[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6393867,"mediaKeyId","2104820-09317e2ffd93e1bc1243c2bcc7e07ea3","parentId",2104820,"title","York County Council: votes at a glance — chair, consent agenda and eight rezoning first readings","audioSeconds",1567,"startMs",7113000,"endMs",8680000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2104820-09317e2ffd93e1bc1243c2bcc7e07ea3&start=7113&end=8680","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2104820-09317e2ffd93e1bc1243c2bcc7e07ea3/thumbnail_7113000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6393867/York-County/South-Carolina/York-County-Council-votes-at-a-glance-chair-consent-agenda-and-eight-rezoning-first-readings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6393867-afb172912a48ed74ae9651f240d69531/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155121&Signature=ZoPl2suQEV8C6Z5A9BJ1jyvv3g772WkvPOhai8q3wAX2kZLmBaSpVFfBjHPu53GbryeRjMP4wdY4eCsK4GJWW-lcKPKtmT6iMIWHFylBfRttwPPaJYdbkI7S3FdGmNEX6zXSqp59oTi~4dSBAVb7pmuzHk2fDKOkSrIbR1qQY0VANEQS5O6tjzqsHE-OrEu3Okq~DxOI-wOpMVc-eMjb3wIzAhl8HzXBRKsnwCjl8D1cVk6bFo0Zzt38QJ3Luq26nOfBymeBzVLsFGaTLMc2kfSFHOcHb81PDYiuwmDzjpNMqjNU3CtxIoP1~LoO8J3LA5IDI4pWa5s5~Ptddw2JTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-01-11T21:28:51.473Z","article","At its Jan. 6, 2025, meeting York County Council completed organizational votes and a series of first-reading rezoning actions. Below is a concise rundown of formal motions and tally results recorded during the session; narrative follows the vote list with key context noted for select items.

Votes at a glance

- Election of council chair: Christie Cox — nominated and re-elected by voice vote (\"Aye\" recorded; chair announced reelection). Outcome: elected (no formal roll-call tally recorded).

- Election of council vice chair: Tom Aldett — nominated and seconded; approved by voice vote. Outcome: elected (no roll-call tally recorded).

- Consent agenda: motion approved by voice vote. Outcome: approved (no roll-call tally recorded).

Rezoning and other first-reading items (cases listed by applicant case number shown in meeting text):

1) Case 24-52 (Tax map 46400019) AGC to RUD, 3.02 acres, District 2 — Motion to approve (first reading). Vote: 6 yes, 1 no. Outcome: approved (first reading).

2) Case 24-56 (Tax map 6920000032) UD to RSF-30, 2.35 acres, District 5 — Motion to approve (first reading). Vote: recorded as unanimous in favor (no opposed recorded). Outcome: approved (first reading).

3) Case 24-57 (Tax map 257000008) AGC to RUD, 7 acres, District 3 — Motion to approve (first reading). Vote: 5 yes, 2 no. Outcome: approved (first reading).

4) Case 24-58 (Tax map 529000061) AGC to RUD, 5.2 acres, District 4 — Motion to approve (first reading). Vote: motion carried (no roll-call tally recorded). Outcome: approved (first reading).

5) Case 24-59 (Tax map 56100022) RMX-20 to LI (light industrial), 1.47 acres, District 2 ' (dredging business proposal) — Motion to approve rezoning (first reading). Vote: 6 yes, 1 no. Outcome: approved (first reading).

6) Case 24-60 (Tax map 507000041) GC to RI (rural industrial), 1.67 acres, District 5 (power-washing / trade-services proposal) — Motion to approve (first reading). Vote: motion carried (no opposed recorded). Outcome: approved (first reading).

7) Case 24-61 (Tax maps 71300143 & 7216) RSF-40 to RMX-10, two parcels totaling 0.71 acres, District 7 — Motion to approve (first reading). Vote: motion carried (no opposed recorded). Outcome: approved (first reading).

8) Case 24-62 (County-initiated rezoning along Sandifer Road) ' consolidated 48 split-zone parcels into AGC-1 or RUD-1 to remove split zoning; two property-owner requests (parcels 302-00048 and 339-00020) were accommodated by amending those two parcels to AGC per owner request. Motion: approve county-initiated rezoning with the two owner-request changes. Vote: motion carried (no roll-call tally recorded). Outcome: approved (first reading).

Context and notable details

- Several rezoning items were contested during public hearings. The light-industrial request (Case 24-59) for a Lake Wylie dredging business prompted extensive public comment: supporters cited safety and access benefits for cove residents and the lake generally; opponents cited neighborhood compatibility concerns and the possibility of \"spot zoning.\" Council approved the request by a 6-1 margin.

- Multiple AGC'to'RUD requests raised a recurring policy issue for council: how to handle existing nonconforming lots and family transfers created by earlier code versions. Several members asked staff to accelerate a broader review of AGC/rural zoning provisions; staff indicated a scope and timeline for a rural-zoning project and suggested the planning & zoning committee would steer the work.

- Several votes were taken as first readings; that means additional formal readings are required before final adoption on each rezoning item unless the council moves otherwise under its rules.

Ending: The meeting recorded the results above as first readings and organizational actions; council instructed staff to continue work on code clarifications and the rural-zoning review in response to questions raised during the hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","York County Council Meeting January 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","On Jan. 6 York County Council conducted organization items and eight first-reading rezoning votes (plus a county-initiated rezoning), approving most measures. This roundup lists each formal action, tally and brief context.","taxTitle","York County, South Carolina","taxId",5759,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6393870,"Residents urge council not to attend Silfab Solar event while litigation pending; safety concerns raised",1110,2160000,3270000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2104820-09317e2ffd93e1bc1243c2bcc7e07ea3&start=2160&end=3270","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2104820-09317e2ffd93e1bc1243c2bcc7e07ea3/thumbnail_2160000.jpg","/articles/6393870/York-County/South-Carolina/Residents-urge-council-not-to-attend-Silfab-Solar-event-while-litigation-pending-safety-concerns-raised","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6393870-6413658cf556071377f339477182d299/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155121&Signature=lMDwUm68mxZqA5DfDXEnH~NsRShO8KcZkdW9TUtCjuIwuTKdxz5IravGNMoIrspEnpJQxMGaEiL4xTCovFxKj~GKSL5th-~q1q~yMOjrVwCi~52eMOL5nLqy~TcbgpQzpoGLeHZq8JuvDoLcgjDrappL4Jlsa0JjpLAnBnN3e8QNhYcNztkkCcY90aQu0fh0Apvxhl1FiE3ilPmdhfPwSJDeOXSEGtsgfINageOdMh1ODmCi2~8GSfVBBXeXeqff6y9ifWIvSRDxtuDjjsn~9fZGeK4oGpT-1~o4mVawvTQLzOwCZSpLkpI52F6BhS37loNOtxtQRGilHkFeIosPRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several residents used the meeting's public forum on Jan. 6, 2025, to press York County Council members on Silfab Solar's proposed manufacturing operation near Fort Mill and on recent invitations for elected officials to attend a company tour.

Donna Forrester, a Fort Mill resident, said the plant's planned use of silane poses a serious hazard and called the county's apparent relationship with the company premature while a court case remains open. \"Silane plans to become one of the first manufacturing companies to manufacture CSPV solar cells in the U.S. ... Fort Mill will be a guinea pig,\" Forrester said during public comment.

Other speakers, including Caitlin Boyle, explicitly urged council members not to attend a Jan. 9 breakfast and site tour tied to Silfab while litigation is unresolved. Boyle said attending would \"unintentionally send the wrong message\" and could make residents feel corporate interests are being prioritized over local concerns.

Chair Christie Cox reminded the audience that the matter is in active litigation and said procedural and legal issues must be resolved by the courts rather than by council action. \"That matter is in the midst of litigation. That is an issue that a judge has to decide and not council,\" Cox said during the public forum announcement and procedural guidance.

Why it matters: Council members do not exercise jurisdiction to decide active litigation; nevertheless, public perceptions of impartiality and council engagement with developers during pending legal actions have become a focus for residents. Speakers said they want elected officials to visibly prioritize resident concerns while litigation is pending.

Ending: Council did not take formal action on Silfab at the meeting; the chair reiterated legal constraints and encouraged residents to use the established hearing and litigation processes. Public comments on the company and its planned activities will remain part of the public record.","During public forum at the Jan. 6 York County Council meeting, residents from Fort Mill and Lake Wylie urged the council to avoid official engagement with Silfab Solar while litigation is pending and raised safety and siting concerns about a proposed photovoltaic manufacturing plant.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6393871,"York County receives unmodified opinion on 2024 audit; reserves, AAA rating highlighted",1127,868000,1995000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2104820-09317e2ffd93e1bc1243c2bcc7e07ea3&start=868&end=1995","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2104820-09317e2ffd93e1bc1243c2bcc7e07ea3/thumbnail_868000.jpg","/articles/6393871/York-County/South-Carolina/York-County-receives-unmodified-opinion-on-2024-audit-reserves-AAA-rating-highlighted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6393871-f3551491b2999efc904ef0fd1b59f917/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155121&Signature=I5aCwtmpAHxB7RJdHuVMypk9zmk8c-jXR~VG1FkTscJJhPhe7kbcpyn51hS6YabVKU0ReJ9wlAR73hKvdbV28QN4BOsgEulIYHCTNbfJGPqUxILffc1Bwpf2YgPV4Y2ncsgiA9FWlLVhmYJwGv7fgby5X0M9GBQk~NXZlcoaLQbtbayexLfPDOHjnFiT5kZScEDIco3JltIIuuWZSg5WlML8H2pnODgxuBTtef~x54swiH2UDHwKSrG1wMpLJ5ThZGl5bR31O87rn5Fxsu6bBuztXVO3vEk-3vaBdqCEfanzADg1-8S-b0rU3ixuETDI9D4rYPTDuzkksrM9qFJnng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","York County Council heard a presentation of the county's fiscal year 2024 audited financial statements and related compliance testing on Jan. 6, 2025. Elliot Davis, the county's independent auditor, told the council the firm issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements and on federal grant compliance.

The audit firm's presentation summarized key figures: a year-over-year increase in total net position of about $135 million, current-year revenues of roughly $400 million against expenses of about $265 million, and an unrestricted government-wide net position of approximately $96 million. Elliot Davis also reported combined governmental fund balances of about $550 million and that the county maintained its AAA credit rating during 2024.

Why it matters: An unmodified opinion is the highest level of assurance an auditor can give that financial statements are fairly presented under generally accepted accounting principles; it is material to the county's borrowing costs and public trust. The auditor said the opinion supports confidence among bondholders, grantors and other users of the statements.

Elliot Davis reviewed the audit process and internal-control considerations, telling council the audit identified no misstatements that required correction, and no significant deficiencies or material weaknesses were reported. The firm noted one accounting standard change affecting capital-asset reporting that increased reported capital assets by roughly $7.8 million to $8 million because bulk purchases must be capitalized when aggregated.

The firm's representative summarized compliance testing of federal grants (about $13 million of expenditures tested, primarily U.S. Treasury pandemic-related funds) and said the county was, in the auditor's opinion, materially in compliance with the applicable grant requirements.

Council members thanked county management and the finance staff for their work assembling the records auditors examine. Chair Christie Cox said more detail would be available during the budget process and noted the county had used reserves and borrowing strategically for capital needs.

The presentation closed with auditors inviting questions and offering the full audit report for council review. No formal action was required for the auditor's report during the meeting; the audit was presented for council information and public record.

Ending: Council members said they would review the audit booklet and revisit details such as fund balance policy and capital transfers when they discuss the 2026 budget and capital program later in the year.","Auditors from Elliot Davis presented an unmodified opinion on York County's 2024 financial statements, noting strong reserves, increased net position and continued AAA credit rating; council heard details about revenues, fund balances and a new GASB accounting rule.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

York County Council: votes at a glance — chair, consent agenda and eight rezoning first readings

Residents urge council not to attend Silfab Solar event while litigation pending; safety concerns raised

York County receives unmodified opinion on 2024 audit; reserves, AAA rating highlighted