          [00:35:06]
CUP ORDINANCE THAT IS GOING TO MAKE REGULATION. IT IS GOING TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS AND THEIR PROPERTY. IT IS PROTECTING OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS. IT'S PROTECTING OUR ROADS AND OUR TAXPAYERS. IT'S PROTECTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY. IT'S PROTECTING THE COUNTY AFTER THE PROJECT IS BUILT. 
          IT'S GIVING TRANSPARENCY. IT'S ALSO MAKING SURE THAT TODAY'S APPROVAL DOESN'T BECOME TOMORROW'S UNCHECKED EXPANSION. I BELIEVE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS MEMBERS OF THIS QUORUM COURT IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED US. WE SHOULD WELCOME RESPONSIBILITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE SHOULD NEVER ASK OUR CITIZENS TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF A MAJOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT WITHOUT FIRST MAKING SURE WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS HAVE ENFORCEABLE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT SAY NO TO DEVELOPMENT. IT SAYS THAT DEVELOPMENT MUST BE RESPONSIBLE. IT SAYS THAT OUR CITIZENS MATTER. IT SAYS THAT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE MATTERS. IT SAYS THAT OUR WATER, ROADS, ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY AND TAXPAYER'S MATTER. THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING EVERYONE TO VOTE FOR THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. SO, WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND THEN WE'VE GOT COMMENTS. SO, WE'LL START OFF WITH JUSTICE. AND REMEMBER, YOUR LIGHTS ARE NOT ON. SO, JUST LET ME SEE NOW. I'LL GET TO YOU AS I CAN. JUSTICE ELLIOT, YOU'VE GOT IT. JUST LIKE TALK TO YOU. THIS ORDINANCE THAT IS VERY TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THAT HAS NOT BEEN PLENTY BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT IS THE ONLY WRITING OF ONE CITIZEN AND HAS NOT BEEN VOTED BY THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THEREFORE, I WANT TO MAKE AN, A MOTION THAT WE REFER ITEM 26I56 TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION AND. 
          AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? WE ALREADY HAVE. HOLD ON. HE MADE A PROPER MOTION. SECOND. IT'S REALLY DEAD. NO. 
          WAS THAT IN TIME, JUSTIN? NO, PROPER MOTION. 
          PROPER MOTION, PROPER SECOND. 
          SO, SO, WITHOUT DISCUSSION WE'LL REFER THIS. 
          OKAY. WE STILL DISCUSS. SO. 
          SO, REFERRING IS DEBATABLE. 
          OKAY. SO, CAN YOU RESTATE. CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION, JUSTICE ELLIOTT? YEAH. AND SPEAKING TO MIC. NO, I DON'T WANT YOU TO READ THE WHOLE THING. I JUST WANT YOU TO SEE IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR STATEMENT. TALKING TO MIC. USE YOUR MICROPHONE. 
          THIS RIGHT HERE? YEAH. WHAT? YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION. WHAT. 
          WHAT'S YOUR MOTION? IF YOU HAVE TO READ IT AGAIN, THAT'S FINE. I'LL JUST. WELL, ALL RIGHT, I'LL JUST READ IT AGAIN. 
          OKAY, THAT'S. THAT'S FINE. 
          YEAH. THIS ORDINANCE IS VERY TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THAT HAS NOT BEEN PLENTY VESTED BY THE COUNTY DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER. IT IS THIS WRITING OF ONE CITIZEN AND HAS NOT BEEN VETTED BY THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, I WANT TO MAKE A NOTION THAT WE REFER ITEM 26I56, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WHAT. WHAT IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING. HE'S RECOMMENDING, HE'S MOVING THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION. 
          EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME. WE, WE GET IT. THE ORDINANCE IS. 
          THAT'S. WHAT. WHAT. YOU'RE. 
          OKAY. AND THEN. YOU GOT A SECOND. SO, WHAT. WHAT. NOW WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS. OR IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS RECOMMENDATION. 
          JUSTICE CURRY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HIS RECOMMENDATION. 
          WE'RE NOT ON BACK, WE'RE NOT ON THE ORDINANCE. YEAH, WE'RE BACK ON HIS RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. I JUST LIKE TO SAY IT'S BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT THIS 
          [00:40:01]
PROCESS IS OUT OF ORDER TO GO WITH THIS ORDINANCE THAT'S ON THE TABLE BEFORE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. 
          LIKE ALL OF THE OTHER ORDINANCE THAT HAVE BEEN SENT, IN ALL FAIRNESS TO OUR COMMITTEE, AND WE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND WE'RE GOING TO PURPOSELY VIOLATE OUR OWN RULES. TO ME, I WASN'T ELECTED TO DO THAT. 
          ELECTED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES. 
          EXCUSE ME. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. 
          DISRESPECT. I'M ASKING THE AUDIENCE IF YOU'LL GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY. JUSTICE CURRY, I'LL, I'LL DO MY BEST TO TRY TO KEEP ORDER, BUT I WANT TO ACCESS TO ACTUALLY KEEP ORDER UP HERE AS WELL. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? YES, I DO. 
          OKAY. THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT'S CONFLICTING. NOW, REMEMBER, WE'RE JUST ON, ON, ON SENDING. WELL, IT'S A PART OF MY COMMENTS. I'M SORRY? IT'S A PART OF MY COMMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE. THERE ARE MISLEADING ITEMS EVEN IN THIS PERMIT, CONDITIONAL PERMIT. THAT'S NOT TIED IN PROPERLY TO THE REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET IN PLACE. SO, IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON SOMETHING, WE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PROPERLY TIED TO THE RIGHT LAWS AND WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF OUR, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A LAND USE, BUT WE WANT TO HAVE A LAND USE, BUT IT'S NOT FAIR TO. 
          FOR SOMEBODY TO BRING THIS FORWARD AND NOT ALLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURES TO BE EXERCISED BY EVERY ELECTED QUORUM COURT MEMBER. ALTHOUGH WE ARE CONCERNED. NOW, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR PUBLIC. 
          BUT I WANT TO THROW ONE OTHER THING IN SINCE I'VE GOT THE MIC. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER ITEM ON THE TABLE. IF WRIGHTSVILLE BECOME A NEXT ED TO THE CITY. WHERE? NO, IT'S, IT WAS NEWS TODAY. OKAY, IT WAS NEWS TODAY. BUT CAN. 
          IT WOULD TAKE US COMPLETELY OUT OF THIS. PETE. HOLD ON. 
          NO, NO. HOLD ON. 
          HOLD ON. THIS IS A FAIR PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. JUSTIN. 
          THIS IS A FAIR PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. JUSTICE CURRY. JUSTICE CURRY, PLEASE. 
          AND I'VE STATED WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY. PLEASE, THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'M GOOD. 
          I'M DONE. OKAY. I'M DONE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          JUSTICE WARD. OKAY. WE'VE, AND I'M SPEAKING ABOUT HIM. YEAH. 
          JUST FEELING LIKE WE SHOULD. WE, WE'VE SAT HERE WEEK AFTER WEEK AND PLAYED TABLE TENNIS ON CITIZENS OF WRIGHTSVILLE. 
          I'M NOT REAL SURE WHEN OR HOW. 
          WHY YOU FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO SEND SOMETHING TO A PLANNING BOARD. AND EVERY TIME YOU LOOK AROUND, SOMEBODY IN THAT PLANNING BOARD IS RESIGNING OR GETTING FIRED. 
          SO, THERE'S A PROBLEM SOMEWHERE. SO, WE HAVE NO BUSINESS SENDING SOMETHING TO A PLANNING BOARD, AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE PEOPLE THERE. 
          ALL RIGHT. IF THERE. IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WITH SENDING 26I56 TO THE FULL COURT. I MEANT TO, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          RIGHT. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING READY TO SAY. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. 
          SO, WHAT WE, THIS FIRST VOTE IS VOTING IF WE'RE GOING TO SEND 26I56 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MS. MEDLOCK? NO. MS. MEDLOCK VOTES NO. MR. ELLIOTT? NO. MR. ELLIOTT VOTES NO. MR. MCCOY? NO. MR. MCCOY VOTES NO. MR. ROBINSON? NO. MR. ROBINSON VOTES NO. MS. YOUNG-BAKER. NO. MS. YOUNG-BAKER VOTES NO. MS. WARD? NO. MS. WARD VOTES NO. MR. KEITH? NO. MR. KEITH VOTES NO. MS. CURRY? JUST SAY PRESENT. VOTES PRESENT. MS. MASSEY? NO. MS. MASSEY VOTES NO. MR. PERSON? NO. MR. PERSON VOTES NO. MS. BLACKWOOD? NO. MS. BLACKWOOD VOTES NO. MS. LEWISON? NO. 
          MS. LEWISON VOTES NO. MS. CAPPS? NO. MS. CAPPS VOTES NO. 
          MS. DAVIS? NO. MS. DAVIS VOTES NO. SO, THERE ARE ZERO AYES AND 14. I'M SORRY, ZERO AYES. 
          THIRTEEN NAYS AND ONE VOTING PRESENT. JUSTICE ELLIOTT NEEDS 
          [00:45:01]
TO, I GUESS, EXPUNGE HIS VOTE AND. CHANGE IT TO YES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW. OKAY, SO THE FINAL VOTE WOULD BE ONE. ONE AYE. OKAY, 12. 12 NAYS AND ONE VOTING PRESENT. ONE AYE, 12 NAYS. 
          SO, THE. THE MOTION TO SEND THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FAILS. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. 
          JUSTICE ELLIOTT, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY ON THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE? OKAY. JUSTICE MCCOY. THANK YOU. 
          I GUESS I'M ASSUMING MOST OF MY QUESTIONS WOULD BE FOR JUDGE GRIFFEN, SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IF HE CAN COME TO THE MIC, IF THAT'S OKAY. 
          YES. YEAH, THAT'S FINE. JUDGE GRIFFEN. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M WENDELL GRIFFEN. I'M AT THE MIC. HEY, JUDGE, PROBABLY MY FIRST QUESTION IS, DID YOU DRAFT THIS OR WHO HELPED YOU DRAFT THIS? WHERE DID THIS DRAFT COME FROM THIS ORDINANCE? 26I56 IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL, BUT NOT IDENTICAL TO 26I31A. 
          26I31A HAS BEEN AND IS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. 26I56 IS A REVISION OF PROVISIONS N 26I31A. AND THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS, AS I WILL TELL THE PLANNING BOARD ON THURSDAY EVENING, DEAL WITH ITEM 17 AND ITEM ARTICLE 17 AND ARTICLE 8, ARTICLE 17 DEALING WITH DECOMMISSIONING, AND ARTICLE 8 DEALING WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW. THESE ARE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          AND SOME VERY CLEAR PROPORTIONALITY WITH REGARD TO EXPENDITURES AND BUDGETING FOR ANY MONITORING COSTS THAT AN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO PAY. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. OBVIOUSLY, I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THOSE ITEMS BECAUSE WE'RE ON THIS ORDINANCE, BUT YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK A REAL EASY, BASIC QUESTION, AND I GUESS I'LL GO TO PAGE FIVE. BUT THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE. I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT. THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE IS ONLY ABOUT HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE USES THAT HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ON PAGE FIVE, LINES 24 THROUGH 36, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO, ANY HIDIU THAT IS LESS THAN 10 MEGAWATTS OR LESS THAN 100,000 SQUARE FEET, OR USES LESS THAN 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY, OR USES LESS THAN 3 MEGAWATTS OF ITS OWN ENERGY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY IT. IT IS NOT, IT IS EXEMPT FROM THIS ORDINANCE, CORRECT? THIS ORDINANCE ONLY APPLIES TO THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE CITED. YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. PROBABLY, AND I'VE GOT SEVERAL QUESTIONS. CHAIR, I HOPE THAT'S OKAY. I'M GOING TO KEEP GOING. OKAY. AS I ALLUDED TO JUDGE GRIFFEN EARLIER, I READ IT, AND SO, ANYWAYS, I'VE GOT SOME. LOTS OF QUESTIONS HERE. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT MY CONCERN WITH. IF THIS WERE TO PASS. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DO. I AM NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT DO BECAUSE THAT IS AN EXERCISE IN SPECULATION. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WILL CONSIDER, WHEN THEY WILL CONSIDER IT, OR WHY. YEAH, I REMEMBER YOU. 
          YOU STOOD IN THIS COURTROOM 10 YEARS AGO OVER ANOTHER ITEM BEFORE THIS BODY AND THE BODY ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE. AND THE LEGISLATURE WAS QUICK TO COME IN AND TAKE THE ABILITY OF THE COUNTY AWAY TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. AND THEY'VE DONE THAT MORE THAN ONCE. SO, OBVIOUSLY, I JUST WANTING TELL MY COLLEAGUES AND AS I TOLD YOU, JUDGE, I PLAN TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE. 
          BUT JUST KNOW, COLLEAGUES, WHATEVER WE DO HERE, IF IT'S HARSH ENOUGH, THE LEGISLATURE HAS MANY TIMES BEFORE COME IN AND TAKEN THE ABILITY OF COUNTIES AWAY. SO, LET'S GO TO PAGE THREE. NOPE. EXCUSE ME. 
          PAGE SIX. EXCUSE ME. LINES 14 THROUGH 20. I'LL TRY TO BE VERY QUICK AND JUST HAVE A QUESTION 
          [00:50:03]
HERE ABOUT THIS. YES. OKAY. 
          SO, NOT LINES 14 THROUGH 20. 
          EXCUSE ME. LINES 12 AND 13 UNDER THE APPLICATION CONTENTS. 
          LINE 9 SAYS, THE APPLICATION SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND PROPOSED OPERATOR AND SHALL INCLUDE AT MINIMUM, AND THEN A LEGAL DESCRIPTION, OWNERSHIP, SITE, CONTROL, PARCEL MAP AND IDENTIFICATION OF ALL OWNERS, OPERATORS, AFFILIATES AND CONTROLLING ENTITIES. MAY I ASK YOU TO RECITE THE PAGE AGAIN, SIR? YEAH, PAGE. OH, I'M SORRY. 
          PAGE SEVEN. MY APOLOGIES. PAGE SEVEN. I WAS ON PAGE SIX AND I WASN'T FINDING THAT LANGUAGE. 
          WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. PAGE SEVEN. WE'LL START AT LINE NINE AGAIN. 
          APPLICATION SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND A PROPOSED OPERATOR AND SHALL INCLUDE AT MINIMUM, THEN LINES 12 AND 13, SAY, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, OWNERSHIP, SITE CONTROL, PARCEL MAP, IDENTIFICATION OF ALL OWNERS, OPERATORS, AFFILIATES AND CONTROLLING ENTITIES. THAT'S JUST AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. AND I THINK THERE'S OTHER LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT IF OWNERS ARE ADDED AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN, BUT I KNOW YOU HAVE LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT TALKS ABOUT IF IT'S TRANSFERRED, IF IT'S SOLD, CERTAIN THINGS HAVE TO TAKE PLACE. WHAT IF OWNERS ARE ADDED? IF OWNERS ARE ADDED, THEY WOULD REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S CONTAINED. THAT'S LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE? YES, SIR. 
          SO, MAYBE I MISSED THAT THEN. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, PAGE, LET'S GO TO PAGE SIX, LINES 14 THROUGH 20. PAGE SIX, LINES 14 THROUGH 20. YES, SIR. 
          YEAH, COULD YOU EXPLAIN 14 THROUGH 20, PLEASE? MAYBE PUT IT INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE LAYMAN'S TERMS. PAGE 14 THROUGH 20 BASICALLY SAY THAT A FEDERAL, STATE OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR REGULATORY APPROVAL MAY CONSTITUTE RELEVANT OR CONTROLLING EVIDENCE CONCERNING MATTERS WITHIN THAT ENTITY'S JURISDICTION. BASICALLY, THE PSC CONTROLS THE PSC, ADEQ CONTROLS ADEQ. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CONTROLS THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER, CONTROLS CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER, AND THEREFORE THOSE DECISIONS ARE RELEVANT AND MAY BE CONTROLLING EVIDENCE CONCERNING MATTERS WITHIN THE UTILITY'S OR ENTITY'S JURISDICTION AS PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE LAW. 
          THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THAT ITEM C SIMPLY SAYS THAT A UTILITY APPROVAL OR AGREEMENT OR STUDY OR DETERMINATION MAY CONSTITUTE RELEVANT EVIDENCE CONCERNING MATTERS WITHIN THE UTILITY'S RESPONSIBILITY EXPERTISE. BUT THE LAST SENTENCE ADDS THE FURTHER CLARIFICATION. NO SUCH APPROVAL AGREEMENT, STUDY OR DETERMINATION. 
          STANDING ALONE COMPELS PULASKI COUNTY TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR ESTABLISHES COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY LAND USE COMPATIBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THAT REASON FOR THAT IS, ENERGY CAN DECIDE TO SELL ELECTRICITY TO WHOMEVER IT PLEASES. AND THE PSC SETS THE RATES AND THE CONDITIONS FOR THAT. CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER CAN SELL WATER TO WHOMEVER IT PLEASES. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITS AS IT PLEASES. NONE OF THEM HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAND USE RESPONSIBILITY. 
          DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A PROJECT OF THIS CHARACTER IS SUITABLE FOR A SPECIFIC LOCATION IN PULASKI COUNTY. THE ONLY BODY WITH THAT JURISDICTION IS PULASKI COUNTY. OKAY, THANK YOU. LET'S GO BACK TO PAGE FOUR. I MISSED ONE. 
          MINISTERIAL PERMITS. I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK THAT UP. DO YOU. CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT THAT IS? PAGE FOUR. YEAH, I'M SORRY. 
          PAGE FOUR, LINE 26, LINE 26, LINE 26. MINISTERIAL PERMITS. 
          MINISTERIAL PERMITS. 
          CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT THEY. 
          A MINISTERIAL PERMIT IS, FOR INSTANCE, A PLANNING DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT. FOR INSTANCE, THE SITE PLAN REVIEW THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT GIVES IS A PERMIT ON A SITE PLAN. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LAND USE AUTHORIZATION FOR AN ENTIRE PROJECT. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THOSE MINISTERIAL KINDS OF SITUATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REVIEW REQUIREMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          THERE IS ORDINARILY, IN A MINISTERIAL REVIEW CONTEXT, NO PUBLIC NOTICE. 
          [00:55:01]
FOR INSTANCE, THERE IS, IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW CONTEXT, NO HEARING, NO APPEAL. AND SO, THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF A USE PERMIT ARE NOT PROVIDED. 
          THE PROTECTIONS ARE NOT PROVIDED BY MINISTRY REVIEW. 
          THAT'S THE REASON WHY MINISTERIAL REVIEW IS NOT IN ITSELF SUFFICIENT. HAVE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION? YES. 
          OKAY. AND AGAIN, SINCE WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING TO CONSIDER THIS LARGE OF AN ITEM, THAT'S WHY I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS. I WELCOME THE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. 
          LET'S GO TO PAGE SEVEN. PAGE SEVEN, LINE 27. WE'LL TRY TO. 
          I'LL TRY TO TAKE THIS IN CONSECUTIVE ORDER HERE INSTEAD OF GOING BACKWARDS. PAGE SEVEN, LINE 27 THROUGH 32. YES, SIR. 
          IS THIS PROVIDER YOU TALK ABOUT. WOULD THIS BE SOMEONE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HIRE OR THE COUNTY WOULD HIRE? PAGE SEVEN, LINE 22 IS PART OF LINE 27, I STAND CORRECTED. 
          IS PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION, APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES. AND THE APPLICATION CONTENTS AS SPECIFIED AT PAGE 7 AT ARTICLE 62D, TALKS ABOUT THAT. THE APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A, SPECIFICALLY A WATER AND WASTEWATER PLAN IDENTIFYING AVERAGE DAY, MAXIMUM DAY, ANNUAL POTABLE, NON-POTABLE REUSE, COOLING, DISCHARGE, DROUGHT CURTAILMENT CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM EACH APPLICABLE WATER OR WASTEWATER PROVIDER DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PROPOSED DEMAND CAN REASONABLY SERVED SUBJECT TO ANY IDENTIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, CAPACITY LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS OR FINAL AGREEMENTS. 
          IF THE PROVIDER CONFIRMATION IS NOT REASONABLY AVAILABLE, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT ANALYSIS. PROVIDER CONTENT IS THE PROVIDER OF THAT STUDY. 
          OKAY. AND I APOLOGIZE. 
          ACTUALLY, ON LINE 29, IT'S THE QUALIFIED INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL. IS THAT PERSON GOING TO BE HIRED BY THE APPLICANT? THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT AN ANALYSIS PREPARED BY QUALIFIED INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL DEMONSTRATING THE PROPOSAL DEMAND CAN REASONABLY SERVE THAT THE APP, THAT WOULD BE THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY. 
          OKAY. I KIND OF HAVE CONCERNS. IT'S SORT OF LIKE A PARTY IN A LAWSUIT BRINGING THEIR OWN EXPERT IN TO TRY TO SWAY THE JURY. SO, I, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S JUST OBVIOUSLY IF WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT LARGE PROJECTS AND SO FORTH, AND MAKING SURE THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, THEN IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD WANT THAT PERSON HIRED BY THE COUNTY INSTEAD OF THE APPLICANT. COULD I RESPOND TO YOUR CONCERN, PLEASE? IT IS IN MY VIEW, UNREALISTIC TO. FOR THE COUNTY TO IMPOSE ON THE APPLICANT AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE THE COUNTY CHOOSE THE MATERIAL THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO PUT IN ITS OWN APPLICATION. IF THE ANALYSIS IS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF THE RIGHT, THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE ANALYST TO PROVIDE THAT ANALYSIS. 
          OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD. THE PAGE EIGHT. PAGE EIGHT. AND I THANK YOU, SIR, MR. MCCOY, FOR LETTING ME KNOW THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE A SPACE BETWEEN LINES THREE AND LINES FOUR. THANK YOU. AND I WASN'T GOING TO MENTION THAT, BUT I APPRECIATE. WELL, AS I TOLD THE JUDGE BEFORE THE MEETING, IF I HAD TO DRAFT ALL THIS, THERE'D BE A LOT MORE ERRORS. 
          BUT ANYWAYS, THIS LINE, I GUESS 20. OH, YEAH. LINE 32. 
          PUBLIC NOTICE, LINE THREE. 
          TWO. YES, SIR. THIS IS THE. 
          AFTER THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, THE COUNTY SHOULD PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE OF A PLANNING BOARD HEARING, SO FORTH. AND IT TALKS ABOUT BEING IN THE PAPER. IS THAT COST INCLUDED IN THE APPLICANT'S FEES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SUBMIT. AND SO, THE COUNTY ISN'T ACTUALLY OUT THAT TYPE OF MONEY. THE APPLICATION FEE IS A GENERAL APPLICATION. 5,000, 25,000. 
          HOWEVER, UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS A ENTITY OF PULASKI COUNTY, AND PART OF ITS GENERAL BUSINESS IS TO HAVE THESE HEARINGS. 
          JUSTICE. THE SAME WOULD APPLY IF THE PLANNING BOARD WERE TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE. I'M SORRY, JUDGE. I'M SORRY. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE. THE COST TO PUTTING IT IN THE NEWSPAPER THAT THOSE COST. THE COUNTY WOULD BEAR THOSE COSTS. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S. 
          THAT'S AS IT IS NOW. YEAH. 
          [01:00:01]
WELL INTO MY NEXT QUESTION, ON PAGE NINE, PAGE NINE, LINES 11 THROUGH 15. YES, SIR. IS THIS CUSTOMARY AS WELL, THIS HEARING PROCEDURE? THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL CONDUCT A PUBLIC QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, OR IS THIS SOMETHING COMPLETELY NEW TO THE PLANNING BOARD? THIS IS A REQUIREMENT UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS. IF THERE IS TO BE A DUE PROCESS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THERE IS TO BE A COUNTY ACTION ON THAT APPLICATION, THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NOTICE. 
          MOREOVER, THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR MAY EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. OKAY, SO IT'S DICTATED BY STATE LAW. YES, SIR. WELL, IT'S ALSO DICTATED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. OKAY. 
          SOMETHING MORE SUPREME THAN THE COUNTY LEVEL. THE FIFTH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY THE 14TH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. LET'S GO TO PAGE 11. TOP OF THE PAGE. 
          YES, SIR. THIS IS SECTION 8.2. 
          MATERIAL MODIFICATION TRIGGERS. 
          YES, SIR. LINES FOUR AND FIVE. 
          WHAT IF THEY GENERATE THEIR OWN POWER? IS IT. I'M ASSUMING IT IS A MATERIAL MODIFICATION. 
          BUT JUST TO CONFIRM, IF THEY GENERATE THEIR OWN POWER AND THEY TRY TO DO A MATERIAL MODIFICATION OF MORE THAN 10% OF WHAT THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED FOR, OR MORE THAN 5 MEGAWATTS, THE LESSER OF THE TWO, DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A MATERIAL MODIFICATION? IT WOULD UNDER. 
          I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. NO. DOES IT CONSTITUTE A MATERIAL MODIFICATION TRIGGER IF THEY GENERATE THEIR OWN POWER OVER THOSE THRESHOLDS? YES, SIR. IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A MATERIAL MODIFICATION. AGAIN, THE IMPACT WOULD BE THE SAME WHETHER THEY MATERIAL. WHETHER YOU GENERATE THEIR OWN POWER OR HAD THE POWER COME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE. OKAY, PAGE 13, PAGE 13 5, LINE 5. AS BEING A JUDGE, YOU'LL KNOW THE WORD SHALL IS VERY IMPORTANT IN CODE. YES, SIR. IT TELLS PEOPLE WHAT THEY MUST DO HERE. 
          IT TELLS THE QUORUM COURT SHALL CONDUCT A PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL BASED PRIMARILY ON THE RECORD. YES, SIR. THAT SEEMS PRETTY UNIQUE. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR, SINCE 2015. HOW'S THIS GOING TO PLAY OUT? ARE WE JUST GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL, SPECIAL MEETING? CAN YOU KIND OF PAINT THE PICTURE OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IN REALITY? YES, SIR, I CAN. 
          LET ME GIVE YOU THE REASON WHY. 
          IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT HELD THAT WHEN THE QUORUM COURT ACTS ON MATTERS OF THIS NATURE, LAND USE PERMITTING LAND, IT IS ACTING IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT LEGALLY DO SO WITHOUT HAVING A REVIEW. 
          AND THIS PROVISION IN SECTION 9. THREE SATISFY THE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF THAT MARCH 2026 ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT DECISION. THAT'S ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT LED ME TO. 
          TO REVISE WHAT IS IN 26I31A TO ADD THE SECTION 9 3 BECAUSE I DID SOME MORE RESEARCH AND FOUND THAT MARCH 2026 DECISION. 
          I, I CONFESS TO BEING A BOOKWORM. ALL RIGHT, I'LL TRY TO WRAP THIS UP. PAGE 22. PAGE 22. YES, SIR. PAGE 22. I NEED TO GIVE YOU. I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THIS. LET ME. THIS IS THE SECTION 11 EXTRAORDINARY INVESTIGATION ENFORCEMENT COST. YES, SIR. 
          SO, LINES 30 SAY EXTRAORDINARY INVESTIGATION ENFORCEMENT COSTS MAY BE RECOVERED FROM THE PERMIT HOLDER. YOU DEFINE PERMIT HOLDER AT THE VERY BEGINNING. YOU ALSO DEFINE APPLICANT. I'M TRYING TO COME UP WITH AN EXAMPLE WHERE THE PERMIT HOLDER MUST PAY A COST. IN LINES 34 AND 35, IT SAY THE COST RESULTED FROM A MISTAKE. SO, LET'S SAY THE PERMIT HOLDER MAKES A MISTAKE, YOU KNOW, KNOWINGLY, 
          [01:05:01]
RECKLESSLY, MATERIALLY NEGLIGENT, MISSTATEMENT, WHATEVER. SO, DOES THE COST GET RECOVERED BY THE COUNTY? I MEAN, SURELY IF THE PERMIT HOLDER HAS TO PAY FOR MAKING A MISTAKE, HE WOULDN'T PAY. THE PERMIT HOLDER WOULDN'T PAY HIMSELF. 
          SO, MAYBE I'M MISTAKEN ON THIS, BUT IF THERE'S SOME PAYMENT TO BE MADE, DOES IT GO TO THE COUNTY? IT DOES. OKAY, SIR. ALL RIGHT. AND IF I MAY, THE PROVISION OF EXTRAORDINARY INVESTIGATION ENFORCEMENT COSTS THAT YOU REFER TO UNDER SECTION 11.9B REFERS TO THE COST RESULTING FROM A KNOWING, RECKLESS OR MATERIALLY NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT, MISREPRESENTATION OR OMISSION OF MATERIAL FACT BY THE OUTCOME OF THE PERMIT HOLDER. SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE KINDS OF THINGS ARE NOT WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER. 
          BUT WHERE A PERMIT HOLDER HAS MADE A FACTUAL OR OTHER MISTAKE THAT IS RECKLESS OR KNOWING OR MATERIALLY EFFECTIVELY AFFECTING THE EFFECT. THE EFFECT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS PERMIT PROCEDURE, THERE IS NOTHING RIGHT ABOUT ALLOWING THAT MISTAKE TO HAVE, HAVE NO CONSEQUENCES. 
          YEAH. OKAY. AND I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT. THAT MAKES SENSE. PAGE 26. PAGE 2 6. 
          YES, SIR. THIS SEEMS TO. 
          TO ME, SEEMS TO BE A CONFLICT. AND SO, OBVIOUSLY, IF THE PLANNING BOARD GOT THEIR HANDS ON THIS, THEY COULD FIGURE IT ALL OUT, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT THERE. 
          SECTION 12.3 LIMITS. LET ME JUST READ IT. INSPECTION AUTHORITY SHALL NOT REQUIRE ACCESS TO CUSTOMER DATA, PERSONAL DATA, PROPRIETARY ALGORITHMS, CYBERSECURITY CREDENTIALS, COMPUTING CONTENT, OR SECURE SYSTEMS UNRELATED TO LAND USE COMPLIANCE. MAKES SENSE. I LOOK OVER HERE AT 12.5 ON PAGE 28. YES, SIR, SAME SECTION. SO, WE WENT FROM 12.3 LIMITS TO 12.5. LINE 17 THROUGH 19 SEEM TO BE IN THE CONFLICT, MAYBE IN PART OR IN WHOLE. IT READS, COMPLIANCE RECORDS SHALL BE RETAINED FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AND MADE AVAILABLE UPON REASONABLE REQUEST. AND HERE'S MY CONCERN. THE COUNTY SHALL HANDLE TRADE SECRETS, SECURITY INFORMATION, AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING THE ARKANSAS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. SO, MAYBE I'M CONFUSED. IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE 12.3 SAYS, HEY, THE INSPECTION AUTHORITY DOESN'T ALLOW THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OR WHOEVER THE INSPECTOR IS. I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WOULD BE NECESSARILY, BUT SOMEONE ON THE COUNTY CAN'T GET CUSTOMER DATA, CAN'T GET PERSONAL DATA, PROPRIETARY ALGORITHM, CYBERSECURITY CREDENTIALS, COMPUTING CONTENT, SECURE SYSTEMS. BUT IN 12.5, IT SAYS, THE COUNTY SHALL HANDLE TRADE SECRETS, SECURITY INFORMATION, AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 
          WHAT AM I MISSING OR IS THERE A CONFLICT? THERE'S NOT A MISSING, ACTUALLY. THOSE TWO SECTIONS ARE COMPLEMENTARY. 
          12.3, AS YOU MENTIONED, CLARIFIES THAT INSPECTION RECORDS SHALL NOT REQUIRE ACCESS TO. AND WITHOUT READING THE WHOLE THING, WHAT WOULD BE PROPRIETARY OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION? PROPRIETARY CUSTOMER INFORMATION OR CONFIDENTIAL CUSTOMER INFORMATION OR PROPRIETARY APPLICANT INFORMATION? SECTION 12.5, THE SECOND SENTENCE THE COUNTY SHALL HANDLE TRADE SECRETS, SECURITY INFORMATION, AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNDER APPLICABLE ARKANSAS LAW, IS SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ARKANSAS LAW PROTECTS THAT VERY CATEGORY OF MATERIAL. AND BY FIRST REFERENCING THE ARKANSAS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, AS LAWYERS WILL TELL YOU, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ALSO RESPECTS THAT PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ACT. 
          GOOD DEAL. WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT OTHER ONE AT THE TOP OF PAGE 28. OH, I GOOGLED IT, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. PAGE 30. YES, SIR. AND I'M WRAPPING UP. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR AND BODY. 
          APPRECIATE IT. PAGE 16. I'M SORRY? PAGE 30, LINE 16. I'M ASSUMING THE WORD TOLD, ANOTHER SYNONYM WOULD BE PAUSED. TOLD IS A TERM THAT IS USED IN LEGAL COMMUNITY, MEANING THAT YOU STOP THE RUNNING OF THE CLOCK. OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          YES. OKAY, I. I YIELD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. GRIFFEN. 
          APPRECIATE IT. YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. HOLD ON. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          JUSTICE MCCOY. I'VE GOT SOME LIGHTS ON, BUT JUST ADMIT, LIKE, I'LL PUT YOU DOWN. 
          JUSTICE MASSEY, THANK YOU. 
          IN REGARDS TO THE ITEM THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT, I SUPPORT THIS, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT CURRENTLY IT'S 
          [01:10:04]
ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD OR PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT GONE OVER IT. MAY I COMMENT? OKAY, GO. YES, IF IT'S OKAY. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER IT'S ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN ENACTED. I'M TRYING TO GET TO THAT. I'M TRYING TO GET TO THAT. I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING SIMILAR. 
          PROCEDURALLY, MY POSITION IS THAT IT IS OUT OF ORDER. 
          THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THE DOCUMENT. SO, I USE WRONG CHOICE OF WORDS. SO, OUR PROCESS IS OUT OF ORDER. SO, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE LEAVE SPONSOR, INSTEAD OF SAYING MOVE THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO-PASS TO MOVE IT WITHOUT A RECOMMENDED DO-PASS, JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING. WE WANT TO PUT IT BEFORE THE FULL BODY, BUT WE'RE NOT. WE'RE JUST PUTTING IT THERE. SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT SHOULD KIND OF KILL SOME OF THE HARD BURN. NOT TO MENTION IN TWO DAYS THE PLANNING BOARD IS GOING TO REVIEW THIS. IS THAT CORRECT? I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. I CERTAINLY INTEND TO REFER TO 26I56 AS THE PLANNING BOARD AND WILL REFER 26I56 AND COMPARE IT WITH 26I31A, WHICH HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. SO, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE FULLY ADVISED THAT 26I31A IS A PRECURSOR TO 26I56. AND IF THE PLANNING BOARD WANTS TO HAVE ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO APPEAR FOR THE PLANNING BOARD AT ITS TIME AND ITS NOTICE. 
          OKAY. SO, JUSTIN, IS, IS THAT POSSIBLE? IF SHE'S WILLING TO DO THAT IF SHE CHANGES HER RECOMMENDATION. I MEAN. YES, SHE COULD CHANGE HER MOTION OR AMEND HER MOTION TO A. WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION WHICH SENDS IT. 
          IT STILL SENDS IT TO THE QUORUM COURT FOR RIGHT CONSIDERATION. IT'S JUST A NEUTRAL STATE. RIGHT. 
          SOME. I FEEL SOME OF. OF THE JUSTICES HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE PROCESS SAYING THAT IT'S NOT PROCEDURALLY CORRECT OR IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IT'S NOT. YES. SO, THE ATTORNEY SAID IT. SO. BUT I WANT US TO VOTE ON THIS. I WANT IT TO GO BEFORE OUR BODY FULL. WELL, THE. IN OUR MAIN MEETING. SO, I WOULD SAY IF SHE COULD CHANGE IT TO JUST WITHOUT A RECOMMENDED DO-PASS SO THAT IT'S THERE. I MEAN, SAME DIFFERENCE. MIGHT I MAKE ANOTHER SUGGESTION YOU'RE HAVING? YES, SIR. GO AHEAD. 
          YES, SIR. THERE IS NO PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY FOR THE INITIATION OF 26I56 TONIGHT, NOR WITH IT RECEIVING A DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. THE PLANNING BOARD CAN HAVE A SPECIAL PLANNING MEETING IF IT WERE INCLINED TO DO SO AND CAN CALL THAT MEETING WITH NOTICE. 
          WITH NOTICE. TO THE PUBLIC SPECIFYING THAT THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING WOULD BE NOTICE OF 26I56. AND AT THAT SPECIAL MEETING, THE PLANNING BOARD COULD CONSIDER 26I56 WITH 26I31A BEFORE THE PUBLIC AND HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION. AND THAT MEETING COULD BE HELD BETWEEN NOW AND THE BUSINESS MEETING OF THE QUORUM COURT ON THE 25TH. I SHOULD ADD THAT 26I56 WAS DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED A WEEK AGO, AND I MET WITH MR. WILSON ABOUT IT A WEEK AGO. 
          AND SO, IF MR. WILSON HAD BEEN SO INCLINED, HE COULD HAVE SAID A PLANNING BOARD MEETING BETWEEN LAST WEEK AND THE 25TH. 
          I DO NOT SAY THAT TO DISPARAGE MR. WILSON. I'M SIMPLY SAYING THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISION AND IT WOULD HAVE ALLEVIATED THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. 
          BECAUSE LET ME JUST BE CLEAR. I READ THE STATUTE, I READ THE CASES, AND ALL THAT THE STATUTE 
          [01:15:03]
PROHIBITS IS ENACTMENT. THIS BODY IS ENACTING NOTHING TONIGHT IN CONCERNING 26I56. 
          AND A RECOMMENDATION WITH DO- PASS IS NOT AN ENACTMENT. IT IS AN INITIATION. THE CASES DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN INITIATION AND ENACTMENT. AND IF MS. LANE HAS CASES TO THE CONTRARY, I'LL BE HAPPY FOR HER TO RECITE THEM TO US, IF I MAY. 
          THANK YOU. THE STATUTE SAYS THAT WE CANNOT ASSUME THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WITHOUT A SEPARATE ORDINANCE. 
          IT IS MY DUTY TO ADVISE YOU AS TO WHAT THE LAW SAYS AND WHAT OUR LEGAL. THE LEGAL LIMITATIONS OF OUR POWER IS. 
          THAT IS ALL. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, LEGAL MINDS CAN DIFFER IN OPINION, BUT THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. IT ACTUALLY. AS FAR AS ELECTION OR WHAT THE JUDGE IS REFERRING TO, IT SAYS WE CANNOT ASSUME THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WITHOUT PASSING AN ORDINANCE. 
          WE WOULD HAVE TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND PASS IT IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT THEM. THAT IS MY READING OF THE LAW. SO, RIGHT NOW, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD, IF WE VOTED ON THIS AND IT MOVED TO THE. 
          TO OUR NEXT MEETING, I AM SIMPLY SAYING THAT PROCEDURALLY WE ARE OUT OF ORDER. THAT IS MY POSITION. I'M STANDBY. I'M STANDING BY THAT POSITION. I HAVE NOT READ ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY. THAT IS IT. 
          WHETHER THERE ARE RAMIFICATIONS FOR DOING SUCH A THING AS THE QUESTION WELL ASKED EARLIER. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I DON'T. 
          I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE WOULD BE RAMIFICATIONS BECAUSE IT'S NOT. AND WE HAVEN'T ENACTED ANYTHING. AND I'M NOT BASING THIS ON WHAT JUDGE GRIFFEN IS SAYING. I'M JUST SAYING THE VOTE IS NOT FINAL UNTIL THE VOTE IS FINAL, AND THAT'S IN TWO WEEKS. OR A WEEK AFTER NEXT. SO, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER YOU, HOWEVER YOU LOOK AT IT, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DICE IT, WE CAN VOTE IT UP OR DOWN WEEK AFTER NEXT. SO, I YIELD. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. JUSTICE ROBINSON, I THINK HE WAS NEXT. THANK YOU BOTH OF YOU ALL. KIND OF STOLE SOME OF MY QUESTIONS. ONE OF MY, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS THOUGH, AS I, AS I READ THROUGH THIS AS WELL AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE. CAN THIS BE RETROACTIVE? YES. 
          SPECIFICALLY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN, THIS? THIS ORDINANCE, IF WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE IN TWO WEEKS, IF IT'S AN AS IS NOT AMENDED, SAY THERE'S NO INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THEY SAY, HEY, THIS THING IS GOLDEN. LET'S WE RECOMMEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT AS IS, THERE'S NO AMENDMENTS. IS THERE ANY. I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING IN HERE THAT STATES WHETHER OR NOT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO ANY PROJECTS. 
          LET ME REFER YOU TO ARTICLE 17. ARTICLE 17 IS TITLED EXIST AT PAGE 31, BOTTOM PAGE 31, LINE 43. IT IS TITLED EXISTING PROJECTS, PENDING PROJECTS, MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS AND VESTED RIGHTS. 31? PAGE 31, PAGE 31, BOTTOM OF PAGE 31. 
          ARE WE TOGETHER? I'M WITH YOU. TOP OF PAGE 32. THE GENERAL RULE. THE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO EVERY PROPOSED HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE USE THAT BEFORE THE EFFECT EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE HAD NOT OBTAINED ALL FINAL COUNTY APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT UNDER COUNTY LAW THEN IN EFFECT. ARTICLE 8 APPLIES TO EVERY MATERIAL MODIFICATION PROPOSED OR UNDERTAKEN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE, INCLUDING A MATERIAL MODIFICATION OF A PROJECT QUALIFYING UNDER SECTION 172 PERMITTED BY LAW. SECTION 172 DEALS WITH PROJECTS WITH FINAL COUNTY APPROVALS. 
          SECTION 173 DEALS WITH PROJECTS WITHOUT ALL COUNTY APPROVALS. 
          SECTION 17 IS DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF RETROACTIVITY 
          [01:20:03]
BECAUSE IT UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME PROJECTS THAT HAVE ALL COUNTY APPROVALS AND SO, THAT'S SPECIFIED. THERE MAY BE SOME PROJECTS THAT ARE PENDING THAT DO NOT HAVE ALL PROJECT AND THAT PROCESS IS SPECIFIED. AND THERE MAY BE PROJECTS THAT DON'T HAVE FINAL COUNTY APPROVALS AND THAT PROCESS SPECIFIED SO THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IF I ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES SIR, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. 
          AND I WILL SAY A LOT OF THE. 
          AND I'M NO LAWYER, SO I'M JUST A GOOD OLD COUNTRY BOY. AND YOU KNOW, WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING, AS MOST OF YOU ALL KNOW, REVOLVES A LOT AROUND THIS. 
          AND YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME GOOD INFORMATION IN HERE. I THINK THERE'S SOME REDUNDANCY IN HERE. 
          BUT I JUST HOPE TO HEAR FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          BUT I TOO PLAN ON SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU, JUSTICE MEDLOCK. I THINK, THANK YOU. I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION CONCERNS PAGE 32, 17-2, 17-3. 
          YES, MA'AM. BOTHERING. YES, MA'AM. PORTION. YES, MA'AM WHO IS ALREADY FAR ENOUGH ALONG TO BE GRANDFATHERED. 
          THAT'S ALWAYS A QUESTION OF FACT. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THERE IS NO ONE. 
          THEN YOU TALK ABOUT GRANDFATHERING THAT TALKS ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS. A LOT OF TALKS TALKED ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS. BUT ARKANSAS LAW DEALS WITH VESTED RIGHTS FROM TWO ISSUES. NUMBER ONE, IT REQUIRES THAT THERE HAS TO BE, FOR THE CONSENT FROM THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH, IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED FOR THE INTENDED USE. 
          AT PRESENT, THERE IS NO. 
          OKAY. HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED FOR A DATA CENTER. SECOND FACTOR, IT REQUIRES IS GOOD FAITH. AND THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION REQUIREMENT IS NOT SATISFIED BY HOW MUCH MONEY YOU SPENT. 
          YOU CAN SPEND A MILLION DOLLARS AND STILL BE NOWHERE CLOSE TO FINANCIAL COMPLETED. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID SO. 
          OKAY, YOU ANSWERED THAT ONE OTHER QUESTION, AND I'M TRYING TO FIND WHERE IT IS LOCATED, BUT IT CONCERNS THE APPEAL PROCESS. THAT WOULD BE. I THINK IT'S PAGE NINE UNDER ARTICLE EIGHT, I BELIEVE, WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW. IF I'M. 
          IF MY MEMORY SERVES, SEE. 
          ARTICLE 9. I STAND CORRECTED. 
          ARTICLE 9 ON PAGE 12. IS IT 12 OR IS IT PAGE 12, ARTICLE 9 BEGINNING AT LINE 17, THE APPEAL PROCESS TO THE QUORUM COURT. YES, MA'AM ARTICLE. IS THERE GOING TO BE A CONFLICT WITH THAT? APPEALING TO US AS A BODY, RIGHT. THE APPEALS. NO, MA'AM AS THE FINAL, FIRST OF ALL, UNDER ARKANSAS LAW, IF THERE IS, AND THIS. THAT'S THAT MARCH 2026 DECISION, ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT, IF THE QUORUM COURT HAS A REVIEW PROCESS OR HAS THE OPTION OF CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY HAS BEEN PROPERLY TREATED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, THEN THERE MUST BE AN APPEAL AVENUE FOR THEM TO SATISFY DUE PROCESS. THE QUORUM COURT CANNOT BASICALLY SAY, HEY, THE PLANNING BOARD IS A STOPPING POINT WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE QUORUM COURT. YEAH. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I TOO, JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I AM GOING TO SUPPORT IT. I AM. I'VE BEEN LISTENING AND HEARING EVERYTHING THAT MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE SAID, AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S MY DUTY AS THEIR VOICE. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THANK YOU. MAY I CLARIFY ONE POINT THAT THAT TOUCHES 
          [01:25:02]
ON YOUR QUESTION? OKAY. 
          ON PAGE 13. ON SECTION NINE SIX, LINE 30. YES. IT READS, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE, A DECISION OR ISSUE THAT APPLICABLE ARKANSAS LAW REQUIRES TO BE APPEALED DIRECTLY, THE CIRCUIT COURT SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TO THE QUORUM COURT. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THAT DEALS WITH. 
          ONE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS IN LAND USE IS THE IMPACTS ON ROADS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY SCHEME APPLIES TO ARKANSAS ROADS THAT REQUIRES THAT APPEALS ON ROADS BE MADE DIRECTLY TO CIRCUIT COURT. AND SO, THAT'S WHY SECTION 13, SECTION 9.6 IS MENTIONED. ORDINARILY, THE APPEAL PROCESS WOULD GO PLANNING BOARD TO QUORUM COURT. BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPACT DEALING WITH ROADS OR CHALLENGE ON ROADS, YOU GO FROM PLANNING BOARD TO CIRCUIT COURT. WHY? BECAUSE WE HAVE A STATUTE THAT DEALS WITH SAYS WHEN YOU HAVE A SITUATION INVOLVING THE ROADS, THE APPEAL GOES TO CIRCUIT COURT DIRECTLY. OKAY. FOR THAT? YES, MA'AM. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? JUSTICE ALL RIGHT, JUSTICE YOUNG-BAKER. SO, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF LAND USAGE AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS NEED REGULATIONS. I THINK I'VE MADE THAT PRETTY CLEAR. AND SO, YES, I DO SUPPORT THIS. SO, I'M GOING TO ASK MY QUESTION TO JUSTIN. SINCE, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONVERSATION PRESENTED BY JUSTICE MASSEY REGARDING, AND OF COURSE, MS. LANE, ABOUT US NOT BEING PROCEDURALLY CORRECT. CAN AN ORAL MOTION BE MADE FOR TO MAKE IT PROCEDURALLY CORRECT, IF THAT IS SUCH A CONCERN, OR, IF YOU MAY. MAY I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JUSTICE YOUNG- BAKER? YES. THE FIX, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, IS FOR THE QUORUM COURT TO DO WHAT IT ALWAYS DOES, ACT ON THE AGENDA COMMITTEE AND SET THIS FOR THE BUSINESS MEETING. 
          BUT FOR ITEM 56 TO GO BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND THE BUSINESS MEETING TO THE PLANNING BOARD, AT WHICH TIME THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD FULFILL ITS STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY. 
          AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL HAVE DONE ITS WORK. THE PLANNING BOARD'S WORK HAVING BEEN DONE, THE QUORUM COURT WILL THEN HAVE ITS BUSINESS MEETING, AND THE QUORUM COURT WILL THEN ACT AFTER THE BUSINESS PLANS FOR BUSINESS MEETING. IT ISN'T WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING BOARD ACTS. IT ISN'T WHETHER OR NOT THE QUORUM COURT SUPPLANTS THE PLANNING BOARD. IT IS THE FACT THAT THE QUORUM THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T INITIATE, THE QUORUM COURT DOES. THE QUORUM COURT ENACTS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS JURISDICTION UNDER THE STATUTE THAT MS. LANE REFERRED TO, AND REFERRING IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT IMPROPER. IT IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ONCE IT'S REFERRED AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ACTED, THE QUORUM COURT'S ACTION ON 56 ON THE 25TH WOULD BE LEGAL AND PROPER. 
          DO YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION? YES, PLEASE. 
          SO, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS STATUTORIAL PROCEDURE, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, WHICH IS MY WHEELHOUSE. SO, I WOULD SAY NO, THERE'S NOT AN ORAL MOTION THAT WOULD ADDRESS WHAT THEY ARE DISCUSSING. I MEAN, THAT'S A STATUTORY DISCUSSION. 
          WE TALK ABOUT PARLIAMENTARY. 
          IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S IN YOUR PROCEDURAL ORDINANCE. 
          IT'S. IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. 
          SO, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE WOULD BE NO ORAL MOTION TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT ARE 
          [01:30:01]
RAISED OVER THE PROCEDURAL NORMS. OKAY. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. 
          ANYTHING ELSE, JUSTICE YOUNGBLOOD, YOUNG-BAKER. I'M A, I'M JUST GOING TO CHANGE IT. I'M SORRY. 
          PLEASE FORGIVE ME. I APOLOGIZE. 
          I APOLOGIZE. YOUNG-BAKER. 
          JUSTICE YOUNG-BAKER. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. ARE YOU ALRIGHT? JUSTICE CURRY? I JUST LIKE THAT. MR. MARK WILSON TO COME BACK UP. I WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING ON THE PROCEDURE. YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. WILSON. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS WAS TO BE DONE, IF THIS PROJECT AND THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING ABOUT SENDING THE DOCUMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT YOU'RE IN REVIEW ON, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT PROCEDURE? BECAUSE THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN PHASES FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. I'M SORRY, I NEED TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION THAT IF THE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE GOTTEN TO, WE HAVE, WE HAVE REVIEWED. IT WAS 26I31 IN OUR FIRST MEETING, THEN IT WAS AMENDED BY OUR REQUEST, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, TO 26I31A. WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED 26I56. THE EXISTENCE OF 26I56 WAS NEWS TO ME THIS EVENING, SO WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE THAT. I MEAN, IF THERE'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES FROM 31A TO 56, THEN THAT'LL BE A SHORT DISCUSSION ON THURSDAY. BUT SO THAT. THAT AND OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE WHAT WE WILL CONSIDER THURSDAY. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND, ONCE YOU DO THE MEETING, TWO WEEKS NEXT WEEK, WHENEVER AMENDMENTS. 
          THURSDAY. THURSDAY, YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD COME FORTH. SO, WOULD THAT BE THE FINAL COUNTY APPROVAL WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS? IF IT'S VOTED UPON, IN MY UNDERSTANDING. WELL, IT'S MY HOPE THAT WE HAVE A PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION ON THURSDAY AND COME TO A RECOMMENDATION TO THE. 
          TO THE QUORUM COURT. YES, RIGHT. THAT. THAT WOULD BE OUR FINAL ACTION IN THE. IF WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH AMENDMENTS OR A RECOMMENDATION TO NOT APPROVE. AND I SUPPOSE THE FOURTH OPTION FOR US WOULD BE TAKING NO ACTION. THAT'S NOT MY DESIRE. BUT THOSE. THOSE ARE THE FOUR OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE PLANNING BOARD. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? THOSE ARE YOUR OPTIONS. OKAY, SO. 
          BUT MY DESIRE IS FOR US TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR OR FOR THE ORDINANCE WITH SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS OR AGAINST. THAT WE MAKE SOME KIND OF CONCLUSION ON THURSDAY NIGHT. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE FINALIZATION WAS. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, THAT. THAT I DON'T. I DON'T HOPE. I HOPE NOT TO EXTEND THIS ANY FURTHER THAN THURSDAY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION. I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE. PROPER MOTION NOT DEBATABLE. SO, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUSTICE PERSON CALL THE QUESTION. AND WE HAVE TO VOTE ON CALLING THE QUESTION. SO, EVERYBODY, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE QUESTION? JUSTICE MASSEY? YEAH, WE HAVE TO VOTE. YEAH, WE HAVE TO VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION. ALL RIGHT, AMY, SO IF YOU'LL CALL THE VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION. KEITH, I DID NOT HEAR THE SECOND TO MR. PERSON'S MOTION. SECOND. 
          WOW. OKAY, CLARIFY. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'RE CALLING THEM. VOTING TO FOR THE QUESTION. AMY. MS. DAVIS? YES. CAPPS. YES. MS. LEWISON? YES. MS. BLACKWOOD? YES. MR. PERSON. YES. MS. MASSEY? AYE. MS. CURRY? YES. 
          MR. KEITH? NO. MS. WARD. YES. 
          MS. YOUNG-BAKER? YES. MR. ROBINSON? YES. MR. MCCOY? 
          [01:35:02]
SURE. YES. MR. ELLIOT. YES. AND MS. MEDLOCK? AYE. SO, YOU HAVE 13 AYES AND ONE NAY. 13 AYES ONE NAY, THE DISCUSSION HAS ENDED. SO, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS VOTE ON IT AND THEN WE GET TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS. AM I CORRECT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 26I56. MS. MEDLOCK. MS. MEDLOCK VOTES YES. 
          MR. ELLIOT? YES. MR. ELLIOTT VOTES YES. MR. MCCOY? YES. 
          MR. MCCOY VOTES YES. MR. ROBINSON? YES. VOTES YES. MS. YOUNG-BAKER? YES. MS. YOUNG-BAKER VOTES YES. MS. WARD VOTES YES. YES. MS. WARD VOTES YES. MR. KEITH? YES. 
          MR. KEITH VOTES YES. MS. CURRY? NO. MS. CURRY VOTES NO. 
          MS. MASSEY? AYE. MS. MASSEY VOTES YES. MR. PERSON? YES. 
          MR. PERSON VOTES YES. MS. BLACKWOOD? AYE. MS. BLACKWOOD VOTES YES. MS. LEWISON? YES. 
          MS. LEWISON VOTES YES. MS. CAPPS? AYE. MS. CAPPS VOTES YES. AND MS. DAVIS? YES. MS. DAVIS VOTES YES. SO, THAT IS 13 AYES AND 1 NO. 13 AYES, 1 NO. WE WILL SEND 26I56 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION. 
          IS THERE A MOTION. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? THANK YOU. 
          SO, MOVE WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
          ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? WE STILL GOT SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO. ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE BAR? ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE BAR? WE PUBLIC 
          [Public Comment]
COMMENT. WE'VE GOT A STACK OF THEM. SO, WE ARE GOING TO BE HOLDING YOU TO THREE MINUTES. JUSTIN IS GOING TO BE OUR, ARE YOU GOING TO BE. YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE TIMEKEEPER? WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH SARAH CAPITI. YEAH. 
          TO THE MICROPHONE. YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO PROTECT OUR CITY AND OUR COUNTY FROM UNREGULATED DATA CENTERS. I TOLD MIKE, ALL MY COWORKERS, MY FRIENDS, MY FAMILY THAT I WAS COMING HERE TO. IN SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE TO PROTECT US FROM DATA CENTERS. AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON WAS LIKE, THANK YOU. NOBODY WANTS A DATA CENTER HERE. I LITERALLY HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO A SINGLE PERSON WHO IS IN SUPPORT OF DATA CENTERS. 
          EVEN JUST LIKE. LIKE, I WORK AT SAM'S CLUB. I'LL JUST TALK TO RANDOM CUSTOMERS ABOUT IT SOMETIMES BECAUSE I'M REALLY ANNOYING AND I BRING UP POLITICS EVERY DAY. AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE OR WHETHER THEY LOOK LIKE A REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRAT, THEY'RE LIKE, I DO NOT WANT A DATA CENTER NEAR HER BECAUSE THERE'S NO POINT. THERE'S NO POINT. YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE. AND WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT DATA CENTERS. I'M TELLING YOU THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. DUSTIN SHINER. SHRINER? DUSTIN SHRINER. GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS DUSTIN SHRINER. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER TO ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT AS WRITTEN BECAUSE IT MIGHT POSSIBLY NEED AMENDMENT AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING THURSDAY. THAT IS. THAT'S FUNNY, BECAUSE THE LAST TIME THAT WE HAD A MORATORIUM, A COMPETING MORATORIUM THAT WAS SUBMITTED, IT WAS AMENDED RIGHT BEFORE WE ACTUALLY CAME TO COURT. IT WAS DONE WITHOUT. 
          ACTUALLY, IT WAS AMENDED IN BETWEEN MEETINGS. AND IT SUGGESTS THAT IT'S PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU COULD DO. 
          YOU COULD ABSOLUTELY AMEND THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE SUGGESTED IT WOULD BE IMPROPER THAT YOU PASS AN ORDINANCE TONIGHT WHEN IT WAS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT AN ORDINANCE WAS BEING PASSED TONIGHT FROM. 
          TO THE CASUAL OBSERVER, SEEMS LIKE THINLY VEILED OBFUSCATION. 
          I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS DOING THE CORRECT THING TONIGHT AND ADVANCING THIS. ADVANCING THIS ORDINANCE. I DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF FAITH IN GOVERNMENT TO DO THE RIGHT THING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE. AND I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS DOING, RESTORING SOME FAITH THAT LOCAL LEGISLATIVE POLITICS CAN WORK FOR THE PEOPLE AND ACT IN OUR BEST INTEREST. THANK YOU, GUYS. THANK YOU, SIR. 
          INDIA JACKSON. 
          [01:40:06]
HELLO. GOOD EVENING. 
          EVENING. OKAY, SO FIRST I WANT TO SPEAK TO EVERYONE HERE, EVERYONE WATCHING ALL OVER ARKANSAS. THE DATA CENTER ISSUE HAS SHOWN US ALL THAT OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING CITY OFFICIALS AND COUNTY OFFICIALS, DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLIP ABOUT OUR BEST INTERESTS OR WHAT WE WANT. THEY SAW THE PROMISE OF DOLLAR SIGNS AND LET GOOGLE, AVAIO AND THESE UTILITY COMPANIES BEND US OVER AND TAKE US FOR EVERYTHING WE GOT OUR RESOURCES, OUR LAND, OUR MONEY AND SO, ON. MOST OF THE PEOPLE VOTING FOR THESE DATA CENTERS HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN TO OUR COMMUNITIES. THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND THEY'RE JUST PILING ON TOP OF IT. IF YOU VOTE FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS AGAIN, CLEARLY YOU HAVEN'T LEARNED YOUR LESSON. WHAT YOU MUST REALIZE IS THAT A LOT OF THESE CITY AND COUNTY OFFICIALS' CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN CUT AND CAUTERIZED. NOW WE HEAR THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL US OFF TO WRIGHTSVILLE. THEY HAD MORE SECRET MEETINGS, LEFT US OUT OF THE CONVERSATION AGAIN. OUR JOB NOW IS TO SPREAD THE WORD ON EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THEM OUT AND MAKE SURE NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM FOR ANY OTHER POSITION. AND TO THE QUORUM COURT, PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING IN VOTING IN THIS ORDINANCE. I REALLY WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS. WHAT'S THE PLAN WHEN THESE DATA CENTERS START PHASING OUT OR ARE OBSOLETE IN FIVE YEARS? BECAUSE THAT WILL HAPPEN. THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT. WHAT IS THE PLAN WHEN THEY PHASE OUT OR THEY BECOME OBSOLETE? NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE LIVING NEXT TO ABANDONED BUILDINGS OR WHATEVER THEY PLAN ON DOING WITH IT. I DON'T THINK WE'VE THOUGHT THAT FAR AHEAD IN THIS CONVERSATION. AND I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU TO STOP STALLING. VOTE IT IN. 
          BECAUSE THIS HAS JUST BEEN A LONG, LONG THING OF STALLING. 
          YOU ALL COULD HAVE VOTED IN THE MORATORIUM. THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THE MORATORIUM JUST BEING STRAIGHT UP WITH YOU, BUT YOU CHOSE NOT TO. SO, NOW WE'RE HERE WITH THIS ORDINANCE. JUST DO THE RIGHT THING, DO WHAT YOUR VOTERS WANT AND VOTE IN THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GREGORY SUMMERS. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY HERE, I'M TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT. 
          MIGHT NEED MY GRANDSON UP HERE TO HELP ME OUT A LITTLE BIT. 
          HELP HIM OUT. IS TIME RUNNING. 
          I KNOW. COME ON, PETER. THERE WE GO. SO, JUST TO. JUST TO KIND OF SHARE WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME, MY NAME IS GREGORY SUMMERS AND I'VE SPENT 40 PLUS YEARS IN THE FIRE SERVICE. 35 OF THOSE YEARS IN THE LITTLE ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FINAL 10 AS A FIRE CHIEF AND RETIRED IN 23 AS A FIRE CHIEF IN THE WACO FIRE DEPARTMENT. NOW SERVING AS A CONSULTANT IN THE FIRE SERVICE. DATA CENTERS, WHETHER PLACED INTO SUBURBAN OR UNINCORPORATED JURISDICTIONS, FIRE DEPARTMENTS WILL BE ENCOUNTERING FACILITIES WHOSE BATTERY INVENTORIES EQUAL OR EXCEED THOSE FOUND IN UTILITY SCALE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. THIS PRESENTS A NEW GENERATION OF FIRE PROTECTION CHALLENGES FOR UPDATED REGULATIONS THAT WILL REQUIRE UPDATED REGULATIONS, SPECIALIZED RESPONSE PLANNING, FIREFIGHTER TRAINING AND VALIDATED EXTINGUISHMENT TECHNOLOGIES. ENACTING THE PROPOSED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE REGULATING HIGH INTENSITY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE USERS ENABLES THIS BODY THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET IT RIGHT. 
          LET ME START BY SAYING THAT THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY DO NOT HAVE THE WATER CAPACITY TO SUSTAIN A CONTINUOUS WATER SUPPLY. 
          VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS CURRENTLY RELY ON A COORDINATED WATER TANKER SHUTTLE ON WHAT I WOULD IDENTIFY AS A REGULAR 02,000 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE FIRE WHEREBY THE CODE REQUIRES 15 TO 17 FIREFIGHTERS. THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT 10 FOR VOLUNTEER AGENCIES. HOW WILL YOU ADDRESS THE THERMAL RUNWAY HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES WHERE A SINGLE CELL EXCEEDS 1,000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT? UNLIKE ORDINARY COMBUSTIBLE FIRES, THERMAL RUNAWAY IS A SELF-SUSTAINING ELECTROCHEMICAL EVENT. THE TYPE OF RESPONSE REQUIRED TO AN EVENT OF SUCH MAGNITUDE TO A DATA CENTER WOULD REQUIRE MULTIPLE ALARMS, HAZMAT, NUMEROUS FIRE ENGINES, COMPANIES, LONG DURATION OVERHAUL AIR MONITORING, JUST TO NAME A FEW. SO, WHAT ARE THE PULASKI COUNTY CAPABILITIES? ALL VOLUNTEER AGENCIES. 
          WRIGHTSVILLE. THEY MIGHT HAVE A 
          [01:45:02]
FIRE ENGINE, WATER TANKER AND A BRUSH TRUCK. 
          THEN YOU'VE GOT QUAIL CREEK, THEY'VE GOT THREE FIRE UNITS. 
          THEY DON'T IDENTIFY WHAT TYPE OF UNITS THEY HAVE. AND THEN YOU GOT ARCH STREET, WHICH DO HAVE MODERN FIRE TRUCKS AND WATER TANKERS. 
          BUT THERE IS NO DEFINITE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS. THOSE NUMBERS TEND TO FLUCTUATE. CAN ANYONE ANSWER THAT QUESTION ON ANY OF THESE VOLUNTEER DEPARTMENTS? A TRADITIONAL FIRE SERVICE REVIEW IS NO LONGER SUFFICIENT. 
          HOMEOWNERS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE ONE QUESTION INSURANCE COMPANIES ASK BEFORE GRANTING HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE. HOW FAR ARE YOU FROM THE NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT, THE NEAREST FIRE STATION? AND WHAT IS YOUR FIRE DEPARTMENT INSURANCE SERVICE ISO RATING? HAS THERE BEEN A COMPREHENSIVE FIRE AND EMERGENCY IMPACT STUDY? HAS THERE BEEN A FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING STUDY? HAS THERE BEEN A LITHIUM-ION BATTERY HAZARDOUS ANALYSIS? FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL READINESS ASSESSMENT? WHAT ABOUT A WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY STUDY, EMERGENCY RESPONSE PRE PLANNING STUDY AND RESOURCE IMPACT ANALYSIS? THESE ARE JUST A FEW. AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH THIS. 
          CAN YOU WRAP IT UP, SIR? YES, I'M GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH THIS. AS A SERVANT TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER, MY GOAL WAS ALWAYS FIREFIGHTER SAFETY FIRST, FOCUSING ON FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. MY GAUGE WAS A SIMPLE, WHEN I MADE A CONTROVERSIAL UNPOPULAR DECISION, IF I TOSSED AND TURNED AND HAD A SLEEPLESS NIGHT, I KNEW MY DECISION DIDN'T MEET ONE OF THOSE PILLARS. AND I CAN SAY WITHOUT HESITATION I'VE NEVER EXPERIENCED ONE NIGHT IN MY 19 YEARS AS A CHIEF OFFICER, THE MAJORITY OF THEM AS A FIRE CHIEF, WHILE I HAD ONE SLEEPLESS NIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          SHERRY GLIEBER. 
          NO SHERRY. GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, GONE. IS IT ADE OR ADE? ADE? OKAY, DIAZ. 
          HELLO, MY ADE. GOOD EVENING. 
          NAME IS DIAZ. I WILL SPEAK SLOWLY SO YOU REMEMBER WHAT I SAY. IT'S A FULL HOUSE TONIGHT. 
          FIRST TIME IN A VERY LONG TIME. ELECTION SEASON MUST HAVE YOU GUYS NERVOUS. YOU GUYS DID A GOOD JOB TONIGHT. I REACHED OUT TO ALL 14 JPS, LEFT MY NAME, CONTACT INFORMATION AND STANCE ON 26I56. AND I REQUEST TO HEAR BACK FROM ALL OF THEM WITH THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE ORDINANCE. AND I ONLY HEARD BACK FROM FIVE. KATHY LEWISON IN DISTRICT 3 WAS FOR THE ORDINANCE. JULIE BLACKWOOD, DISTRICT 4 FOR THE ORDINANCE, OBVIOUSLY. 
          DONNA MASSEY, DISTRICT 6 FOR THE ORDINANCE. AARON ROBINSON, DISTRICT 11 HAD PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL CONCERNS, BUT ULTIMATELY WAS FOR THE ORDINANCE. DIANNE CURRY, DISTRICT 7. NOT FULLY IN FAVOR AND ENDED UP VOTING NO. ONLY FIVE JPS TOOK THE TIME TO SPEAK TO ME ABOUT MY CONCERNS AND I EVEN UNFORTUNATELY INTERRUPTED JP MASSEY AT WORK. YET SHE STILL TOOK THE TIME TO TELL ME HER STANCE IN OUR BRIEF CONVERSATION. IF ANYONE HERE IS DISPLEASED WITH THEIR JP AND THEIR FORMER PERFORMANCES, FEAR NOT, THERE ARE OPTIONS. AND I'VE SPOKEN TO MOST OF THEM AND GOTTEN THEIR OPINIONS ON DATA CENTERS. DIANA THOMAS FOR DISTRICT 1 ANSWERED MY CALL DESPITE NOT BEING IN OFFICE YET. KG GULLEY FOR DISTRICT 10 IS IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT AND SUPPORTS DATA CENTER REGULATIONS. RICHELLE BRITTAIN FOR DISTRICT 11 RESPONDED, COULD NOT REGRETTABLY ATTEND TONIGHT DUE TO ILLNESS, BUT WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO KNOW SHE SUPPORTS THE ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE JACKSONVILLE WORD ONLY VOTING ORDINANCE AND IS A MEMBER OF NAACP JACKSONVILLE. 
          AMBER GOVAN FOR DISTRICT 12 SUPPORTS DATA CENTER REGULATIONS AND JESSE JOHNSON, WHO WAS HERE TONIGHT, BUT I BELIEVE HE STEPPED OUT, WHO RESPONDED, ATTENDED TONIGHT AND SUPPORTS DATA CENTER REGULATIONS AND REPRESENTING CITIZENS. SOMETHING THAT I FEEL LIKE IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT CORE TENET OF BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. 
          YOU SERVE THE PUBLIC. YOU SERVE YOUR CONSTITUENTS. YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO US OR YOU WILL NOT HAVE YOUR JOB ANY LONGER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [01:50:03]
SO, IF THIS IS BRITTUR JONES. 
          BRITNEY. OKAY. 
          BRITTANY. I'M SORRY. I'M. OH, OKAY. OKAY. SHE. OKAY, MS. JONES. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M GOING TO KEEP YOU REAL SHORT AND SWEET. WELL, I'M GOING TO TRY TO. WE DON'T WANT THE DATA CENTERS. WE DON'T WANT THEM AT ALL. I DON'T. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY THAT IS EVEN A THING. BECAUSE WE KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES. WE KNOW THE RISK. 
          I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE KEEP HAVING THE SAME CONVERSATIONS. WE DON'T WANT. 
          WE DON'T WANT TO SACRIFICE OUR WATER OR AIR FOR THE DATA CENTERS. IT'S HONESTLY IRRITATING. AND I'M KIND OF GETTING ANNOYED BECAUSE WE. I'VE BEEN COMING TO THESE MEETINGS SINCE THE BEGINNING AND WE STILL, LIKE SOMEONE SAID PROLONGING THIS PROCESS. SO, I'M SORRY, I GOT A PHONE CALL. OKAY. SO, I DON'T WANT US TO LET GREED DESTROY OUR ENVIRONMENT. I DON'T WANT GREED TO DESTROY OUR RESOURCES. WE ALREADY STRETCHED THIN ON WATER. I THINK EVERYBODY IS FORGETTING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PLANET B THIS IS IT. SO, ONCE OUR RESOURCES IS UP, IT'S UP. 
          AND I DON'T THINK SOME PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT. THIS IS ALSO AFFECTING MY GENERATION BECAUSE I WANT TO HAVE KIDS. I WANT TO BRING THEM IN A SAFE WORLD. I KNOW SOME OF Y' ALL PROBABLY NOT THINKING ABOUT YOUR KIDS, BUT YOU SHOULD BECAUSE THIS IS OUR GENERATION. 
          SOME PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO BEING SUED. I'M SCARED FOR MY FUTURE. SO, IF I RATHER FOR. WOULD YOU RATHER FOR ARKANSAS TO JUST LOSE RESOURCES OR WOULD YOU RATHER JUST FOR THE PEOPLE TO SUE YOU LATER ON IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION OF BUILDING THE DATA CENTER? SO, WE, ARKANSAS ALREADY CANNOT AFFORD THE DATA CENTER. WE CAN'T AFFORD OUR WATER BEING COMPROMISED. WE CANNOT AFFORD OUR ENERGY BILL RISING. I KNOW THEY SAID THEY WILL BUILD THEIR OWN GRID, BUT THEY SAY A LOT OF THINGS. YOU KNOW, OUR ENERGY BILL IS ALREADY HIGH. SO, I FEEL LIKE BRINGING THIS DATA CENTER WILL ONLY ADD ON TO THE COST. THEY ALREADY ADDED ON TAXES LIKE GENERATING JOBS ACT. THEY ALREADY INCREASING THE FORMULA, FORMULA, RATE PLAN. SO, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. WE CAN'T. 
          LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN COMING TO THESE MEETINGS. I EMAILED THE CITY COUNCIL. I GOT OVER 07,300 SIGNATURES. I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANYBODY. AND I'VE BEEN EMAILING SINCE JANUARY BEFORE THIS ALL CAME UP. WHAT SADDENS ME IS MAYBE LIKE TWO, THREE MEETINGS AGO, I. I THINK THE ENTITIES GUY, BUT I FORGOT THEY BASICALLY SAID THAT IF THEY BILL AND IF THEY HAVE TO PUT PIPES THROUGH THE LAND AND SOMEBODY ASKS, HAVE YOU ASKED THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS? ARE THEY OKAY WITH THAT? HE BASICALLY SAID, WELL, EITHER THEY COMPROMISE OR WE'RE GOING TO. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THEIR LAND. SO, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S VERY UNETHICAL. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S WRONG. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S EVIL AND I JUST DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS. SO, WE JUST ASKING FOR A PAUSE. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A BAD. JUST A PAUSE. LET'S. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DATA CENTER, AT LEAST MAKE IT SMALL. IT DON'T HAVE TO BE BIG. WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE BIGGEST DATA CENTER IN US. WE'RE NOT COMPETING AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE. SO, THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ROBIN DEESE. 
          HI. HELLO. MY NAME IS ROBIN DEESE. I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE ON THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING COMPANIES AND AVAIO AND GOOGLE. I BROUGHT UP THAT THESE COMPANIES, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, WALSH GROUP IN BLACKROCK ALL HAVE HAD MORE THAN ONE CHARGE OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND FRAUD. I'VE SPOKEN OF MISCALCULATIONS ON THESE INFRASTRUCTURES THAT HAVE COST TAXPAYERS LOTS OF LEGAL FEES AND RESOURCES. 
          SOME USED LEGAL METHODS, SOME ILLEGAL. ALSO KNOWN AS FRAUD. THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT STATES GUIDANCE FOR FUTURE INDUSTRY GROWTH IS NEEDED. ARKANSAS TO PROTECT ARKANSANS FROM FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES. WE WANT OUR GUIDANCE AND PROTECTION. 
          IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS SOMEONE SAID IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE A GOOD COMPANY OR A BAD COMPANY. IT DOES MATTER. 
          ARKANSANS ARE BEING FORCED 
          [01:55:01]
TO INVEST IN IT. LOOK AROUND. 
          RIVERS ARE DRYING UP, LAKES ARE DRAINED, UTILITY RESTRICTIONS APPLY IN MUNICH. DRINKING WATER IS EVEN HEAVILY RESTRICTED. 
          BUT I GUESS ENERGY AND CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO GERMAN ENGINEERING. ENTERGY IS EVEN WORKING WITH THE SAME COMPANY THEY ARE IN CURRENT LITIGATION WITH FOR INADEQUATE CALCULATIONS AND MARKET RULES. KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE FRAUD. THEY WILL HAVE US BUILD THESE INFRASTRUCTURES AND THEN THEY WILL TAKE THEM. DATA CENTERS WILL DESTROY OUR TOURISM, OUR HEALTH, PROPERTY VALUE, ECOSYSTEMS AND OUR POCKETBOOKS. 
          ASIDE FROM THE STATE AND FEDERAL TAX INCENTIVES, DESTRUCTION OF RESOURCES, PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT, DECREASED UTILITY BILLS, PARTIALLY PAID SALARIES AND EXEMPT SALES TAX IS NOT ENOUGH. BLACKROCK CEO STATED THAT THESE INFRASTRUCTURES WILL LIKELY NEED AMERICAN PENSIONS, RETIREMENT AND PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. AI CAN BE FRAUDULENT AND ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS? AI HAS RECENTLY DEVELOPED 16 NEW VIRUSES. THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE JOINT AI CENTER AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WARNS OF COGNITIVE SURRENDER. 
          BETWEEN THIS AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF NEURALINK, YOUR THOUGHTS WILL NOT BE SAFE. 
          NOT EVEN WHAT YOU THINK OF ME. THANK YOU. MIKE POE. 
          SO, I WAS GOING TO READ TO YOU GUYS TONIGHT SOMETHING THAT I WROTE WHEN I WAS REALLY UPSET THAT I READ AT CITY HALL. BUT SINCE ALL OF YOU GUYS SAVE ONE, ALL DUE RESPECT, MADE THE VOTE TO PASS THIS FORWARD, I'M JUST GOING TO CUT THAT AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD. SINCE MATT WASN'T ABLE TO SPEAK, READ A LITTLE SOMETHING THAT MATT WANTED TO SHARE. IT'S A NEW ERA OF GLOBAL CONFLICT AND WHERE THE DEFINITIONS OF WAR AND RULES OF ENGAGEMENT SEEM TO BE CHANGING AND BLURRING RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES. BUILDING LARGE SCALE DATA INFRASTRUCTURE COULD MAKE OUR AREA A TARGET FOR FOREIGN ATTACKS JUST IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS DURING OUR WAR OR NOT A WAR OR TALKS AND NEGOTIATIONS IN BETWEEN EXCHANGING BLOWS WITH IRAN. MULTIPLE DATA FACILITIES IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION OPERATED BY AMAZON AND ORACLE HAVE BEEN TARGETED AND HIT WITH CRUISE MISSILES, DRONE STRIKES, CAUSING WIDESPREAD POWER OUTAGES AND FIRES. THIS IS WHAT MODERN WAR LOOKS LIKE. 
          RIGHT NOW, ISRAEL IS TRYING TO FUSE THEIR GOVERNMENT WITH OURS. DEFINITELY OUR MILITARY. THEY AREN'T SENDING THEIR TROOPS, THEY'RE SENDING OURS. THEY AREN'T USING THEIR WEAPONS, THEY'RE USING OURS. WE ARE ACTIVELY SUPPORTING THE IDF AND IOF IN ISRAEL, WHICH IS SLAUGHTERING, MURDERING, RAPING CHILDREN. AND THESE ARE THE SAME DATA CENTERS THAT STORE THE SAME INFORMATION, BUILT BY THE SAME DESIGNERS AND THEY'RE USING THE SAME TECHNOLOGIES. FLOCK, PALANTIR. 
          THIS IS THE SOFTWARE THAT USES THE WHERE'S YOUR DADDY SOFTWARE TO BE ABLE TO KILL FAMILIES WHILE THEY DINE TOGETHER VERSUS FIND THE MILITANTS AND KILL THEM. THEY WANT TO KILL EVERYONE. ALL THIS STUFF IS WELL DOCUMENTED AND RESEARCHABLE. THE REASON WHY I HAVEN'T SENT YOU GUYS ANY EMAILS IS BECAUSE I FELT THAT WHEN I WAS READY TO SHARE SOME INFORMATION WITH YOU THAT YOU WERE JUST ASKING FOR RESEARCH. JUST ANOTHER DELAY. I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DECIDED TO PUSH THIS ONE FORWARD AND ARE LISTENING TO US BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE HONESTLY, I HAVE EVERY INTENTION TO TRY TO PROTECT MY FRIENDS AND THE CITIZENS HERE LOCALLY. THIS IS ALL VOLUNTEER EFFORT ON MY CASE. YOU KNOW, I WATCH HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF THIS STUFF. AND SO, I'M GOING TO SAY AGAIN, AS I'VE GIVEN YOU MY EMAIL BEFORE, IF YOU WANT SOME REAL INFORMATION, I'LL SHARE. YOU MAY NOT WANT TO SEE ALL THE VIDEOS THAT I SEND YOU FROM PALESTINE. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? YOU MAY NOT WANT TO. 
          YOU MAY NOT WANT TO SEE MY VIDEOS TALKING ABOUT HOW IN 1959, RIGHT HERE IN WRIGHTSVILLE, RIGHT WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THE STATUS CENTER, AN ENTIRE BOY'S SCHOOL WAS BURNT TO THE GROUND WITH THE DOORS LOCKED. AND ALL THE CHILDREN TRIED TO MAKE IT OUT, BUT THEY COULDN'T. AND SO, THEY WERE ALL FORCED THROUGH A FEW WINDOWS AND THEY STUCK TOGETHER. AND THOSE CHILDREN HAD TO BE BURIED AS A LARGE BALL OF CHILDREN, NOT INDIVIDUALLY, BECAUSE THEY ALL BURNED UP TOGETHER. THE SAME WAY THAT HAPPENS IN WAR, 
          [02:00:01]
THE SAME WAY THAT TARGETS FROM PALANTIR AND FLOCK FIND PEOPLE AND FIND THESE DATA CENTERS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING JUST A FEW MILES AWAY FROM ALL OF US. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PAUL. SHANIKA ROBERTS. 
          MISS ROBERTS. NO, MISS ROBERTS. OKAY, WE'VE GOT LYNN FOSTER. HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'VE SPOKEN TO YOU A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE. WHAT I DIDN'T SAY AT THAT TIME WAS THAT I ACTUALLY TAUGHT LAND USE LAW AT UA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL OF LAW FOR MORE YEARS THAN I CARE TO ADMIT. 
          BUT I AM RETIRED NOW. AN ISSUE WAS RAISED WITH THE STATUTES TONIGHT. AND I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT VERY QUICKLY. 
          IT WAS STATED THAT FOR THE QUORUM COURT TO DEAL WITH ANY LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES FROM THE GET GO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT ONLY APPLIES IF THE QUORUM COURT DOESN'T WANT A PLANNING BOARD, THEN THEY HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE AND THEN THEY ACT AS THE PLANNING BOARD. 
          IT DOESN'T APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL CASES LIKE THIS. THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER STATUTE, ARKANSAS CODE ANNOTATED 14-17-207C, THAT SAYS PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS INITIATED BY THE COURT. SO, IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU CAN INITIATE THINGS. 
          YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO SEND THEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A PUBLIC MEETING, WHICH IS GOING TO HAPPEN, WHICH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, WHICH IS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. SO, YOU'RE GOOD. I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT AND I WANTED TO THANK JUDGE GRIFFEN, WHO WE ALL OWE A HECK OF A LOT TO. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS A VERY, VERY WELL WRITTEN ORDINANCE AND WE OWE THAT TO HIM. I THINK IT'S GOT TO RANK UP THERE WITH SOME OF THE BEST IN THE UNITED STATES. SO, WE OWE HIM A GREAT DEAL. AND THANKS TO ALL OF YOU AS WELL. THIS IS A VERY COURAGEOUS THING THAT YOU ALL DID TONIGHT AND EVERYBODY THANKS YOU. THERE'S A LITTLE MORE JUSTICE IN THE WORLD TONIGHT. THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TERRY DRENNAN. MS. TERRY, I GUESS THIS IS DRENNAN. NO. AMANDA HUGHES. 
          HELLO. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. 
          THANK YOU FOR ALL VOTING THE WAY THAT YOU DID TONIGHT. AND IT DID RESTORE A LITTLE BIT OF FAITH BECAUSE I'VE BEEN A NERVOUS WRECK. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU ALL. I KNOW Y' ALL ARE UNDER A LOT OF STRESS AND PRESSURE, YOU KNOW. AND JUST REMEMBER, THOUGH, THESE BIG COMPANIES, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND THEY KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. THEY KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO ASK. THEY KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE DESPERATE FOR MONEY. PEOPLE ARE DESPERATE TO BE LIKE, HEY, LOOK WHAT I BROUGHT TO MY STATE. AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE REMEMBER IT'S PEOPLE OVER PROFIT. AND YOU ARE MAKING A VERY BIG DECISION. AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU'RE NOT TAKING IT LIGHTLY. YOU'RE MAKING GENERATIONAL DECISIONS. IT ISN'T JUST GOING TO BE ABOUT YOU. IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG GONE. AND WHETHER YOU REALIZE IT OR NOT, ALL EYES ARE ON YOU. THE UNITED STATES IS ON YOU. 
          BECAUSE ARKANSAS IS ONE OF THE FEW STATES THAT ONLY HAS A HANDFUL OF LITTLE DATA CENTERS. 
          NOTHING HYPER SCALE, NOTHING TOO LARGE YET. RIGHT. 
          WE ONLY GOT A FEW COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER STATES THAT HAVE HUNDREDS, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS. THERE'S OVER 5,000 IN THE UNITED STATES ALREADY. AND SO, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU PROTECT US, PROTECT OUR WATERS, PROTECT OUR LAND. WE ARE THE NATURAL STATE. AND THAT'S JUST FOR NOT NOTHING. THAT'S WHAT MAKES US UNIQUE, WHAT MAKES US WITH TOURISM. PEOPLE WANT TO COME HERE. IT ISN'T. WE'RE NOT LEADING IN TECHNOLOGY. AND THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE AREN'T FOR ADVANCEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY, BUT JUST NOT THIS. BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE BRINGING IN BIG BUSINESS TO ARKANSAS, ALL I SEE IS BIG NUMBERS THAT ARE GOING TO GO BACK INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          SURE, THEY'RE GOING TO HELP US WITH OUR GRID, BUT I HOPE YOU ALL KNOW THAT THAT IS BECAUSE THEY PLAN ON EVENTUALLY NEEDING 
          [02:05:01]
ALL THAT POWER AND WATER THAT THEY'RE GIVING US THE RIGHTS TO. THEY'RE EXPANDING THIS FOR THEM, NOT US. AND AS SOON AS YOU GREENLIGHT THESE TWO, BECAUSE ALL YOU'RE THINKING OF IS LITTLE ROCK, I GOT TWO DATA CENTERS THAT I GOT TO TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT. BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS ON A PAUSE WAITING FOR YOU AND WHAT YOU DECIDE. 
          BECAUSE AS SOON AS YOU GREENLIGHT THOSE, ARKANSAS WILL BE UNDER ATTACK. WE WILL. 
          WHETHER YOU THINK SO OR NOT. 
          THEY'RE LOOKING TO SEE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DECIDE. WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE STANDARDS FOR US. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER STATES THAT ARE EATING IT UP. THEY LOVE IT, IT'S FOR THEM AND THAT'S FINE. IT'S OKAY TO SAY THAT MAYBE THIS ISN'T RIGHT FOR ARKANSAS, THAT THESE DATA CENTERS THAT ARE COMING IN, SURE INFRASTRUCTURE WISE FOR THEM BRINGING IN A FEW JOBS. 
          BUT WHEN I THINK OF BUSINESS COMING INTO ARKANSAS, I THINK OF SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LIKE BUILD A PRODUCT FOR THESE COMPANIES. WE ARE THE PRODUCT. THEY ARE COLLECTING DATA ON US AND THEY NEED THESE BUILDINGS TO STORE THE DATA ON US. AND JUST SO EVERYONE, JUST A LITTLE THOUGHT, IF YOU WANT TO HELP KIND OF COMBAT THAT, IT COULD BE AS EASILY AS BUYING JUST A FEW MINUTES. IT COULD BE AS EASILY AS BUYING AN EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE AND YOU JUST UPLOADING YOUR VIDEOS AND YOUR PICTURES TO AN EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE AND NOT NEEDING THE CLOUDS. WE DON'T NEED ALL THESE DATA CENTERS. THEY DON'T BRING PROFIT FOR US. THEY DON'T BRING A PRODUCT THAT WE GET TO USE AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT ARKANSAS IS DOING FOR THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES, IT'S MERELY WE'RE A PRODUCT AND YOU NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS FOR THEM. I GUESS I'M OUT OF TIME. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. 
          BUT I HOPE THAT Y' ALL TAKE THAT TO YOUR HEART. THIS IS BIG DECISIONS. THANK YOU. THE U.S. 
          IS LOOKING AT Y', ALL, EVERYONE. AND WE WILL BE UNDER ATTACK IF Y' ALL LET THEM DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. I'M ABSOLUTELY AGAINST DATA CENTERS. 
          ABSOLUTELY AGAINST. IT'S NOT FOR ARKANSAS, AND IT'S OKAY TO SAY THAT. MATTHEW OBA. 
          OKAY. YOU, OKAY? NICOLE, HELP ME WITH THIS LAST NAME. OKAY, GOOD. NOW PRONOUNCE IT JUST TO HELP ME OUT. DES-I-DARE-O DESIDERIO. DESIDERIO. I GOT YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT HERE IN LITTLE ROCK FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS, AND I WAS BORN IN RUSSELLVILLE, ABOUT AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES NORTHWEST OF LITTLE ROCK ON I40. AND WHAT I'M PARTICULARLY SEEING THAT IS COMMON, PREDICTABLE, AND BORING, IS ONE PARTICULAR PERSON TO NOT WANTED TO VOTE NO AND NOT CARE WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS WANT, NOT CARE WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COUNTY WANT, NOT CARE WHAT ANY PEOPLE IN LITTLE ROCK WANT. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT WRIGHTSVILLE. AND WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THAT BEFORE? WHERE HAVE WE SEEN WHERE ONE FLIPS OVER BEFORE? BUT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON. SO, WHAT PARTICULARLY CONCERNS ME IS MAYBE YOU'RE MISSING RESEARCH, BECAUSE I'M NOT ON ANY COURT, I'M NOT ON ANY BOARD OF ANYTHING, BUT I CAN GO IN MY PHONE MYSELF AND I CAN GO READ ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING, ABOUT CORPUS CHRISTI JUST RAN OUT OF WATER. HOUSTON IS ABOUT TO BE NEXT. THERE'S 400, OVER 400 DATA CENTERS IN TEXAS, WHICH, IF YOU'RE CONFUSED ABOUT GEOGRAPHY, THAT IS OUR STATE NEIGHBOR. 
          AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THEY ARE USING 440 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER BETWEEN THEM EVERY SINGLE DAY RIGHT HERE, AS YOU AND I ARE SPEAKING RIGHT NOW. AND WHAT IS PARTICULAR ALSO CONCERNING TO ME IS WHAT I'M SEEING HERE, BECAUSE Y' ALL DID DO A GOOD JOB TONIGHT, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE PERSON WHO VOTED NO. 
          MS. CURRY. SO, WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS. AND WHAT I'M SEEING IS JUST LITTLE ROCK USED TO BE A PLACE THAT LED THE NATION. HAPPENED IN 1954, AND PARTICULARLY IN 1957 WITH CENTRAL. AND SO, MY QUESTION IS TO YOU AND TO ANYBODY ELSE WHO MAY CHOOSE TO FLIP OVER AND ALIGN WITH WHITE SUPREMACY, MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU GOING TO LET COURAGE SKIP YOUR GENERATION? IS THAT THE LEGACY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE? BECAUSE ONE DAY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT GRANDKIDS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE LITTLE COUSINS THAT YOU CARE ABOUT. NONE OF THAT IS MY BUSINESS. 
          [02:10:01]
BUT YOU'RE THE ONE THAT GETS TO GO HOME TONIGHT AND LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR. 
          THANK YOU, NATALIE JAMES. SO, A LOT OF TOPICS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOUCHED. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR VOTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY AND PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITY, OUR FUTURE AND OUR CHILDREN. 
          BUT WE NEED TO ALSO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WHERE YOU KEEP STALLING. I'M LITERALLY 107 DEGREES TICKED OFF, HOT AND SWEATING. AND THEY NEVER SUPPOSED TO SEE YOU SWEAT, BUT Y' ALL SEE ME SWEATING TONIGHT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE ANOTHER STALL TACTIC. 
          SO, I THANK Y' ALL FOR NOT DOING THAT. 
          BUT GOING FORTH, Y' ALL HAVE THE INFORMATION, YOU HAVE THE PEOPLE. WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS TO GO OVER EVERYTHING WE NEED. WRITE THIS DOWN. US DATA CENTER MORATORIUM TRACKER. IT'S NOT HARD TO GOOGLE. AND SPEAKING OF GOOGLE, THEY JUST OFFERED WHAT, WARD 7. WHAT? SOMEBODY WHO LIVES IN WARD 7. ABOUT 300 ACRES FOR $3 MILLION. ONE OF OUR CITY DIRECTORS. SO, TO SAY THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO HAPPEN ON WRIGHTSVILLE AND COLLEGE STATION. NO, NO, NO, NO, BOO BOO. IT'S COMING TO YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU. AND WARD 7 IS MY BACKYARD. THOSE ARE MY CHILDREN. THAT'S MY COMMUNITY, THAT'S MY FUTURE. 
          SO, WE HAVE TO STAND UP AND SAY THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT. 
          BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONE PERSON, IT'S THE WHOLE STATE. IT'S THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT THIS. 
          IT'S ALSO 43 OTHER STATES WHO DIDN'T WANT THIS. THAT'S ON THAT NICE LITTLE TRACKER THAT I JUST MENTIONED TO EVERYBODY. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN 219 MORATORIUMS THAT HAVE GONE ON IN THE UNITED STATES. EVEN TRIBAL COUNCILS HAVE PASSED MORATORIUMS TO PROTECT THEIR CONSTITUENTS, RESIDENTS, CHILDREN, FUTURE, WATER, LAND, AIR, EVERYTHING. 
          THERE ARE 183 OF THEM THAT ARE CURRENTLY ACTIVE. AGAIN, THAT'S ON THAT WEBSITE I JUST GAVE YOU GUYS. 23 STATE BILLS, STATE LEGISLATORS. 
          BUT YOU KNOW WHERE A MAJORITY OF THEM STARTED. 87 OF THEM STARTED IN THE COUNTY. 
          LIKE THEY SAID, IT STARTS WITH YOU. AND THE WORLD IS WATCHING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO DO ONE OR TWO. 
          THEY'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING 60 TEAM HERE, EXPANDING THIS WONDERFUL ENERGY GRID, MAKING US PAY FORWARD, NOT OFFERING ANY TYPE OF HELP. OUR STUDENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAY THEY ARE CDAC RUNS OUT OF MONEY. THEY SAY THEY'RE PUTTING MONEY IN WITH LIHEAP AND WHATEVER ELSE, BUT THEY GOT BILLION-DOLLAR, MILLION-DOLLAR PROFITS THAT US NEVER GET TO SEE. AND YOU WON'T EITHER. AND TO SELL YOURSELF SHORT FOR 10 GRAND OR 100 GRAND. ANYWAY, YOU HAVE YOUR CITY, YOUR CITY BOARD. THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE SAME THING. AND I PROMISE YOU THERE WILL BE REGULATIONS. I PROMISE YOU THERE WILL BE ORDINANCES. I PROMISE YOU THERE WILL BE MEMORANDUMS ON TOP OF MEMORANDUMS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT THIS. AND IF IT HAPPENS HERE IN ARKANSAS, BECAUSE THE LAST OF THE GOOD STUFF HAPPENS TO US, BUT ALL OF THE WORST STUFF HAPPENS TO US FIRST. AND IF WE LET IT HAPPEN HERE TODAY AND WE LET IT CONTINUE ON, GUESS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE FOR YOU ALL. WE WERE BORN IN THE DARK. WE LIVE IN THE DARK. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN THROUGH THIS. WE WILL BE OKAY. 
          NOW THE REST OF YOU ALL WHO ARE NOT USED TO THIS, IN THIS TYPE OF LIFE THAT IS COMING UPON US, THESE 300, 400, $500 ENERGY BILLS, ALL OF THIS WATER BILLS GOING UP, YOU ALL ARE NOT GOING TO BE OKAY. WE'VE SURVIVED THIS. THE QUESTION IS, CAN YOU? BUT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IN YOUR COMMUNITY SURVIVES EVERY AND YOUR FUTURE. SO, THANK YOU FOR VOTING IN THE RIGHT WAY. 
          BUT LET'S MAKE SURE WE CONTINUE TO DO MORE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VALERIE HART. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VERBAL SUPPORT THAT I HEARD TONIGHT AND THE VOTE TRANSLATES TO PASSING THIS ORDINANCE. 
          AUGUST 25TH. I'VE COME, I'VE GONE TO THE PLANNING MEETINGS, I'VE COME TO ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE PLAYING ROPE A DOPE. 
          IT HAPPENED AGAIN TONIGHT. THE CURRENT AVAIO DEVELOPMENT WILL CONVERT PRIMARILY ARKANSAS RIVER WETLAND TO OVER 700 ACRES OF WAREHOUSES, DESTROYING NATURAL HABITAT AND THREATENING THE QUALITY OF A LIFE. TO THE WRIGHTSVILLE AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE EXISTED OVER A CENTURY BEFORE THEY WERE UNINCORPORATED, BEFORE THEY WERE INCORPORATED. 
          [02:15:03]
THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, PRESENTATIONS AND VOTES BY THE QUORUM COURT CONCERNING HOW TO REVIEW AND OVERSEE DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS HAVE RESULTED IN NO DECISIONS. THIS WAS A VOTE TO PUT THE ORDINANCE ON THE AGENDA. IT HASN'T PASSED IT. I WANT YOU TO PASS IT. WE WANT YOU TO PASS IT. WE DEMAND THAT YOU PASS IT. WE ARE STILL AT RISK TO WELL DOCUMENTED WASTE AND POLLUTION OF OUR WATER SUPPLY, RISK OF ENERGY PRODUCTION AFFECTING REGIONAL RATES, SAFETY RISK BY FIRES THAT CAN'T BE EXTINGUISHED, PROPERTY RIGHTS. HE HAD THE HUBRIS. THE ENERGY REPRESENTATIVE HAD THE HUBRIS TO REFER TO EMINENT DOMAIN TWO WEEKS AGO. HEALTH RISK OF NOISE POLLUTION AND OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DESTROYED. YOU NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WITH APPROVING TO APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE TO SET A REGIONAL STANDARD. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT JUST HAPPENED ON THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD. YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STILL MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE HAVE HERE TO MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTY VALUES AND TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. 
          AND YES, I'M ANGRY. I'M TIRED OF PLAYING ROPE A DOPE. I WANT YOUR VOTE TO BE YES TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE AUGUST 25TH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. HART. ELIZABETH FLETCHER. 
          GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH FLETCHER. I AM A MOTHER, LAWYER AND A LONG TIME PULASKI COUNTY RESIDENT. AND I THANK ALL OF YOU FOR, FOR YOUR SERVICE. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT WAS DUMPED IN YOUR LAP BY THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE IN 2023. THEY SAID NO MORATORIUMS, DATA CENTERS ARE COMING AND BOOM. YOU COUNTIES, YOU ALL JUST DEAL WITH HOW TO REGULATE THEM. AND I LOVE, I SPENT THIS MORNING READING STATUTES FROM OTHER STATES DATA CENTER REGULATIONS AND THEN I READ 26I56. I'VE BEEN PRACTICING LAW FOR OVER 30 YEARS. WHAT I USUALLY DO IS THEY CALL ME WHEN THERE'S AN ACCIDENT OR A TRAIN WRECK. YOU PASS THIS STATUTE. YOU'RE GOING TO AVOID SOME TRAIN WRECKS. 
          AND THIS, THIS IS A GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I APPLAUD YOU FOR DOING WHAT YOU'VE DONE TONIGHT. KEEP ON THE COURSE. AND I EMAILED MANY OF YOU TODAY IF ANY OF YOU WANT TO SEE OR READ THE FOUNDATION FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY LAW ANNUAL INSTITUTE THAT I READ ALL THIS MORNING, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SEND IT TO YOU. BUT KEEP GOING. THIS IS A GOOD START. THANK YOU, MS. FLETCHER AND JUDGE GRIFFEN. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE QUORUM COURT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR VOTE ON I56 TONIGHT. 
          26I56 ASKS A SIMPLE QUESTION. 
          WHEN A PROJECT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO CONSUME EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY, WATER, LAND, ROAD CAPACITY, EMERGENCY RESPONSE RESOURCES AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, SHOULD PULASKI COUNTY HAVE A MEANINGFUL PROCESS FOR ITS FOR DECIDING WHETHER THAT PROJECT IS SUITABLE FOR ITS LOCATION? AND TONIGHT, YOU SAID YES TO GETTING A CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT IN TWO WEEKS. YOU DIDN'T ENACT IT AS YOU COULDN'T. YOU SAID YES, WE'LL VOTE ON IT IN TWO WEEKS. I BELIEVE YOU MADE THE RIGHT ANSWER. ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL CRITICISMS RAISED AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE IS THAT IT IS ANTI-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR THAT IT WILL DRIVE AWAY INVESTMENT. THAT CONCERN DESERVES A DIRECT RESPONSE AND I'M MAKING IT TONIGHT. ITEM 26I56 IS NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT, IT IS PRO RESPONSIBLE 
          [02:20:05]
DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU VOTE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ENACTING. IT DOESN'T BAN DATA CENTERS. IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT. IT DOESN'T REGULATE UTILITY RATES. 
          IT DOESN'T REPLACE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. IT DOESN'T REPLACE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. IT DOESN'T REPLACE CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER. IT DOESN'T REPLACE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WHAT IT DOES IS ENSURES THAT WHEN A PROJECT PROPOSES TO PLACE EXTRAORDINARY DEMANDS ON PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, PULASKI COUNTY EVALUATES THAT PROJECT AS A LAND USE DECISION, NOT MERELY A PRIVATE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY. THAT DISTINCTION IS IMPORTANT. I'VE BEEN A LAWYER SINCE 1949 AND PART OF MY JOB 1979. 79 AND PART OF I WASN'T HERE IN 49. PART OF MY JOB HAS INCLUDED ADVISING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUSINESSES THAT THEY INVEST IN. PEOPLE WHO MAKE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS WANT CLEAR, PREDICTABLE, DEFENSIBLE RULES BEFORE THEY INVEST. THEY DON'T WANT TO INVEST IN SOMETHING THAT IS UNPROVEN AND UNTESTED. 
          AND THAT'S NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S GOOD SENSE. AND THERE'S NOTHING ANTI-DEVELOPMENT ABOUT EXERCISING GOOD SENSE. 
          WE HAVE A WORD FOR THAT. IT'S CALLED DUE DILIGENCE. LASTLY, LET ME SAY THAT ITEM 26I56 PREVENTS THE SITUATION WE'VE SEEN ALREADY. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN HOW QUICKLY THESE PROJECTS CAN ADVANCE THROUGH LAND ASSEMBLY. PEOPLE GET UP LAND ASSEMBLY, THEN UTILITY NEGOTIATIONS, THEN INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITMENTS AND THEN PRIVATE INVESTMENT BEFORE THE PUBLIC FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE SCALE AND THE CONSEQUENCES. 
          WITHOUT A CLEAR LOCAL PROCESS, THE COUNTY THEN IS PLACED IN A REACTIVE POSITION. EITHER APPROVE IT WITHOUT ADEQUATE INFORMATION OR FACE CONFLICT AFTER COMMITMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE. 56 CHANGES SITUATION, BEFORE PEOPLE START PUTTING HOLES IN THE GROUND AND CHANGING THE WAY WATER FLOWS AND CHANGING THE WAY THE ELECTRICITY GRID IS DONE. 
          PULASKI COUNTY WILL DECIDE NOW WHETHER OR NOT A PROJECT IS SUITABLE FOR THE SPECIFIC LOCATION ON THE GROUND IN PULASKI COUNTY THAT IS PROPOSED. 
          THAT'S GOOD SENSE. LAST THING I'LL SAY TO YOU IS THIS. THIS QUORUM COURT HEARD FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TWO MONTHS AGO THAT A MORATORIUM WAS ILLEGAL. LAST MONTH, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SAYS NO, A MORATORIUM IS LEGAL. 
          THIS QUORUM COURT HEARD FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TWO MONTHS AGO THAT A BIO HAD VESTED RIGHTS. THIS WEEK I SENT OUT A MEMO TO INCLUDE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THE LAW ON VESTED RIGHTS. I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A RESPONSE TO THE CONTRARY. LET'S BE CLEAR. YOU HAVE BEEN GETTING BAD LEGAL ADVICE. I HAVE FIRED LAW CLERKS. I HAVE FIRED LAWYERS WHO WORK FOR ME AS A JUDGE WHO GAVE ME LEGAL ADVICE ABOUT HOW TO DECIDE CASES BASED ON BAD LAW. I'M NOT SUGGESTING YOU FIRE THE LAWYERS. YOU DIDN'T HIRE THEM. I AM SUGGESTING YOU STOP LISTENING TO THEM. 
          ADJOURN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.