County Council - Regular Meeting

This time I'll call to order the June 15th, 2026 County Council meeting to order. Our first item is to recognize the Honorable Debbie Cloninger from District 7 for invocation and pledge of allegiance.

Father, thank you for bringing us together this day. Lead us in all decisions we will be making with integrity and humility. protect and strengthen first responders and our military who serve this country and our great nation. I pray we have courage to stand for truth and understanding. In your holy name, bless this great nation. Amen.

We do have oath of office tonight for a few individuals who have agreed to serve voluntarily on some of our boards. If I call your name, if you'll please come forward and stand in front of the podium where you'll be met with our county attorney to be sworn into office. Juan Abadano, Stormwater Appeals Board, Candace Pixley, Keep York County Beautiful, District 1, Tabitha Dellinger, and Stephanie Johnson, the Employee Grievance Committee. And as you come forward, I do want to say on behalf of the council, thank you very much for agreeing to serve on these boards. You do so without pay, and the community thanks you for the work that you put in for the county. Thank you very much. I like the enthusiasm.

and that I will to the best of my ability discharge the duties thereof, discharge the duties thereof, of the United States.

In case you didn't know, this month is Parks and Recreation Month, so we get the opportunity to say thank you to the folks who work very hard throughout our county in our Parks and Recreation Division. I am going to turn it over to Josh Edwards to help us recognize them.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. We're excited to have many members of our Parks and Recreation Department here and our director, Catherine Jones. Before Catherine comes up with her team, I do want to just share some fun facts about our parks. We've got ten park properties. we've got 38 full-time employees and we have many more part-time and seasonal employees as well but we have over 250 000 visitors annually to our parks many of those are repeat customers who come all the time to take advantage of our great parks but most importantly we have incredible employees that are dedicated creative and passionate And we want to make sure to celebrate them and know how important they are to our success. With that, I'll introduce Catherine Jones, our director, so she can say a few words if she likes.

Thank you, Mr. Manager. I don't know if I can have my staff come up now. Come on, staff. Come on. Come on. Y'all can kind of just stand around the podium. You face council. Yeah, face council. It'll be fine. Madam Chair, members of council, I just want to say thank you. I feel very grateful to be standing in this position today to recognize our staff, but most importantly, too, to recognize the work that you've done as a council and our management team on being progressive in public parks and recreation and prioritizing parks here in York County. I reflect back on four years ago. It'll be four years I became director here. in August, and we had 12 full-time employees, that's including myself, we now have 38 that Josh mentioned. We are growing, we are doing a lot of amazing things within our parks, trying to activate our spaces that you've so graciously created for the constituents here in York County, and I am honored to be a part of this, as well as every single one of these employees that are here and the ones that are not here, because they're back in our parks working. We're very passionate about what we do. They're creative, and they're very dedicated employees. With that, I got a few remarks. The National Recreation and Parks Association's theme this year for Parks and Recreation Month is the power of, and that's that logo right there, the power of parks and recreation. Play, nature, community, belonging, well-being, and the people who make these experiences possible, which are these people here. Parks and Recreation has the power to bring people together, strengthen health and well-being, and build more resilient, connected communities. The power of Parks and Recreation comes to life in your county. through our playgrounds, through our trails that we've built, through the green spaces, through the youth sports, through the pickleball tournaments, through fishing, through sustainability efforts, movies in the park, concerts in the park, nature programs, scavenger hunts, and bird walks, just to name a few. The month of July is dedicated to recognizing and celebrating all of our full-time employees along with many part-time and seasonal workers and volunteers, because we do have volunteers that help out in our parks, who operate and maintain all of our county parks. With that, I also just want to say, going into July, that we hope that the community will take part in some of our online initiatives and share their experiences and memories and tell their story of how Parks and Recreation impact their lives here in York County. I want to thank you and thank you to our staff for what they do day in and day out to make our parks amazing.

Thank you, Catherine, and thank you to all of you who make our parks what they are, and it brings our community together. We appreciate the work that you do. And you can't leave. We're going to get a picture with all of y'all. I'm going to circle around this way and make sure that we get a picture of you.

Wow. It actually worked. I didn't even take a squeeze in. That's great. All right. Everybody ready?

We move now to our public forum session of the agenda. This is an opportunity for individuals in the community to sign up on a list that is outside of the council. You are allowed to speak for two minutes, and we allow this to happen before we even get started. Typically, I give a spiel about if you're here on a public hearing, we don't have any public hearings tonight. So what I would ask is when I call your name, if you'll come forward, state your name and give your address before you start speaking. Please keep your comments cordial and respectful, and we certainly are interested in hearing what the community has to say on these topics in front of us. First individual is Amanda Lane.

I'm Amanda Lane, and I live on Laura Montcourt. I'm a mother. My one job is to keep my child safe. And there is a legal word for what has made that impossible. Nuisance. SILFAB is a nuisance. Not in the casual sense, but in the legal one. A nuisance strips families of the safe use and enjoyment of their home, their yards, and at the school we send our kids. That is what this heavy manufacturing plant has done to my family. We live less than a mile away. I couldn't even let my daughter play in my own backyard without wondering what was drifting over the tree line. I can't gamble with my child's health. So we sold our home. I pulled her out of the school that she had loved. You lost nothing. We lost everything. And I want to be clear. We all know who is responsible for this. Ignoring a 5-0 quasi-judicial ruling directly led to two chemical leaks, where children were left outside. Absolutely no precaution had been taken to protect the optics. Flint Hill students were evacuated and missed two days of learning because of a decision to ignore the BZA. But one of you saw this coming. We re-elected Debbie. by more than 20 points because she voted no, and she chose to protect her children. She chose us. The rest of you chose the Canadian Solar Company. Abate this nuisance. Move Silphab.

Thank you, ma'am. Ellen Goff.

Good evening. I'm Ellen Goff. I live at 981 Bonham Road in Lake Wylie. I've come before this body a number of times in recent years to urge you to consider our county's natural resources and the real impacts that decisions this council makes end up having on our local environment. Specifically, I'm concerned about the quantity of water and electricity that several of the proposed multi-million dollar business projects will require. In the last 20 years, our county and the entire region have been faced with real water crises from drought to development and regional growth. It's very easy to forget how dire we felt our water drying up was in those years. As these new proposals and initiatives progress through county government and governmental agencies, please bear in mind that there are real limits to how much the county can give up in the service of attracting businesses that are best suited for this county and the people who call this place home. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Chris Thompson.

Good evening, council. I'm Chris Thompson. I live at 345 Vanderlakes Drive in York, South Carolina. We have asked this body many times over the past six months exactly how much money in tax revenue will York County will receive from the company that owns the data center? And when will we see it? We have never received an official answer from any of you. State Representative Tommy Pope also asked for this information and as of last week he told me he too had not received an answer. No one goes into a business deal without having a number. And surely you didn't dive into an agreement without having at least an idea of how many dollars in tax revenue York County would receive. So why won't you tell us? Is it that complicated? We just want to know what it was that made this deal so enticing that it was worth the devastation that it is causing the people who live here. We will take your best estimate on a yearly basis starting in 2022 when you first approved Project Cobra all the way through 2062 at the end of the 40-year fee lot agreement. How much is it? And speaking of the fee lot agreement, you are also getting ready tonight to approve yet another tax giveaway for who knows how much and how long to another unidentified company under yet another code name that plans to manufacture biopharmaceuticals and for whom you will also vote tonight to allow the county to apply for a state grant for $65 million. You are spending taxpayer dollars on things you won't even reveal to the people who elected you. How can we trust you to represent us when you do things in secret and won't answer our questions about the issues we, the taxpayers, are paying for? I am still waiting on the answers to the questions that I submitted to you six months ago on January 5. You have my email and my phone number. I'll be looking for an answer soon. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Gary Kennedy. Gary Kennedy. All right. We're going to move on. Jackie Albee.

Hello, my name is Jacqueline Albee and I live at 848 Gentleman's Court in Fort Mill. I am speaking on rezoning case number 2606. After reviewing the 2008 planned development zoning requirements and speaking with Tom Couch and planning staff and meeting with the Track West developer, my neighbors and I remain firmly opposed to rezoning case 2606 from planned development to general commercial. The 2008 plan development zoning was designed to protect nearby homes through enforceable buffers, landscaping, screening setbacks, and set limits on incompatible uses. These safeguards preserve privacy, reduce impacts on residents, and help protect property values. Rezoning to general commercial would remove those protections and replace them with broad permissions and far less accountability. Traffic impacts alone justify denial. On June 2nd, my parents witnessed a pedestrian struck by a car at Vandora Springs and Highway 160. Thankfully she survived, but the incident made clear how dangerous Highway 160 already is. Rezoning increases traffic and raises the risk of serious injury or death. General commercial zoning allows high-impact uses that are incompatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. It would bring more traffic, noise, lighting, pedestrian risk, and visual disruption nearby residents should not be expected to bear. Keeping the planned development zoning is the right decision for Fieldstone and the surrounding community. I urge council to please support Tom Audet and vote no on rezoning case number 2606. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Kaylee McLiverly.

Sorry, I think I messed that one up.

My name is Kaylee McLiverty. I live at 838 Gentle Winds Court. I'm also here for case 2606. I have been a resident of Fieldstone at Waterstone for the last five years and a resident of York County for the last 21 years. In a growing area, we have truly been lucky that for as long as we all have lived there, the parcel of land next to our community has never been developed and it has given us a buffer between our homes and Highway 160. I'm very aware that one day the trees will be knocked down and the land will be developed, and it seems like that time is finally coming. I ask that when this happens, you deny the request to rezone this land to general commercial and leave it as planned development. There are restrictions in the 2008 PD that prevent certain establishments that would be awful to live next to, like a gas station, fast food establishments, or places that host live outdoor music and more. There are also restrictions in the 2008 PD that prohibit a business from operating before 6 a.m. and after midnight, which is great as that protects all of the homes around it, which is over 200, and it gives us some right to the peaceful enjoyment of our homes. Myself and neighbors have spent weeks and months reading York County zoning ordinances, reaching out to everyone on council, members in the planning development, such as Thomas Newland, Jonathan Buono, Tom Couch, and more. And we met with the developer of this project. After careful consideration, we ask that you deny the request to rezone the land in case 2606 and leave the current zoning as planned development. That is what protects the residents who neighbor this property. We welcome growth to the county, but we ask that you guys make decisions with the residents' best interests in mind. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Zach Wilson.

Hey, Council, Zach Wilson, 3070 Clover Circle, the pines at Campbell Crossing. Last time I got up here, I forgot where I live. That's how nervous I was. So I remembered this time. But a short history lesson. We're at the 250th anniversary of our country. Back in the Revolutionary War, there was a man by the name of Nathan Hale. And he was a spy and a soldier. And he ended up paying the ultimate price for his actions in that conflict. One of his his famous lines was that I will not sit idly by and allow my country graded. He paid that price for that so that we could stand here and voice our opinions without fear of losing our lives. So that's what I'm I'm choosing to do here today is stand and voice my opposition to these mega corporations that are coming and ravaging our resources. whether it be the data center that's already under construction or the current, I think it's Palmetto Rock or whatever the fee lot is that you guys are going to be voting on tonight. It's another major corporation that's choosing to come in under code names, and they want our money and our resources off the backs of the people that live here, all so that we can see some dollar signs. I don't think it's worth it, and I don't think that it's appropriate for us to be involved. utilizing our resources in that regard i hope that you guys vote yes on the moratorium give us those nine months to look at what it is that this data center will be doing to our land i hope that you both know for the fee lot for the mega corporation that's going to be pumping out biopharmaceuticals in our area and overall just continue to uh to make good choices for the people that elected you guys so i appreciate your time and uh make good choices thank you

Thank you, sir. Julie Ferraro.

Good evening, council. Thank you for your time. Julie Ferraro, Vanderlakes, New York, South Carolina. I would like to address the moratorium and the proposed ordinance amendments for the data centers. First, I want to start out by saying we realize, unfortunately, that there is a need for these data centers as we all use the technology and the demand is growing. We are not ignorant to that fact, but as we have been saying all along, what we are opposed to is the location of them and the considerations to surrounding property owners. These ordinance changes should take into consideration the impact not only the completed project would have on citizens, but the life-altering detrimental impact the years and years of endless noise, quality of life, stress, environmental impact, and damage to personal property during construction It has on property owners. This should be the first and foremost decision in making this decision. At the current construction site in phase one, there are currently just four buildings that are in permit stage. Unfortunately, those four buildings have the most impact to abutting properties because of the current setbacks. We are requesting that you approve the moratorium as soon as possible. But what we want to make sure you clarify that this moratorium should be effective for the current site but the upcoming remaining five buildings not in permit, also that any new ordinance changes and restrictions be placed on any new buildings on the current site and any new permit requests for any other data centers. We have been told this would be the case by the representative from the data center as well as from some council members, so we do want to make sure that it is very clear in the final documents. My hope is that you all will have some compassion when considering these ordinance changes and approve a moratorium on future permits until the changes in the ordinance can be and that there are some changes to the current four buildings to lessen the impact and protect the citizens for their God-given right to maintain a peaceful property. Lastly, I'm formally requesting that the council consider extending comments to at least three minutes. For example, Rock Hill allows five minutes, Chester three, and also allows the Zoom comments, and City of York, five minutes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Sean Donahue. Sean Donahue.

Good evening, Council. My name is Sean Donahue. Me and my family live at Allison Creek Subdivision off of Highway 274. And for our shirts, and you guys have been around long enough, you know one of the reasons why I'm here in opposition. But it's more than just one site. the development of industry within our county. We need to protect all of our citizens. I moved here from Leslie, from underneath Bow Water, and I chose where I live to volunteer as a fireman for my community. I've since left all those things to focus on my family. My family will live underneath the lights of one of these industrial facilities that could have millions of gallons of fuel on the site within the tributaries of Lake Wiley. This is not just a here issue. This could go down to Columbia. And I'm not speaking from a speech or anything else like that. I want to speak to you all personally. I want to congratulate the candidates. I want to encourage you guys to come out and talk to us. Every single one of you have been given a copy of what us as citizens think should be on this ordinance. Take county staff out of it. Save all the money. We're volunteering to give you good information. Me and my family wake up every day. I don't know if my home value is going to depreciate. I don't know if her reproductive systems are going to be issues. I could put on a tinfoil hat. There's all kinds of things. But the facts are that there could be millions of gallons. We've done so much in history in this country. TO SEE WHEN A CORPORATION IS EATING OUR LUNCH. STOP LETTING CORPORATIONS EAT OUR LUNCH. TIMBER, OIL, COAL, IT'S THROUGHOUT THE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER MINING SITUATION. ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAYS, OH, THIS COULD BE A MINE. IT'S DATA MINING. It's a energy, you know, where it's going to take an energy into a pitcher. Whatever you guys imagine, that's what this is. So name it what you is, what you would like it to be, but it's hindering me and my family from having a good life in this county. Been here for over 30 years, and I planned on retiring here. I've always worked for York County businesses. Please support our community. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Rebecca Sicci.

Hello, I'm Rebecca Sicci. I live in the Allison Acres area of Rock Hill. In York County, we need this moratorium that's being proposed. I cannot say that enough. I thank you for starting to initiate proposing this and getting it even on the agenda. We've been waiting for this. Over the past few months, numerous chair members have stated back in 2022, people really didn't know what a data center was. We didn't really know what the impact was gonna be, nor did they know what it would look like, or that it was more than one building is even on the record. I realize not all of you were there for that vote, but nonetheless, you guys are here to help impact this moving forward and protecting us as residents and our families. It is clear more considerations need to be addressed, whether it's water usage, power usage, heat impacts, agricultural impacts, environmental impacts, noise considerations, which you hear us talking about all the time, whether that's construction or the future that these things make. Health impacts to families and animals are also key. Nobody talks about these. We continue to ask, but nobody addresses them. This is what the moratorium is needed for. We need to look at what those impacts are. Without truly taking the time to make informed decisions with supporting data, you guys are negligent. It is your duty and your staff's duty to help support the community in making sure that you're protecting them. Protecting our community, residents, environment, and utilities are all a part of this process. Last month, We, as York County Citizens for Responsible Growth, provided you an updated zoning and ordinance performance standards for data centers, and it can be applied to any industry. We plead for you to look at this. It's 38 pages. It's research data. We're asking you for this. We are here to help. Don't leave us hanging. While we're taking the time to make things right, please help support us by making it right for our community. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Kier Patel.

Good evening, members of the council. My name's KU, and I stand here before you today to speak about the future of your county. A future that is being sold out from under us. We were told that this data center was an economic win. But let's look at how it actually got here. It wasn't through an open dialogue. It was pushed through like code names, like Project Cobra. What the hell is Project Cobra? It sounds like shady back-end, backdoor deals. It wasn't done with transparency. And regarding massive tax breaks, that's what they told us, right? And by the time the community found out over 700 acres of rural land along Hands Mill Highway was transformed into massive walls of metal. And that's not leadership. That is a breach of public trust. That is deceit. And that's what happened. You know, my family and I, we moved here from Charlotte for one simple reason. So we could have better future for our children. And now, after several months, we are finding out, having stayed in our home in the Westport community, that there's a data center being built. Now how does that make me feel? So if I'm one of them, imagine There's going to be hundreds and hundreds of homes. Now they started posting that there's a data center that's being built. I didn't know it when we moved. So we chose this environment for safe neighborhoods and good place to raise our children. But that is not what it is. That is why I propose moratorium on this data center.

Thank you, sir. That concludes our public forum session. We appreciate the community coming out and speaking to the council. We are going to move now to our consent agenda. Our policy is that if one council member requests one item to be removed from consent, that it's done automatically. Mr. Huckabee has requested item 33 to be removed. So we will make that number seven in new business. Do we have a motion on consent agenda apart from that?

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion?

I don't have any objection to pulling this out and going through the consent agenda. But I would like to ask for a deviation from our program or our agenda tonight to at least address some of the concerns that have been put to us concerning the taxes and the data centers. I didn't want to put that out since I know everybody likes to get up and leave after the citizens part, but I think it's imperative that we kind of clear the air on some of the misinformation that's already being put out.

OK, why don't we do this? There's a request to address some of the misinformation from the commentary that was presented. So why don't we do this? Let's go ahead and deal with the consent agenda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, consent agenda is approved as amended. Is there a specific issue you want? Typically what we do with public comment, and we've tried to figure out different ways to address this, is it's our job to listen. There are times where the community comes and speaks, and there are things that need to be said back to ensure that folks are clear about the factual situation. Mr. Roddy, if you have any specifics, then maybe we could get our county manager to address them.

Yeah, some of the questions that have come to this council Some of the questions that have come to this council over the last several weeks have been about the revenues, the tax revenues. Some of the questions have been about the transparency, the code names. And I just wanted to clear the air about to ask staff to answer legal and county manager as to why we use code names. What are some of those revenues? Some of the questions, because I know a lot of times after we get these questions, there's never really any follow-up directly to the community about some of the questions that they propose, and we get hundreds of emails, and we virtually can't respond to every email, but I think in this public setting, since those questions have been put forth, and they've been coming repeatedly over and over, and it seems that we haven't answered them to their satisfaction, so I wanted to make sure, because we use code names on every single fee and lieu that we get. This is nothing new, so I wanted staff to kind of enlighten the community as to why we use code names. No, I'm directing this to staff. I'm directing this to staff.

Yes, and our economic development director is here, Mitch Miller, and he can add to what I'm going to share. But when you're recruiting companies and working with the state and the Commerce Department, when a company is looking at locating, they're wanting to understand whether it's a company that county council and those offering incentives want to to be here before they let their name out. There's a lot of different reasons why that's the case. And Mitch can share some of those reasons. But what we've tried to do is we've tried to listen to the community. We've tried to listen to county council. And we're working with companies as they look to this this county to locating here and letting them know the sooner in the process that they can share that they're willing to share their names the better. So that's something we're working hard on.

One of the other things is about the revenue. I went to the back. I know y'all seem to go to the back. I had an email sent over to Karen, our clerk, about some of the revenues that will be generated in the first several years from the data center. I know this question has come up. The citizens stood here and said it's been asked over and over again. I haven't received any communication from Tommy Pope asking for those, but we do have those. They are public. It's nothing that we're doing behind the scenes trying to bamboozle anyone because this deal was approved September 2023. September 2023. Some people would have stood here and said they didn't know a data center was coming when they moved here. But if you moved here after September 23, a data center was slated to come here. And these are the facts. And I wanted to kind of at least share some of the things that have gone on. York County owned the data center property. There was no taxes being collected on that property. And so people say we're giving up. No, we're actually getting funding from this property because when York County owned it, We weren't paying ourselves any tax revenue, so when you say we're giving up money to these businesses, we're getting tax dollars on our tax rolls, supporting our schools. So we have been transparent from day one, just because we use code name. We use code name with the Panthers property, when the Panthers wanted to come here. We use code names when CILFAP wanted to come. Every project, and it's to protect the business, because we're trying to recruit businesses away from other communities. If the name or the word gets out that we're recruiting them, that community may turn the tide and offer them something different, better, or to keep them. And we want to bring jobs here.

Mr. Roddy, I think the more appropriate route, and council has talked about is there a different way to address when the community, typically we only listen, but there are opportunities where I think clarification, especially folks listening on factual pieces, needs to be drawn out. This is something that council really needs to deal with in a workshop about how we're going to do that going forward. And so I think some of the comments that you want to make can be brought up in some of the items that we have. I don't want us to get to where we're challenging that. We need to refer a discussion about how to deal with this. And we can do that in non-agenda comments about how to deal with that. So if we can move forward with the agenda. just as a matter of our process. And I'm certainly not opposed to someone bringing up non-agenda comments, less addressing how to make responses back when there are issues. All right, our first item of old business is rezoning action. Consider third reading, case number 26-03, tax map number 2920000010. To rezone from GC to RMX 20, 12.8 acres in District 3. Do we have any comments from management or staff?

So I would just recognize Councilmember Adkins on this one. This one has been deferred as we've engaged with the applicant. So I didn't know, sir, if there's anything you wanted to share.

OK. Yeah. I'm going to approve, but upon approving tonight, I wanted to make sure that within 90 days that applicant does have the restriction recorded with the deeds.

OK. So do you have a motion?

Yeah, motion to approve upon the deed restriction added. Second.

So the motion, just for purposes of clarification, is to approve conditioned upon the deed restriction being completed within 90 days. Is that correct?

Yeah, that should be feasible. It can be within 90 days or at the same time that he would record the subdivision flats. And I think that's what Councilman Atkins was getting at with the 90 days. The property has to be rezoned first, and then you have 90 days. If you're going to do deed restrictions, you wouldn't put those in until you do the subdivided flats.

So is there a need to change the motion to capture that?

I'm getting a bunch of feedback. Maybe I'll just back up.

Let me rephrase it. The owner has said that he wanted deed restrictions on the property. So the motion, read it as the motion to approve on third reading contendant upon the owner's record of deed restriction limiting further subdivision within 90 days.

and it be filed within 90 days. Is that clarification? Is the second? Do you have?

Yeah, second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. And just so that we're all clear, the motion is to approve third reading, but it's required to be contingent upon the deed restriction that the property owner stated would be part of that agreement, that it has to be completed within that time frame. Is there any discussion?

Yeah. Don't we normally get those before? I'm getting feedback also. Don't we normally get those before we agree to this? I mean, I'd like to see something in writing from somebody before I just vote for, I mean, is that the only deed restriction? I thought there was going to be some other ones that he had mentioned during the meeting.

I've already received a copy of, but he hasn't filed it yet.

But I haven't seen them, and I think all of council would like to see them before being voted on.

I think the question I have personally is from legal. I mean, typically we rely on legal to verify that there is a deed restriction, that it passes legal muster, and that it is filed consistent with what the applicant has asked for. Have you seen the deed restriction?

I've seen a copy of the proposed deed restrictions and it is meant to prevent further subdivision of the property from what has been submitted to the planning department. And he would finalize that, he wouldn't be able to do that or record that until the property's been rezoned and it's time to record the plat subdividing the property in the way that the deed restrictions will reflect.

I guess my question is, does legal have an issue with this being conditioned? I know we've done them in the past before. We haven't done them recently. So is there an issue with that? Is there a recommendation that we wait until it's been, can it be filed before? I mean, tell me.

He would be filing it after the property is rezoned. That's when he will be able to subdivide his property.

I guess my question is, does legal have an issue with what's been proposed here, or do you recommend that we defer it?

I have no issue with what's been proposed. As I understand it, the owner is the one who's proposing to do this. So there's no issue with what I've looked at.

and us taking action tonight, it's not gonna compromise that. It's gonna be required. That's part of the agreement to rezone.

The approval is contingent upon that.

Okay. Are there any other discussion or questions?

And the deed restriction goes on the plat, with the plat, once he files it. Right, Laura?

I apologize, I was speaking to Mr. Edwards. Would you repeat it?

I said when you put a deed restriction, it applies to when you file your plaidding of that parcel of that land.

Yes, sir.

Upon that time.

Yes, you subdivide it, you record the plaid, you record the deed restrictions with that, and then those items run with the land.

Any other discussion or questions? I mean, I personally don't have an issue if legal says it's okay. I personally don't have an issue with moving forward with it being contingent. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Move now to item number two, rezoning action. Consider third reading case number 26-06, tax map number 650-0000336 to rezone from PD to GC 1.776 acres in District 1. Is there anything for management?

OK. Motion to deny.

Second. We have a motion and a second to deny. Any discussion?

Yeah, I'd just like to say, you know, the due diligence was done on this. I think it was a process that we went through. I think overall, you know, we're able to identify where there may be conflicts, et cetera. So I think the process worked on this thing, and I think it brought it back to this place where we've moved forward for denial. So I do appreciate the team, the members of the residents to go through that process. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion?

Yes, Madam Chair. It might be helpful if staff shares with us with this not going to GC and staying in PD. What does that really mean for the property? What are the uses of the property? So what could they expect? If you could make sure they understand that it's not going to GC, it's going to stay PD. Therefore, there are certain things that can be developed on the property.

it's we can walk through that and as diane goes goes to the front here you know this is something that staff as staff met with residents uh in person and the developer met with residents they have talked through this but diane i'll let you kind of speak to that yeah sure so the um the developer can come forward as long as they meet the requirements of the pd and so the uses that are there can still do a a coffee shop or the custard shop all those uses are still allowed

There's a slight difference that we would not be able to do. There's some buffer difference between the two PD, the PD and the actual GC zoning districts. There's a few items within the improvements from our new zoning code they wouldn't be required to do. For instance, they wouldn't have to do that escape lane for the drive-through. There's been some improvements they wouldn't have to do, they wouldn't be required to do with this rezoning if they kept it as a PD.

That leads to my second question. And just like with the previous motion, could there be conditions placed in the PD that requires them lighting as an example? The lighting in 2008 was lighting that expanded out. Lighting today goes down. So is there anything that this council can do? I know it's already approved for PD. but could we encourage the developer, the owner of the property, to consider some of the language in our new ordinance that would be a little more user-friendly, neighborhood-friendly?

We could encourage them. We can't require that without changing the actual PD. And it's been advertised as being resigning to GC, so you can't go back and amend the PD at this point in the process.

That's right, because it's by right. Yeah. Yeah. suggest that we encourage staff maybe to share some of the improvements and what's in GC and see if they'll consider it in their development that would help the neighbors.

I think Watts makes some of the points that I tried to make early on in this process that we've made tremendous strides in what we require in our ordinances and in development. for commercial property that by leaving it in the PD, there's no requirement to upgrade the lighting, to upgrade certain things that we've made changes to. Just like we said earlier, the net change is not really a net change because they can still build the same ice cream, coffee shop, whatever they want it to build, they can build it with less improvements over the ordinances that we've made. I think that was very clear, and like I said to the constituents in the Fort Mill area, this is what you want, this is what you're gonna get. Don't expect the improvements. Don't expect to go to the developer and say, hey, will you do this? I don't think that's, is gonna happen because it's not required. And we all know that builders and developers are gonna come in and do what's required. It may be a nice community gesture, but where's the community gesture when he wanted to do the rezoning? So it's like you give and take. If we're not given opportunity to rezone, we can't expect the developer to do these upgrades that we've added to the development ordinance. So I like how you said they're not required to do it, but you can ask them all day. But it's not gonna, don't look for it to happen because that's just not the way it works. So sorry to keep you dying. Thank you, Diane.

Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We move now to our first item of new business, council to ratify the purchase of additional water meter installations and associated equipment from Forteline Inc. of Concord, North Carolina in the amount of $267,874. Mr. Edwards, is there anything that management would like to add?

Yes, I just want to share with council the reason why this is a new business is as Eric has dug in with utilities and as we have a new utility director, one of the things that they recognized early on was that we had a bill that we had not paid. And so this is from work. not last year but the year before in terms of water meters that we we did not pay for so that's why this is a ratification that we're asking for and why we need to bring this to y'all on this agenda we want to do the right thing and that is that means paying our bills and so if you have any questions eric and i are ready to answer that any questions for staff before motion

All right, is there a motion?

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Item number two, council to approve award regarding bid number 3035 for the Stockbridge Trunk Sewer Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project. for the construction of gravity sewer lines in TKK, South Carolina, to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, State Utility Contractors Inc. of Monroe, North Carolina, for a total cost of $5,880,543. Mr. Edwards, anything to add?

Yes, the reason we wanted to share this a new business is this is a multiple year project. And so the majority of this cost is going to be in the budget that y'all just approved in FY 27. I think it's almost a little bit more than 4 million in FY 27. There are some costs that will be budgeted in the following fiscal year. So we wanted everybody to be aware of that. This is one of those projects that as we finalize the utility CIP this summer, with the multiple studies that we've talked about, that will be included in that CIP that then impacts the rate study that y'all will receive in the late fall, early winter. And so we just wanted y'all to be aware that this is one of those things that will require us to consider as part of that rate study when the consultant comes to present that in year two. If there's any questions, Eric and I are here to answer that.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff before the motion?

Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion?

Yeah, I have some questions. Probably should have done them before the motion, but whatever. So during the budget process, we were shown a slide that showed we were running out of capital funds. And if we didn't have rate increases, knowing that this project is going to go into a second year and there's no guarantee of those rate increases, can we start this project And do we have sufficient funds to complete the project? And on the prioritization list, with the amount of funds that we currently have with no guarantee of future funding, would this be where the funds need to be spent?

So I'll start and then I'll ask Eric to comment. Some of the questions about prioritization, I think we'd have to get back to you, Council Member Litton. I think in terms of our capital plan, there's going to be a lot of discussion about FY28 as we enter the fall. And I think what we want you all to know is that this is one of those big projects that needs to be done. This is a this is an integral project and we've been planning this for some time. And so what we want to make sure we do is we start these important projects and they're multi-year projects. So we want to we want to give Council the heads up on that. Eric, in terms of some of those questions that Councilmember Litton asked,

Yeah, so this project actually is a final phase of a multi-phase project, and it's been almost nine years. We've already done the force main replacement and the pump station. So this is the gravity sewer aspect, which really will end up taking off four lift stations and putting gravity sewer to that new regional station. Yeah, this is a multi-year project, and like the county manager said, this is why we brought this up. There are a number of projects that are multi-year that we're starting also in this next year that will bleed over into 28. knowing, like we said, there is that fund balance that is decreasing, but we're committed, we're going through this rate study and trying to figure out, we'll be coming back with possible rate increases mid-year after this rate study, but I don't know if I can answer any additional questions about that.

And that's true. I mean, if we get the rate study, we can fund the project, hopefully. But when this project started, let's say nine years ago, the county didn't own the blue granite system in Lake Wylie, which has severe, severe issues that are over capacity at this time, as we discussed just a few days ago. Could this project be put on hold until such time that additional funding comes in to take care of other projects that have a greater economic and environmental issue.

Unfortunately, I couldn't answer that exactly at this time. We're going to have to go through the studies that we were getting back, and we're committed to get that CIP within this next month. We'd have to re-look at that, re-prioritize without knowing what that is. But it's definitely something we would be looking at and re-prioritizing across the board. But at this time, I can't answer that definitively.

So would it be financially prudent for this council to defer this project until we know whether it should be funded or held off on until future funds are available.

That's a great question.

Management, y'all have put this on the agenda, and I assume that this is one of the projects that was included in the budget that was already passed. Yes. And the rate study, when it comes forward, will be decided based upon the information from the rate study. So if management still feels comfortable with the financing moving forward, thinks this is a project that's critical that we need to take action on and is consistent with the budget, I will support it. Do we have any other discussion on that?

Yeah, I would recommend to move forward with this also. I think that there is, when we go through the rate study, the process of the rate study was to identify the general needs of what it is, not to estimate it. So I think after the rate study's done, we'd have a better understanding of how we move forward. By denying this or putting it on pause, it's already been again we've already formatted this and have the funds available to move forward so i think at this process right now i think to me this thing should move forward as we have posted it up tonight absolutely i support it any other comments yeah just discussion the question i heard that i'm not sure has been answered yet is in next budget year might we find ourselves in a position of not being able to fund this project out to completion

So, and Eric, you can give me the exact number. I think, like I said, four and a half million of this is going to be in FY27. We've identified those funds. So the amount in FY28 will be about one and a half million. I don't have the exact number. Yeah, 1.4. Yeah, 1.4. I think that as staff, we will figure out how to find that money. because this is an important project now the question though is where is that going to come from we don't know because we haven't done the rate study yet and so that that that is the that is the conundrum and i recognize the conundrum but this was identified as a high priority a number of years ago and we're committed to fixing what was identified and getting some of these pump stations off the grid The implication of that is, well, what are we not going to be able to do because of this? But as Eric shared, we don't necessarily know because the studies aren't done. But that is why we're committed to finishing those studies. By the end of this summer, presenting council with a firm utility CIP and then having a consultant, Raftelis, come in and present to you all on how best to pay for that. And this $1.5 million will be in that rate study.

Yeah, I could also add that we did some reprioritization within this budget year coming up. Initially, we had a utility building budgeted, and we actually reprioritized that out to fund these more important projects. So that exercise has already been done in the fiscal 27 budget. So there has been some reprioritization already, just knowing that this is an important project. Can we afford not to do this? I mean, at this point, no. That's all I need to hear. Essentially, this is the last phase of a very large multi-phase project for that area.

I say we should move forward if we can't afford not to do it.

There's not any other discussion. The motion on the table is to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. We move now to item number three, counts to consider first reading by title only of an ordinance authorizing the execution and delivery of a fee in lieu of ad valorem tax and incentive agreement by and between York County and an entity or entities identified by the county as Project Palmetto Rock and its affiliated and related entities whereby York County will provide for payment of certain fees in lieu of ad valorem taxes. and provide certain special source revenue credits, the allocation of fees in lieu of ad valorem taxes payable under such agreements, the establishment or maintenance of a multi-county industrial business park, and other matters relating thereto. Is there information that management you'd like to present before we have the motion?

No, but I would remind everybody this Hall 9 of Rock is on executive session if you want.

I thought Mitch was going to provide some information before we made a motion. Yes, sir.

We can do that if that's what you want.

I think just give an overview of the project information. I think it would be helpful.

I do have a question. If we're getting information in executive session after this vote, Shouldn't we go to an executive session now and get the information?

I think there are options. I think it would be helpful to hear from our ED director, give us a little snippet of the project. And then as we make a motion, there are options for council to consider either to request that we move decision-making on this item, defer decision-making until after executive session, or we can interrupt the meeting and go into executive session to receive information before we come out if there's a need from council to want to hear from that. But I think it would be helpful to have Mitch come just give us some basic information.

I would agree.

Yeah.

Happy to do so and thank you all for the opportunity to present tonight and talk to you all. I think considering the crowd and everything, I think it'd also be really good to talk through the process if you'd allow me to do that as well. So before council considers first reading tonight, I'd like to briefly explain really what's being considered and what happens next. Project Palmetto Rock is a proposal by a global biopharmaceutical company looking to establish a corporate headquarters and advanced healthcare manufacturing facility at Palmetto Research Park, the former Panther site. Tonight's vote represents the first step in a public approval process. As you all know, and I want to make sure everyone here is aware, these economic development deals go through three readings. So tonight is simply just a first reading and a first step in a public approval process, and no final action is being taken this evening. In regards to the project itself, the proposal represents approximately 1.5 billion in capital investment and over 1,200 direct jobs from the company. Also looking at an independent economic impact analysis, which we do with every single one of these projects to try to understand the magnitude of what this may bring and the opportunities it may bring as well. The independent economic impact analysis estimates this project could support more than 2,200 additional jobs on top of the 1,200 that they're bringing in. That's the type of impact a project like this is going to have in York County. These projections are one of many factors, obviously, that we present to you all as council to consider when looking at these economic development deals. In regards to incentives, like many major economic development projects across South Carolina and throughout the country, the proposal includes requests as part of the competitive site selection process to use the project name. We are no different than any other county in the state of South Carolina or any other county or city within the United States. Project names are part of this process. The best way that I can relate it is that none of you all are gonna announce a job change before you actually sign a contract and formalize a deal. Same thing with a company looking to make a decision on where they're gonna put their investment at. In regards to this process, this is first reading. There will be a, we are going to do this very differently than what we've done in the past. As you all know, and I guess will be presented tonight, there is a special called second reading that will be held on June 29th. That will be a public hearing. You'll hear directly from the company about their plans for this project, the proposal, and that will include them identifying who they are as a company and sharing their name. Typically, what we've done in the past, as you talked about the QTS deal, I believe those have been done at third reading. This will be done essentially one meeting earlier to allow the community to hear more about the project, more about the company, what their plans are, and the ability to speak to council directly in the form of a public hearing. That meeting will provide the opportunity for residents, honestly, to learn more about their proposal as well, which I think is very important and evident, one that we need to continue to look at moving forward. As I mentioned, the company will publicly identify itself, share additional information, and there'll be additional reading after that for third and final reading to take place in July. I just want to stress and reiterate, especially for folks here in the audience, to understand tonight's action is not the end of a conversation. This is the beginning of a public process. You will hear more on June 29th. I would invite you all to hear directly from the company, and if there's anyone that would like to speak about that project, they have the ability to address counsel. In terms of anything else related to that, I'm happy to address any questions you have before we may head back to executive session.

I'll ask a question if you don't mind. I appreciate you sharing anything you shared, especially with the public here tonight because this is important information for them to hear. I too was going to make a comment earlier in the meeting after public comment, but this is a good time to do it now. I'm going to put you on the spot and I apologize for that and to staff as well. If you can help share with us and the citizens that are listening tonight the impact Act 388 had on how we collect taxes. It took the operational taxes away from residential taxpayers and shifted it to businesses. If you could talk about that briefly and then talk about the difference in our tax code in South Carolina versus North Carolina and Georgia, or just North Carolina would be a good example. so that the citizens can understand the dilemma we're in when we're trying to bring these types of industries into York County and the challenges we have to get them here when other states are competing for these businesses as well.

That's a great question. I would look at the primary focus of our department, maintaining our tax base and creating opportunities for the residents of York County to have high quality jobs. And to do that, we have to be competitive with our neighbors, because if they're looking in South Carolina, there's a really strong chance they're gonna be looking in Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, beyond. And so as you look at tax code, essentially the commercial property tax is the primary driver that funds our school districts. With that too, we have to be competitive and look at assessment ratios. We're already at a disadvantage there compared to our neighbors as well. And so without these economic development incentives, we don't have the ability to compete in an equal playing field with North Carolina specifically, especially with us being so close to Charlotte. As companies make these decisions, they have to evaluate what's the cost long-term to do business in this community versus this community over here. They're making a decision that ultimately is putting them in a position to be successful. With that, these are why economic development incentives are important, especially in our case. The assessment ratio where taxes are generated, we're already at a disadvantage there compared to North Carolina. The fact the majority of the weight is pushed onto our commercial businesses instead of residents, there's another piece to that puzzle as well, and that's why it's important that we evaluate it from these sides. Thank you, so one other question.

not to get too deep into the weeds, but in South Carolina, our commercial industrial tax code starts at 10.5%, and in North Carolina, educate the citizens so they understand the difference, the challenges we have when we're trying to bring industry into York County.

Without a doubt, 10.5% is a high assessment ratio. And when you think about a $1.5 billion investment assessed at that 10.5%, and they can look at surrounding counties at anywhere between the 4% to 6% ratio, it's gonna mean a lot from a financial perspective.

If I heard what you said, you said in surrounding counties like Mecklenburg County, their tax rate may be four to six percent, and we're at 10 and a half.

Correct.

So it would be probably difficult for a company to decide to come to your county because they're gonna be paying four and a half, five and a half percent more in taxes annually to come here.

That's correct. And that's why these fee-in-lieu tax structures are put in place by the state government to allow counties to be able to be competitive. This isn't anything that is specific to York County alone. Chester County does these, Lancaster County, Greenville, Spartanburg, every single county in the state of South Carolina has this ability, and they have to use this opportunity to be able to create jobs.

Okay, and then one last thing. Councilman Roddy brought this up a couple of times during our budget readings. So correct me if I'm wrong. So the tax dollars that are coming in on this particular company that's considering York County, the taxes will be split up roughly. 62% of the taxes will go to the Rock Hill School District, 24% would go to the city of Rock Hill, and roughly 14% would come to York County.

Probably pretty accurate.

Approximately? OK.

In projected revenue off of a deal like this over the lifetime of this economic development deal, would translate to about $362 million in new tax revenue. Can you say that again, please? Projected revenue over the life of this economic development incentive deal would translate to about $362 million in new tax revenue coming into York County, split between Rock Hill schools, Rock Hill, and York County.

So 62% for the school districts, roughly 24% for the city of Rock Hill, and roughly 14% for us. That is correct. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate you answering my questions.

Mr. Roddy. I just want to piggyback and watch you, Councilman Huckabee, you brought up some good points about how these deals are structured. I like the fact that you highlighted over the life of the deal, what's the total tax revenue that's going to be coming into this county. One thing that I wanted to point out was that when we're doing these fee-in-lieu of tax agreements, is it not true that we're essentially trying to get even or make it apples to apples to what a company would get in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, some of our neighboring counties. We're not doing any, is it, are we doing anything, you just mentioned it, we're not doing anything other counties are not trying to do. Because there's no way I can see a company agreeing to pay South Carolina 10 and a half percent when they can be in North Carolina paying 4% or 5%. So when we're doing the fee in lieu of tax agreement, we're essentially bringing down our tax rate to be competitive. Because if we left it and didn't do any incentives, we wouldn't have some of the companies that we're even trying to attract. We wouldn't even get a second look. It's like essentially saying, would you go take a job paying you less 20 minutes up the road versus one that's paying you a little more closer to home. I think we have to do these deals, and I think it's a tool in our toolbox that allows us to recruit and grow our tax base, bring good jobs. And not everybody agrees with the type of jobs or the companies, but that's something that sometimes we take the good with the bad. Hopefully we're bringing more good jobs that people see than some of the bad jobs. Certainly, Just looking forward to Everything being out in the open, like you mentioned, we're gonna do things a little different. We've heard from citizens get the name out earlier. That's why we're moving to the second reading. Hopefully those who have concerns will come now versus two years down the road when they're building, they're getting things worked out. But it's so hard for these things to get on radars for people to ask some of the pertinent questions. But I'm looking forward to supporting it. I don't really have much to ask.

Yeah, so Mitch, real quick, can you just explain to the public, in ourselves, from an environmental perspective, how light touch this is from an environmental perspective, such as chemicals, et cetera? Sure.

I think you speak to that. It's a biopharmaceutical company. I think the biggest thing that I want to point out to each and every one of you all and us looking at this project, this is not going to be a facility that houses diseases, viruses, things along those lines. This is going to be manufacturing products, lifesaving products, products that will support everyone on the defense side to the public side in a way that we all live each and every day. I think that side, too, of the site that it's going on, it's already zoned for manufacturing. There's been a vision in talking about life science on this site, one that Raquel has spoke of, one that we've supported them on as well. as far as minimal impact tied to schools, residents, and beyond, again, it's right next to the interstate, right across the interstate is an industrial park, and really on the other side heading in towards downtown Rock Hill is a smaller industrial park. So it's very fitting with where it is going, and in terms of what they'll be manufacturing there, that process, you'll hear more from the company and they can answer those questions. It's gonna have very minimal impact.

Any other questions?

Yeah. With most of the calls and whatnot I've had on this, which nobody sees the $1.5 billion, everybody thinks that we're giving $65 million of York County Taxpayer Month. Would you elaborate on it's the state grant and the state? Sure. And all we're doing is determining whether it's going to be for 6% tax.

Sure. That's the next agenda item. I'm happy to address it now if that's OK. Or I can address that the next item.

I think it's a point worth making, because I do think one of the questions that the community is, this is what I was going to ask you, is there are folks who are saying, you're giving away county taxpayer money to do this. And really, I think describing what a philo is, number one, and then distinguishing it from the next item on our agenda, which is $65 million, that the state has given. Theirs is actually money to the company to help build. That is not what a philo is. If you can just distinguish those things, it might be helpful to get that out before we get to the next meeting.

Absolutely. I'll start with the fee-in-lieu tax structure. Today, the site is owned by Rock Hill. Generates zero dollars in tax revenue. Exactly what it generates. There's no additional benefit coming into York County or Rock Hill or the school district at the moment. What we are looking to do is work with a company that's going to invest $1.5 billion in taxable investment into this community. With that, we are going to reduce the risk that they are going to take and essentially put a fee-in-lieu tax structure in place that's going to reduce their assessment ratio from 10.5% down to 4%. and it's going to be over the life of a 40-year term. That's gonna allow them to come in and invest that $1.5 billion, make a strategic investment, help create those jobs that I mentioned, 1,200 jobs. With that as well, we're looking at special source revenue credits that are tiered to help reduce that burden just a little more to be competitive with North Carolina. That allows us to ultimately come in and, one, give them confidence in making a decision, but look to create 1,200 high-paying jobs in York County. Those jobs are gonna range, on the manufacturing side, a little over $100,000 per year, and then on the office side, about $142,000 per year. Combined on the amount of jobs that they're gonna create with the average salary, that's a 63% increase over the average wage in York County. That's a solid deal when we're looking at trying to make sure that our residents have quality job opportunities. I care more about bringing in a project like this and presenting something like this for the residents of York County rather than looking at logistics, warehouse, a McDonald's. I'm disrespecting it's a McDonald's, but it's hard in a time like right now for someone to survive off of 13, 15, $16 per hour. These jobs are significant and it's gonna provide opportunity for really not just this generation, but future generations. As it looks to the state economic development incentive grant, this is the next agenda item. The state requires that the county signs off on the application for incentives from the state. There's no local match. York County is not giving away $65 million. The state believes in this project enough that they want to put a competitive offer to make sure they secure this investment in South Carolina. And so they have essentially incentive grants similar to what they've given for Scout and others. to ultimately attract industry and manufacturing jobs, office-related jobs to this community, into the state of South Carolina. I can tell you why they're being so aggressive and competitive with this project. Their top two priorities are corporate office and life science-related projects. This checks both of those boxes. This is one that they wanna see laying right here in York County. So this is the state coming to the table to support us in our efforts.

I will say this, I do know that the community has come out and had some concerns about some projects in the past that were FLO projects, and I wanna say two things. First, I have heard the community say these things, and I appreciate the fact that those other two projects were from prior economic development leadership. We have new leadership in place, and leadership is now looking at all of the facets of economic development deals, including how do they fit in the community, and I appreciate the work that Economic Development Group is doing on that. I also think that it's critical that folks understand that this is, Council is different, this is three readings, and I appreciate the fact that one of the biggest things is being more transparent How can we do that? The code names actually are code names that are given from the state. They aren't code names given from the county. And the code names attached to NDAs that the state has secured, which are projects that are referred to the county. So I think there is a lot of information that the community needs to hear on those things as to why those names are put in place. and the protections for that. But in this case, I'm very glad to see that the company is going to divulge their name. They're gonna be available to answer questions. They're gonna be here for public hearing. The community will hear that. They will have the opportunity to speak on that. They will have the opportunity to ask the questions. And then there will still be another reading after that before this is finalized. So I do appreciate the comments that you've provided up here. And at this point, council has this option to approve first reading and to move forward, or if the council thinks that there needs to be more information from an executive session, you can do that, but I think if there's a motion to, that's how we can proceed. So do we have a motion?

Motion to approve first reading for Project Rock.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

I might as well get mine in here. I'll just say that I'm with everybody in the public. I've always been against fellows. I do not like them. I've told most of the people up here that I don't agree with them, haven't agreed with them. However, until the state does something about Act 388, we're stuck with them. I believe in being fair to all our businesses. I wish that we could give these opportunities to every small business or every business in York County. I wish we could give it to every business in South Carolina, but that's not what we're allowed to do by the state. As much as it pains me, and I sat there before I got up here, And I said, I'm gonna vote against those every time. And it's just not something that would benefit the community. It doesn't benefit the county. We all want good jobs. We want employers to come in. We want our economy to continue to grow because the alternative to growing is dying. and you can travel all around South Carolina and see where the manufacturing has left and gone to other countries, and those cities and towns are withering away. We're lucky where we're located close to Charlotte, but being close to Charlotte, we also have to compete with Charlotte, which has totally different rules on everything they do. what I could ask from everybody out there is to contact the state, ask for them to change the regulations and the rules so that we can get the taxes equalized across the board so that everybody gets the same fair shake. But right now, where we're at, this is the only opportunity we have to try to improve our area.

Okay, I'd just like to say one thing. Mitch, could you address the chemical issues here? I know the company will be giving us more information on second reading, but just a brief overview because folks, particularly in my area, are very concerned about hazardous chemicals and what, I don't think this company produces that, but I want you to address that.

I'm not aware of any hazardous chemicals they may be using or going to use in their process. I definitely think it's a much different process than what is being done in Silvab, without a doubt. You're looking at essentially pharmaceutical-related products versus solar panels. To me, I probably can't speak to that directly. I think it's gonna be a benefit, though, having the company be here at this next reading, and that's a question that I can definitely have them address and be prepared to answer.

Okay, good, thank you. Mr. Roddy.

I wanna make one quick comment. In light of what Councilman Litton said about calling to the state about Act 388, if you think your property taxes are what they are now, if we do away with Act 388, watch what your residential property tax is going to do because it's going to shift the burden off the commercial back onto the residential. So just be mindful. If you call your state legislature and say, hey, do away with Act 388. We don't like it. We don't love it. Look forward to your next tax bill that comes in the mail. I guarantee you it'll be 80% higher than what you're paying now because it shifts the burden off the commercial back onto the residential and it gives the break more to the commercial because you hear all the commercial screaming saying, hey, you're putting the state's load on our backs. Well, it came off the resident's back to go on to the commercial's back. So when you make that change, it's going back on the residential back off of the commercial's back. So be mindful of what you ask for if you're making those calls down to Columbia. And I see several of us up here shaking heads because they know what I'm saying is absolutely true. That tax bill is going to go up about 80% if we didn't have Act 388 on the residential side.

Short clarification that this is off topic, but Act 388, in order to reverse it, the citizens of South Carolina would have to vote to reverse it to tax yourselves more, which I don't think the citizens are gonna do that. So please don't call your legislatures unless you have some options for them to generate other revenue other than taxing you as a citizen and your property taxes.

Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously.

The second item, as previously discussed as well, counts to consider authorizing staff to apply and to accept, if awarded, a South Carolina Coordinating Council Economic Development Set-Aside Grant C254154 for Project Palmetto Rock. No local match is required. Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion?

Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, I just wanted to bring up, because I think this is important, the question that came up earlier. I think the citizens were thinking, well, why is the county allocating $65 million? We're not. This is money coming from the state. You say, well, why is the county receiving the money? The state has to send the money through the county so that we manage the money and disperse the money by making sure that it's being used and spent for the purposes of the money. That's how we're involved. So we're the conduit for the state to manage the money.

Any other comments?

I just want to make a quick comment. I'm glad we had an opportunity to clear this up tonight, front and center, because I saw some things online that said York County was given $65 million, and I know a lot of people get their news off Facebook. They hold that to be the gospel, but I'm glad we had the chance to dispel that York County is not giving York County's taxpayer dollars in the tune of $65 million to this incoming company. So if you're gonna put anything on social media, go home tonight and say your county's not giving that money, it's coming from the state of South Carolina because we all take a beating when misinformation's put out. They blame the chair, they blame the county manager, They haven't started blaming me yet, but that's on chairman and the county manager. But we want to make sure our citizens are informed as much as possible because bad information doesn't do anybody any good. And I know we fight with it every single day trying to get the truth out because social media is just not the place to go. If you want to know what's going on, come to this chamber, watch it online because we have nothing to gain by putting false information out from this county council. So I just wanted to put that out in the atmosphere.

Any other comments? I think this funding, again, was negotiated directly from the state with the applicant. The council is required to put this on the agenda to pass that through. I do think that there is... I encourage the folks that are interested to come to the public hearing, to ask the questions, to talk to the company, to listen to the company, to see their responses. I think that you're gonna find that this is a quality company with a headquarters wanting to come here, but we certainly wanna hear from you as a community to see if you agree. If you don't like the kinds of projects that are being recruited and sent to the county, that's another thing you can talk to your state folks about. The state folks are the ones who look to work to recruit these projects, and that's another area that I think you could ask for support from, and I certainly feel like that we have new leadership in our economic development that is recruiting businesses that will fit in with the community and that bring the types of jobs, headquarter jobs are important, especially in life sciences. So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. We move now to item number five, council to consider first reading by title only of an ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium for a period of nine months on the consideration and issuance of special exceptions or conditional use approvals on the acceptance of site plans and on all other land use or development approvals for data centers within unincorporated areas of York County in order to provide an opportunity for the county to study and examine the impact of data centers on critical resources adjacent and nearby properties and or infrastructure, thereby enabling the county to properly amend York County zoning and land use ordinances with regard to data centers to provide for a limited extension of time by further resolution of county council. If after proper notification to council, It determines that the extension is necessary to complete the studies or examinations contemplated herein to provide for a public hearing and to provide for other matters relating thereto. Is there anything from management before we move into a motion?

No, Madam Chair.

Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any discussion?

Yeah, I got some questions, comments, something. Since we've already got this pending ordinance for data centers floating around out there, it's been out there since February, and we're going to tack on another nine months, so maybe nine months. Do we need to close out that ordinance, either deny it and start all over or defer it until some point in time? The reason being is, is that to me it feels like we're making a whole lot of changes and we're already at third reading on the previous ordinance. And I would really like the public to have comments and be able to have a hearing on the revised changes rather than just doing a one vote and be done with it. I also would like to know what management thinks about how long it's gonna take to get the information for this moratorium.

So I think in terms of the time frame, I think that's where we need to have discussion in terms of what to look at to generate that timeline. In terms of the pending ordinance, I think that you can put that on halt until this is achieved, the actual moratorium. But I'll let the county attorney's office speak to the pending ordinance question.

Sure, so I will keep this general but applicable and hopefully answer your question. So you have a pending ordinance doctrine that was invoked. So that ordinance is essentially in effect. This item was sent to the committee. The committee had some specific points that they were considering. that would go into the ordinance that was already pending, but came to the consensus that some of those items would need to be done by outside experts. And so generally when you get to that point is when county councils or municipalities consider enacting a moratorium. So it's not to take anything away from the ordinance that's currently pending. It is to explore those specific things and sort out the best way to incorporate those into that ordinance that is on its way to being finalized.

I guess my question statement was more for council in whole and not necessarily what do y'all feel about continuing the process from where we're at and or starting back over and letting this be a brand new process with all good information starting from the beginning where we can get a full, you know, public hearing and all of that other good stuff instead of just starting at third reading, coming in here and going, all right, here's what we're gonna do and vote and done.

I think each council member is going to, and I'm going to ask the folks in the, if you'll please respect the, keep your comments to yourself. We have closed public hearing. My personal understanding of what was referred to the committee and what the committee has come back with is that in order to ensure that the pending ordinance doctrine and the pending ordinance is done properly, as best as it can be and with the best information available because council gets information on both sides of things, is to go ahead and do the moratorium now to allow that information to be collected so that after that point in time, the pending ordinance can be completed with additional information from experts especially those in the field of in fields of rates and it was stated previously from legal what these pieces are so I think for me personally I think this is the process that we do take we kind of take a firm pause collect that information from experts subject matter experts and and then incorporate that information into, and there will still be meetings with the pending ordinance to identify are there better ways to incorporate this into the existing ordinance? Is there a different way this needs to be said? What are other jurisdictions using to address the rate issue, to address the water issue, to address those things? I personally, if you're looking for council to, I don't mind stating my position on this, I support the moratorium. I think that we need to do that and I think that we need to continue with the process. This will help with making the pending ordinance better.

Yeah, so I am in support of this tonight. I think that the work that's been accomplished so far brought us to this point all right so so we you know we're building the process and identifying the needs i think i as we move forward more times needed all right through this process but we're not to go backwards no we continue to move forward with this uh when we've accomplished uh, many milestones, but we have many more milestones to accomplish. So I think this is, this is an ebb and flow through this process and I'll be supporting this today.

Okay. My feeling on this is we have received, I have received, I don't know about you guys. Um, a tremendous amount of information, um, from the community, from other areas of the country. Erin Brockovich, she's got something going on. It just gives us a breather to take a look at what's happening and even in Columbia, there are so many bills on the table. I'd like to see what's gonna happen with that, hopefully something. So for me, it's a time of digging deep and coming up with items that we can add to the ordinance that will make it even stronger.

Well, I definitely support it. I was the one that made the motion to bring it up. This is probably one of the most hot topics across the whole country. So we're going to have to get it right.

Let me go ahead. Madam Chair, so when we brought this up originally, it came up in a workshop, and I came in and I had a list of suggestions of things that we should consider associated with data centers, and I brought it up at open session in a meeting as well. From water to sewer to electricity to decommissioning, I mean, you name it, I had all those listed. And so I'm getting to a question, and that is, so that's been months ago when that came up, and then it got referred to committee. So my question is, who's gonna come up with this criteria that we're gonna, I mean, I don't have any problems supporting the moratorium, but who's gonna own this process of deciding what the criteria is? That's the first question, and then I'll get to my second question.

I think the committee identified areas that they needed to have additional information, and legal provided the information to them with a very specific direction about how to move forward. I mean, I'll let legal respond to that, now we're looking at me.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Councilman Huckabee. So the items that I have noted from the committee that they wanted someone to get independent expertise on, to get feedback on, so that the ordinances could be tailored in a way that fits what county council is after are kind of lumped into three categories, from my understanding. One of those was rate making. They wanted someone, and I think this would require a rate making expert to come in and look at the extent to which data centers impact utility rates of residential and other customers. If there is an impact, determine to what extent county council could address that via ordinance. So that's an entire process, the rate making process is its own. It's its own entity, really. It happens at the state. Votes go before the Public Service Commission. They have done studies built into their rates, the things they anticipate. And so the question from an ordinance drafting perspective is, what, if anything, can council do with that? And so we would need a rate making expert to kind of look at that process for utilities, how they go about that, whether and to what extent, if there is impact, to the rate class that would be residential customers, how that could be addressed via ordinance if it can. Generator use limitations, implementation of limitations on generator use and things like that would require some sort of analysis and understanding of how the any energy providers operate and how that works with their operations and what, if anything, can be addressed in an ordinance on that point. And the other item that kept coming up, and I'm certainly out of my league in talking about this one, was the geothermal measures, whether those needed to be explored. regarding the extent to which heat emanates from these types of facilities. If it does, what impacts of any does it have to adjacent or surrounding properties? And if so, how that can be measured and implemented in ordinance. And then the final one was noise. Is there some sort of noise generated from these that's separate and apart from what is already addressed in county ordinance in terms of measuring noises for nuisance purposes?

OK, thank you. So I'll get to my second question. When it was referred to committee, it was referred to committee in a different question. So at some point, I'd like to understand the process that something went through for a moratorium to get to committee. Right, because normally that's a consensus issue, and then it goes to committee, so I don't know how that happened. I'm still gonna support the moratorium, I just had that question. But here's one of my second questions. So, you only know what you know between your two ears, so you have to ask people a lot of questions, or you get online and you do research, you use AI, right, do research, which is, I try to do that a fair amount to get as educated as possible, and ask people that know more than I know. I talked to council members periodically, so I called Councilman Litton a couple of times, and he adamantly pushed back at me when I kept pushing on the data centers. Shouldn't we create standards and criteria for data centers, especially related to capacity? He said, well, why don't you suggest criteria and standards for the insurance industry that you're in? I thought about it. And it finally dawned on me, I had a point. So I went back and I did some research. And here's what I got to. And that is, we're talking about data centers today. There's going to be something else that's going to consume even more capacity needs than data centers in the next two or three years. You can go online and read about them. So my point to committee was, it's not just data centers. It's any future business that could come into York County and and have an impact on our capacity. Or we can just deal with one industry and then when the next industry comes in, because remember in 2022, less than 7% of America used AI. So it was kind of a non-issue. That's going to happen again. That surprise is around the corner again. So why are we not generically looking at capacity needs of any industry that comes in, including a data center? And that's what I asked to be sent to committee, and I don't know how it got to this point, but that's a separate discussion that I'd like an answer to at some point in time. So my concern is greater than just data centers. It's any business that comes in that has a capacity in the future, and they're coming, based on what I read. Thank you.

I guess we'll just go down the line, I guess. I don't know where to start. I think I can speak to what Councilman Huckabee was saying, is that today is the data center. Every time we get a new type business that comes in this community that's gonna absorb a lot of our, whether it's water, utility, are we gonna now put a moratorium there to study it?

If you'll please keep your comments to yourself, please.

If you notice over the history, over the years, we don't get... the same type businesses that continue to come in. We're gonna get a different business. It's a widget company today, it's a solar panel tomorrow. We're getting new businesses, new type businesses that come here We're gonna, and we hate to hire consultants. We've been challenged to say, hey, why don't your staff look at doing this? Why don't you get people that you're already paying versus consulting? Now here we are saying, we're gonna hire experts, we're gonna hire consultants to help us with our ordinance. We can't do it both ways. We can't employ staff to do all this work. We're gonna have to go outside I know data centers is a big thing in the state and across this country. They're popping up different places. And I know sometimes it looks like we're chasing the tail on the dog. This was a very new situation back in 2023. A lot has evolved, a lot has come out, and I can assure data centers being built now are nothing like the ones that were built 10 years ago. We've been updated on the different ways to operate, whether it's a closed loop or just continuous water. When we're talking about capacity, any data center or any business that comes to this county has to go to that utility provider to get a willingness and capability letter that says we can provide, whether it's electrical, we can provide water, we can provide sewer. And if they can't secure that, the business doesn't go forward with their next step in the plans. So when we're talking about capacity, and it may be something that comes along that uses more utilities, water, solar, and electric. they're still gonna have to go through and get that willingness and capability letter before they can take the next step to even look to come to York County. Because if there's gonna use so much and if that utility provider has to upgrade its system, what I've been told and what I'm sure if you've asked your co-op or Duke Energy, what happens in a case where you can't provide it and you have to upgrade your system? I was told that that's a shared cost between the utility company and the incoming company. Those costs are typically not passed along to.

Nope, nope, I'm gonna have to ask folks to leave if y'all can't keep the quorum, please.

And if, and I think we're gonna get into these same situations out of the public when we start to have questions answered, a non-expert is gonna say, nope, that's not the case. But when you're talking to the experts, the utility providers, and they say this is how it works, Who else do you go to? Do we always say that they're fabricating, making up stuff? No. If we're going to the utility providers, and they're saying, this is how this works, and we present this information to the public, and the public says, no, that's not how it works, what do you want? What are you expecting? Can you get more expert than the people who are doing the business, supplying the business? And I think sometimes we We want to get ahead, and one of my questions, and this is an actual question, can staff explain the difference to the public, the difference between a pending ordinance and a moratorium? Because I think when people say put the moratorium in place, they think it's going to shut down the existing approval that we already have. Is that, where does that fall? because I don't think it's gonna, it's not gonna apply to the existing QTS at this time.

Councilman Rodney, that is a difficult question to answer with specificity because we're verging on getting into me, getting legal advice. However, I will tell you that any ordinance for purposes of a moratorium will be framed so that it does not conflict with other portions of South Carolina law, and that would include the Vested Property Rights Act.

My interpretation of her answer is if we put a moratorium in place, it would not apply to what's been approved.

I'm thinking of a point of order. That's a legal opinion and legal advice. If we need to go into an executive session.

I'm just expressing my interpretation because if the moratorium stops what we've already approved, I don't think that's legal. Can I get that? Would that be a legal action by this council to stop Because I think that's what the community is expecting out of this moratorium. And I don't want to give them a false sense of hope that if we put this in place, they're going to get what they want then only to find out that it's not what they're expecting by a moratorium. I think that's a fair question for this council to know and for the community to know because if we vote a moratorium in and they're expecting this to stop QTS and it doesn't, they're mad at us. They're saying you lied to us like you put a moratorium or they can walk away knowing if we put a moratorium in now that it does or doesn't apply to QTS. I think that's big push for the moratorium. I think that needs to be answered before we vote on pushing the moratorium.

So I will give this a try, Councilman Roddy. To the extent you want to delve into and get legal advice on a moratorium, I am happy to go into executive session and give you guys whatever legal advice you would like or you need. To the extent you think there needs to be some clarification for the public, I can assure you that I will work with the county manager and his staff to put together public statements addressing by second reading what this ordinance means and what it doesn't mean. And we can do that in a way that's not legal advice but sets out the parameters of the ordinance so that that's out there for the public.

Well I think we should get legal advice before we even make the first move on a moratorium for this council because I'd like to make a motion that we go to executive session to get legal advice on what a moratorium means to the existing project going on now.

Is there a second? No. Is there a second on the motion for executive session?

Because if you don't know what you're voting on, don't vote. Because I clearly don't know.

All right. Motion fails for lack of a second. Do we have any other discussion? Any other comment?

I have a couple questions. We've heard from the interim county attorney what the pieces need to be studied. Does somebody need to make that part of the motion for the moratorium? As of right now, it just says, and I think I understand from previous conversations that it needs to be specified. When, if we do these studies, when do we have to vote on them and approve funding for them? And for budget amendments, would it be after the moratorium or before, during it?

So in the budget question, I think what we'll do is staff, if and when this is approved, will identify the funds in FY 27 budget to afford the consultant. So but until this is approved, you know, obviously those funds are budgeted, but we'll we'll look to work within our current means.

I would just think that we would need to bring this out of the fund balance because we've already got a budget that's very slim. to do just exactly the things that need to be done this year, not counting doing this. But that's a comment for later. Do we need the motion, do we need to add those points into the motion?

Certainly out of an abundance of caution we can do that, or there can be a move to amend it to reflect the items that I pointed out.

Laura, if we, at least this is first reading with the items that you've identified, aren't they going, isn't this exercise going to be, one of the biggest problems here is that this is a new industry, one that doesn't have state regulation, which was part of the issue that was brought up. There are a lot of other industries, and there are questions here that were asked about, what are you gonna do about other industries that have impact on that? I certainly think if someone wants to bring that up in non-agenda comments, and we wanna refer any other review of any other industries, but my understanding, because I anticipated that question from some of the communications that had happened, was that number one, council, procedurally is following the right steps here and is relegated to the data center. Can I get confirmation from you on that first? The issue before us is the data center.

Yes, that is correct. And to the extent someone wanted to refer something to committee, certainly we can follow that process and do it. And to the extent County Council would want to use these items that get studied for this use in other ways and have those experts that they recognize and know they want to look into these areas for a variety of other things, they can do that.

isn't the, in terms of identifying the areas, my understanding was that also having these, the subject matter of legal experts looking at other areas throughout the country since there's issues with the state trying to grapple with how to regulate these things as well as other localities looking to do that, that we would be making sure that these folks review the entirety of the existing pending ordinance. I mean, the purpose is to arrive at a pending ordinance, a final ordinance from the pending, is to use this to garner additional information to make sure that the entirety of those changes were written as best as possible.

Yes, if I'm understanding you correctly, then I agree that you are looking at the ordinance as a whole. You're looking at these specific things to see how they fit into it. And then part of the review that that I would be doing that outside council would be doing is ensuring that that that ordinance, when it it comes back before you all at the conclusion of these studies and these items means that you have an ordinance that is appropriately tailored to something that is within the purview of county council, is appropriate in an ordinance, and is measurable to the extent it can be measured.

So I guess my personal belief is that we move to approve this as broad as possible and provide and ask for legal to provide us the, I mean, my personal opinion is provide the most protection possible that exists to be able to, as we go through this exercise and... Yeah.

You go.

Okay. So it seems like we're continuing to go around circles on this conversation. I think that we talked about this from a pending doctrine perspective and we've gotten some, quite a bit accomplished through the beginning process. Again, it was identified through this process that we are needing moratorium to dig deeper. I think by listing out items now, I think it actually boxes us in as opposed to keeping this open and as we move forward, we're gonna identify other needs and changes we're gonna have to make through the process. So I think we've ironed this out to the point where I'm ready to move forward on a vote on this. This is critical we get this going, so thank you.

Hang on, I have a question about the process then. I thought only the items coming out of committee could be addressed in that. You can't just add additional items to it, correct?

As I understand it, for purposes of what would be studied, it would be, as my notes reflected at least, is those items that I've reported to you all. Those would be the things that council is undertaking to study for purposes or during the pendency of the moratorium.

But not the entire ordinance won't be studied by outside consultants.

The pending ordinance outside of these items is something that I would work on that, to the extent I need to engage with outside council to do some of that just from a workload perspective, I would do that as part of just drafting and updating that ordinance.

Well, I guess I'd, go ahead.

I have two quick points to make. I want to remind this council that when we were talking about the golf cart situation, it went into committee one way, and we tried to bring it out another way, and we said we couldn't do it. This is the same thing that applies. It went to the committee for a pending ordinance. How does it come out as a moratorium? That's the same thing that we said, no, you can't do, just a couple weeks ago. And my second point is, how can we sit up here and vote on something that we don't even know the ramifications of? It was just clear. Does it work this way? Does it work that way? We couldn't get a legal answer. And if I go down the line and ask each of our council members, do you understand which way it goes, nobody can say this way or that way, because legal couldn't tell us which way it's going to go. So if you vote for it, you don't even know what you're voting on. You don't know the ramifications. We're just putting a moratorium in place to say it's a moratorium, because we cannot explain to the public what it means. That's why we need to go to executive session to get legal advice. to let us know how we're voting. A vote this way means this. A vote this way means that. We don't know. If we're voting, we don't know which way we're voting. I'm just going to put it out there. I'm not ashamed to say it. I will be abstained from the vote because I don't know a yes vote means this or a no vote means that. And no one sitting up here can tell us because the legal hasn't told us what it means. And if we vote. Well, I disagree.

I think there's been a call for the question.

I just think we need to go ahead and move forward with the motion.

Well, there's already been motions that have been made. I think we're done here. The question is, does council support moving forward with the moratorium, first reading it or not? I think we're done with discussion.

Well, all I wanted to say is I was the one who brought forth the motion for the moratorium to give us time to put ordinances in place to fix it.

And I think we've covered that. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. motion carries um we move now to item number six counts to consider assigning the york county forever commission for its consideration the use of some portion of the york county forever funded an amount of 1 million or an amount recommended by nation for land trust for the purchase of development rights on approximately 120 acres of land known as york place located at 234 king's mountain street york South Carolina, which project has support and partnership from Nation for Land Trust and to further consider whether the approval of such funds should include certain contingencies relevant to the acquisition, conservation, or purchase of development rights of the property. Is there anything for management before we proceed with the motion?

Yes, just to kind of harken back to the budget process. So during the budget process, the Yorkville Agricultural and Education Society came and presented to you all about the York Place project. And this is an exciting project happening here in York, South Carolina. and there's a number of folks in the community that have pitched in to work on this over the years. I know many of us here in this room have visited the site and been a part of meetings there that have taken place over the years as well. In the budget process, Councilmember Atkins asked about two potential ways to fund this. Staff responded with a bunch of options. I think there's five different ways we could do this. as the budget was approved and we began working on you know what it would look like for york county forever to be a part of this new information came came up that i think makes this a really great opportunity to consider and i've worked with assistant county manager tom couch with our planning department as well as with nation's board land trust and jennifer mcadams to brainstorm how we might be able to do this i think this is a really good option when you think about why york county forever exists and the opportunity to preserve 120 acres here in york this is one of those reasons why i think york county forever exists the opportunity here is you know the the nonprofit has identified funds for purchase of this property so they're not in need of funds for the purchase but this is an opportunity for us through york county forever to purchase development rights to protect that property And so we're willing to take any questions and speak to speak to the why behind this but this would be a request from Council to York County forever to consider this as there is a formula that's utilized to determine the value of development rights There are any questions before the motion All right, do we have motion much to pray second

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion? Yeah, I got a question or three. So you say there's already funding approved purchased property. Can you tell me what those funding sources are?

So there's opportunity and funding sources lined up. Part of that, though, is funding through the state. So that's one of the reasons why, as we consider this, this wouldn't go into effect until probably October. The mechanism we're recommending and how York County Forever will work, and obviously Diane's here and can get into more details, would be contingent on the applicant owning the property. So you can't buy development rights from somebody who doesn't own the property, right? So what this would do would say, okay, once y'all own the property, here's what would occur. And so they're working with the state and the state bank, and that's where Nation Forward Land Trust comes in, to identify the funds to purchase the property. So they're not needing funds from York County to purchase the property.

So the State Conservation Bank requires the property to be put in conservation Why would we be paying for an easement from an agent that's already been paid for from a nonprofit that's saying that they want to preserve this? Why are we spending up to a million dollars of taxpayer money for something that is being bought by a conservation

So I'll ask Diane to help answer this question, but I'll start, and then Diane, if you don't mind coming up. So typically, you know, both the State Bank and York County Forever work together on the purchase of development rights. In this case, the State Bank is not purchasing development rights. So this one's a little different. So this is the opportunity for York County Forever to step into that. But I'll let Diane speak more at length to that.

Yeah, it's something we're doing actually more frequently now, is that we're actually purchasing development rights. And so previously, we would actually, your county forever, would fund a conservation easement. And that would cover the cost to be able to do the surveys and the stewardship for perpetuity. But we're doing more, we're actually buying their development rights. And so we're paying cash to the property owners to use as they see fit to be able to preserve that property and conserve that property. It's kind of a little extra bonus for it. We've approved some recently for that same thing. This is so much higher because the value of this property is so much more than our typical conservation easement property development rights purchase. And so that's why it's a lot more money than we typically see coming forward to us. In the city, it's zone industrial for the big part of it. It's zone institutional. Typically we're doing farmland and that value is so much lower. So with this much higher value, 5.2 million, their development rights are a lot more expensive. And so that's why that cost is so much higher. There is a formula that we calculate to be able to establish what that money would be. It comes out to be just over a million dollars.

but typically we buy conservation and development rights from private individuals that could sell or would sell to a developer so that they would get a benefit and so that they wouldn't lose the land. This is an agency that's gonna conserve it. Why would we buy for up to this amount of money from an agency that's conserving already? With that, you just said that it's an owned industrial. Couldn't the property owner get it rezoned for agricultural? And then we could do the development rights and it would be cheaper for us? I mean, we should be saving some taxpayer money here rather than just throwing it at a project that looks pretty. And the last point I want to make is that this project, when they came to us and asked for money from York County, they specifically asked for renovations and property improvements of the buildings, not for easement rights, not to help purchase property. So we're just gonna give them money for something they didn't even ask for it to be used for?

So likely, I know our county attorney's not here in a second, but potentially they will use this money for that very purpose. For which purpose? To rehab one of the buildings on site.

Is that what York County Forever's for? I thought it was for reserve. No, but once they have the money, they can use it for a bunch of different, yeah.

But what I'm saying is once that nonprofit has the funding, they can utilize it for whatever they need, and likely it will be to help bring up some of those buildings.

Those buildings will have to be mapped out where they're at, and there won't be any other buildings built on the place.

If I understand correctly, and I think I get what Andy's saying, Councilman Litton's saying, that we're gonna give a million dollars in the name of conservation, but they're not gonna use it for conservation. They can use it to rehab buildings or facility.

No, it has to be in conservation easement. This is acquiring the conservation rights.

The property's gonna be in a conservation because that's what they're purchasing it under. And we're paying a million dollars for the, I guess non-development rights or whatever we're doing, I don't see putting our York County Forever Fund on the hook to go up to a million dollars for that. Like I said, it is taxpayer dollars, even though it's in a different pot. If it was less than a million dollars, That's a strong ask for us to put a million dollars on the table. And I know it's a feel good project. It has so much sentimental value here in the York community, but we're not in the sentimental giving business. We're in the make it make sense business. And I don't think it makes sense to give a million dollars, not that the project's not worthy of support, I just don't think the project's worthy of a million dollars of taxpayer dollars. This is cash. This is not like a fee in lieu where we're lowering someone's tax rate. This is a million dollar check written out the bank going to some entity. And I wish, just like we talked about the fee in lieu, I wish we can do this for everybody who wanted to start up something that feels good in this community, that does so much good in this community. There are a ton of organizations that would love to have a million dollars, that would love to be part of this feel good giving that we're doing. And a million dollars, that's a lot of money. I don't care where it's coming from or who it's going to, that's a lot of money from a local government to bear the brunt. Whatever the state's doing to help facilitate this project, I'm all for it because I'm not a state legislator. But I'm here to look after the taxpayer dollars There's probably another whole laundry list of things that we can split that million dollars up and do 10 times as good. I know it's a feel good project. I've spoken with the people that's behind it. I haven't committed one way or another, but this is a tall order to fill from this local government to shell out a million cash. We're not even getting a million cash to a company bringing a billion dollar investment here. It's a different mindset when we're writing checks versus reducing property taxes.

While everybody's being quiet, I'd like to also point out that we've done a lot of these projects. I went scrolling through the agendas for some of these projects. Just so the public knows, we've done some projects like 400 acres saved, bought the development rights for like $50,000. You can go and buy a lot of development rights for $1 million and save a whole lot of property.

I think the distinction in this is that this is property. There's a lot of folks who are here, even if you look at the most recent thing with QTS being on industrial property. The only thing the community can do is to do preservation, and this funding is York County preservation funding. There is $3 million. There's over $3 million in this fund, and it continues to grow. This project is supported by our state leaders. They are giving $2 million. State Preservation Bank is giving $2 million. This is going to preserve area that's inside the city of York. And this funding can only be used for preservation. It can't be used for anything else. I'm getting calls from folks who are suggesting use it for a road, use it for this. You cannot do that. It is specifically set aside for preservation uses. And this is a preservation project in which they are requesting, this council has considered matching funds and the million comes from the matching from the state preservation bank. What council is considering tonight is referring this to York County forever with council support to say these are the kinds of projects that we think are important to our community. We have had the city of York become a partner to this. The 4-H become a partner to this. In order to make this successful, it's going to provide agriculture events, which also dovetails with what we are saying we strategically want to help with, which is agriculture projects. and I can't conceive of any other project that we would not want to support and also providing that support with Harvey Peeler at the state who has dedicated funding to that as well. This is gonna be an area where there will be education for agriculture, there will also be opportunities for A lot of the stuff that we've talked about in ED, and this is the better fund for it to come out of. If you're talking about a preservation project, it needs to come out of preservation funds. So I fully support this, and I cannot understand why there's hesitancy for it. I think it's a critical project that will help our community.

Madam Chair, if I could share. We just voted on a $65 million site preparation grant from the state of South Carolina. What they've done is they're sending $65 million to us with criteria attached to it as to where the company can use these money in their site prep. Good questions have come up. I think the step that's missed here, and it was kind of, in my opinion, the step we missed in the moratorium was defining exactly what we were doing in this moratorium, the criteria. So we just voted on first reading without doing that, which has bothered me since I joined council. You don't have but three votes before something's either voted up or down. And as you go through and you read the eligible uses for this money, we have an opportunity to maybe not vote on this tonight, vote at the next meeting. What's the rush? I mean, I think it's a good project. And I think there are things in here we could pick out that we could identify. The barn is an example. The barn is a historic building, I would think. And it's going to be renovated. It says historic properties, historic buildings. We need to go through this and identify what we think we would like the money to be used to improve if we're going to do it. Generically speaking, if we give away a million dollars, then someone could challenge us in the future, or a future council could be challenged in, well, You gave money to York Place for a million dollars to use at their discretion. We really don't know how they used it. We just gave it to them. When it clearly outlines what you can use the money for, I suggest we define what we're going to use the money for, what we're going to give them the million dollars for, and what they're to do with it. That's my opinion.

I can already tell you they're going to use it to renovate the building.

I think we define it in what we give. And if we're not prepared to do that tonight, then we're making a motion without any substance to it, is my point. And I think we need to be careful doing that moving forward. I think the citizens expect more from us.

We can assume what they're going to use it on.

All right. Real quick. So as you read the beginning of this, right, council is considering signing to York County Forever Commission for its consideration, OK? This is a referral over to them for them to consider this, OK? When we're talking about preservation, we've talked about the impact of the business in the area. When you have a nation-forward land trust, you've got funds in there that help protect countrysides. And unfortunately, we don't grow any more land. So I think this is a two-fold opportunity, its ability to protect land, at the same time preserve and give opportunities to other 4-H groups and other people in the community that can participate in utilizing this property. Again, I'll be supporting this tonight. I think it's a good direction for our ability to preserve property in the country, and it's a two-fall opportunity. So go ahead, Tony.

No, I'm voting for it.

Anyone else? Any other discussion?

I just say, all due respect, I agree with what you said. I support it as well. I think we need to take the time to define where the money's going. That's my point. Otherwise, it may not fit the criteria.

And that bothers me. The council does have, this is referral to York County Forever to consider this. And I do think that when you are talking about purchase of development rights, which in this instance is industrial land that's inside the city limits, that the council doesn't control the zoning of that, which adds another layer of why this project is so special and such a different approach in terms of protecting and preserving that land. Anytime that we have done developer rights, you don't attach conditions upon that. It is paying for the conservation. We're saying we value conservation, And we are going to contribute funding that matches the state to do that. That is how all of them are done. I don't know that any of us is going to convince one another any beyond that. But I guess all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed.

Motion carries four to three.

Did all three of you say no?

Four to two. I'm sorry. Yeah, four to two. I mean, I'm going to prove it. I just, again. Unless you're telling me that your county forever is gonna take this money, if we make it through three readings, and they say, well, we want it to go to preserve this historic building, this truly historic building, and we want it to go to this. If you're telling me that, then we're gonna go through two more readings and in the second reading, they're gonna say we approved it or we disapproved it and we're gonna approve it for these uses.

If you're telling me that, hey, I'm good with that. We're not having two more readings on it.

This is it. There's no more readings on this.

Actually, the process and how this works is that this goes to York County forever for them to consider then it comes back to us for any additional approaches. So it does come back to us. And we're.

And even in that, it can be a timely period that it takes for it to happen.

I think here's where we're past that piece, and it will come back to council.

So let's move on to committee and other reports.

Health and environmental. I'm sorry.

County manager's got something to share.

Mr. Manager.

There was a number seven added. Oh, yeah. That's right.

OK. A request was made at the outset of the meeting to refer number 33. Mobile Command Unit. Yep, so I will read it out. Council to approve the purchase of one new unused 40-foot custom mobile command vehicle and associated equipment from LDV Custom Specialty Vehicles of Burlington, Wisconsin for use by emergency manager from LDV Inc. of Burlington, Wisconsin for a total cost not to exceed 1.4 million via cooperative purchasing as provisioned by York County's Procurement Code Section 35008C. Do we have questions before we want to make a motion? Sure. Do you have any questions?

Yeah, since I pulled it out, I'd be glad to. I just have some questions for staff. And I appreciate, at the last meeting, I asked some questions, and then I put it in writing, sent it out, and I got responses. And I appreciate those responses. So my first question to staff is, in 2002, the unit that we have now, I don't know what was, we didn't pay anything for it, because it was paid out of fund balance with the federal government. and I'm not saying that there's fund balance there now, but if we ask the federal government, if we go on to anybody, an elected official to ask, is there the potential of us getting any fund balance to help pay this $1.4 million expense?

So I'll let Assistant County Manager David Garner speak to that question.

I guess you'll have to explain what you mean by fund balance.

So, okay, it's not really fund balance. Give me one second, I'll give you the specifics. The federal surplus program. So the federal surplus program, as it was written in our agenda notes, In 2002, the federal surplus, which I'm guessing John Spratt from York, Congressman John Spratt, probably secured that money for us, I'm guessing. So I'm just asking, have we gone through the process of asking, is there any money on the federal level and even the state level that could help pay for this unit that now we're replacing 24 years later?

So this was actually received in 2013 to York County. It was a federal vehicle before that. It was refurbed at that time and again in 2017. But those refurbs were largely technological issues and not structural. And I've also got Chuck Haynes, emergency management director, if we have any other specific questions. So we have never physically purchased one. This was a federal surplus unit at that time. So we have not solicited, but these are very rare specialty vehicles. I will tell you that they typically do not come up on federal surplus, but even when they do, in my experience, they have to be retrofitted and upfitted to meet our needs. and they're also used at that point so this would be the first that the county has ever purchased new and designed specifically to the needs of york county chuck can give any other details as far as that acquisition and refurb and how that happened thank you um that pretty much uh captured it the only thing uh one of the reasons this uh vehicle was surplus was the structural issues with it the company uh matt man uh which was uh

located in California. They're no longer in business. The way they built the slide causes structural integrity issues to the roof. So federal government got rid of them. We were able to get one for no charge. And then I think we did about a $100,000 refurb in 2017, and then we've been working to get it this point since.

Okay, thank you for the explanation. So the second question is, So in an area like York County, how many of these units exist in the municipalities from close proximity to us?

There's one that the city of Rock Hill owns, and then we operate the other.

OK. So typically, and I appreciate you all sending out how many incident coordinations we've had per year, but when I look over this list you sent me, Is another command unit present along with ours when we dispatch the command unit?

I'm sorry.

For an incident. We have an incident. Typically, are we the only command unit on site or just someone else? No?

Typically, it's our command unit, yes.

OK. And one thing I would add to that, I think it's important to realize it's not about the number of incidents that require this. It's about what could happen and you need it when you need it. Yeah. And so I think that's one of the things with these units is We don't know what we're gonna face. We've faced a lot of things in the last two years since I've been here where we've needed it, but you don't know what's next. So the number of incidents I don't think is a good measure. I think it's the what's possible in accounting our size that requires this.

Well, I appreciate all the input. I think it's important. So as a council member and as a taxpayer, regardless of where the $1.4 million is coming from, Duplicating resources in York County is something that I'm somewhat sensitive of. I want to give examples. But is there a possibility that there could be shared use of certain facilities like this one throughout York County when it's needed, given that it's not dispatched that often?

Certainly, and it's used across many municipalities. City of TKK, Fort Mill, Clover, York, they all use it and request it when they need it. The city of Rock Hill has a fairly unique mobile command post. I think more suited in the law enforcement role, but that may be a possibility. $1.4 million is a lot of money. I respect that. I pay taxes also. So believe me, I trust and believe in what you say. But this is a turnkey. So all the technology is in there. It's just not a base truck that we're going to have to build and spend more money on. When it's delivered, we'll be able to put a sticker on it, and it's going to go to work.

And one thing I want to add, your county emergency management serves the entire county. So this is a resource that will serve the entire county.

So it would seem then if we're going to buy an up-to-date command post at $1.4 million, then nobody else in the county really needs to buy one because we bought one that they could use or they could pay to use when they need to use it, right or wrong?

Well, I think our emergency management department would be in charge of it, and they serve the entire county.

But Rock Hill has one, and I'm not trying to challenge this necessarily, but I'm trying to understand this instead of just voting for something because it's on our agenda.

I understand that. I think what we could do is maybe Chuck and Dave could talk a little bit more about what's different with Rock Hills versus what we're trying to purchase here.

Well, Josh, did we figure out where the other $400,000 got to come from? That's what I mean.

I mean, there's totally a difference in what they're using versus Rock Hill.

It's included in the fiscal year 27 budget, which is why we diverted to this meeting the additional funds.

I originally pulled this out, and that's what I was.

On the same line of Councilman Huckabee's thinking, Is there not a way we can enter some kind of shared cost with the other, whether it's Fort Mill, Clover, TKK, York? Since you're saying it's used countywide, and we're the only ones paying for it. But if there's an incident in Clover, it's going to Clover. If there's an incident in TKK, we're going to TKK. can we not put something out to look for, kind of like, instead of us jumping in with Rock Hill to say, hey, we would like to use yours countywide, we purchase one, and those who don't have one in those municipalities, because every municipality don't have one, why couldn't we start that line of thinking to keep Clover from purchasing one, keep Fort Mill from purchasing one. Since we're gonna serve it countywide, why should we bear the brunt of the bill?

The one response that I would give to that is that even though they're citizens of a municipality, they still pay county taxes as well. And this is a county resource overall. So to ask them to contribute more towards it, they're still having access to it because they're still citizens of the county and a municipality. There's not necessarily a need to be redundant with it. And I think to Chuck's point that Rock Hills is more of a specialty use, this lends itself to more of a broad multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional use that can be readily accessible and easily used by municipalities, fire departments, law enforcement, emergency management, any of our other partners. So that's why it's meant to be a county resource and paid from the general fund. We have Duke Energy money because it also serves the nuclear station. So there are other funding sources outside of just general fund that have played into funding this.

And my response to that would be, look at the tax bill. We still have the smallest line on the tax bill when all the municipalities have a bigger line share. And I'm just trying to look for ways, I guess you would call it collaboration. And I get it that they pay some in county taxes, but at the same time, those municipalities receive their line share on the tax bill also, which is always bigger than the county's line share. But we're doing the heavy lifting. I just thought it would be an opportunity to form some kind of shared cause. on something that's gonna be used countywide. I mean.

Well, let me finish with my comments real quick. Piggyback on what you said and I'm done. So, and I do appreciate you sending over the information, because this is important to know. And the reason I think this is important, when you look back in 2023, 2024, and you look at the number of incidences, there were four incidences that this unit was dispatched out to. In 2025, there were three. And in 2024 so far, there have been three. So going back to what you said. Thankfully. And I think, yeah, thankfully. I agree. Thankfully. But go back to taxpayers. I live in Rock Hill. I'm paying taxes in Rock Hill. I pay them in York County as well, cumulatively. But this is just an example, in my opinion, of how York County needs to continue to evolve and collaborate with our other strategic partners in our community in York County. And I don't know what year Rock Hill's unit is, and I don't even know if they'll even know that we have this until they see it show up on a scene in Rock Hill for an incident or whatever. But we talk about utilization of taxpayer dollars. It's not just York County, it's the municipalities as well. And I think with it, and I know it goes out for special events just in case. There were two special events in 2024. There was one special event in 2025, and there has not been a special event that I know of other than a public education event in 2026. So I just, I don't know. Regardless of where the money comes from, it concerns me that we're purchasing something that's not used that often, and that means that probably City of Rock Hills isn't used that often either, and I think this is an opportunity for collaboration long term. That's all.

Well, David, what's the percentage of the million in some grants at one time?

Yes, Duke Energy.

What's the difference between Rock Hill's unit and this one?

I'm not sure the specifics, I don't know.

I can't answer that. We have worked events like BMX, things like that, where the command posts have been in the same spot. Again, their command posts serve more of a law enforcement role, coordination role, than our command post that was doing more overarching coordination.

Is theirs, I guess you don't have any idea how new it is or anything else for any coordination with them, maybe they would be willing to help purchase part of this big one and get rid of theirs or something, no, yes, no?

We haven't had that discussion. We could approach them.

I mean, it really is a lot of money.

For something that's used very sparingly.

I know fire trucks are expensive, too, and we don't hopefully use those very often and so forth.

It's a lot of money, but it's a lot more now than it was two years ago when we tried to purchase it, and now it's a whole lot more. So I guess the county has an independent statutory responsibility to provide emergency management services throughout the county. And one of the things that we've talked about is the county taking that responsibility collaborating with folks this is something that I don't think that it was put in the budget it was passed in the budget if we wait any longer it's just going to cost more you're telling us that we need it the fact that it doesn't get used a lot I think it's something we should be thankful for because then that means but when you need it you need it and the community is going to need it and so do we have a motion currently I say that, but I certainly say if there are other pockets of funding that y'all can get to seek that, I certainly think y'all have an obligation. And I think council has made that clear with the budget. The budget that was passed trimmed it down. And what we're asking you to do is to go ask any of the, if you want to ask the feds, you want to ask the state, do they have any extra money to support this? Great. But I don't think we can put this on hold for that.

I've been put on hold for two years already.

I know, and it's costing more and more. And the old one's going in, so look. Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve and Chuck walk around with a jar and find some more fun for it to help pay for it.

We already have a first and a second on the table.

Okay, any other discussion?

I don't think there was a motion. There was no motion.

No, we were asking questions. I opened it up for questions.

I made the motion initially. No, there wasn't.

There was no motion. Our clerk is confirming that.

So we have a motion to approve.

We have a second.

Any other discussion?

I got a quick comment to make. I remember when Sheriff Bryant was here, he wanted to buy an armored tank. And we asked him, how often do we see being able to use this? And what was some of the situations? And what was the cost? We didn't approve that. Just wanted to put that out there. There has been something. That's not a tank. Oh, no.

This isn't a tank. Please, gosh. Somebody report it right.

I'm using this as an example of things that have been asked for that were large purchases that we said no to.

Right.

I mean, that was my only reference. No, this is not a tank. I was just making reference to some requests. We've stood up when it would make sense not to.

I think. Any other discussion on this? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Really? Unanimously approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you all. Okay. Let's move on. Committee and other reports. Health and Environmental Protection Committee. Chairman Andy Litton.

Yes. Councilman Huckabee and I met on June 4th to discuss The Parks Foundation, we got additional information from staff on how to, what it would take to create a Parks Foundation. The Parks Foundation would be a outside entity to help generate funds to improve our parks. The committee has asked for additional information on how exactly the specifics on how those Foundations throughout the state have been created. Some were special purpose districts, some were special tax districts, and there was different methods, so we were trying to get what everybody felt was the best method for doing that. And then we got updates on the improvements at our parks, how the improvements are going at all of the parks that are currently under construction.

And that was it. Thank you, sir. We do not have any citizen concerns tonight. Any council member new non-agenda comments?

I do. I do.

Mr. Atkins?

Well, first of all, I'd like to thank everybody that supported me. But this year, the Fall Livestock Show will be celebrating 25 years. since the new age ones got in. It will be September 11th through 12th at A&K Ranch located on 728 South Shallow Road in York. And they'll have the kids be showing the dairy goats, dairy cows, beef cows on the Friday. night and the poultry and meat goats will be on saturday i know i'm announcing it early but get people aware of it and i'll bring it back up before but they would like to thank us for our support that we've given them so i did it

I'd like to thank everyone who supported me this past week. And I would also like to wish all of you a very happy pre-4th of July, because it's very special. We are celebrating 250 years in this country. And how our founding fathers stayed together and brought this country forward is amazing to me because there was many more of them than seven of us. And they made some very wise and good decisions that brought this country together. So I hope and pray that our future and our future that we can come together more than we have been. Thank you, Deb.

I would just like to wish everybody, again, as we've gone into this summer season, there's a lot of traveling going on with family. And again, I just wish safe travels to the community, to everybody here. And stay cool. Thank you.

Anything from Rob?

Yes, please. So Councilman Roddy. ask a question after the citizens' comments, which I thought was appropriate, so much so that I had sent that email out a month ago asking council to consider or reconsider our process of how we do things. I did not have this item positioned after citizens' comment, but I've had a conversation with another council member just asking their opinion on it. And I think it's important to the citizens of Rock Hill that, Rock Hill, your county, that when they come and they share 30 minutes worth of their opinion on a topic, if we're prepared, because it could have been from the previous meeting that you're ready to respond to what was said in the previous meeting, that we have an opportunity to respond with as much fact as possible so that they're more aware. We did some of it tonight as we went through some of the readings. We were able to speak to the facts and people hung around because the moratorium was on the back part of our agenda. otherwise they wouldn't have been here to hear it. I think that's important. So personally, after citizen comment, I'd like to talk about the whole process, not tonight, but I think we should review what we do and how we do it so that we can get the greatest impact for ourselves and the citizens of York County. And moving that right after citizen comment may be something to consider. And I appreciate you taking the initiative to even respond back tonight. I think they wanted to hear that personally.

I'll just say it does get frustrating to see people come in week in and week out and say things, one, that we can't address, even if we have to change our format and give the Chair an opportunity to address some of the things that's being asked or said. One of the things that was pointed out tonight was that how we have a two-minute citizen part, when others have three, five, that two minutes is really short, and even if we keep it to 30 minutes, we can narrow it down to 10 people, three minutes, that still give us the 30 minute window, because I have noticed a lot of people are rushing to kind of make the point three minutes would kind of serve us a little better, and also, I will be traveling, Shortly after the 4th of July and just to speak to what my colleagues have said everybody be a have a happy and safe fourth Stay cool because we've had some pretty good rough temperatures We still have our work cut out on this council It's not designed for everybody to agree all the time. I think our deliberation and debates that we do have are healthy debates and it's good for This body is good for the community because we all don't think alike. But at the end of the day, I think we all want to make sure we're doing the good and the positive for our community. So I'll tell everybody. And congratulations to Tommy and Debbie on getting another four years. I'm on the ballot. I was somewhat on the ballot. I didn't have an opponent. So I'll be back again along with. Well, that's why congratulations. Thank you.

I forgot about you.

Yeah. Looking forward to coming back and sharing what I know and working with everybody on the council going forward. Oh, and we will be having a Public Works Committee meeting really, really soon. We're going to try to have one before the primary got pushed off, but within the next two to three weeks, before our next meeting in July, we will have a Public Works Committee meeting. Okay. Awesome. So I'll be reaching out.

I agree that a couple of things. One, the council changes to the public comment. We've talked about it, and we've also talked about having a response back, maybe looking at it. To me, the county allows the most of any of the jurisdictions the ability for people to speak. We may limit it for two minutes. I'm not opposed to considering a three minute and reducing the 10. I think the more appropriate thing for us to do is to have a discussion about this at the workshop and let's talk through how are we going to respond back or clarify when folks get up and provide information that maybe is glaringly not accurate. How can we address that in a way that we're not opening it up for discussion? Because the purpose of that, and maybe we need to just take a look at it, but to me the best way for us to do that is at the next workshop. So I would ask that management include that so that we get a little feedback from all of council about how to address that. I will say, I also want to let council be aware, Josh and I were recently approached by some leaders in the agriculture community, and they have asked us to consider something that Abbeville has done previously, which is to create a agriculture advisory board to promote and support local agriculture. What I'm going to ask Karen to do is I'll send her the information and share it with all of council and then get some feedback. There was some discussion about how is the best approach to that. Mitch and Josh were involved in that, so I'll talk with him, but wanted you guys to be aware of that, too. And that's all I have. So do we have a motion for executive session?

Yes, we do. Receipt of legal advice litigation update. Receipt of legal advice contractual matter, Project Palmetto Rock. And lastly, personal matter, county attorney applications.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll move straight into executive session. We are out of executive session. No action was taken. Do we have a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Motion to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned.