Pulaski County judge vetoes ordinance on data center regulations
Pulaski County Judge Barry Hyde vetoed an ordinance aimed at regulating large-scale data centers, citing concerns over legal and financial risks to the county and a lack of administrative resources. The ordinance, which would have established a new permitting process for data centers, was approved by the Quorum Court but faces an override attempt by its proponents.
Pulaski County Judge Barry Hyde vetoed an ordinance designed to establish regulations for large-scale data centers, just three days after its approval by the Quorum Court in an 11-4 vote. Judge Hyde articulated his rationale in a six-page letter to Pulaski County Circuit and County Clerk Terri Hollingsworth, stating his decision was based not on opposition to "reasonable regulation" but on concerns about the county's capacity to administer the ordinance without incurring "unnecessary legal and financial risk."
Justice of the Peace Julie Blackwood, D-Little Rock, a co-sponsor of the ordinance, expressed regret over the veto and confirmed that Quorum Court members plan to seek an override at their next regular meeting. The proposed regulations, championed by Wendell Griffen, the Democratic nominee for county judge who defeated Hyde in the primary, sought to create a new permitting process for "high-intensity digital infrastructure," requiring developers to submit detailed plans addressing noise, emergency response, traffic impacts, water use, and power demands. This regulatory push comes as AVAIO Digital Partners seeks to build a $6 billion data center in an unincorporated area of south Pulaski County.
Hyde raised specific objections regarding provisions that would apply regulations to projects yet to obtain "final county approvals," arguing this could lead to costly litigation over vested rights for substantially advanced projects. He also highlighted the county's unpreparedness, lacking clarity on who would administer the program, what outside expertise would be required, and its cost. Furthermore, Hyde cited conflicts with state law regarding the appeals process and expressed concerns about the potential loss of future tax revenue from major development if the ordinance were to create an unfavorable investment climate. Griffen, in a social media post, countered that Judge Hyde himself acknowledged the county's authority to regulate and had not offered an alternative framework, emphasizing the need for protections for Pulaski County residents before development proceeds.
To override the veto, a three-fifths majority of the Quorum Court is required at their next regular meeting following written notification of the veto.