County Council - Regular Meeting

Folks, if we can get if we can get quiet now, we have to start our transportation meeting, please. Uh at this time I'll call to order the York County Transportation Committee meeting for March 16, 2026. We have one action item tonight uh which is the committee to approve a road named dedication for Archbishop BR Wilson on a portion of Squire Road in Rock Hill. Mr. Hendris.

Yes, ma'am. Uh thank you for having the honor of doing this tonight. the uh the uh the highway department is asking that we allocate appropriate funds to allow the erection of signs and markers in memory in honor of Archbishop BR Wilson. And it will be called Archbishop BR Wilson Memorial Road, a portion of Squire Road in the city of Rock Hill from the intersection with Ogden Road to its intersection with Falls Road. Just for for folks who are here and have not ever seen this come through, this is a legislative request that has been passed along to county council and county council implements that through our C fund program. Do we have a motion? A motion to approve. Second. Motion and a second. Yeah.

Any discussion? I real quick, I just want to say um I was real fond of Archbishop Wilson. I've attended his church for many many years. Uh he wasn't his his church wasn't too far from my house. Um, so it's definitely an honor to um to spend such a minimal amount of $500 to help uh commemorate his his um his life and that that that church definitely sits in my district. Uh he was a great guy, well loved in the community. Um so yeah, we definitely should approve this. Any other discussion?

Any other discussion? will ask for folks to um hold comments in the in the gallery. We're we're on a mic. That's what we're doing what we can do. That's what we're doing, sir. I I've never I've never had a problem being heard. I know. So, I don't know what's going on with the microphone. Um Yeah. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. That motion carries. Do we have a motion to adjurnn?

Motion. Motion in a second. All in favor say I. I. We are adjourned. one here tonight. Certainly always good to have community u the community come out and speak to the council. Um our first item of business is the invocation and pledge of allegiance and I will recognize uh the honorable Tom Odette from district 1. Holy Spirit, we invite your presence into our meeting today. Guard our minds and hearts as we discuss important matters. Grant us the peace to keep us focused and productive. Guide our conversations and create an opportunity for a creative solution. Lord Jesus, we thank you. We love you. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Pledge 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. We do not have any oath of office tonight, but we are fortunate enough to have very special guest with us tonight. Um, Dr. Stacy Moore, who is the president of York Technical College, who's going to provide an update on current initiatives and developments at the college. Dr. Moore,

thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to all of our county council members tonight as we get the presentation ready. Um, I just want to thank you for your time tonight and thank you in particular for always being wonderful supporters and advocates of York Technical College and of always helping ensure that we are good community partners. So, I am pleased to be here tonight and we'll move quickly to introduce some of the York Technical uh College team here with me tonight. We have a few of our commissioners. We have Miss Jerry Hopkins who is a chairwoman of the York Technical College Commission, Mr. Jeff Sigman, also a commissioner. We and a member of our foundation board. We have executive committee members here tonight that you'll hear from. Dr. Derek Bennett, our CFO, Mr. from Robbie Brown, our assistant VP for facilities management, and from our staff who is uh getting one of our other students, Mr. Lamar Patterson. We have two students who are here from the executive leadership team, which is a group that advises the president's office and the executive team here really to observe and see what you all do as they gain a lot of leadership experiences throughout the year. And so we have with us Miss Janelle Sanchez. Uh and we will have in a moment uh Miss Caitlyn Pierce as she's walking in with Lamar. So, thank you again for your support. Some updates for you. I'm going to start quickly with an annual economic update of York Technical College that was commissioned by the Technical College System and with the University of South Carolina Colombia. And so, looking at just York Technical College, our annual economic impact for the counties we serve, York County, uh, the largest and then Chester and Lancaster is a $285.9 million economic impact by York Tech alone. We support over 1,600 jobs just in who we hire and support as well as from our suppliers. So that takes us to some updates for you all as we look at I first want to talk about our population of students. This is important. It's really only 23% of the population at York Tech that is pursuing those first two years of the bachelor's degree. And 77% of them are

pursuing those technical certificates or degrees that go directly to the workforce, whether that's in business, in information technology, in healthcare, in the trades, in engineering, and beyond. Our annual enrollment is up about 1% from last year at the end of everything after everybody drops adds changes. Um and importantly our dual enrollment numbers are up dramatically. So we are really seeing a massive increase in dual enrollment. Important to recognize for us that our dual enrollment students in high school are on pathways. So they're not it's not a buffet of courses they pick from. It's pathways that give them a college credential prior to graduating high school. So, really nice increases over that 10-year period in dual enrollment, heavy focus on those career technical programs like welding and nursing and manufacturing. Other major uh that I'll talk about tonight is big increases in our workforce and economic development enrollment. That was a 45% increase from last year. Those are not in the numbers you just looked at. And these are those short-term programs, less than a year. We are seeing increased uh interest in short-term programs whether that's in truck driving in emergency medical management as paramedics as line workers and beyond. Huge increase in those uh students who want shorter term credentials. Apprenticeships are also on the rise. We're very excited to have increasing number of apprenticeships both number of companies and in number of apprentice occupations themselves. So there's apprentices now in everything nursing business not just the trades. awards and graduates. As we really look at this, you know, student success is our core mission. So, when you're looking at it's important not just to have what we often say in higher ed, butts and seats. It's not it's important to have enrollment, but you've got to get them across the finish line. If student success matters to you, they've got to get across the finish line so that their lives are better. You'll see the number of awards we gave last year would increase 17% and the number of graduates 21%. The reason the awards in those blue bars outpace the orange bar

number of graduates is our students graduate with multiple credentials. So we engage a stackable credential model. So you're getting if you're in nursing, you have that certified nursing assistant. You stack on to an LPN, then an RN. If you're in machining, you might get a ready to work credential, then a CNC operator, then that machine tool technology degree. It allows students to come in and out of the college based on when their life what life suits them but they always have an industrial or ready to work credential uh after each of those. When you compare how we're doing in those number of awards given with our closest peers in the technical college system in terms of size. So those colleges who are about the same size as us last year we gave 17% more awards that students achieved for their lives um compared to where you see some of our peers and the number of awards. And then when you look at course completion, so again looking at student success, if you take all the thousands of courses we offer and you see what percentage of of those courses are students passing with a grade of C or better, we're in the number one spot for the technical college system of course completion rates. So we're very excited about that. moving into some of those initiatives that Chairwoman Cox uh uh discussed at the beginning. Couple of opportunities I'll give you first as we think about that future vision and importance of where York Tech is positioning ourselves in the next few years. Those short-term credentials are in high demand. Last year alone in the United States, 65% of all higher education credentials from two-year institutions all the way up to doctoral degrees, 65% of them were one year or less certificates. The demand for shorter term credentials is dramatic. unmet labor market demands are aligned with two-year colleges. Last year alone, there were 712,000 job shortage in what we call the middle skill credential jobs. So those jobs that require a two-year degree or less, 712,000. And they are in bluecollar jobs. They are in business jobs like sales and occupations. They are in healthcare and allied health. They are

in STEM like information security, life sciences, web developers, engineering technologists, in protective services like law enforcement, firefighters, all in that two-year space. So that demand is dramatic and it fits well for us. Workforce PEL from the federal government will begin in July. That allows us to use federal dollars to help pay for those short-term credentials which in the past have been ineligible for PEL grant. when you look at where are we really looking those focus areas right now you're looking at regional workforce demand for our threecounty radius so we always align ourselves workforce relevance is the most important thing we do next to student success and so we have to align ourselves with both the state's economic development priorities and the workforce demand in our region here are the top four this is an index chart you're looking at so imagine that 100 is the basis it means healthcare and life sciences occupations in our region are growing at 40% higher than average occupation advanced manufacturing at 25% higher, energy and grid modernization 35% higher than the average and on and on. So this is our area these are our areas of focus and on that and thanks uh in much part to you all we are building the workforce for the region's life sciences uh future. We have already built two major credentials, our laboratory pathway and our bioarma manufacturing pathway to ensure that we are a major part of the attraction of life sciences and life sciences manufacturers to this region. So they can see we've got the training to make their workforce uh work for them. And importantly, this is the thanks to you part. So, great appreciation for all of you for supporting the purchase of the business technology uh center building for York Technical College right across the street from our Rock Hill campus. This will be we don't know what we're going to call it yet, but we're sticking with York Tech West right now. Uh this will be the campus for our healthcare education. We will be expanding all of those dramatically as we will need to. um our new life sciences training center will be right there to really ensure

that we are training the future uh pharmaceutical manufacturing workforce and our building and construction trades programs will move from our current Wilson Street site over to this building. So we are in that process right now hope to close on that building in June. Other on the horizon I'll mention is our we are the workforce development leads on a large $ 160 million National Science Foundation grant. We just had our final site site visit uh meeting at the end of February. It's a two-state coalition, 36 counties, 26 of them are in South Carolina. We would lead the workforce as it relates to the grant is entirely about uh grid modernization. So that's one of the examples of the stackable credentials that we've built that I was telling you about that gives uh anybody uh from who wants to come in and get a credential from zero to three months all the way up and all those highly skilled technicians in between with industry certifications you see there and then up to the transfer. This is a particularly an engineering model. So they can transfer and become engineers if they want, but they have that middle skill piece is critical for like your uh manufacturers who are manufacturing parts of the grid like power transformers as an example. All right, I'm turning over to Dr. Bennett.

Good evening. Uh my discussion is kind of brief. We're talking about how we've been good stewards of the financial resources provided by the county. Uh the chart you have in front of you compares our last three years, 23, 24, and 25. uh 25 being in yellow. You can see that we've maintained uh our budgets uh being staying in balance. Outside of our custodial grounds, you see a larger increase. That's because we had a shortage of personnel those first two years uh with the economy and hiring people. We've come on board and those numbers are in line and we look forward to moving forward uh maintaining our budget and doing what we should do with the funds that provided by the county. Uh this particular slide shows where we spent the capital dollars allotted to us by the county. Uh the biggest increase site improvements and building improvements which is the main uh uh function that we have. We have our uh campus was established in 1964. We have a lot of older buildings which requires continuous building improvement and site improvements uh for our land. This is a little bit dark. This particular chart, uh, which is a little bit dark to see, builds off of what Dr. Moore just talked about. There are several things we have to do to make sure that we're relevant now and in the future. This particular chart shows that we'll be spending more than $73 million over the next five years. 12 million of that will come from our own um, fund balance in order to make sure that we're providing those programs. This includes the purchase of the PTC building, expanding our building construction and trade, getting our EV um auto body up and running, and dealing with the things that are affecting us now, as well as the workforce that will be affecting us in the future. I'm going to turn it over to Robbie who's going to talk about our um master plan.

Good evening. Um, so I just want to go over a couple of our master plan initiatives. In 2024, we updated our master plan. In 2025, we started development of those plans. And uh, starting in December of this year, we um, started a renovation on our K building, which is our student student center building. Uh, late 1970s. The building is in need of a lot of renovations. Uh, that is a full renovation of the building. It will be home for our student life, student organization, clubs, uh home for our veteran center as well as uh activities for our students. Uh the second initiative you see up there is our utility infrastructure master plan study as an extension of the master plan we did in 204. Uh we want to focus on the infrastructure. Uh we can't have nice buildings and provide services to our students without good infrastructure. Uh as Dr. been mentioned 1964 was when our buildings first started. Uh we have a lot of aging uh utilities underground. This study will look at existing conditions. We'll also identify cost estimates to replace those underground utilities and also design future pathways for those corridors. The next uh project you see there is fiber infra infrastructure upgrades. Um as technology uh uh becomes better you know our fiber currently is about 25 years old on the campus. This is a project to replace end toend fiber to each building on campus. This should improve our bandwidth will hopefully uh provide a better network service uh for our students and for the programs we offer. The fourth project you see there is electric grid upgrades. Uh over the next two years we are planning to upgrade uh add three transformers to the campus for eight buildings. Uh currently the buildings are interconnected uh through one transform on the campus. So uh replacement and addition of these transformers will improve the reliability of our power grid and also

serve future renovations that we have planned. In September of 2026, we hope to begin construction on our uh ebuilding welding program. Uh as you know, welding is a high demand field. Uh this project will double the capacity of our current program from 40 booths to 80 booths. Uh we hope to start that project again in September and we'll end that project in late spring of 2027. These other three projects are projects that will start construction sometime in 2027, hopefully in March. We would start renovation of building G. As Dr. Moore mentioned, the automotive industry is also another field of high demand, especially in electric vehicle maintenance and auto body collision repairs. So, this renovation, full renovation of that building, which is about 11,000 square feet, and we'll uh offer uh new ventilation, uh new power grid for electric vehicle maintenance, and we're excited about starting that project. In May of 2027, we hope to begin construction on our new truck driver training site in Chester. Uh again, another field in high demand. Uh this is the first of two phases. The second phase would be to build a build a classroom building next to the site. And then finally, as Dr. more mentioned uh the the business technology center uh acquisition uh York Tech West uh would be home for three different um programs including the health and human services program, construction trades, and obviously the life sciences. Uh we expect that project to last over several years, hopefully starting construction as early as 2027 and completing construction 2030.

Okay. All right. Um, and that's all I have. Are there any questions um for me or the team?

First of all, I'd just like to say thank you um Dr. Moore and and your whole team and your board for being here. Uh it's nice to have so many folks in the community be able to hear uh the report that you give. Oftent times this report is given and there are a few people in the in the audience. It's this is um a jewel in our county to have um York Tech here and the work that you do um to help provide workforce to our community is critical and um it's proving to show that it's growing um leaps and bounds and we appreciate all the work and attention that you give to this. And I'll I'll also say that in the years that um I've been watching and seeing how um the school is growing, you've done it uh within your budget and you've never once had to come to us and ask for an increase in anything. And that's phenomenal because it shows how much attention you pay to your capital plans um that you have a plan when you're looking at your administration levels. And so I just want to say thank you on behalf of the county for the work that you do to help our our community. Um and and I'll certainly open it up to any council member and I and I'll also say many of us who are sitting up here and those of us who have lived here, we have children who have gone to this school. We have uh many of us have been to that school and we have learned from that. So it's it's a personal it's a personal thing for us.

Any other discussion? Yeah. So real quick, first of all, thank you. What you're doing in the community is phenomenal. We you see the results of it across the board. attracting new businesses in the area, able enabling opportunity across the board for for all kinds of different types of jobs, which is critical. So, I applaud y'all. Just keep up the great work and uh we thank you. Appreciate it. Excellent.

I just want to say real quick that um I'm a product of York Tech. Um I appeared in an ad over 10 years ago. It was like a full page ad in the Herald when that circulation was at an all-time high. And I'm reminded every time I go to my mom's house because she still has it on her refrigerator in the house that I grew up in. So I'm I'm I'm definitely reminded of my humble beginnings where I come from and and certainly I was at the campus back in ' 92 93. So I've seen it grow and evolve and then being on council hearing some of the intricate details of what it takes to run a college, what the budget looks like and and how it's grown and the programming that has grown with it. Um, the company I work for has a program that gets uh individuals ready to come to work where I work at. So, I'm I'm definitely connected in the loop of many different aspects of of York Tech. Um, I don't want to call it a great value. I'll say it's the best value in education. And I would encourage any high school student looking to come out of high school, whether they need to find themselves in the college classroom, find themselves in any training or certificate program, it is the best value that we offer across the state bar none. And to hear and know that it's been expanded into Chester County, Lancaster County, it just it just magnifies the importance of having such a a solid institution in our community that offers so many programs to so many individuals that you can find yourself at York Tech. If you don't know where you want to be in three, four, five years, take some classes at York Tech. Find out what you're really interested in. And then I'll say I had a professor, um, I think it's Carl Opberman. I went I thought I was want to be a math teacher until I took an economics class and he just blew me away and and I got on that track and I I majored in economics because that one professor opened my eyes to what those possibilities could be and and my hat goes off to him. I don't know if he's still around or whatever become of him but I got my footing at York Tech and

it's a great place for students to start. So thank you. I won't repeat what everybody else has already said, but being born and raised here in Rock Hill, it's good to watch York Tech change and evolve, and it's always interesting to see new leadership come in and the impact they have. So, congratulations on your success, particularly the shorter credential program for workforce development, I think, is significant for York County uh and the dual credit program as well. Thank you so much. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you all. Appreciate it.

We are going to move now to our public forum session. Um this is an opportunity where council can hear from individuals who come and sign up for two minutes each up to 15 individuals. Um a few comments and and I think we've got a lot of folks. We could tell when we walked in today what what most people people were coming to to speak to council about. U we certainly are here to listen a few um items that I run through every time we have discussion. I would ask when you come forward if you would please state your name and give your address before you start speaking. If you would also ensure that you keep your comments to something um that are general issues before the council. We ask that you not call out individuals because this is a time for for you to share what issues are in front of council. It is not a time for us to respond back or to um to respond to questions. Um we would ask that um we keep everything respectful um and we want to maintain the quorum. Um so when someone is speaking we ask that folks remain quiet. Um, I don't know that there will be anyone here who will give an opinion that's different than what most are here for, but what we ask is that if you're here and you have others who share your concern, have them stand up and um, they can be acknowledged that way. Um, we ask that you refrain from clapping or booing, either one. U, we want to make sure that this is a space where folks feel free to come in and speak um, and to share their um, opinions. Um, I think I covered everything. First individual on the list is Tim Hagerty. Oh, I forgot the part about the two minutes. I'm going to rely on you guys to to pay attention to the screen so that I don't have to cut you off. Um, hopefully I don't have to do that and you'll see that before that time comes

up.

I got the two minutes. I don't think that'll be a problem tonight. Tim Haggerty, 747 Birchway Drive in Fort Mill. I'm not going to make a speech. I'm going to start us off with a prayer. And this is a prayer that I wrote in October of 2024. And it is in uh it's it's been our kind of our prayer at Move Silfab and at Ki. And it goes like this. Dear heavenly father, thank you for guiding our hearts and minds during this difficult and trying time. Thank you for bringing together a strong, diverse, and passionate group of people to lend their time and talents to oppose this tyranny. We ask that you help us to remain energetic and focused on the successful outcome of protecting the citizens of York County. We ask that you open the hearts and minds of those placed in a position to write this wrong. And we ask that you continue to lead us on the path and open our eyes to any possible solutions that we have not yet considered. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.

If you are here in support of move silfab, I'd ask you to stand at this point. Thank you. Thank you, sir. John Worth.

Hi, my name is John Worth and I live at 731 Amberly Crossing in the Baywick subdivision in Fort Mills. Your county has been home for 44 years and is filled with good and decent people just like everyone here today. On March 3rd through 5th, theory ended and reality began. When hazardous chemical releases occurred at Silab, the reality of the events provided focused clarity. The issue is not going away. The public is engaged and enraged. The risk is real. Thankfully, the most dangerous explosive pyrohoric chemicals were not involved. If they had, there could have been fatalities and serious injuries. Filab will not be trans transparent. They will mischaracterize and spin the story. The KOH spill was a water spill. The HF leak a drip and Silab's hand was forced to admit the HF leak. Communication failed. Parents went to Flint Hill for their children more than an hour later and the school was unaware. Citizens notified dees in the school district, not Silfat. Children were at recess when the KOH spill occurred. So, let that sink in for a minute. Children at recess completely exposed. Let's face some truth. The USC experts were right. The Board of Zoning Appeals was right. Fort Mill School District has now recognized the risk. So, why does your county management still get it wrong? The simple fact remains, Silfab is a heavy industrial chemical processing operation and hazardous chemicals do not belong in a light industrial zone surrounded by schools, neighborhoods, and senior living. The risk is real. It was a warning shot and we got lucky. Next time could be a disaster. So, I ask a simple question. What are you going to do? You have the authority. Public safety is at

risk. revoke the CO and end the nightmare that never should have started. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Rachel Cox, folks, I asked y'all at the outset to please refrain from that and I'm will and we'll maintain that. So, please

Hi, my name is Rachel Cox. I'm a resident of Fort Mill. More importantly, I'm a mom of a student that goes to Flint Hill Elementary School. I don't know where you guys were on March 5th, but I was standing in line of in a line of anxious and terrified parents waiting to be reunified with my son. One of hundreds of children that had to get bust across Fort Mill because Silab Solar let a chemical leak go unreported for over a week. A week. You can bet it will happen again. I'm grateful for Superintendent Gray Young and Principal Michelle Grates for their swift action. That is what leadership looks like. What we've unfortunately now witnessed is exactly what your constituents have been warning you about all along. Silab is negligent, unqualified, not only to operate in general, but especially next to two schools. Our state reps have called for action. The Fort Mill School District passed a resolution from this council. We got canned email responses and social media posts telling us that you're deeply disappointed in Sofab. And with all due respect, that's not what your constituents need. The gaslighting has to end. Your silence needs to end. Folks say revoking the CL will cost too much. I was standing in line on March 5th wondering if my son was safe. Tell me, what is that worth to you? The the AG has confirmed that you have the authority to act, revoke the CO and protect our kids. Thank you so much.

Thank you, ma'am. Jamie Castillia. Jamie Costilla, 774 Gatesville Drive, number 203. Good evening, County Council. I am here today to ask that York County Council revoke the certificate of occupancy issued to SOFAP. A certificate of occupancy is supposed to represent the final confirmation that a project complies with zoning and all required permits. In this case, that assurance simply does not exist. The permits underlining Silfab's approval were issued without zoning compliance. When the foundational permits for a project are legally questionable, the certificate of occupancy that follows cannot stand on solid ground. Allowing it to remain in place sends the message that zoning rules can be bypassed and corrected later rather than followed from the beginning. Zoning laws exist to protect communities, ensure transparency, and guarantee that development follows the same rules for everyone. If York County allows the certificate of occupancy to remain valid when the underlying permits were issued without proper zoning compliance, it undermines the integrity of the entire permitting process. This is not about stopping development. It's about ensuring that development happens lawfully and fairly. The unlawful CO has direct implications of health and safety, including what will soon be 2,000 children. The appropriate step is simple. Revoke the certificate of occupancy. York County residents deserve confidence that the ruling governing land use are applied consistently and legally. Upholding those standards today protects both the community and the credibility of the county's process moving forward. I'll leave you with this. All that it

takes for bad things to happen is for good people to do nothing. So, it's now your responsibility to do something and revoke the seal. Thank you, ma'am. Britt Gilner.

Britney Gilner. I live at 1130 Goldish Court in Fort Mill. The public is being told something that is simply not true. A certificate of occupancy is not zoning approval. A CO only confirms that a building meets construction and safety codes. It does not determine whether a use is legally allowed under zoning. That decision must come from zoning staff through a formal appealable zoning determination and that never happened here. Instead, the county issued something called a zoning verification. That document is not defined anywhere in the York County zoning ordinance. It is not appealable and it was used as a substitute for the process the law requires. Now, the public is being told residents cannot appeal the certificate of occupancy. But that's not what the law says. Under York County Zoning Code, the zoning administrator must issue formal zoning compliance approval before permits are valid under sections 1551122 to 1123. The code also states that light industrial does not include hazardous material treatment or storage facilities under section 1551301. And the board of zoning appeals has authority to review zoning decisions made by county staff under sections 155971 to 974. Silfab never received a zoning compliance approval. So when the county says residents cannot appeal, we know that the rules are being rewritten after the fact to avoid accountability. York County residents are not asking for procedural deflection. We are asking our elected officials to act. The South Carolina Attorney General has stated publicly that York County has the authority to revoke a certificate of occupancy if it was issued improperly, as this co was. York County Council also has the authority to address zoning violations and to protect public safely. Public safety. Our community deserves transparency, accountability, and leadership. Please protect the interests

of your community. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Ashley Horn.

U My name is Ashley Horn. I live in Regent Park in Fort Mill. Good evening, council. On March 11th, a member of this council posted publicly on Facebook that the county has to be careful because otherwise you might lose the inevitable lawsuit and have to pay a few hundred million in damages and the business is still allowed to continue to operate. Think about that statement for a minute. It means that the public is being told that York County cannot enforce its own zoning laws because someone might sue. That is protecting liability instead of enforcing the law. And it raises a serious question. If enforcing your own ordinance could cost hundreds of millions of dollars in court, then what does that say about how this how project was handled in the first place? The um the liability did not appear out of thin air. It came from skipping the process required by zoning code. The public keeps hearing technical arguments about appeals and procedures, but the law is actually very clear. The zoning ordinance requires formal zoning compliance approval before permits are valid. The code states that light industrial does not include hazardous material treatment or storage facilities and the board of zoning appeals has authority to review zoning decisions made by county staff. Yet, Silab never received a formal zoning compliance approval. So, when residents hear that the county cannot act because someone might sue, it sounds less like legal guidance and more like an excuse to avoid accountability. But let's talk about cost. Council is worried about the cost of a lawsuit that could reach a few hundred million dollars. Right next to this facility are schools that will hold roughly 1,800 children once fully built out. Even if you take the low end of that statement and divide $200 million by those children, that works out to about $111,000 per child. So the real question is simple. Are we putting a dollar value on our children's safety? Because based off

public Facebook quotes, it sure seems that way. Government is not supported to protect itself. Thank you, ma'am. Patrick Lloyd.

Hi, good evening, council. My name is Patrick Lloyd. I live at 3503 Conway Court, Fort Mill. In 1776, this nation was founded on a simple idea that all men are created equal under the law. That idea requires something very basic, that the law applies equally to everyone. Today, York County faces a test of that idea. Not on a battlefield like the one remembered at Gettysburg, but here in our own community, a test of whether government will follow the laws it has written. Our zoning ordinance is clear. Industrial uses require formal zoning compliance approval before they operate. And that process was never completed. Instead, the public has been giving shifting explanations. A parking lot approval treated as zoning, a zoning verification treated as approval, and now a certificate of occupancy being used as if it replaces zoning. It does not. Lincoln said at Gettysburg that the world would little note nor long remember what was said there, but it could never forget what they did there. Tonight, the people of York County will remember what is done here, whether the law is enforced equally or whether whether it is set aside. We cannot dedicate ourselves to selective enforcement. We cannot honor the rule of law by explaining why it does not apply. The question before this council was whether our local government will remain what it was meant to be. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. One where the law applies equally to everyone or one where it does not. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Jessica Buffler.

Good evening, council. My name is Jessica Buffler. I live uh I'm in Fort Mill in Regent Park. Um last week the Fort Mill School Board took a clear and responsible step by passing a formal resolution addressing the Silfab facility located next to Flint Hill Elementary School and the Flint Hill Middle School currently under construction. In that resolution, the school board requested that govern Governor Henry McMaster, the South Carolina General Assembly, Attorney General Alan Wilson, and York County Council exercise their authority to permanently restrict the site to non-hazardous assembly operations and require the removal of chemicals from the facility. The school board explained why this action was necessary. The district has a legal and moral responsibility to protect more than 18,000 students and 2500 employees. Two chemical releases. Two chemical release incidents occurred only days apart and forced Blunt Hill Elementary to close for multiple days, disrupting learning, creating undesirable fear among students, pe parents, and teachers and staff. The school board also recognized what many residents have been saying for months, which is that a large-scale chemical manufacturing and storage next to schools is an incompatible land use for this location. The York County Board of Zoning Appeals has already ruled that Silfab's manufacturing operations violate the requirements of the light industrial zoning designated at that site. The school board fulfilled its responsibility to protect students and ask this council and other state leaders to act within their authority. The question tonight is whether York County Council will do the same. This community is looking to you to enforce the zoning rules that govern this county and to ensure that hazardous chemical operations are not allowed next to our schools. For the sake of the students, the teachers, and the families who live here, the community is asking York County Council to step up and act. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Denise Bach.

Denise Bach, Hammond Road, Fort Mill. Um, good evening, council. Uh, I want to ask each of you a simple question tonight. Why did you decide to run for your county council? If you go to the county council to the county website, it talks about service, leadership, and representing the people of this community. It talks about protecting the public interest and making decisions that reflect the will of the citizens who live here. Most of you probably ran because you care about this county, because you wanted to make things better, because you believe local government should listen to the people it serves. But moments like this are when those reasons are tested. Right now, our community is asking a simple question about the Silab facility. Did the county follow its own zoning ordinance before allowing this operation to move forward? The ordinance required zoning compliance approval before an industrial use operates. That approval was never issued. Instead, the public has watched a series of explanations change over time, and now a certificate of occupancy is being used as if it replaces zoning. It does not. The question tonight is not complicated. is the same question that likely brought many of you into public service in the first place. Will this county stand with the law and the citizens of York County? Or will it stand with a process that bypass the rules everyone else must follow? Because the people of this county are watching and they will remember the answer. Thank you, council.

Thank you, ma'am. Andrea Olsen.

Hi, good evening everyone. My name is Andrea Olsen. I live at 580 Madora Lane in Fort Mill. Chair Chairwoman, I'd like to speak directly to you tonight if I may. You grew up here in York County and you built your career here as an attorney. You raised your children here in our schools and in 2021, you became the first woman to serve as the chair of this council. That's a meaningful accomplishment. It represents leadership, service, and the trust that this community has placed in you, which is exactly why this matter now, this moment matters so much. Because I know that you understand something fundamental about government. The law only works when the process written in the law is actually followed. York County's zoning ordinance is clear. before an industrial use can become operational. This requires zoning compliance approval issued through a process that allows the public due process and the right to appeal. That approval was never issued. Instead, the public has watched a series of substitutes for the legal process. And as an attorney, you know the difference between a required legal process and a workaround. This community is not asking for anything extraordinary. We are asking that the ordinance written by this county be followed the same way it would be for anyone else. Chairwoman, you have built built a reputation of service and leadership in this community. Do not let this project become the decision that defines your legacy here. You still have the opportunity to show that the law in York County applies equally to everyone. Please choose that path. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. As I as I began my comments earlier, I requested that um that folks who come to speak uh restrict and not call out individual members. I as chair um obviously have to take a lot of responsibility for our council that others don't. I get blamed for anything that goes wrong. I get um rarely get thanked for any of the things. I can take the comments as they come to me personally, but what I'm asking you to do is to follow the rules that I set out forward and please keep your comments directed to the general items and not make this personal. Okay? Just following the rules that I set out at the outset. Um Amy Jerry Amy Jansen 1694 uh Fairsh and Fort Mill. But more importantly, this is a picture of my children, Jason Paige. They're five and two years old and they attend a daycare less than one mile from the Silvab facility. After the recent spills and my children had to shelter in place, Chase asked me, "Mommy, why are there chemicals in the air that can hurt us?" And then he told me that he's afraid to go outside. We moved to Fort Mill and York County or all the things that families are promised. great schools, clean air, access to outdoor activities, and a safe place to raise our children. As an outsider looking in, the question is, how did Silab get this far if it's so dangerous? It was not an accident. It happened because of the basic rules of zoning and public process were ignored. Instead of issuing a clear written appealable zoning approval as requested under the ordinance, the county claimed zoning compliance had somehow been confirmed through civil site planning. That is not how zoning works and I know that all of you know that. There was a zoning interpretation filed and instead

of pausing the project and resolving the legal questions properly, the county moved forward and approved a parking lot as if zoning issues had already been settled. Citizens appealed that approval and the board of zoning appeals ruled 5 to zero that the county was wrong. 5 to 0 is not a close call. 5 to zero is a complete rejection of the county's position. At that moment, the responsible thing to do would have been simple. Stop. Follow the ordinance. Allow the public the right to appeal. Instead, you pushed forward and this dispute was never resolved. Now you're telling us that this was handled correctly and you had no choice but to move forward. You bent the rules. You ignored the rulings. You allowed my children to be subjected to this. The responsibility for failure sits with leadership. And leadership means taking responsibility when something goes wrong. It is not too late to do the right thing. Revoke the certificate of occupancy and follow the law. Ma'am Malona Malora Huffman. Hi, good evening, Councilman. Uh, this is Malora Copeland. I'm a York County resident at 716 Quicksilver Trail in Fort Mill. I'm also a risk professional and a proud mama of two boys here in Fort Mill. And my family chose to move here for the same reason that many of these families did, because it's a place where families matter, where schools are highly rated and communities put the safety of citizens first. Tonight, I'm asking you to live up to that promise. Let me be clear. We are not against jobs. We are not against economic development. We oppose unlawful heavy industrial manufacturing being permitted in light industrial areas directly next to schools and neighborhoods. That is not responsible development. That is not good planning. And that is just flatout not acceptable for York County families.

The concerns surrounding Silfab Solar are no longer hypothetical. On March 3rd, a chemical spill released hundreds of gallons of potassium hydroxide and forced regulators to halt the operations. Just days later, another chemical spill of hydrofluoric acid was discovered. These incidents shook families and citizens across the community, especially those of us with families and children in nearby schools. Because when something like this happens, every parent asks the same question. What if it had been worse? Zoning laws exist for a reason, and they protect communities. They separate heavy industrial from light homes and families. When those guardrails fail, leaders have to step in. Council members, leadership is tested in moments like this, and we want you to take action. Tonight, we urge you to revoke Silfab Solar's certificate of occupancy and all permits allowing this facility to operate in the wrong place. Require Silfab to relocate to a properly zoned, heavy industrial site. Protect the families who trusted you and this community to keep us safe. Show York County what leadership looks like. Move, Silab.

Thank you, Ma'am. John Lee. Uh John Lee 1398 Secret Path Drive. There's been a lot of chatter that if Silfab is limited to what light industrial zoning allows that York County will be sued and taxpayers will face massive damages. That narrative is simply not how this works. Courts have made clear that when a company moves forward with development before confirming the official zoning record, it does so at its own risk. The South Carolina Supreme Court stated in Carolina Chloride versus Rich Richland County that a business cannot rely solely on statements from county personnel and must review the official zoning record before making major investments. That principle applies here. Before the BCA ruled that solar manufacturing is not permitted in light industrial zoning, Silfab had only been approved to reconfigure a parking lot. Two weeks after the BCA hearing, county management issued a statement that the parking lot approval had nothing to do with zoning. Absolutely nothing to do with zoning is the quote. SOFAB was notified of the BCA decision and chose to proceed anyway. That was their choice and it was their risk. South Carolina law also protects governments from liability when they are enforcing or interpreting their laws. In ordinances South Carolina code section 15-78-60 subsection 4, enforcing zoning laws to protect public isn't the risk. The real risk is choosing to ignore the laws. Silfab's existing sheet co should be revoked and they should be forced to reapply for a use that complies with light industrial zoning. This council voted to reszone those Flint Hill

schools. Please protect the children that you all placed in harm's way. Thank you.

Thank you, Sir Brandon Langford. Good evening. My name is Brandon Langford. I live in District 1 in Fort Mill. For years, citizens warned this council about the risk posed by Silfab. We even commissioned an independent health risk assessment from USC. On March 3rd and 4th, those risks became reality. And on March 10th, the Fort Mill School District passed a resolution asking state and county officials to stop Silab's illegal land use. And what has York County government done under this county manager? Instead of engagement, the county launched a website filled with self-serving conclusions that only gaslight the community. Instead of public accountability, officials retreat to executive session and deflect responsibility. But this crisis is not a fluke. is a pattern of behavior under this county manager's leadership. Under his command, this administrative government has repeatedly suspended the rights of appeal for adjacent property owners, relabeled, renamed, and backdated approvals to prevent timely appeals, issued a stay of the BCA decision without a judge's order, and blocked our council agenda items, silencing our own elected officials and undermining representative democracy. The county manager has elevated himself above this council while claiming you cannot act despite the state attorney general making it clear that you can. There's so much chaos with this government that this council has to hire its own attorney to understand its powers and responsibilities. District 1 and district 7 residents are shaken, frustrated, angry, but we aren't confused. The responsibility lies with this

administration. It's time for this council elected by the people to act. Revoke the silabco that is placing children in danger and fire the county manager. Elizabeth ends thinking the same thing. That's

that's uncalled for. Folks, when we started this, what we asked for was to observe rules that we set out. And thankfully, y'all have observed most of them. I understand the concerns that are being raised from the community, but what we asked you to do was not to to express personal opinions and to call out individuals. And so, I'm I'm going to reiterate that one last time, then ask that you that you follow the follow the rules. I think that's enough. Go ahead.

What I mean, you know, at some point we got to we got to draw the line. We can't continue to say we can't have this, but still have it and still go on this council.

Folks, folks, we have one last speaker. I'm g ask that you observe the rules that we set. Good evening, council. Thank you for being here tonight. My name is Elizabeth Ens. I live at 5011 Burnwald Court, walking distance to Logistics Lane. We stand united in our commitment to preserving the character and safety of our community. As you know, the zoning ordinance for this area is designated light industrial. This classification was intended to foster economic growth without sacrificing the quality of life for our families. The BCA ruling has made it clear the oper operations proposed by Silab Solar constitute heavy industrial activity. This includes manufacturing processes that the use processes with the use of a number of very hazardous chemicals that exceed the light industrial threshold. This poses risks of environmental harm, increased heavy truck traffic, and potential health hazards to our children, our elderly, and our environment. The BCA's decision underscores a critical mismatch, one that threatens the very fabric of our town. We are not opposed to responsible development, but we cannot stand by while our zoning laws are not being upheld. This is why we are respectfully requesting that you take immediate action. We ask that you revoke the certificate of occupancy entirely to safeguard our community's well-being. In light of the recent incidents at Silfab, this council voted to simply back DEES's decision regarding Silfab. But as a community, we are asking you to fulfill your your oath of office and enforce the very laws and safety guidelines that you were charged to uphold. Fort Mill

deserves better, a balance of progress and protection. Please honor the BCA rulings and the voices here today by acting decisively in our favor. Our families, our homes, and our future depend on it. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. This concludes our public forum session. Um, do we have a motion on consent agenda? Motion to approve. Second. Motion and a second to approve consent agenda. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Consent agenda is approved. I'm going to allow folks to clear out and allow any individuals who may be here for public hearing items to come in before we resume. All right, we do have uh two public hearings tonight. Our first public hearing council to hold a public hearing and consider second reading of an ordinance to amend chapter 155 zoning code subchapter C use regulations to require a special exception for data center uses in the light industrial and industrial development zoning districts to apply certain conditions to such uses when approved as special exception or as a conditional use in the business and technology district including but not limited to conditions related to setbacks, buffer yards, equipment screening, building facade provides sound and vibration mitigation and cooling systems to invoke the pending ordinance doctrine pursuant to section 155.964

to provide for a public hearing and to provide for other matters relating there too. Mr. Bueno,

good evening members of council. So, uh bear with me. This will be a a relatively longer presentation than you're used to, but uh there's a lot to cover in this ordinance. has a lot of nuance and I wanted to give you the proper context and also for the members of the public that are here also. Uh so this is an aerial photography the image in the background here for this slide and this is in Lowden County, Virginia, an area of the country uh that has had data centers for quite some time now. Um, so you can see there's a concentration of them here and they have uh like many other jurisdictions in the county some conflicts with residential and some of the data centers that are popping up. And so the context behind all of the data center conversation nationwide and in fact worldwide is the global demand for data. So whether we're accessing data that's processed through a data center uh we are uh creating videos using AI technology or stoaging uh storing data all of that data generation has uh been increasing every year. So you can see it's now measured in theta uh worldwide and that's anticipated to keep rising. So, uh, as the demand for data goes up, of course, the facilities that need to process these things and to house them is also likewise going to go up. So, right now in York County, these uses are allowed by right in light industrial and industrial development. And uh wanted to point out we are in a situation that is evolving nationwide where jurisdictions are having to confront data center uses that have never been proposed in their jurisdiction before. So here's our regular uh set of comparison districts. So these are large South Carolina counties and also some of our local neighbors and how they handle data centers. As you can see, the vast majority of them don't have any

references to data centers in their zoning code. So these this is an evolving uh use an evolving technology and all the communities in the country are trying to respond to them uh when confronted with new development proposals. So here uh Greenville County allows them by right in their services district. There are two uh different industrial districts and they have a business and technology district. Also, Charlotte Mechanburgg allows um data centers in eight total districts and then town of Clover allows them in their commercial districts, mixeduse and industrial. So, uh with second reading for a set of standards that are use specific to data centers, we're actually going to be uh kind of on on virgin footing here in the state of South Carolina with York County. So, Colton County adopted an ordinance just this past November. Um, it's fairly short. It's about a page and a half worth of regulation. Um, and that covers allowing data centers as a special exception in their RD1 and RD2. And that's their equivalent of RUD for context. And they have three categories of industrial. So, they have light and industrial development and then heavy industrial. And then the town of Gaffne, they just passed an ordinance two months ago to create a brand new uh district for data centers. So, uh that's really all that's on the book in on the books in the state. So, uh whatever we as a county are going to adopt is going to be a jumping off point for a lot of the rest of the state as they're considering their regulations and how to move forward on data centers. So, here is our existing use table. You can see the line for data centers there. pointer is not working but uh it's allowed uh you can see that P line um light industrial industrial development

business technology uh park so what that means is they do a proposal it's by right um they just have to do an administrative review to make sure the site site complies with all of the standards so what the draft before you all does is change data centers to a special exception in light industrial an industrial development and change it to a conditional use in business and technology parks. Now, the reason that that's different um between the two industrial districts and business and technology parks is the B and T district is a planned development district. So, it it's sight specific. They have to come before you all. They have to go through three readings. They have to go through a public hearing. So that's above and beyond having to go to the BZA, which is what you would have to do to secure a special exception in the uh industrial districts. So I know I'm covering a lot. Any questions so far?

Yeah. Yeah, Jonathan. Um, you know, as we've gone through this, there was there was a discussion that um that I was very adamant about and I think other people were too was to make sure that we removed light industrial off of this requirement here to be able to have them go into light industrial. To me, I think it's unacceptable. We need to avoid any other situation such as a self that's happened. I would request we do make sure that we take light industrial off here. That would be my just and this is how we we answered this earlier when you said that you'd have to actually add that as an amendment later once

right where we are at this point in the process as we are getting information as to where the ordinance currently stands to the extent that council wants to make amendments they can do that once we get to the discussion points and time but if there are questions I fair then we can ask those those I guess I do have one with the BT is that something I'm familiar with the pud but with BT is there Um that would require uh I guess are there any places in the county that are currently BT at all? There are not. And so that would only be a tool that would be available for a PUB.

Yes. So it's a special district. We have a few different special districts in the county. The PUD is one of them. Mixed use is another. BNT is another. We don't currently have any mixed use or BT districts. I guess my question is I've always been told because we've had these discussions before that in order to have um B&T whatever that is since we've never experienced that before. Is that something that uh requires both residential and commercial components to it to qualify as a putt or are you saying that this the BNT is is purely um industrial?

The BNT is meant to be jobs creating uses. So um kind of like an employment campus. So with each type of uh plan development district, you have to have a suite of uses that they propose. And so you know council would be uh approving or asking to be removed before approval specific uses. So uh if they're proposing to have a data center, it has to be itemized in each specific instance of a plan development. in the case of a business and technology dispute.

Okay. Any other questions for Jonathan? Uh one other uh change that's apparent on the table here is to move uh data centers um from the uh office types of uses that category of uses that bucket into the industrial manufacturing and production bucket. And really the effective purpose of that is to change the required buffers. So right now um buffers they're in the same category as banks uh hospitals and offices. That's right now the requirement. Uh they would went up against residential they would be that type B buffer. And what the proposed change here uh by changing the category that they're in went up against residential they would fall into type D. That's the highest buffer category that we have. And when you're talking hypers scale data centers that's typically going to be a very large property. So they're uh buffers are also differentiated by the size of the development. And so when you've got the highest uh type type D and you're going to be looking at a very large lot size, that's the highest depth of buffer we have in in York County. And that's going to be the same category as things like salvage yards, warehousing, uh waste management facilities. Okay. The rest of the draft goes through establishing standards for u the use. So these would apply whether or not it is approved by a special exception or it's in a business and technology district. Um the nuances between those two. Um all of these would be u apply to all data centers. And then if there's a special exception approval, the board can apply uh conditions on top of whatever this uh

the set is based on local circumstances of the sight specific project that they're looking at and evaluating. The same applies if uh council is evaluating a business and technology district. These would apply to all data centers, but you're free to add additional requirements in any of the business and technology uh parks you might consider in the future. So going through these standards uh the first one here u deals with noise. So this would require uh that a noise study be submitted. It has to be done by an acoustical engineer and it have to demonstrate that at full buildout that u the site would comply with our performance standards and our uh nuisance ordinances. In addition to that, uh, this requires that all rooftop mechanical equipment have screens on it that dampen sound. Uh, so there's a a number of different strategies that you can use to dampen sound so that it is doesn't go quite as far and it's not quite as disruptive to neighboring properties. That's one of them. This would also require uh that ground equipment would have to be enclosed unless it's mechanically impractical to do that. I'll give you uh an example of what that looks like in the next slide here. And this would also limit generator use u to testing purposes only and as a backup power source in the event of an emergency. So they cannot rely on generators for uh regular use regular oper operations. And then uh the noise ordinance there's a paragraph here that is a reminder that they'd have to abide by performance standards. And uh same thing for paragraph four here. Vibration that's also uh already in existence in the performance standards. What some of these things look like. There's that rooftop sound wall. So these uh chilling units, whatever other types of equipment that data centers

would have on their rooftops, they would have to be screened by uh sound blocking equipment. There's an example of an a generator that's on the ground in an enclosed unit. All of that is are strategies to try to dampen the sound leaving the site. And here's an example of a noise study. That's actually the the QTS site that's currently under development. That was a noise study that they submitted. All right. So, here's um I'm not an acoustical engineer, so apologies in advance. U this is what is in our performance standards for uh maximum sound levels that can leave a site. though this is very typical. Um standards like these were uh created um 60 years ago and it's more permissive for sound that is at a low frequency because it's harder for the human ear to detect and it's more restrictive for high frequencies uh because that bothers our ears more. So you end up with this range and you have to have equipment when you're testing for u sound when you're looking for any sort of violation. Um but what it averages out to is uh 56 dBA. So that's awaited. So it's weighted for what humans can hear with our ears. And it limits sound leaving the site to roughly 56 dBA which is about if you're standing next to me and we're having a conversation. That's what that is equivalent to. I just want to point out that uh the public nuisance ordinance also applies though normally there's a 60dba limit at a residential lot line from an adjoining property. Uh but there's an exception to that. So uh that's construction. There are a number of exceptions. One of them is related to construction. So between uh 6 am and 900

p p.m. that can go higher um to 75 dBA at the lot line. Obviously there's going to be construction activity that's going to be louder than normal. And just for reference um there is also an exception for you know doing lawn maintenance u you know things like that and that's 85 is the exception for that. Any questions on sound? Can I can I ask you going back to that? Yes, ma'am. Um, is this the same standard for anything? I mean, that's what we're saying. Yes. This applies to all different all industrial uses. Yes. Uhhuh.

All right. So, here we have maximum height. Uh, this is the same language that council adopted last year. Um, so they can data centers go up to 80 feet as long as they're providing additional setback above and beyond the district minimum. There's some building design standards uh that we put into the draft so that uh got defined building entrances so they're not just uh giant blocks of buildings. And when you have uh buildings that are public facing uh whether that's residential property adjacency or uh public rights away that they break up those buildings with modulation. So I'll show an example of what that looks like on the next slide. But essentially you're looking to bump walls out or in or raise your roof line up and down so the there's some visual interest to the building. It's not just one big square block. U reflectivity. This is a little bit unique here. um had to research some paint um light reflectance value. But uh data centers create a lot of heat. They use a lot of energy. So one of the strategies that these data centers utilize is to use light colored materials or paint finishes so that they're reflecting more of the light off of the building and therefore absorbing less heat from external sources because they're already producing a lot internally. So try to reduce some of that. Uh we suggest a maximum light reflectance value of 70%. Uh in here there's also paragraph D outdoor lighting to reiterate that uh this site along with any other uses would have to comply with outdoor lighting. I'll show you an example of what that looks like in the next slide as well. A lot of these hypers scale data centers uh are utilizing their own electrical substations on site as accessory to the use because they have a number of buildings. they've got a lot of power coming in. Um so here we're requesting that those be screened. Obviously you can't screen the whole

structure but uh the buildings that are u at the base. A lot of these facilities have a lot of secure data. So they traditionally will look to have security fencing to make sure that no one's breaking into their buildings for security reasons. Uh that's a good thing to have. But here we're asking that they not use chain link or barber wire. When it comes to water, uh we left this uh fairly open-ended, but the the emphasis is on cooling systems that use minimal water resources. That's the point of emphasis. Uh a lot of ordinances now are starting to adopt the closed loop uh system terminology u and that would be acceptable under this ordinance, but it's really looking to minimize water resources. Here's what that modulation looks like. So you can see there's both vertical and horizontal.

Sorry, Jonathan, can you go back? Can you go back one? Yep. So these particular things are things that you are saying are are included as restrictions in the current proposed ordinance. Is that proposed? Yes, ma'am. Um and G um specifically restricts any uh any potential future data centers. they must use the um closed loop system. Yeah. Or similarly similar technology because it's rapidly evolving. Right. But the the goal is to make sure that they're using minimal water resources.

Right. Was there anything in the in the standards that has um any kind of caps on water and is there a restriction that you can't use groundwater at all? Uh you can certainly add that they they can't use groundwater. Um, I think the technology is moving out of that. So there there's certainly no harm in in restricting some groundwater. I think that's the intent of the ordinance here. So there's no harm in spelling that out even further. And then I think you had a second part of that question. I think capping.

Oh, capping. That's right. Um, so you know that's really going to be sight specific and it's going to depend on what a a water provider has capacity for. So what might be u, you know, something a water provider can accommodate in one jurisdiction is going to be vastly different than another. Right? So it's all going to be sight specific. It's all going to be provider specific. So I've not seen where there's been a low capacity added to a zoning code. Don't don't we have in in existing industrial uh uses uh a requirement that you have a letter from the utility provider that identifies how much they anticipate having and asurances that it won't that they can serve it and that you know it won't impact existing customers.

So uh what we have is a willingness and capability letter requirement when you're developing a site. Um though you need to provide a letter um and it has to include your um service providers. For some folks that might just be the city of Rockill for others that might be Rockill and York County. That's uh has to certify that they have the capacity to serve u the estimated volume and the flows. Same applies for the sewer uh part of the equation. So, you know, if if the uh public entity providing those utilities doesn't have the capacity, the project can't move forward under your county ordinance.

So, would that though, just to piggy back off of that question, would that require though all facilities? So, wouldn't they have to receive notification to say they can be supplied enough power, enough water in order to move move forward with the project? Isn't it a a baseline requirement?

So, uh, York County doesn't get into, um, power. That power part of the equation is usually left up to the private p power companies or the public, uh, service commission in the state of South Carolina. Um, so they have to be provided power obviously, uh, but that's not under our zoning authority. That was under the assumption that they had to prove that they could receive enough power at that facility in order for us to even move forward.

That's not typical. I have seen examples of other jurisdictions that are looking for some sort of letter similar to our uh water and sewer capacity letter from a utility provider for power. Also that just says that yes we power company uh power service provider certify that they have we have enough power to give this project. That's what I was just right

Jonathan um I did a little bit of research on this so we could talk about it tonight but it appears there are roughly 13 states out there that are requiring data centers to produce their own power and there are multiple ways to do that. South Carolina is not one of those. Are you saying that in our ordinance we cannot have that language in our ordinance?

So, um it on specific questions related to power and our zoning authority under South Carolina statute. I'd have to consult the county attorney's uh office for help in specifically answering that question. But generally um you can provide uh broadbased you know requirements like you know must have your own power on site. But uh and there are some negative consequences to that because then you've got a power plant also that's going on site.

Um and there's emerging technologies that are pretty disruptive also. U so when it comes to power broad-based is probably okay, but delving into dictating how much power companies can provide to a user probably goes beyond our zoning police power. Yeah. Okay. We'll talk about that a little while. Thank you. Okay. So, uh here's some examples again of that that modulation. Um York County ordinance requires that uh all projects have full cut off lighting. There's also limitations at the lot line for foot candles. That's

Can you Can you tell me what full cut off lighting is to a lay person? Just explain that. Yep. So, um, if you think about your light fixture, so say you've got a lamp in your, um, in your home, if you've got a bulb that extends beyond, uh, what that fixture is for the lamp, that's not full cut off because you can see the bulb. So, the light is, uh, directly, you know, coming at your eyes. Uh, but with full cut off, uh, that bulb is hidden, uh, behind the fixture so that the light is downcast and it's not projecting out onto other properties. That's the point of full cut off. Thank you,

ma'am. Uh so there in addition to the full cutoff requirements, there's also a requirement that they have to do a phototric plan. That's all for all uh commercial development to ensure that they're adhering to the rest of uh the lighting ordinance. So you have limits on what you can provide for your parking uh for the lighting on the walls of your building. Uh and also at the lot lines there are limits and that's all measured in foot candles. Uh the spectrum here the LRV uh that's the light reflectance value. U so humans aren't capable of reproducing 100% white or uh 100% black which is at the other end the 0% light reflectance value. So we're talking about everything in between. So uh right around the 70% is uh the maximum for light reflectance value that we would recommend. We'd also prefer that they use earth tones. So when it comes to the um water equation, I spoke with the utilities director about this. So, uh, say we have that capacity letter that the county signs off on, um, and a a site, whether it's a data center or any other type of development, uh, they quote us what their, uh, projected water usage is going to be, and let's say they come in and they use 10 times more than that in the first couple of months. Now, there's going to be some natural restrictions with type of in infrastructure that that uh, is put in. So there's only so much flow that can go through a pipe on a daily basis. But uh beyond the infrastructure capacity to service a site, if they are using far more um than they told the county that they would use, the county already has an ordinance uh under the public utilities section of the ordinance to deny service to that particular user. So if there's a fear that once they're in the door, they can use as much water as they want, that

that is not the case. So there are u additional standards that we're recommending for adjacency to residential. Here we're looking to have a setback of 200 feet for any of the principal or accessory structures associated with a data center use be 200 feet from uh the property line if they are adjacent to a residential property. And just for context for uh the uses that are in light industrial and ID the setback is 30 feet for a major road uh 25 ft for a minor road and then the sideyards went against a residential it's 30 feet. So looking to go to 200 here and then 300 for any ground equipment. So u a data center could overcome that by uh having be those ground units. Also a reminder that they would have to under this ordinance proposal be enclosed be 300 feet away or they would be internal to the site and so they're they're achieving uh because these are very big buildings they're achieving the 300 foot distance but then they're also having a buffer in between u those ground units and the adjacent residential property.

So can you can you share what this means in terms of difference difference from what's existing? So you said it's increased setbacks. Can you tell me how it's different than what it is currently?

Yeah. So it's right now u they're listed on the side there. So the data center is developed in light industrial or industrial development. The setbacks are the same. It's currently 30 feet for a major road, 25 ft from a minor road and then 30 feet in the side and rear yards. So this would increase that when against residential to 200 feet and then 300 feet for those ground units. Then also in here is loading bays. U not typical for a data center. It's not like a a distribution. There's not going to be a lot of truck traffic coming in and out. Uh but to the extent that they do have loading bays, this ordinance would ask that they not be uh facing residential problems.

Jonathan, could could we require more dirt buring in that setback? So, um there's a lot of u similar terminology, but they all mean distinctly different things in zoning. So, a setback is just the distance between a building and the property. So, a buffer um is and for industrial it's going to be u if this ordinance passes 75 or 100 feet with a burm uh 75 feet with a burm, excuse me. Um, so that would be where you would put uh something like that, a burm. Um, you could require that to be higher for a specific use. If you wanted to uh to do that, you certainly could.

I was just think but for purposes of the setback, I'm sorry. I was thinking higher up wider and then mitigate trees to get the coverage up higher. For purposes of this, this goes from um 30 feet to 200 feet for for the building. I guess how much of that is required to be buffer? It would depend on if they're going to use and that's any property line now. That's what's proposed is any property line or only it would be just against residential. You can certainly expand that scope.

How do you define residential? Like if some if properties AGC, they're allowed to build homes. Is that considered residential? It is. Okay. So, here's that buffer chart. So you can see based on the lot size of the development and the type of buffer that is required uh that buffer depth and the concentration of plantings in it get larger and larger. So if they provide an 8- foot opaque element which could be a burm could be a fence then their requirement would be to have a 75 foot planted buffer.

So using type D a data center wouldn't be able to squeeze into a smaller lot close to residential because of the setbacks would be so great. That's right.

Any other questions? So I am curious to know in your in your research you're studying obviously some of the things that have brought this to the council's decision council's attention is um action being taken or purported action being taken by the legislature. Did you have y'all had a chance to reach out and see what those um those changes are proposed to be and whether or not that's consistent with what with what you're proposing in this?

Yes. So, um, when I'm looking through all the bills last week, I think there's about six of them that are related to data centers, and they're all trying to do different things. Uh, some of them are, uh, centered around u specifically uh, power consumption. So, a lot of those um, proposed bills uh, are very clear that local governments stay stay out of power. That's essentially what they're trying to focus in on on portions of those legislation. Uh there's also moratoriums proposed that would put a a pause on all data center development regardless of when permits were issued until 2028. U so they run the gamut. There are some that are attempting to box out data centers for a couple of years and there are some that are looking to apply um some uh reporting requirements. There's another bill that proposes a whole new um division within South Carolina dees to specifically permit and manage these going forward. Um so I don't think there's anything in what's proposed tonight that would be preempted by any of those proposed bills.

I didn't see any any requirement in this about decommissioning. Is that something that y'all recommend be included as part of a a

So that could be something that that uh you all could have um put in. I've not seen it um in most ordinances that have been adopted. Um and for context, we do have two uses in York County that have deh decommissioning requirements and that's um quaries, so your mining operations uh and also solar farms. So your big uh ground solar arrays that set up. So those are the two uses that require decommissioning. We don't have anything that uses structures currently in our code that requires decommission.

Okay, Jonathan, can you go back to the picture? Uh we had a presentation given to each one of us. Is that the picture we saw in the presentation? I'm I'm not sure which presentation you're referring to. I think economic development did it uh before a workshop. So you don't know whether this is the picture we saw. It's not that was a picture from a different data center company that was wanted to come to York County.

And this is not a data center. government building that I'm using to show modulation, not a data center. It's just to show the light. This has got light. Okay. Shaded fixtures. Any other questions?

I had a quick question. So, uh, with with all the recent talks about data centers and they have to exist somewhere, but we just it's just like jails, landfields, we it's part of society now. Um, have we looked at, you know, when the data center was put in and wherever? I'm sure it went in with some concerns and what are some of the improvements that have been made so that they can coexist with surrounding neighbors, whether it's residential, whether it's other commercial outfits. Um because things like this take on an evolving pathway because I'm sure when the first one was built, it was probably wouldn't like what is being used today. Um some of the restrictions, some of the requirements, some of the setbacks. So, do we have any example that we can look to to say, hey, this one was built 20 years ago. This was the situation. But since then, these changes have been made to make it better for the surrounding areas and neighbors such as we're talking about lighting fixtures. We're talking about the setback stuff. So, what's kind of an example out there of you don't want it do you don't want to do it this way? This one has been constructed and it's operating, you know, with little to no um I can't say opposition because people they oppose neighborhoods being built, but these are operating within a reasonable and it's they coexisting in a in a community that we think these rules would work for your county. Well, there's um there's probably no ordinance out there that satisfies everyone whether it's the community that might be adjacent to it or in proximity to it or for the developer side of it. Right? There are some ordinance else there uh some ordinances out there that jurisdictions have adopted that essentially crowd out data centers and that one will never be approved. So, you

know, all the things that you adopt fall somewhere in that range where you know there's no regulation whatsoever and they can go wherever they'd like. uh versus the restrictions are so heavy that you'll never get one. Um so when you mentioned you know 20 years ago a data center was probably one building uh probably smaller than this one. Um and now that's completely changed uh with you know all the equipment all the technology all the data demands um now it's these hypers scale centers and it's not um a single user that's building a building for their own purposes. Now, it's companies that just build data centers and they find tenants afterwards that they sign contracts with for slots inside the building or entire buildings.

One more question. So, what's the closest if you want if we wanted to go look at a data center that's operating right now, what's kind of the closest one that would be to us that say if you want to see a data center that's operating in use to hear the noise, to see the facility, how it's operating, what's around it. Yeah, there's um there's actually a QTS uh data center that's in Richmond, Virginia. U since that's apples to apples with with QTS being the developer that that's here in the county, that's probably a good one to visit. Okay.

Any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing? I know that the planning commission is has reviewed this. Is there something that lists out? Is there anything that wasn't included or an itemized list of things that they've at least mentioned? Yeah. So, in their u motion recommending approval of the ordinance, the council u they wanted you all to look at as part of requiring a special exception um that uh and miss as Mr. Odette referred to requiring a letter that shows what their demand for electricity is going to be as well as their water usage in regular times as well as times of emergency. Well, that was a request of planning commission. And they also requested that you all consider environmental impact like light, noise and water and any other additional qu requirements that have been identified by similarly situated counties so that we can uh provide more broadly so we can even more broadly put into place restrictions on any new data centers in York County.

Thanks. All right. Um is there anyone here who wishes we're going to open up the public hearing now. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this ordinance? And one thing I do want to make sure that folks understand is um currently in the ordinance, data centers are allowed by right. What this proposed ordinance does is to place special exceptions on portions of them and um to to itemize that that consideration. So that is that's what's in front of us. This is not there there are data centers that have been approved at the county. This is prospective just to make sure that folks are aware of that. So is there anyone um here who wishes to speak against

against this u ordinance

John Gosset 5717 Lake Road I won't write the proper restrictions and protections for data centers uh protections that guard us from data centers My concern with this is two main parts. One, this thing is being rushed through. There was no need for that February 6 special called meeting to start this. You call it the first reading and you had nothing to read. You had a title and then here we are now. This is not a second reading. This is more like a county council workshop because the questions you're asking are very good questions that require county management to then go back and get you answers from that. This really is more like a workshop. You can't call this second reading. You got one more to go. You know, don't make mistake. Look at recode how many times you've had to go back and fix that. You're setting yourself up for something else. In my opinion, this should you should use the process you have in place. You got committees that start the ball rolling and the community can watch the meetings and come to the meetings. They can contact council members in between and say, "Hey, what about this? What about that? Consider this. Consider that." You can take all of the community's concerns and inputs and then you can knock them down one by one in those in that committee and then get something the doouts that you have for county management. Get all that stuff fleshed out and then bring it to a county council workshop. We're all of you there and then you will have more doouts that will need to be run to ground. and the idea of going to Richmond. Absolutely. If if y'all don't want to do a road trip, send somebody up there with a drone at night, take pictures of and sound readings, gather

the data because when I watched the February 6th meeting, that special call, I I'm not kidding you folks. I literally had a flashback of 16 years ago, right? I was like, "Oh, Lord of mercy." This is Nancy Pelosi when she said, "We got to hurry up and pass the bill so y'all can see what's in it." it this we're doing it as deja vu.

Slow it down and let's get it right because the community have got a lot of concerns and a lot of us misinformation. They're based on data centers that are not even what's coming here. There's no rush because there are no data centers in the pipeline. There's none in the pipeline. There's none over the horizon. This was triggered because of Hey, hey, folks, we're we're going to observe when when an individual's talking, we're not going to speak. Respect the individual. Let them speak and you'll have your chance to speak as well.

The one that's under construction now, what you're talking about doing, the restrictions don't apply. Do not apply. Do not change anything that's under construction right now. This was triggered by the 400 acres that QTS purchased because one council member blurbed it out. It's on the record.

That's 10 years away. What they're building right now is going to take seven, eight years to build. And the state is talking about kicking around could possibly happen a 2-year moratorum that no data center. And y'all could pass a moratorum probably right here in York County if you wanted to to say no more until we figure this out. You could do that. You did the mortorium during recode. What's the difference? You know, moratorum was defined by county manager says you can suspend, take rights away temporarily if you got a legal reason and an end date when you're going to stop it. So, I want it right. I want the protections. I agree. No groundwater shouldn't be there should be written in stone that thou shalt not drill a well anywhere on a data center site, never touch our water table. I think you just need to hear more ideas from the community and come up with something that when you have the final product, the community can say, "I had my say." Oh, well, that's my piece. Or when you rush it like this, you take away the thing you love to talk about, transparency, but you're not practicing it when you rush this thing through like this. And you, the questions y'all asked in the February 6 meeting, I'm not kidding you. I could answer every one of them for you. If I was in that room, I could have answered every one of not because I'm smart because I've been to all the meetings. Some of y'all hadn't been to any of them. I just ask you get it right. The other piece to this is accountability. If you don't put it back and do this right, if you're going to rush this through, then there's a critical change that needs to be made and that is take the SC code out. Take the BZA, Board of Zoning Appeals, out of this. Y'all are the ones that are elected. Y'all are the ones that are responsible. Don't pawn this off on seven people who

were appointed. And you want to know how you get your way with the BZA? Just show up with an angry angry mob. They just left. They'll be back. Data centers next on their agenda. I'm not lobbying for against. I'm saying do it right.

And just do your job and do this right. pass the restrictions that need to be passed and then there a standalone document that's in the planning commission I mean the planning department and they go down the checklist do they meet this requirement that requirement the other requirement what not the putting it in BZA is reminiscent of I'll give you a separate example to make my point go back to Costco two months ago who was somebody who was passionately against Costco. But to kill it on the third reading, late in the third reading, a poison pill was put in and then a bear was poked. The intent was to get Rockill City Council to kill it. That was the intent, but they didn't. This feels like the same thing where let's push it off on the BZA and then if they kill it well it wasn't us. It was them. Let's just just do it right. Just get it right. We're going to have data centers and they're not going away. They are going they're a reality. If y'all want to be behind the power curve on that, the citizens of York County, all of them are going to suffer because how you going to pay for all them unfunded liabilities that y'all been talking about for two years. You ain't going to tax the citizens. We're overt taxed now. You're not going to tax the businesses. We're overt taxed now. I don't think y'all understand how much money comes from these things and that you're never going to meet the requirements that we have a deepened hole on if you get this wrong.

Evening, Madam Chair, members of council, Dan Belaloo. Um, I'm the attorney representing QTS and I appreciate a few minutes of y'all's time tonight. Um, and I don't want to repeat what was just said. There's a lot of truth to that because I think when my client first found out on the Friday of this meeting that a meeting had been noticed 25 hours prior and that it was under the pending ordinance doctrine, there was this rush to try to get this amendment in place. It caused an awful lot of concern and confusion because my client came to York County with a positive economic development project that was called by this council. A huge win for York County, a great opportunity for our community, high quality investment. And I I I sent to all of y'all a letter last week laying out some of the specifically some of the reasons why my client opposes this amendment. Uh and I don't want to repeat myself on those, but there's some things that bear uh bear emphasis. And and one is the history of this site. This site has been zoned for industrial development since 1986. Since the inception of zoning in York County, this has been a site that the county has wanted to develop for industrial development since 1986. This is a site that primarily a large portion of this was actually purchased by York County to hold in inventory for economic development or industrial purposes. So, this is the right place for this kind of development. And in 20 uh 23 when this county went through this very intensive

recode process, we all remember how in how how many meetings were involved, how how uh intensive that process was. For the first time, this county had the foresight to see that data centers would be a proper use that we need to define in our code. And it adopted that code. That was before my client even came to York County. So the scene was set for this this particular area to be developed in this this way. And when my c client came to York County, it was welcomed with open arms and rightfully so. It was called the right kind of development.

I'm going to say it one more time, folks. I'm going to ask you to keep your comments and allow each speaker the respect of staying quiet. And if if it if you can't do that, then I'm going to have to ask you to leave. Excuse me.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so from a from a technical standpoint, this the the the the use for this particular site, and I know we're talking about amendments that apply o overall, but my client is the only client only entity that is building the data center in York County, and it it appears that the the the amendment was driven by um by its its acquisition of additional property, which should not have come a surprise to the county. This is an issue that I've been been discussing with the county for over six months and then all of a sudden we have this this rush to try to amend the ordinance. And I like the idea of taking a pause and getting the information, gathering the information because these kinds of issues that do garner emotional response require focus and they require facts, don't require emotion. Uh, too often things get get get muddled up with with misinformation and fear and and not with actual fact. So I encourage you send somebody up to Richmond. go up there yourself, see what it's like. Because our position is that when these when this data center is complete, it will it will fade into the background because it's not going to be intrusive like some of the other industrial uses that could have been used on this site. Uh distribution centers could have been put on this site. Mines could put could have been put on this site. um all all kinds of intrusive hazardous waste disposal could been put on this site. U of all the uses that are included within the ID category, data centers have less traffic, have less impact, have uh less environmental impact than any of the other uses

included in in the environ in the uh industrial category. And now we're trying to put it into a category that is essentially the same as hazardous waste. You got to go through a special exception process. And I do think that this county this county council ought to be the one that makes these decisions and not a a a board of zoning appeals. Um I I I think that that that is a process that is rife with um subjectivity and uh when we're talking about economic development um it's it it it's not a good way to perceive these kinds of projects. So my client is a member of the business community of York County. It's excited about being a partner with York County and with the neighbors, both the residential neighbors and the uh the businesses in this community. It has made a substantial investment, one of the largest investments, economic development projects this county has ever seen. um the uh the the process of these design standards. I have to tell you many of these design standards are exactly what my client has already committed to provide in the existing site. So as I stand here before you today, the design standards are not the issue. My client will abide by whatever design standards and protections within the code that this council deems are appropriate. But the process is important and the process to to force this decision into a board of zoning appeals rather than this council make that decision um is is is misguided.

Um, and I think what staff's presentation has showed has shown at this point is that this would be an outlier that every other community that has adopted a zoning ordinance that allows data centers allows them by right um in the appropriate zone. This is the appropriate zone. This is the right location. my client has shown that they are are willing to abide by the noise protections, vibration protections, the water protections, the environmental protections, all the things that are important to this community and to this council. Uh and and that that has not changed. So, in that sense, we're not really opposing these additional design standards and the technical requirements of the site. what we object to is is being uh subjected to a uh a subjective and a um frankly a political process that we shouldn't and that we haven't been thus far. So, um I I I think um at the end of the day, you know, these are all good ideas about making sure that it's not too loud, making sure that the lights aren't intrusive, making sure that it is a good neighbor, and my client's committed to doing that. we would oppose this uh this amendment as it is stated. Um although I'll tell you that if if if it were changed to a conditional use that we would have staff approval of where we could go through and have an objective set of standards and if we meet those standards we're entitled to develop project. I think my client would support that. Um, it's it's the process of taking that and then adding the subjective process of of putting in front of the BZA that that really my client finds object objectionable and and that's really appreciate your time. I appreciate everybody being here. Respect all the differences of opinions. This is an important issue for this county to get right. Just do it the right way.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against Thank you all for giving me this opportunity to speak. My name is Chuck Green. Um that's right.

I'm not speaking against this amendment, so to speak, in this in general. I am speaking against the fact that I don't think it goes quite far enough and includes quite enough information. U and I want to talk about maybe a few examples of that. Probably all that be considered. Uh but the presentation of this ordinance has said that the noise and the lighting will uh be within the performance standard agreement of York County. Uh that is no change that is no strict restriction unless the current data center is being allowed to not adhere to the for performance standards. Does the current data center it's already in progress QTS center is it bound by the performance standards? Okay. So that's that's no change. Not that maybe they you know they're same as every other business so they should be all right. The issue of cooling systems was also brought up. Now a closed loop cooling system if it's truly closed loop and it's truly air cooled and it's not water to water, it's going to be less efficient cooling and it's going to use more energy. Now the tradeoff for that is that it doesn't use as much water. But now my understanding from what I'm reading about data centers is that in high heat times in the summertime that sometimes that dry system or that totally closed loop system is not quite efficient enough to do the job. So then they put water on to the heat exchangers

and basically use it like an evaporative system for a period of time during these real hot times. And so now you got this high water use that everybody's complained about on data center. I don't see anything in here that restricts them. It might require them to have a closed loop system. I don't see anything that requires them to use that 100% of the time without applying water to those heat exchangers if they feel like they need to to keep it down to a certain level. Doesn't address that, right? Okay. Another thing is uh groundwater use was mentioned. Uh one gentleman said no well should be drilled. Somebody up here asked I think it was you maybe asked a question about groundwater to him and um I didn't really catch much of the answer. I don't hear good but I didn't hear anything. I think all this stuff's running together because for the last several days I've been reading every kind of document you can imagine. You imagine as I research this thing because I live basically next door to the thing it shares my neighborhood property line. So I'm feel sure I read somewhere in the York County zoning that a data center was not allowed to use any wellwater that that's already exist I think so uh maybe that's why that wasn't in here but definitely should be listed in these changes that in no way should groundwater be allowed to be used or and and all kinds of provisions should be in place extra for them so that our groundwater doesn't get contaminated. Another thing is that this deal uh this newer ordinance

maintains the 80 foot building height that was agreed to previously which went against the standard of 50 or 60 feet or whatever it was. Uh I don't think that 80 foot should be should be allowed. I think it should go back to the standard of 60 feet like every other business in these uh zonings have to abide by u unless you could explain some kind of benefit to us as residents that have habit of building that tall. I mean it seems that's just that much more unsightly to me. Yes, it maybe the footprint is smaller. you go up, you can save space and all that, but that still presents a a problem as having a real eyesore there. Um, the light industrial was mentioned and I surely think that there should be something in here that does not allow it in light industrial. I don't think that a zoning center that uses that much power has this kind of facility and this kind of cooling that generators, huge diesel generators, it's probably going to take uh if you use four megawatt generators, it's going to take probably 150 of them. If you use 40 megawatt generators, you still got probably 10 or 12 of those. uh we talking about, you know, just, you know, a lot of stuff that shouldn't be in a light industrial area. Uh also, most studies that I'm reading of people that are assessing what data centers should be uh and where they should be located, what kind of zones they should be. Most of these things I'm reading say a data center should not be closer than three

or probably even five miles to a residence or a school. We're talking now what we got out there now of course he's I know this is amendment for future but what's out there now is just a matter of feet from some residents you know so uh now so I think that it that should be considered to put these things in an area where they're suitable and right next to residential areas where the one going in now is not suitable. Uh these noise ordinance and stuff or or another issue I have I've been trying to find out uh what the penalty is uh for not abiding by the noise ordinance if they make too much noise. Uh I've looked at the performance standards and all that. I've looked at there's there's probably four different places in the county zoning that list different requirements for noise ordinance. I don't know if y'all knew that, but there's chapter 56 has one. Uh there's another one uh in in another place. There's uh and matter of fact, on the same page, I got some copies of it here. I won't get them out tell you time. On the same page, there's one place that says you can't make any noise over 60 dB if you're within 300t of a residence. And on the same page later on, it has the 75 decel limit with 60 at night. the the performance standards don't even have those. It has different amounts for different frequencies and it says it only has to go down by 5 dB at night. Our county doesn't even have a a standard that I can tell that is consistent with noise level. With that being said, I I looked at the

enforcement and the penalties. All right? So if they don't if they're making too much noise, basically they don't comply, a complaint is made and it's gone out and it's assessed. Yeah, they're making too much noise, then you know they're given 30 days or 90 days, I can't remember what it was. So eventually, if they continue to not comply, then the penalty is up to $500 fine or 30 days in prison is what it says. All right. Then it says that that penalty is for each day that the problem continues to occur. All right. So that's it. So it says it says nothing about how long that can go on. In other words, if a data center like QTS is willing to pay $500 a day, they can break the sound as long as they want to. Nothing's going to be done to them except they're paying their fine every day or unless somebody's got guts enough to stick somebody in prison for 30 30 days for every day. So, I called zoning today and I asked about this penalty. What happens if somebody wants to pay that fine every day and just keep making the noise right next to my neighborhood? Why ain't anything in there? Well, there's not anything in there. We don't have anything for that was what I was told. Said ver eventually it would probably go to court and it would be up to some judge which might be true. I don't know. Hopefully the judge would rule in, you know, our favor and not the data center's favor, but there's nothing in place that addresses that situation. So, I think there definitely needs to be

an ordinance with some amendments, but what we got here is definitely not sufficient enough going forward. And while it might not apply to what's already there, I surely want to protect anybody else that might end up in my situation down the road there. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Um the is there anyone who was just to speak against this ordinance um or the revisions there too? It looks like we kind of crossed over the line because some folks really think that it should be more, but I I think I guess I'm asking is there anyone else who wishes to speak against the the ordinance and then is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the ordinance in favor of having?

Yep. Come forward and you can you can make your comments about what you think should be included. Um I'm Stacy Armstrong, 1705 Wedgeville Drive. If you'll hand it to the clerks, you can pass it down.

Um what that is is it's an explanation from um my FOYA explaining that we the rate payers are paying for the Duke infrastructure of the substation that is outside of QTS based on a 90% usage rate. they benefit 100% from it currently and all of that is passed on to the Duke rateayer and I forward you the extract from that from the foyer. Um this is absolutely what they call an investment upon on QTS. Um the investment being for our infrastructure this is 100% to serve the Charlotte metro area market for their data storage needs. It is time and time again referred to what is the benefit that is solely the answer repeatedly on any of those foyas. Um he brought up the Stansson Virginia. This is their this is their EPA rating right now. It's been 260 plus days since the EPA has actually been to that that plant. This company has a worse violation history than Amazon despite being a small percentage of the size. The water usage, which I thought initially because of this and because everyone was so excited about the Clover School District being the economic driver and so many benefits financially to the school that this would be a really difficult thing to prove that we didn't need it financially because a lot of, you know, politicians really don't care about the other issues that it's having. But when I pulled the water, this is their water usage from their center in Fagatville, Georgia. It was pulled by an attorney, and I did share this with some of you guys. Um, their their water usage is over 2 million gallons just used in January. Now, they have one center operating currently. They are under construction. So, we thought, well, maybe it's because of construction. Maybe it's an outlier, an anomaly. So, we dig I dug further. that

packet that I shared with uh Miss Miss Brogden um and I also forwarding it to all you you guys is done by three um three different agencies for universities that have pulled the foyas from all these data centers. They pulled QTS is included in this as well. Closed loop is included in this as well. What it shows is that when a data center moves in there is a infrastructure requirement on behalf of the municipality when they use municipal water ranging from 5.67 67 million to over $400 million. When you combine that with their investment, we are not coming out in the in the in the black. We are in the red. We are in the red as a community. We are in red on any rateayer for the municipality. We are in the red on our rateayers for Duke. And York Electric is also a Duke rateayer. York Electric does not make their own power at that switch. It is then on the York Electric pay rate. Um there I mean there's just so many multiple reasons. Um they actually dug started to destroy the ground earlier than they were supposed to have. The um January 15th of 2025, this project was actually denied by the Army Corps of Engineers, which is well after our 2024 approval from this county to do the work. So the work began in 2024. Um, they also had I'm going to list the reasons why they declined this for these objections. Number one, conservation. Number two, the economics of the area. Number three, the aesthetics. Number four, general environmental concerns. Number five, the wetlands, which they destroyed. It decided to buy the environmental credits in a two-tiered system, which they, I believe, still owed for part of that for the McFly extension. Number six, the historic properties. Number seven, fish and wildlife values. Number eight, flood hazards. Number nine, flood plane

values. Number 10, land use. Number 11, navigation. Number 12, shoreline erosion and accretion. Number 13, recreation. Number 14, water supply and conservation. Number 15, water quality. Number 16, energy needs. This this system is set on paper for 684 megawws. What that'll look like is the reserves for diesel fuel of 1.2 to 3.4 million gallons in reserves plus day usage for their testing. Number 16, energy needs. Number 17, safety. Number 18, food and fiber production. Number 19, mineral needs. Number 20, consideration of property ownership. I cannot stress enough how we as private individuals in in taxpaying at least I am taxpaying citizens have no use in enjoyment of our property anymore. My husband comes home from a 10 12 hour day and has to put headphones on to grill on the grill out back. We own four acres. It's not on a tiny parcel. We we can't enjoy our own yard. My pool has not even been opened yet for the summer. It's it's just sitting there. The blasting and the noise and the constant violations which are very difficult to prove at this level. But anyway, the the violations because of the county ordinance and how it's written. I offered to put up a data machine to record it. They won't they won't accept that. So, it has to be an individual from the county at the property line. We as the people in the area do not want to put that kind of stress on our, you know, our our our sheriff's officers um nor our enforcement in the area. Um so, consideration of property ownership. Number 21, needs and welfare of the people. In addition to the public interest review, the other factors were also addressed. Number one, again,

energy use. 684 megawws coming on. Many days were in the red on the grid. Many people here probably even today went without power today. Myself included. Number two, water consumption. Number three, water quality impacts including heat emission. Number four, storm water management. Number five, aquatic ecosystems. Number six, noise and its impact on humans and wildlife. I cannot stress enough that the people who live near these centers explain this as they do not just hear the sound. They swim in it. It they it is not drowned out by headphones. It is not drowned out by being somewhere else. It is a constant low frequency tone that is not unending. It's 365 days a week week, you know, 365 days a year, seven days a week. It it doesn't stop. Imagine a jet engine 70t right now from your yard that never goes off. Next, storm water management. We know how well they've done that so far. Five, aquatic ecosystems. Six, noise. I Sorry, I went back. Seven, prime farmland being taken away from the area. Eight, viewshed, watershed. nine, traffic, 10, security risk, 11 adjacent property values, and 12 Lake Wy and Little Allison Creek impacts. They destroyed the wetlands that were designated as well as the um tributaries to Little Allison and the Lake Wy area. I can't say on a fundamental reason why this was approved, but I can tell you it was definitely not the right move for York County. If this were to benefit us in any way, shape, or form, I could understand why this decision was made to have this be by right now. We need to be the biggest Monday morning quarterback each of you is is capable of because I'll tell you, I sat through the planning and development meeting. They

don't know what to do. They're relying on each one of you. They're looking to you guys for answers. We cannot use places like Sandstone, Virginia and places that were developed around a data center as their community and their hub to provide for their people. This is completely different when they come into a already established neighborhood with residents and invade and that's what they've done and they continue to grow and I agree with your calling of the special meeting. Um there's reason to believe that they do want to continue as well as other sites within York County. Um, what I'm looking for next is a push back for a collocation of their fiber that they may also look towards Duke Energy to put towers in your yard and they'll do that by means of eminent domain because they'll use Duke and then they'll run their fiber cable along with it. So that's what we get to look forward to after this. Right now we look forward to 10 years more of construction on homes that we've all I've paid for my home for several years. We were looking forward to doing a huge renovation and I was going to redo everything in the backyard in the front. That's no longer going to happen. Now I have to find some other area that is relative proximity to my position and my husband's job so that we can make a viable life for our family. One that is safe and secure because with QTS it's not. So, I thank you all for your time and I thank you for your consideration and your further research and we have more information we'll be sending you this week to hopefully make this ordinance change something that both industry and the community can live with. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else?

Hey there. Um, I'm Dr. Ashley Thompson. I live in Lake Wy. I'm a cardiologist. I'm a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and I live in the landing here in Lake Wy. I'm also a mother of three young children, ages 9, seven, and two. My family's lived here in Lake Wy since 2018 after I came from Tig and we're currently building our forever home in Lake Wy. We chose this area because of natural beauty, the lake, and the quality of life that York County offers to families. Tonight, I'm speaking as both a physician and as a mother because decisions about land use and industrial development can have real and measurable health impacts on the communities that live nearby. I'm here to remind everyone that the health of our community matters and should be a primary consideration when making these kind of decisions. When communities evaluate large infrastructure projects, the discussion often centers around economic development, tax revenue, infrastructure needs. But from a medical perspective, another factor deserves equal attention, human health. Large data centers operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and contain industrial scale cooling systems, electrical infrastructure, and generator arrays that produce continuous noise, light, vibration, emissions. Those exposures matter when people live right next door to them, not just when they work near them. Many of the industry standards he put in this presentation, they were developed for occupational environments where workers may be around the exposure eight hours a day. He also mentioned that they're 60 years old. They haven't been updated in a while. But consider the families living there. They experience this 24 hours a day, every day during sleep,

which is when the body is supposed to be restoring itself for good health. From a medical standpoint, chronic environmental noise is not simply an annoyance. The World Health Organization's environmental noise guidelines have identified nighttime noise exposure over 45 dB associated with increased risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, large studies have found that for every 10 point decel increase in long-term environmental noise exposure, the risk of cardiovascular dis disease increases by 8%. continuous low frequency noise. The hum she was talking about the type generated by these large mechanical cooling systems and indust industrial infrastructure. They create what residents describe as the rumble even when the traditional numbers look compliant. It's well documented that sleep is one of the most important drivers for cardiovascular health. Research from the National Institute of Health and the American Heart Association shows that nighttime noise levels between 40 and 55 dB. The sound emitted from these data centers disrupt normal sleep. This is associated with hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, increased risk of heart disease and stroke. When families live near these facilities operating these large mechanical systems around the clock, sleep disruption becomes a major public health concern. not simply a nuance or complaint. Children are especially vulnerable to this. Sleep disruption during childhood is linked to developmental, behavioral, and learning impacts. As a mother of three young children, this concern is very real to me. Another issue often overlooked in zoning discussions, which I'm glad we brought up today, is the light pollution. I think we really need to talk about what this is doing. The American Medical Association has identified excessive nighttime light as a factor that can disrupt circadian rhythms. This regulates sleep cycles,

hormone balance. Exposure to bright artificial lighting at night suppresses melatonin. This is critical for sleep and cardiovascular health. Chronic circadian disruption has been associated with sleep disorders, metabolic dysfunction, increased cardiovascular stress, heart attacks. Lighting protections are not cosmetic requirements. We're not asking for the building to look pretty. They're health protections for the people who live nearby and should be considered. In addition to noise, sleep disturbance, light pollution, we need to remember that large data centers also rely on backup generators, the one the gentleman was just speaking about, powered by huge amounts of diesel fuel. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, diesel engines emit pollutants including nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, and these fine particulate matters known as PM2.5. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 has been linked to heart attack, stroke, respiratory disease, and premature death. The American Heart Association has even included that small increases in particular exposure can increase significant lifetime risk of a cardiac event. When facilities with large generator arrays are located near neighborhoods, those health considerations have to be part of the planning process. Finally, an issue that deserves careful consideration is the water and environmental protection. York County sits within the Lake Wy watershed and this provides drinking water, recreation and ecological resources for thousands of families. Large industrial campuses introduce risks related to fuel storage, chemical cooling, storm water runoff, and groundwater contamination. This all has to be thought about when zoning these properties. Protecting groundwater and surface water resources is not only an environmental issue, it's a public health issue. Once can contamination occurs, it can take years,

if not decades, to correct. One of the most important decisions this council controls is where these facilities are located. Placement matters. Distance is one of the most effective tools for reducing environmental exposure. Large setbacks, vegetative buffers, not just dirt but trees, and careful placement of industrial infrastructure can significantly reduce health impacts on surrounding communities. Once these facilities are built next to homes, mitigation options become extremely limited. The zoning standards you wish to establish and that I am very happy you're thinking about will shape the health and quality of life of York residents for decades to come. Yes, York County will continue to grow and to attract industry, but heavy industrial infrastructure should never be replaced immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Our community is already experiencing the consequences of earlier decisions. Tonight, I'm not asking you to look backward. I'm asking you to create a strong zoning ordinance to protect families like mine who live in York County and who call this area home. No other neighborhood should have to ask the question our our community members are asking today. As a physician, I'm trying to evaluate risk before harm occurs. Preventing exposure is always better than trying to treat a disease after the fact. York County is growing. Growth is inevitable, but growth must be responsible. Responsible planning means recognizing that facilities of this sca scale carry very real environmental and health considerations. noise, lighting, air quality, water resources, setback and buffers. These protections are not barriers to growth. They're safeguards to protect the people who already live here. Because once the facilities are

built, the impacts will fall on the people who live nearby. People like my children, people like your constituents, and the people of York County trust their local government will place health and community well-being at the center of your decisions. Thank you very much for your time. Please remember growth should never come at the cost of the health of the community and the people who already call York County home. Thank you ma'am. Anyone else wish to speak?

Good evening. My name is Rebecca Sichi and I live in the Allison Acres community in Rock Hill. I'm a mother, a homeowner, and a member of York County Citizens for Responsible Go Growth. I'm also a retired military veteran with 24 years of service active in emergency management and SEAB burn response, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear hazard planning. I previously served seven and a half years as a volunteer firefighter and I became a mother and had another mission. I personally grew up working on a 450 acre farm, pursued a military career after college, and had my fair share of relocations to include resid residing in six states, four county four countries and moved to York County in 2014 for my military career. My husband is a career firefighter. He moved here in 2011 pursuing his career on a large-scale fire department and is currently on shift which leads me to having to bring my child to meetings like this and involving her and being a part of her community. With her choice or not, she has now built a family around the residents that I'm working alongside. We chose to build our lives here and continue serving our communities. Our families live more than 11 and a half hours away. So, our family in in our neighborhood, in our fire department, have been truly the people we call family here. They've helped raise our child while we were called to duty, working shifts or responding to emergencies near and far. That is what a community looks like and is what and that is why what is happening in our neighborhood matters so much to us. The core issue is simple. The data center was placed inside an existing residential community. Many of the zoning examples that have been referenced by the county were developed in places where communities formed around existing data centers. That is fundamentally different than what's going on here. When someone buys a house in those areas, they understand what

infrastructure already exists. They see it. They don't they likely know the industrial activity that is nearby already. They chose to move there with the knowledge and awareness and all their sensory additives that go along with them. Our community did not have that opportunity. Our homes were here first. Our families were here first. And now we are living with an industrial scale facility operating directly behind our homes. Let me be clear very clear about something. I've worked in the technology industry as well and I collabor collaborated directly with software developers whose platforms depended on these data centers and what they do. These facilities absolutely have a place in modern world. They support health care systems, financial infrastructure, emergency communications and countless other services. This is not about opposing technology. This is about responsible placement and responsible regulations. In my career in emergency management, we eval we evaluated risk using simple equation of factors or yeah six simple equation of a couple factors. These factors were threat, vulnerability, impact and capability. When I apply the framework to the situation our community now faces, the concerns become clear. The threats include massive electrical infrastructure, large generator arrays with diesel fuel storage, substations and transformer yards, constant mechanical cooling systems, large industrial buildings operating 24 hours a day. The hazards we are experiencing and will experience moving forward include persistent mechanical noise, light pollution, emissions from generators, industrial infrastructure operating around homes and families. The vulnerabilities that include that are included the residential neighborhoods directly adjacent to the facilities,

children, families, veterans, and elderly living nearby, educational facilities nearby to the data center campuses, limited buffers between industrial equipment and residential lines and the impact is already visible. What was once quiet residential area now is industrial complex as it is as its closest neighborhood. In many ways, the facility has effectively become the worst possible neighbors in our community we could have. Our neighborhood has already experienced unannounced explosive construction events associ associated with work sites. Those explosions have triggered PTSD reactions among veterans living in our community their families hope to never see. Quoted as having similar feelings to his time in Iraq was what recently was told to me. South Carolina proudly identifies itself as a veteran friendly state. Yet, when residents raised concerns about these explosions, they were told the activity is regulated by the South Carolina Fire Marshall's Office, not locally by any means. No awareness necessarily is required, but these events are happening right next to residential neighborhoods. The people affected by them live here. Now that's talk. Now let's talk about emergency response concerns. From a fire service perspective, the current zoning guidance also fails to address operational realities. The proposed 80oot building height creates a significant emergency response creates significant emergency response challenges. Our local departments will likely require additional ladder trucks in order to safely operate around structures of this height. Each ladder truck can cost well over $1.5 million. And today, even after a contract is signed, a new ladder truck often takes 3 to 5 years before it's delivered and ready for service. That means York County taxpayers will

ultimately be responsible potentially for three for $3 million just in ladder truck apparatus and even more in additional apparatus support while also waiting years for the equipment to even become available. Those costs and those operational realities should be elevated before projects like this ever get approved, not after. Security concerns. There are also broader security considerations. Facilities like this represent major concentrations of digital infrastructure. Security professionals have raised concerns similar to those surrounding other large data data center facilities, including incidents at locations such as a facility in Fateville, Georgia, that many of us are very familiar with hearing about. Infrastructure of this scale carries considerations similar to other critical infrastructure sites. Those risks deserve careful planning and thoughtful placement. The ordinance must be quantifiable. Ultimately, probably one of my biggest points of contention here, which brings me to what may be the most important point as well, based off of spoke about previously. The zoning guidance currently being proposed by planning and development lacks clear, enforceable, measurable standards. This was addressed at the planning commission meeting as well. Without measurable limits, protections become suggestions instead of requirements. The proposal our group submitted includes specific quantifiable protections and include many factors. This was emailed last week. Residential noise limits of 45 dB or less during the day and 40 dB at night measured at the residential property line. That was just a suggestion. Not 65, not 75. What we hear that most facilities do maintain noise levels at. It's addressed protect protections also

against low frequency noise and vibration which was also addressed. So whatever the the assessment comes out to be from these agencies that do this for this direction I guess moving forward who determines what's the threshold that's appropriate. It's not in the guidance at minimum 200 feet undisturbed vegetation buffer adjacent to residential property lines. We're asking for that undisturbed, not one tree in the middle between two properties with a house that you can see directly through a 12-oot landscaped burm with sound attenuation barrier. We spoke about BMS previously that came up as well. Something of that nature needs to be put in place and add something that prevents the sound from protruding. And a fence line would be great, but not just a standard fence fence line what you see right now. Of course, it's not a chainlink fence that's getting addressed, but a garden fence, a pool fence, whatever you want to call it, property fence is not sufficient to block the sound. A minimum thousand ft separation between residential property lines and any data center structure or mechanical infrastructure. It sounds huge, but when you start looking at the assessments prior to this, talking about how close should it be to a school, two and a half miles is quite a big difference compared to a th00and ft ask. A generator, the generator arrays and heavy mechanical equipment located on the portion of the site farthest from the residential property lines and enclosed within a sound dampening environment. Right now, the way it is written perceives maybe of something of that nature, but it does not clarify what that truly defines. Lighting standards requiring fully shielded fixtures, limits on pole height near residential areas, reduced illumination levels and residential property lines, and lowering color temperature

lighting's been addressed. But make it sufficient. This is an 80 foot building we're talking about. No matter where it goes, it's pointing downward potentially, but it still illuminates in a community and a maximum building height of 60 feet, not 80. It was approved for 80 because of a special circumstance. That was the intention behind it is the perception. So why now make it 80 foot as the standard for these facilities. All right. Maintain compat compatibility with surrounding residential communities. These things are going to far outseed the height of our trees. That's not even talking about how big of a pad they put them on. That these numbers are not arbitrary. They reflect planning guidance that may many jurisdictions are beginning to adopt as communities across the county confr across the country confront similar challenges. Community impacts starting to become ignored if it hasn't been already. All right. Our community submitted a full ordinance recommendation pack package to the county council as well as the planning commission on March 9th. After receiving no response, we updated it with additional information and submitted that document again on March 13th. To date, I have received no acknowledgement or response from the county. Not even thank you. I've received it because the people most affected by these facilities should help shape the standards that regulate them, not simply mirror guidance written for places like Northern Virginia where communities grew around the data centers instead of data centers being placed inside exe existing neighborhoods. Looking forward, the reality is what has already been built behind our homes cannot easily be undone. But what happens over the next few weeks will determine whether another community in York County experiences what ours has ours is currently experiencing today.

Data centers will continue to come. Technology will grow. But placement matters. Buffers matter. Standards matter. And the residents of York County deserve protections that are clear, measurable, and enforcable. In closing, our York County has our York County has been a place where neighbors look out for each other. where people step up to serve their communities and where responsible growth is possible. Moving forward, you have the opportunity to establish real guard rails that protect both innovation and families who call this comm community community home. Not vague guidance, not suggestions, but clear standards that ensure no other residential community in York County experiences what ours has experienced. This is a step forward, but we need your help making it right. Thank you, ma'am. Was there anyone else who wishes to speak?

Motion to close. Oh, sorry. Apologize. Apologize. I was about to close public hearing. I didn't see you walking up. I won't take very long. Um they have said mostly what I had planned to say but I mainly I was here last week and I addressed the uh electromag field and I haven't heard. Yes ma'am. Can you state your name and your address?

Oh I'm sorry. I'm Shirley Oats 291 South Param Road York. Um, but I was here last week and I talked about the electromagnetic field and how it can affect our health and it has um a lot of things that it can affect and and we're concerned with the what it can do to our health problem because there's so many people in our area that does have problems that's not really addressed a lot but it can affect pacemakers. It can affect it can make them malfun malfunction or stop It affects defibrillators, urinary shunts. It can cause cancer, neurological problems of headaches, dizziness, memory loss, difficult concentrating, uh fatigue, sleep disturbances, pain, skin problems, anxiety, depression, uh an oxidant, stress can affect your DNA, uh neurological and brain tissue problems, and other things. I won't go into the whole list, but it has so much that it can affect and we need protection against that. Um, the noise has been addressed, so I won't go over all that again, but I will say I did a background on this company and I did find a red flag on it. Um it it could be from way back but it said uh common issue includes inaccurate resume information uh criminal records and poor history. Um so we need to find out how true is this. Um, also the um area I live in is Perham and

I'm off of Campbell in 274 and the population within the five mile radius of that area is um four what back in 23 was 4,000 but it has grown to 109,000 people. So it's going to affect 109,000 people with all the things that's going on. It's going to affect their health. going to affect everything that their water, their electric. Um, that's a lot of people. And then they're still building. It's been said that they're going to build another thousand plus houses in that area. Well, that's going to affect it again. So, when you consider this, consider a lot of these thousands of people. It's not just a few of us that's here, but it's thousands and it's going to affect him long term. um the sound of chronic um noise and stuff. Um the health profile of York County I read within the five mile radius of this area. The chronic disease of heart conditions is 4.9 already. The cancer is already 6.2. Diabetes is 13.2. In the general wellness, around 15 to 17% of the adults in York County report poor health already in fair health or to fair health. The average resident is 3.3 to 4.1 physically unhealthy and that's a percent of York County. And this area is going to be closer and it's going to have more um to to deal with. So, it's going to present more problems for us healthwise, which will present more problems for our hospitals and our doctors and our medical staff and our emergency equipment. With the electromatic field

and possibly mess up the signals of all of those ambulance, fire trucks, police station, police cars reaching someone in an accident. We don't know but we need to consider that um the impact on the community. The residents living near exposed to the data center often rise concerns about the impact and the quality of life the constant noise the increase in air pollution the higher energy demands rising utility bills. The potential threats to the culinary area. the strain on the infrastructure with the data center using the diesel backup generators which emit pollution like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Uh their locations are critical in avoiding harmful air pollution to nearby communities. Discarding the hardware can release heavy metals and toxins that is not disposed properly. the status that South Carolina have purpose proposed building of new gas power plants and expanding nuclear energy many derived from the growing electric demands on the centers. So we need the ordinances to cover this. We need to think about all the avenues that it affect. The the sulfur oxide and the nitrogen oxide or dioxide can affect the breathing of people with asthma and COPD and lung problems and lung cancer. I did research and I I have sack of it so I didn't bring it to give to you because it's just more information. But um these are very big concerns and we have

from my heart big business is moving in. Yes. But we haven't planned anything for people with low income and disabilities and homeless and things like that that really need consideration too. I know big business is because of the economic and because of the um is is there and it's needed but these other things need needed too but I just thank you for your time and listening. Thank you. Thank you ma'am.

Uh hey everybody. Scott Cook 122 West Oak Street in beautiful Whiteville Park neighborhood downtown Fort Mill. Uh just real brief, uh we live in Whiteville Park, 2 milesi from the interstate. We're below the interstate 77. So we hear constant hum all the time. Uh Fort Mill band when they're on the band practice field up high. We hear the band when they get down to Bob Jones Stadium. We do not. So not only are buffers, trees, it's elevations that uh come into play that way. Also on a rental property, 6500 Carolina Commons Boulevard backs up to 521. Uh there's a burm behind that with trees on it. We don't hear 521. Harris here built a gas station across the street from it. That's where we hear the noise and get the light in in from it. So the back of the property on 521 does not get the noise, believe it or not. It's amazing. Uh also on a property on Kirby Drive uh in Carolina Orchards on the railroad tracks. So the railroad tracks are below it. There's a 8ft wall. Uh the glass in that house is a noise reducing glass. So you really don't hear the railroad tracks in there. uh you do feel the house shake a little bit but I live for houses from the railroad tracks and my house in white park shake so along that line and on a little funny note kind of here uh Alip Palms they're trying to impose a noise ordinance of 55 dB so the ocean better watch out because it's over that most of the time and uh if they end up closing the outside music at the dinghy and the wind jammer uh you think I've been upset at York County before um just lo long. So anyway, hey, thanks for everything all do. Appreciate it,

sir.

All right. Anyone else before we close public hearing? My name is Steve Penland and I live in York uh off of Campbell Road. I would like to recommend the changes to amend chapter 155 be adopted with some changes to reflect wherever data centers would be proposed. Most changes that I've have put in is that there be no difference between a residential zoning area and an industrial zoning area. Industrial zoning areas need to be protected just as much as the residential areas. In um one of them I'm in the clue building design standard items to modular required. It states exterior walls that face public rightways or property developed with a residential use or that is located in a residential zoning district shall incorporate horizontal and or vertical modulation at least every 150 horizontal linear feet. I'm just requesting that you don't show any difference between the residential and the zoning. You just say external walls that face public rightways shall incorporate horizontal and vertical modulars uh etc. Um also on accessory item E on uh accessory electrical substations and it states uh all onsite accessory electrical stations must be screened for

adjacent public right away. And then you say or properly developed with a residential users located in residential zone by an opaque element of at least 8 ft in height. I'm just saying that just take out the the uh our property developed just say that all on-site accessory electrical substations must be screened from adjacent public right away by an opaque pot. just go and put it blank through there cuz these these people is in industrial areas like my place is that my homes on the property but I'm zoned res I mean uh uh

agency res what am I trying to say industrial thank you and so I you know I'm not going to get any benefit from that they going to zip right on up to me on it

also um in low water cooling systems. You know, there's a big thing about the loop uh chiller systems and that's on item G and it says uh that cool use minimum water resources. I'm stating is it shouldn't be from whales that take away from our groundwater. If they've got do it, they go through the municipal water system for the cooling towers and that's going to take a lot of money. It's just like a a engine running water. You got that engine and you got one through the radiator. Well, when you that that engine, it builds up a lot of heat. Those data centers going to build up a lot of heat and they got to cool those uh cooling uh rods some way and that's going to be evaporating right into the system and they're going to use a lot of water. I I don't know how much but my crew does on there. And then uh in item 155 development standards and then it says when adjacent to residential I'm saying take that out just say development standards in addition to development standards the following standards apply to all data center uses period. Don't say okay locate on property that's adjacent to property developed with a residential use or located with a residential zoning. The businesses are sitting there. They don't want this monrocity coming up right beside them. They need to have the same uh protection on it. And loading bays, same way. Um says loading bays must be located on any building walls that face adjacent. It says residential property. Just say adjacent property on it. The other comments I have on that is that it's known that accessibility electrical power is the key to where

data centers locate. If a data center can be can produce their own power savings, then they will do it regardless of the effect on neighborhoods or the environment. I'm concerned that the one the present uh data center that's being constructed now will try to convince the council to allow them to build a power plant fed by natural or liquid gas on the land on power road. These plants are extremely noisy and would not fit the surrounding neighborhoods. QC will be loud enough without a gas powered plant nearby. Please start looking at how York County can protect its residents from construction of a gas powered electrical plant. Thank you.

Not yet.

Um, good evening. I'm Chris Thompson. I am living I live in the Vanderlakes community in New York. Uh, and I am also a member of the York County Citizens for Responsible Growth, uh, which was developed primarily to address the data center in our county. Um, but more importantly, I'm a mother and I'm a grandmother and like many people in this county, I care very deeply about the future of our community that we call home. My family chose York County to live in because it felt like a place where communities still mattered, where growth could happen while still protecting the people who already live here. And that's why I'm here tonight. I don't agree with the placement of the data center near our community. But my purpose tonight is not only to talk is not to talk about our current situation with the the data center on Hensmail highway and Campbell Road, but my purpose is to make sure that no other York County neighborhood communities experience what our communities near this QTS facility is experiencing. Now, the zoning provisions that you adopt with this proposed amendment will determine not only how every future data center project in this county is built, but it will also influence decisions in other areas of our state because other county councils will be looking to you for guidance and precedence. And these data center buildings, they're they're not ordinary buildings. These facilities operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They include large electrical infrastructure, mechanical cooling systems, clusters of generators, substations, and massive

structures that can stretch hundreds of feet across a site. And because of that, the standards that we put in place must be clear, measurable, and designed to protect communities that already exist here. While the amendments proposed in this evening uh in this the this evening in these in this ordinance change here, um they're a step in the right direction, but they simply do not go far enough. There are several areas where I believe those standards should be strengthened. And what I'm going to talk about is already been touched on by several speakers, but I'm going to tell you what I wrote anyway. So, I'm talking about the building height to begin with. Allowing structures up to 80 feet tall is simply not compatible with York County's residential and rural landscape. Most of the trees in our communities are not even that tall. And an 80 foot industrial building towering over the homes and neighborhoods permanently changes the character of the area. But it's not just about the appearance. Buildings of that height also create challenges for emergency response, including fire suppression, ladder access, and visibility for first responders. Reducing the allowable height of 60 ft is far more reasonable and responsible standard for the for the county. I don't know why you guys raised it to 60, but I think that it needs to come back down or raised it to 80, but it needs to come back down to 60 where it was to begin with. The second issue is one that's easy to overlook, but but it's extremely important and that's the issue of the pad elevation or the building sit. If a developer is allowed to raise the ground before construction begins, they can effectively bypass the height limits entirely. We are already seeing that as an issue on the current

QTS site where we are having some upgrading upgrading on some of the land that's as high as 20 to 30 feet from where it was. So you put an 80 foot building on top of a 20 or 30 foot u elevated piece of property and now you're at 100 100 feet. So um the height limits only make sense if the height is measured from the natural ground of elev grand ground elevation that existed before the construction. Artificially raising the land should never be used to increase the allowed building height. Without that protection, the height limits written in this ordinance could easily be circumvented. Another factor that must be considered is terrain. York County is not flat. I grew up in Kansas. I know what flat is. Um that we aren't flat and we have a rolling land and natural elevation changes throughout the county. The large industrial buildings that are placed on higher ground can dominate the landscape and visually overwhelm surrounding neighborhoods. Height standards should account for how structures appear relative to nearby homes, not just the ground immediately beneath the building. Zoning should ensure that industrial structures fit with the landscape rather than overpower it. And finally, the ordinance must contain clear and measurable standards. These facilities bring substantial infrastructure with generators, substations, cooling systems, and electrical equipment. When developments of this scale are placed near residential areas, the rules governing them must be specific and enforcable. Residents should not have to rely on interpretation or legal battles to understand what protections exist. The standards should be clear and explicitly

stated from the start. And that means they should be measurable, quantitative, and they leave nothing up to interpretation. It either adheres precisely to the set regulation or it doesn't. No gray area. It needs to be black and white. Council members, this is not about opposing growth. I think we've all said that. York County is growing and we all understand that is necessary. But responsible growth means making sure that new development fits our communities rather than overwhelming them. It means learning from situations like ours and ensuring that future neighborhoods are better protected. I love York County. My husband and I brought our family here to this beautiful rural area specifically because it was sheltered from the noise and the confusion of the city and industrial settings. We came here for the nature, the starlet night skies, to hear the birds chirping in the day and the frogs croaking at night. We built our lives here. We raised our children here. And we have now retired here. All for the same reason. Only now we have 800 acres of industrial clamor, lights, noise, and fumes staring at us 247 all year long forever. Bringing this data center into our county at this location was a huge mistake on the part of our York County government and you, the people that we elected and trusted to protect the life that we chose to live here in York County. But you can at least do the right thing now when the f for future data center projects that when they come knocking at your door, you must make sure that the communities we love remain places where families can thrive. So, I respectfully ask you to strengthen

these zoning provisions by doing the following. Lowering the building height, close the pad elevation loophole, and ensure that future development truly respects the communities around it. York County deserves growth that protects the people who already call it home. And my husband Joe Thompson asked me to leave you with this parting thought. He says, "Tonight, when you are saying your prayers before you sleep, be sure to thank God that you will not awake to find yourself in the thousand acre industrial neighborhood. You can do that. But the decisions that you and all of your colleagues have made assures that more than 2,000 homeowners in this area cannot. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Good evening, council members. I appreciate your time and taking uh taking time to listen to our thoughts. Last but not least, I wasn't planning on speaking, but I can't just sit there and listen to all these proposed changes to the ordinance without thinking if these changes are considered needed now to protect the citizens, the environment, the health, the ecosystem, then why weren't they considered upon the original plans? It's devastating knowing that you're saying that these changes will not be retroactive.

I'm sorry. Um, can you please state your name and your address? Yes. Julie Ferraro. I'm from Vanderlakes in New York. Sorry. Um it's devastating knowing that you are saying that these changes will not be retroactive. So that's great for anything going forward, but the impacts to the citizens. What's not discussed in the talking points is these data centers will take many years to build. During these many years of construction, neighboring properties are and will continue to experience layers of dust loaded with unknown contaminants covering their homes, vehicles, furnishings so bad they cannot go outside without a mask. These contaminants inevitably inevitably seep into the soil and water sources contaminating them. Pets, farm animals, livestock are also exposed to these contaminants. There has already been reports of neighbors having white foamy substances coming from their water spots, from their wells, vibrations from blasting causing distress, especially to those with PTSD. Cracking foundations, pool slabs, patios causing structural issues, constant noise starting before sunrise, blinding lights so bad that they need blackout curtains, continual beeping of trucks and damage caused to the local roads from heavy construction vehicles. There's no more quiet days and nights enjoying life. Lack of sleep causing mental and physical health issues. No more enjoyable family time while all this is going on for years. The view for some of these abuing properties will be that of massive 80oot industrial buildings. No more beautiful landscapes and views of wildlife. This is just a tiny picture of what the impacts are during construction, not to mention what will occur during the operation of these facilities. Ecosystems and tree farms will be heavily affected by the extreme heat

from the operation of these facilities. And also I want to say that you say there's no expansion. You had no plans. I addressed you at the meeting. Uh, no plans to expand, but I showed you the conceptual site plan for nine more data centers and the actual foyer request showing that there was a request for a name for the new project and the expansion of QTS for the additional 400 acres on Parahham Road, but yet was no, we have no plans for that, but seems like there's a lot of planning going on. Um actually there's uh a sewer sanitary sewer easement going through that property to the other side of Parham Road right now as well that was um approved. Um, and also, you know, the real estate, as a real estate agent myself, I already see people saying, "No, we don't want to live there." We, you know, looking at houses in the vicinity, they don't want to live next to that. And knowing that it's going to be there for especially all the construction and the noise, they don't want to live there. So, these people who are trying to sell because they don't want to live there and it's affecting their livelihoods, they have to fire their homes. I know these new construction homes in Westport, they got 825 homes being built. They've only sold 120 in three years. And part of it has to do with that construction. I know that for a fact because when I take clients into that subdivision, they're like, "What's that?" You know, and as a real estate agent, I have to disclose to them that this is what's going on in our county and that there is people rising up against it and they need to look into it. And then when they look into it, they're like, "Heck no, I'm not moving there. I don't want to live near that. So, it is a major concern as far as that is concerned bringing in people that want to live here when the biggest thing that I had was you will love York

County. It is just we moved here from Long Island, New York 20 years ago and it was it was beautiful. Everything about it. I said, you know, not necessarily want to go to Fort Mill. I know it's close to Charlotte's. is going to grow. But it just the beauty of where we were was exponential to what we were we were living in. And I know there's growth and I understand growth. I I completely agree with it. But the type of growth is what matters. It's not that growth. I I would much rather see homes there. I would much rather see any other industrial. I know there was other plans brought before you for different types of industrial building in there. So when you say that you had to approve QTS by right, you had the right to choose who you were going to sell that property to. Your county owned that property, 173 acres. you had the right whether you were going to sell it to a QTS data center that you really didn't do I in my opinion enough research on what the effects of data centers are and what this impact is going to be to this community. I'm not against AI and all that. I understand that there's plenty of areas where these could go and it's not going to be surrounded by beautiful homes and landscapes and and destroying people's lives. Yeah, there's going to be some people that aren't going to be happy about it no matter where you go, but 800 acres, I think that's pretty excessive. So, I just don't feel like there was enough oversight done in the beginning to approve this. And I don't know if there's anything at all that can be done to make this the changes in the ordinance effective on the new uh I mean

on the site that's already being built is if you felt like this is important enough to change some of the ordinances because it's affecting the ecosystems, environment, people's lives, all that. If it's important now to do it, why wasn't it important when you were doing it on 400 acres before? So, it just kind of makes no sense. I appreciate the change, absolutely, 100%. But somehow it needs to be somewhat retroactive. And and I appreciate QTS, you know, reaching out to the community and trying to to help, but a lot of these things um are not going to change. And it's devastating to me. And as a as as a mom, as a real estate agent, as a friend to these people that live right there, when I go to their houses and I see what's going on and what they have to live with, I'm devastated and I'm I get emotional over it. But thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. I think we've heard from from everyone who stood. Do we have a motion to close public hearing? Motion to close. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor say I. Any opposed? hearing nonpublic hearing is closed. I really hate to do this, but we've been going three hours and I need to take two minutes of a break. So, I'm Okay, we'll be right back. Got to take a

All right, we are back from our quick break. Uh we left with uh closing of public hearing. Do we have a motion on the the matter in front of us? Yes. Yeah, we do have a motion. Uh motion to approve with amendments as follows. The removal of LI as an acceptable zoning code. Uh the restricting of groundwater access and also the requirement of a letter for uh requiring of power and water needs and also as part of this a referral to our planning committee for additional reviews and um identifying other needs.

I second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Can I make uh more amendments? I because I've going back to planning commission. It's not going back to planning commission. Not planning commission. Planning committee. So, so let me restate the motion. The motion it is to approve second reading with specific amendments in place and to refer the matter to the planning and zoning committee for further review and discussion. That is what is currently um on what

there is a a motion in a second to that effect. So, I think it might help instead of us throwing out amendments, why don't we let council have let's discuss this and then we'll figure out where things end without throwing in amendments. Do you want to this? You're the motion maker. Do you have anything else to add as part of the discussion phase? No, I've already said my amendments. Anything you're going to add? Anybody want to comment? All right.

I mean, I've got some comments. Um, what I would really like to see out of this thing is for this actually I agree that it was rushed and there's a whole lot of other ways this should have been taken care of, but I would like for this to be um also applied to all uses under the industrial manufacturing and production portion of the use table. um and to take it out of the uh hands of the BZA. Um they just, you know, we we're talking about the data centers, right? And that's all we've talked about, but anywhere in there we could put food and beverage and tobacco manufacturing, which has cooling. We could have a glass plant that has constant cooling and water usage, high water usage. um you could have chemical manufacturing over there, but all of those would be under the smaller uh same requirements that they are currently and wouldn't get the extended setbacks. So, I mean, we're we're saving for this oneoff item and I'm I never like singling out a single ind entity or industry. Um, you know, this need if it's good enough for a data center to have a 300 foot setback. You know, a uh electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing should have a 300T setback. Um, and should have quiet equipment. I mean, we don't want uh heavy metal uh manufacturing there with all of these additional sounds. So, I would like for it to apply to all of these uses in the industrial. So, so with respect to those comments, this we are restricted, council is restricted to the matters that are presently in front of us. So, there was some question about somebody brought up moratorum and somebody brought up others. We are bound by the

ordinance as it has been presented to us. So if there are questions or if there's an intent to want to add or take a look at other uses and and um setbacks for those that is something that we have to do as a separate ordinance. Okay. So any conditions would need to be a separate ordinance or okay to share. Currently what is in front of us solely is data centers. Um yes

with with the special exception. Currently uh data centers are by right and li and ID and um allowed as conditional use in BTC or BT BNT whatever that is. This this ordinance um makes it a special exception and has some some additional um conditions that are placed on it. Now I will say council what the motion um on the table is to make a few of those those amendments and then refer it to planning and zoning. So if there is additional discuss discussion at the planning and zoning committee where they u evaluate other approaches y'all can discuss that too there but this is um to get it to that committee. All righty.

All right. Since we're going down this way, I want to first say I do not agree with making this an special exception to get approved because we're the elected officials. I don't I don't want to be the one to pass that off, opponent off on somebody else. We're the ones ultimately held responsible to the public, to the community, to everybody. Um, and I got to say this. I made a little note here that, um, you know, some people made some comments that I agree with and they thought they would never agree with the way I would think, but I heard some people stand up here before us tonight that that certainly said the same thing that I wrote down. Um, I think one of the comments Dan quoted I think he quoted me saying that I think this was a good good project, a good fit. the home run. I don't want to see houses built on 800 acres. We're already talking about impacting schools. We talked about this being a home run type project where put something on the bottom line, benefit our schools, less traffic on the roads. If I asked a question in the back, what was Daimler going to do with this property when they got it back in the late

What? No. What I mean my question to staff is what was going there originally if anybody was on staff when we first started. Nope. Nope. I'm sorry. We've closed public hearings.

I guess Jonathan can answer this question because Yeah. So the the property was originally owned by Duke and one of their landolding companies, Crescent Resources. So, I don't know what they intended to use the property for specifically uh back when zoning was adopted in ' 86, but um because they held the property, I imagine part of the conversation at the time is the power station is right there. Duke owns this land as well, so the counties owned that industrial back in ' 86.

And I guess to sum up my little part here is is I don't want this to be a special exception. We're the ones ultimately held responsible. Um, you know, in light of some of the things that have come up with things that were approved several years ago, um, you know, it seems like we don't want any jobs to come to York County. We don't want to grow our tax base. We don't want to do the things that a healthy, strong community needs to do to continue to thrive and be a place where people can get jobs, we can pay pay for our services. Um, you know, it's it's it's tough. And, you know, I heard someone say they hated that we we even passed this. We voted for this. Uh, we didn't know enough about it. I think I think we knew enough about what we were ultimately responsible for. And we don't always get it right. I'm not saying we got it wrong, but there are avenues that we can always go back and and make some adjustments. Just like we talked about a data center that was built 20 years ago. I'm sure there's there have been adjustments made since a first data center or 30 40 years ago. You know, there have to be places that store data. Uh there has to be places where people get jobs. And I'm sure some adjustments have been made to make those coexist because when we talk about um jails, we talk about landfields. Nobody wants to live near jail. Nobody wants to live near a landfield. But can a community operate without a jail? Can a community operate without a landfill? Can a community operate without a sewer um filtration system? No. We have to make sure that we're putting things in place that we can coexist. I I think just because we're adjusting the ordinance don't mean we did something wrong earlier. It's just that we recognize some things that we can do better. And I I don't I don't kick myself at night when we look to make things better.

But it doesn't mean we got it wrong in the first place. It just means we recognize some things that we can do to improve the situation. If we sat here and did nothing, then we would be wrong. Then you can criticize us. But it looks to me we're trying to to put some things in place to make some protections available to things that people have brought to this council, things that people have brought to this staff. Um, and and for people to get up and say, point the finger at this elected official or this county manager or this assistant county manager is just wrong. I think we're in a we're we're always on a tough position. We're up here because we want to be in a tough position. We want to be the ones held accountable. I don't want to pass it off. And and and I challenge anybody if you want to sit up here. It's seven seats every four years. There's one open. There's three open. I challenge you to come sit up here and sit through five six hours of meetings go to meet we get a lot of information that we are we have to use to base our decisions on it's not by the seat of our pants it's not by emotions we try to use the best available information that we have to make the best decision and for if you think we're going to get it right 100% and if you think we don't have the option to go back and tweak some things to make it better then my heart goes out to you because it it doesn't work that way but I don't want to pass it off to anybody body else to to make the decision. I rather keep it that decision with us. If planning commission needs to planning commission or planning committee has to massage some things to bring back another ordinance. Um I don't I just don't want to pass this just to say we're doing something. Uh I don't like the the pending doctrine. What is it? The pending doctrine ordinance that just hopes everything. I think once you put that in place, it it limits what can be done. So, I'm I'm not going to support and I want to know what what

does this ordinance what does the amendments look like? How would that process work if we voted for what what Tom wanted? I mean, Councilman Odette wanted in the ordinance. How would what's the process with that fall? Because I don't want to pass something or vote for or against something. I don't know how he explained it how that process would work. What do you mean? Some of the some of the conditions and a amendments that he's making to the ordinance.

Well, I think the the amendments speak for themselves. They were they are going to be referred to planning and zoning if the motion passes in order to flesh out any other recommendations to council for for change before third reading.

I I don't All right. 9:26. I'll hurry. Um, I've been thinking of so many things I wanted to say considering all the topics we've deliberated from Fort Mill to now Lake Wally 274. Uh, I'll say this right quick because you just mentioned our job is not to make decisions based on emotion, not to make decisions made based on political benefit. Uh, just bas it on the facts and the truth. Right? I take myself back. I'm 59 years old, born in 1966. So, I grew up in Rock Hill, York County. When I was a kid, Lake Wally was the river. For those of you that aren't from here, it wasn't Lake Wy, it was the river. And it was the river with river cabins. And it's interesting that Duke Power's been around since the early 1900s. They built the nuclear power plant beginning in 1974 and finished in 1986. And somehow someway include me because I bought a house on Lake Wally looking straight across the nucle nuclear power plant. The plume of smoke that comes up every day constantly. Steam smoke. Steam still nuclear power plant. And in York County, some of the most expensive homes in York County exist on Lake Wy. And they all came about after the nuclear power plant. But we just reszoneed some property in the last year that was dang it was two acres of land. 1.47 acres is what I'm remembering that was off Allison Creek Church Road that was initially not in the evacuation zone of Duke Power, but it was something like that. I'm not going to call you the microphone, but but anyway, we we actually zone it to lower density to create more people to live that close to the nuclear power

plants. Interesting. But anyway, a lot of dicho dichotomy in all this. Um, now let me share this right quick because I think this is important. I said this once before. We were talking about the black jacks on the south side of Rock Hill. I think it should be said again. Um, there's not a lot you can do with land that by right can be developed, especially if it's not the county owning the land. You own it individually. So, I would suggest anybody in York County that owns land that you're concerned you don't want it to be developed, you should probably put it in a conservation easement, you should put a deed restriction on your property. Folks, public hearing is closed. So,

you should potentially limit the use of your property so that it moves from your ownership maybe to your heir's ownership. they can't develop it if if that's if that's a concern because that way future generations won't be sitting before council having this conversation because the land was restricted and how it could be developed. Tough decision to make though. I understand that. Um I do want to clarify this the subject and I feel like I got to do this because if I don't this is going to keep coming up. So ladder trucks, we have 13 ladder trucks in York County that range between 75 and 107 feet. Uh, one of those, well, actually two of those are in Newport and two of those are in at the Bethl station. So, I think we have our bases covered. That's one of the reasons why I agreed to extend the the height to 80 feet. Take the noise up instead of the noise down instead of a stronger a larger footprint on the ground. You had more in the air. Anyway, there unintentional consequences to everything. Now, let's get to some solutions or amendments or considerations, let's say. I mentioned this when we had our special call meeting. I do think when this goes to committee, there should be some consideration for a decommissioning strategy. Also think that in a de decommission strategy that we, the county, ought to have first rights to refuse on this building based on a formula of how we determine the purchase price of this property. I'll get to the reasons why in just a minute. Um, emissions from generators. When Costco came in, do some research on the trucks coming in, found out their trucks actually meet the EPA standards of, hate to say California, but they meet the EPA standards of California. What does that mean? It means that a truck's emissions have they have less emissions than our lawnmowers. That's pretty good. But we need to make sure these generators that have to be started up periodically um actually meet some very stringent standards in my opinion. Um, I brought this up as well. Not any use of any groundwater or wells, but we would

encourage the collection of runoff water when it rains and they can recycle that. I think that'd be great. Now, let's go back to what Councilman Rody just mentioned a minute ago, unintentional consequences of decisions. So, this this particular topic kind of like Silab started before our county manager was here. He wasn't here in 2022 or 2023. Not on the Silab project, not on this project. But I want you to think about this and and apply this to yourself personally and to your business if you are working in 2022 2023. I'm not going to ask people how many of you knew what AI was. I don't think I knew what a AI was in 2223. Only roughly 7% of the people in the US actually used AI in 223. It was a it was a non-starter. It wasn't even a conversation we were having. But look how quickly it's changed. 2026 roughly 21% of employees use AI at work. Still not a lot, but go back. You heard the conversation on the grid. So how much how much usage we had in 22 23 versus 26 today. What about 29? When we go look out at 29, they're expecting AI to be mainstream and roughly 60% of workers are going to be using AI. We use it in our business. We actually pay, we have a contract so that we can control our our information from our agency within our own cloud protected. It's becoming more and more popular. So, with all that being said, and I'm not a researcher, man. I just do like y'all do. I go on the internet and and look and look here and look there and look for different perspectives. But around the country, there are about roughly 13 states, could be more, could be less. South Carolina is not one of these that encourages the data center projects to supply their own power. And there I'm not going to list these because somebody's going to take one and say, "God, we don't want that." But I do think we need to consider if not mandate

in our conditions that the the data centers that that exist in the future produce their own power on site. If not, they have some kind of relationship with the power source where they pay for their power, not our citizens and not our businesses. Because here's the thing, y'all. Even when you look and I didn't look out past 2029, but what that what about 2040? What do you think the consumption is going to be for for data at that point, if it even exists here? That's another thing. That's why I put decommission in here. They're actually data centers. If you don't know this, they're data centers that are underwater. You got Elon Musk talking about data centers that are in space because it's so cold you can cool them down. So, who knows where this is going, but I think it goes back to planning, trying to plan for anything you possibly can that could potentially happen in the future. So, uh that was the last piece. I think that we should take our time to figure out how do we mandate uh the creation of their own power on their own property. And then you got to look at well how are you going to do it and then you're going to have to deal with sound issues or emissions issues or whatever it might be. So I have to dig deeper but I do think that should be a consideration those all the notes that I have tonight. Quickly before we switch to the other side because I was just asking a question earlier. Um, you know, I came in tonight prepared to, uh, support this thing, uh, as long as we can make some substantial changes to it, but, uh, there's no chance I support this poorly written, terrible regulation that is part of bad governance, and I'm just not going to support this, um, in this form. I will gladly support uh setbacks and all of that stuff if it's written properly, but to say that we're going to pass this and then fix it later or something else and leave people set, I

just cannot support this in its current form. And I'm sorry for y'all, but I'm not going to support this. Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? What? Can I just say one thing? What? Okay.

In the current form, then it is. You're right. It's not good. That's why we're making amendments and that's why we're we're asking for it to go back to u you know our our committee and you're on that committee planning and zoning. So to move it to that point I mean what's the choice here madam chair? I think that's the appropriate process. I I think we need to move move it forward and I think this is the way to do it. So if you're I haven't had my chance. I mean I mean I'm not happy with it either, but we've got to

the motion again is to make amendments that are the the the salient amendments and to refer it to committee for further evaluation before it becomes just for staff. Can you repeat the amendments so we can make sure we heard them? Yeah. Okay. The amendments are to remove LI as acceptable zoning code. Uh to restrict groundwater access and then lastly to require a approval letter for needs of water in power what now and to go to the uh refer to planning committee.

So what about the special exceptions to I think right now that's That's what's currently in front of us, right? That's what's currently in front of us. The planning and zoning committee can evaluate all options, including potential changes to how that moves forward. But in order for this to move forward, this has to go to the committee to the committee. But this still even what we do here isn't going to do anything for what is already been right. This is for future. This is for future. Mhm.

So, couldn't we make the motion to lock that down on anything future? Work more towards getting the company to meet a few criterias and amendments on what's already there. This applies this applies solely to any future data center.

Right. But that's what I'm saying. if we locked it down while we're working on this because I would like to see now I know what we're doing but I'm just saying we work on some amenities for to help with the one that we're working on now whether we talking about buffers whatever we can get moving generators to the center of the facility to help caption some of the noise in between the buildings. I mean,

and and lock down that other land until we get this worked out. So, the issue before us right now and and everybody saying all right, we can accomplish it. It's I think I think we are accomplishing it by moving it to the next phase and I think that folks are hearing that there are options the planning and zoning committee has the ability to consider all additional options. I think the main thing is to get any amendments that the council feels strongly about on the table currently now. So um I I'll do you have anything further?

Okay. So, I'm going to support the motion solely because this is this is the vehicle that management and and legal suggested to us to get this moving forward. There are some things that need to be done including um not uh not using groundwater which immediately needs to go into effect. That that is a number one thing that that has to be and that's why I support the motion. I I will say this and I'll put it in the form of an amendment just for as additional things for the um planning and zoning committee to consider and I'll offer it up as a an amendment. I agree with Mr. Huckabe. I do think that there needs to be um a decommissioning um provision provided um requiring that any applicant submit a decommissioning plan detailing rem removal of equipment remediation of fuel storage areas and site stabilization measures. I also agree and I just want to be clear that I think that every applicant should be required to provide full disclosure of the cooling type um and the w the projected water use um that will be pro provided at the time of application to disclose the type of cooling system the estimated average daily water usage estimated peak daily water usage estimated water consumption at full buildout. So that you have to have benchmarks in order to measure them against that to require that you have a um a water the water service provider to um provide a willingness and capability to serve that and to also um and that apply with both that and the electric so that and to ensure that those um infrastructure needs are paid for by the applicant and not um the public. I think that's something that you kind of already put in there, but um I'm trying to see if there was one more.

I want to address the special exception. Yeah. Well, for purposes of I think I've covered the things that I think need to be pushed. I think those are things that y'all stated that weren't actually put as amendments. Is there a second to that? We'll we'll move on to that in a minute. I just want to I want to address the special exception. Okay. Well, I've got a motion. Is there a second to those provisions? I can I can second I can second what you just mentioned. Second. Yeah, I think for purposes of uh us sending this to committee, those categories of things would would also be included. So in terms of voting on that amendment, um all those in favor of the amendment say I.

I. No. Any opposed? Oh, sorry. No. Okay. Um so the eyes have it. So the amendment is approved. Are there any Miss Cloner? So I want to add I want to make a an addition that we look at the special exception. We're right. It needs to be here. It remains to be needs to be with us and not the BZA. So you want to remove the special exception.

I want to remove that. Yes. And I also want to for us to take a a hard look at when a company comes in and they make a proposal, what happens with that proposal? I mean, are they given free reign to put we think we're voting on one building and all of a sudden they're they're putting 13 buildings on a piece of property? I mean it we just need for the companies to be honest in whatever they're proposing. That's what that's it. So that's what they get.

Let me let me let me say this and I know y'all are going to get frustrated with me, but I I am going to interject. The the motion and the ordinance that's currently in place requires a special exception consideration. Having said that, this gets referred to committee. I think y'all can evaluate whether or not you think that a different vehicle is appropriate before we come back for a third, but I don't think we can change that provision at this stage of of of the proceedings. I mean, I I it fundamentally is part of the the ordinance. So, I don't know how you do that piece, but I I will say So, when is it going to come to committee before third reading? Oh, it'll go straight from committee to you after this. This is second reading.

I I have a question. So, if we can't remove the special exception requirement now, you're saying we can't remove it at third reading either, correct? Because is this not an ordinance for special exception? I'm sorry. Would you ask that one more time? If we can't remove the special exception requirement now, when can we remove it? Because I don't support that. I want to support what Christy wants to uh I mean, Chairman Cox wants to put in. I like what Watson said, but I don't agree with this being a special exception.

So, but if we can't remove it now, when can we remove the special exception? Because I don't want this to go to the ZBA to to to be approved. It would have to come back to council for third reading before that would be done. So, I'm talking about if any other future in the future. I'm not talking about this ordinance.

What do you mean? I mean, I'm not talking about um the future uh approve uh approvements of a data center or whoever is going to this is going to fall on. I don't want it to be I want it to be our decision, not uh appointed board to approve whether a data center could be constructed, whether it's on Q2S property or somewhere else. I want that to be on us. Well, wouldn't I again, if we if that goes to the committee, they could come back with the recommendation to remove special exception. Correct.

Yes, sir. So, if it goes to um the committee right now, that will also give legal an opportunity to fully vet that item and then you'll have the report coming out of that committee when it comes back to county council for a third reading. Right. There you go. B. So, if the special exception can be removed from the title, why can't I add all these other uses to it right now so that we don't have to go through this whole thing?

My understanding from legal is we've had this issue come up before and that if it is not something that's specifically stated out in the meets and bounds of the ordinance that we can't consider it. You can take away from and you can add to the specific ordinance, but you can't add you can't add totally new uses to the ordinance. So, I can take away from the title, but I can't add to the title. I'll let legal say this. I know that this has come up before, and I think we are we are stuck with the ordinance that has been put in front of us, which is an ordinance for a special exception as it specifically relates to data centers.

That is a correct summary. And that is a correct summary of what has been legal's position. I think if there are other uses and folks want to refer other things to committee, I mean, I think that that would be necessary. Right now, we're dealing with data centers in the context of

Let me just point out one other shortcoming of this thing. Let's say we get it to committee. There's only three of us that vote on it. It gets back to uh third reading. Third reading is final. Final final. So, if we don't all agree, we're going to be up here trying to make amendments on top of amendments on top of amendments trying to get this thing worked out and either crush it right then or we pass some Frankenstein ordinance is going to be crap. So, again, why don't we just defer second reading and let it go? We need amendments on the table. We have amendments on the table. Some people are bound to determine to do this via political reasons.

It's not political reasons. There are specific things that need to go need to move forward. I mean, we don't even have groundwater restrictions in place, right? But we're not we're not until we finish third reading. It's pending ordinance. It's a pending ordinance. So, nobody can do anything with it right now anyway. No, that's not actually true. Well, if we're talking about we're talking about QTS, they've said they're not gonna actually utilize groundwater. So we have to get something in. So what would deferring what would deferring do to this ordinance if we deferred it tonight? There wouldn't be the amendments to it. So groundwater still be open.

I mean why can't we do pending document uh doctrine on a moratorum and do that because that's not what's in front of us. I know. Well, we could do that next year. What's we have to vote on what's in front of us right now. We have We have a motion QTS to the We have motion and amendments. What is going on? We have a motion. We have amendments. I think everyone's had their their say. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Opposed. We need to do that again. What was the vote? I mean, I didn't get a chance to vote. Watts wasn't in the seat. So, all those in favor of the motion that's currently on the table say I. I. I. Any opposed? Opposed. Motion carries.

And we can address it and the matter is referred to planning and zoning committee.

Stupid.

Council to hold a second public hearing. Believe it or not, council would hold a first public hearing and consider second reading of an ordinance authorizing the execution and delivery of development agreement by and between York County, South Carolina and Clover School District number two, both political subdivisions of the state of South Carolina for the development of two schools in pertinent facilities and for mitigation of traffic impacts derived there from on tax map parcel 48800000011 comprised of 172.42 42 acres on Cannibal Run and Liberty Hill Road West pursuant to the South Carolina Local Government Development Agreement Act to provide for a public hearings and to provide for other matters relating there too. Is there anyone here? Do we have anything for management? Again, this this has nothing to do with data centers at all, right? Just to confirm because we get a lot of questions from the community. This is purely related to the development. Yes, like we said last meeting and I know our planning director's here and we could show you the map again if you want, but this really is to help uh related to the uh to the unmititigated traffic impact analysis items. So, this is an agreement between Clover School District and us to address those when they come up down the road.

All right. Anyone here wish to speak against? Anyone wish to speak in favor? Motion to close public hearing. Second. Motion and a second to close public hearing. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Public hearing is closed. Do we have a new motion? Motion to approve. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries. We move now to our first item of new business. Consider first reading of an ordinance by title only of York County, South Carolina to regulate ambulance services, establish franchise requirements, and provide for collaborative service quality review and program oversight and to provide for other matters relating there too.

Yes, Madam Chair. So, this came out of the JPS committee. It was reported uh by Council Member Atkins the other day at our last meeting. And so our our assistant county manager uh David Garner over public safety is prepared to give a quick quick highlight of some of these items. Uh it's it's by title only, but we're prepared to speak to the essence of it.

Thank you, Mr. Manager. Um for council, just to make you aware, this is the same information that was provided to the JPS committee. Uh so to start off just kind of expressing the purpose and the reason why I I'll sum it all in with the respect that York County has largely never taken an oversight or compliance perspective with respect to EMS and our hospital providers in the county. Um it's been done through contracted services. Uh so as we discussed the issues with that expanding uh and also the issues that came about with recent acquisitions uh we viewed it also as an opportunity to establish an ordinance that would create a franchise system that would move us away from a contracted system and more towards franchise accountability that would give the county greater oversight. Um so with that this ordinance actually puts that into effect. Uh our curtain providers are are grandfathered in but they will also within six months of uh a successful third reading of this ordinance if council chooses to uh would also engage them in having to comply with that franchise as well. Uh so one thing this does not do is it does not do away with their current contracts for service. Uh but we will find that uh through uh agreements with our outside council that developed this uh that as long as they are complying with the terms of this ordinance and their franchise agreement uh that they will also be in compliance with their contracts. Um Can you go forward one slide? Uh so what it does again establishes a franchise requirement for ambulance services operating within the county that is current and perspective for any future uh ambulance providers in the county. It also differentiates between emergency and non-emergency providers. And the key component of this is that it protects the integrity of the 911 system and keeps ambulances dedicated to the 911 system uh and and away from being pulled into non-emergent uh calls for

service. Uh so that way we actually have a stable 911 service and ambulances can be relied upon versus being pulled for non-emergent transports and out of the system which creates a a complex kind of shifting of the map when that happens. Um last slide here. Uh so again, this is really geared at system protection and operational controls. Uh so they're reserved exclusively for emergency response. Um it also protects patient choice. That's a big thing that we've heard repeatedly is patient choice, particularly as some of the legacy rescue squads have been acquired by uh hospital systems. Um so again, this this once again that's already in place at the federal level, but it codifies it at the local level as well. um and only certain conditions would allow for patient um choice uh to be deviated from based on condition or emergency response or if there's something that a specific facility has that that patient needs that perhaps the one that they wish to go to does not. Um so it puts all those protections in place and actually gives the county the ability uh to address those if they occur and to investigate complaints but ensure overall system compliance. Um, so this is as it was presented to the JPS in its exact form. Uh, there have been no changes. Uh, and they gave it a favorable report out of the last JPS meeting. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has.

Implementation of this specific ordinance, does it have a financial impact to the county? There is no financial impact. Um, in fact, the financial impact to the hospital providers would be minimal. Uh, the point is not to have a revenue stream from this. It is really just to create that accountability piece uh so that they have an application and would really just pay for the the very minimal manhour that it would take to um assess each one of the applications but it does give us the ability to manage the oversight and compliance within our EMS system for the hospital providers that choose to be a franchisee. Thank you sir. Any other questions? Questions? Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. Second

motion and a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number two, a new business request for approval to implement a 10% across the board pay increase for all sworn personnel at the sheriff's office. This includes deputies, detention officers, and other sworn personnel 200 grade level pay bands. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries. Committee and other reports. Economic development committee meeting. Chairman Watt Suckabe.

You know, due to time, can we defer that until next meeting? Would that be okay? If not, I can pull this out and share it. You want me to pull it out and share? Give me a second. Please apologize. All right. The economic development committee meet met on March the 12th and Councilwoman Cox and Aldette were present. Um we started out talking to the Chamber of Commerce. Y'all remember back in 2022 before I joined council, it was proposed that we contribute $100,000 a year for three years. So in tax year 2023, four and five, we gave the chamber $300,000 to help with a workforce development initiative. Um well, they have done phenomenal things with the 300,000 that we gave them. I won't get into the return on the investment, but it is significant. And I'll just sum it up and say that they're going to come back to us and ask us for another $300,000 aotment, $100,000 a year for three years so they can continue on. I'll tell you that the money that we gave them, they they have done such significant work with workforce development that in 2025, they were named the number one small business chamber of commerce in the Carolinas. A lot to do with this initiative and what Celeste is doing. It is pretty phenomenal. It's incredible what impact this is going to have on uh our ability to continue to bring in the types of industry we want to bring in into York County while they continue to work with our high schools, York Tech as you heard tonight uh and also uh Winthrop and Clinton. Um we talked about I brought this up at one meeting the Bailey bill. Uh this mainly came up because over in CL over in Clover the old American Thread building there

actually two buildings. I think one building's 214,000 U square feet. Sorry, I'm tired. U second building, I can't remember how big it is. But um if in fact we can agree as a council on what the terms would be of the Bailey bill, which we're going to bring that back to you from committee for consideration, um we believe that renovating that building could spur on other renovation on the south side of Main Street in Clover. It could have a significant impact on Clover. So there's more information to come on that. Uh staff's going back and they're going to come back with some suggestions for us to consider. We also looked at a small business roadmap. The Eduardo came over from the city of Rockill and Joy and joined the economic development office. So we talked about some small business initiatives. Um, a lot of what we do in the county, I won't mention a number, but there is a number above north of this number is where we begin to provide fee and loo or incentive agreements to companies, but smaller companies don't necessarily get that. So, um, we're looking at ways that we can help smaller companies that maybe already exist in York County, but maybe they want to grow, they want to expand. How can we invest and help them do that? If you've never been in that position to approach a county or municipality to do something has to do with expanding your business, it is a difficult process. So, there are things that we can do in our budget this year to make that easier. There are things we can do for small business. Aspen Business Park. If you're heading down uh 161 towards Rock Hill, you get to um it's not Airport Road. I'm drawing a blank. Museum Road to the right is Aspen Business Park. So, we're we're we're I hate to say partnering, but we are involved with the extension of the road that will connect it will be a connector between 161 and Heckle, so it'll pull some of the traffic off of 161, which

actually is a good thing. Um, future discussions, we talked about how do we qualify companies for incentives and and Councilman Rody said this earlier and I agree with it 100%. You know, it's kind of like I use this as an example. Told you to defer this to next meeting. Um, kind of use this as an example. Act 388, you know, in 2007, I guess it was two, it was proposed in seven. I think it was passed in eight, maybe it was passed in seven, I don't know. But act 388, just think about it. If the legislature would have passed it, it was a constitutional amendment. It's very difficult. Citizens would have to reverse it. But if there were if there was language or provisions to to re-evaluate Act 388 in 2008 or 2009, maybe wouldn't be in the tax situation we're in now for businesses here in York County, right? So anyway, we're we're looking at ways of qualifying incentives for businesses in York County. And that could be small and that could be large and mega like you know the QTS facilities, data centers of the world that that generate between you know 1 billion and 8 n billion of investment and significant tax dollars for the school districts if there is a municipality involved and also the county. So anyway, that's it. That that's what we discussed in our committee meeting.

I have a little more. You want me to share it? Wait, I'll wait. Can you email it one more time? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Uh, finance and operations committee chairman Tom Wet.

Yeah. Tonight we had a meeting. Um, present was Councilman Rody and Councilman Atkins. Uh we approved several um committee seats including Bethl Lake WY acquisition and preservation park district board to Fahed uh Rahm SD and also um to Tom Simmons uh for those two positions there. Uh also approved Kitaba Regional Council of Government positions. City of Rock Hill recommended to replace um Brent Falenberry Falenberry with Nikita Jackson and the city of Tikk recommended to replace uh mayor prom Tom Tom Heslip with Mayor Carmen Miller. Um, next, uh, keep York County Beautiful, District 7, uh, recommendation consideration. We appointed Andrew Steers, uh, for first term. Um, Veterans Memorial Park Advisory Committee. Um, we appointed um, John Lman for first term. Also, uh the board of disabilities and special needs uh at largec recommended that we consider and appointed um Jim Underwood for first term zoning board of appeals. We did a reappoint for district 7 of Ashley uh Chimmans and then lastly York County Natural Gas Board. um we appointed under a vacancy seat uh Christopher Stevenson for a first term. Uh allocations of funding um that we did for uh the districts started off with districts three for FA Bergman Charitable Corporation for $1,000. Uh districts three Simrna Volunteer Fire Department for 2,000. District six, York

County Regional Chamber of uh Commerce Foundation for $5,000. District six, FA Burman Charitable Corporation for the amount of $300. And then lastly, District six, Christian Feed the Hungry in the amount of $950. And that's it. Thank you, sir. Uh, we do not have any citizen concerns tonight. Do we have any council member new non-aggenda comments before we go into executive session? Yeah, I just Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, I just got a a quick comment here. Um, I first want to thank all the community members from from Mill that came in and spoke about SelfFab tonight. We over the last two years I've seen friends um across the the area unfortunately sell their homes off um and it for loss. It was it's been a really devastating thing and and again this is impacting across our community both my community Debbiey's community um when we have this situation where we have an industrial business in a industrial zone and it's been very problematic. I'm just want to say to the committee I'll continue to battle for them on this situation. And this is very heart-wrenching. Um, and the concerns when when parents know that they have to drop their kids off at schools to know that they have monitoring uh monitor systems on the school itself is disheartening. And um, again, I'm going to continue to fight for them. So, just want to share that. Thank you.

Okay. Um, I just want to make a comment um about the situation. The Fort Mill School District maintains the highest standard of education in our state. To complement that high standard, York County must provide the highest standard of protection for the school district to support their high standard of education. I support the school district's request of assembly with no chemicals. Health and safety of our community, especially our children, is our highest priority.

Mr. Ry,

I just want to say, and I guess this may be a budget um issue or budget request. Um, I know I was here when, and this is no rebuttal to to watch comments about the um the chamber and their upcoming possible request asking for another $300,000, but I do know that was, you know, sold to us as a one-time request. Um, shouldn't be reoccurring. I I think and this is a budget request if to take to carve out $100,000 for the upcoming budget year to offer grant money to small businesses who've been in operation less than between three and five years because we all know those are the critical times. I think that kind of money, you know, we can offer $15,000 grants. we can do. That's six grants basically to help small business that will have a direct impact versus I know when I voted for the $100,000 or $300,000 to the chamber, first thing in my mind is I don't want to be paying anybody's salary to run a chamber. I'm sure they put the money to to real good use, but I get calls often asking what kind of programs does York County have to help small business directly. We don't have any. We don't have a single dollar that says this is going to go help a small business in any kind of phase of their business whether it's the first year, second year, third year, fourth year. You know, we don't need a business coming to us who've been around for 10 years. They probably didn't figure out the form of how to stay in business. But those businesses who open up, who are freshly minted, who are still fighting um to keep the doors open, still fighting to keep going, what assistance do we have to help them directly? I think we can put something on the table, put something in the works to at least offer some kind of assistance because they may need to go get some training. They they may need to get I mean, we're

not looking to buy them any inventory, but there are some things that they can benefit from in the form of a grant that helps their business because right now I've gotten this question asked every year. Well, is there any help for any small business directly? We don't. We we and we hadn't even had that conversation. How do we give it directly to because we don't have a grant program. That was number that's what we're saying. That's number four on our agenda. That's exactly what Eduardo is working on.

So hopefully we can get moving in that direction because I get people calling up. Well, do you have any programs to help seniors who are in their home who need some rehab done to their home? We don't do that kind of stuff. That's more of your municipality. That's something that maybe the car gets involved. But we should at least tool ourselves with. If we're not doing it directly, we should know the agencies who we can refer those individuals to and maybe partner with some of those outfits because when people we're we're the big brother around here. People going to call us first and we should at least have an avenue or a partnership with some of these other agencies if they're doing it or we should start looking to do some of it oursel. But I know we have the discretionary funds, but that's not set up to help businesses. That's more of your nonprofit type funding. And you know, we all make that $20,000 go a long way. Whether we given 20 organizations $1,000 to help support their community mission. I think we can all benefit if we establish some funding source that we're able to help small business directly. And I'm sure uh we got some capable staff members who are able to put something together to start with the smallest pot of money could be $100,000. That's that could be 10 $10,000 grants for 10 businesses who are starting out in an early phase to help keep them in business. What better way to to grow our small business community by helping them during their struggling years because by year four or five, they probably figured it out by the end. But let's try to get something on track to help them a lot sooner so that they don't close that door. Small businesses, the the percentage of staying open or success rate is real small when you're starting from the ground up because a lot of times you're using personal money. You can't go to the bank and borrow two $300,000 to start a small business. But I think we need to start having those kind of conversations because people do may they may find themselves out of a

job and now looking to get into something they've always wanted to do and they may need some some information, some some training that they could use that funding to go get some of the tools that they need. So just wanted to put that out there. That's good. Do we have a motion for executive session?

Uh yes, we have three. uh receive a legal advice general legal matters uh general litigation update um specific legal advice regarding Silfab site and pending litigation and other matters related there too. Uh next you have personal matter, contractual matter, county attorney. And then lastly you have personal matter uh special advisory council staffed attorney and also additional attorney positions for county attorney office. Second motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Any opposed? We'll move into executive session.

We are out of executive session. No action was taken. Do we have any motions? Yeah, we have three emotions. Um motions, excuse me. Uh motion to approve um amendment to county attorney retainer agreement. Motion to create one at a time. Second motion and a second. Any discussion? Yeah, explain this. Is this two attorneys? Do we No, no, this this is for this is to approve the agreement. This is to approve the agreement with our existing county attorney. This is for retainer. You said retainer. This for Michael. All in favor say I. Any oppose? Motion carries. Motion to create and fund two assistant county attorney positions.

Second. Motion in a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Motion to create and fund York County Attorney Special Advisory Council Government Liaison. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Opposed. Motion carries six to one. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor say I. I we are ajourned.