[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6269127,"mediaKeyId","3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319","parentId",3047981,"title","Lancaster County reviews CDBG priorities and eligibility as staff seeks project ideas","audioSeconds",1421,"startMs",1639000,"endMs",3060000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319&start=1639&end=3060","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319/thumbnail_1639000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6269127/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Lancaster-County-reviews-CDBG-priorities-and-eligibility-as-staff-seeks-project-ideas","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6269127-24d0e6c3108ced2fa5c27209cf3e7989/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173869&Signature=ANzH7I~kOQHcQCrfAkZmuDKxrcArvxI2-tjo35zwyNz87YKoHYK1Skhvi-wOIs0fAADHoZJ7Ppy5MxFtmliFnCPeNca5CdkoaqMbQ7EXKKOe0v8fBd6fo-8yUXDONOXKG-Gh5lt9~qUc20P3XI8hvTBN4mmKfHWyXaLPBFvjGxS1YUmHu5NimsOymQ-xDBO-7xRJphMiblkzynqZc8Y6WQS66TT1puEjctQcIFe0Rt-Au1IaQgZR5LJS0bi2azEC3yEFpNNWzZxm4UwrsNSIclzXPnXkQOQZM65qs2NdXqYkkVSJITMhdRkLfKYT4FsuSClKC9-bKTasNY8gdSd0YQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lancaster County, PA","date","2025-04-18T07:26:03.247Z","article","Lancaster County Council heard a public presentation on the county's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) needs assessment and funding priorities, then discussed which municipal and county projects could be packaged for upcoming state CDBG rounds.

Elizabeth Morgan of the Catawba Regional Council of Governments reviewed Lancaster County's citizens participation plan, CDBG eligibility rules and the county's 2024 prioritized needs list. Morgan said CDBG funds are federal HUD grants administered in South Carolina by the Department of Commerce, Division of Grants Administration, and that only local governments (cities, towns and counties) may apply. She explained projects must meet a national objective (for example, principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons) and be an eligible activity such as water/sewer, streetscapes, infrastructure and certain public facilities.

The presentation outlined application timing: a spring request-and-application schedule with application requests due March 21 and complete applications due April 21, and a fall round with requests due Aug. 15 and applications due Sept. 15. Morgan also reviewed program caps and common project limits, noting the community infrastructure maximum commonly cited is $1,000,000 and that a 10% local match is required; she advised that many project types require evidence that at least 51% of beneficiaries are low- and moderate-income (LMI), which for unincorporated areas typically requires household income surveys.

Why it matters: CDBG awards can pay for water and sewer extensions, demolition and neighborhood revitalization in LMI areas, and are a primary federal resource for local infrastructure and public-facility improvements where municipal budgets are limited.

Council members pressed staff on which projects had been completed and which were active. County staff said the county itself did not currently hold an active CDBG project but that the City of Lancaster is a subrecipient on two projects (a Municipal Justice Park upgrade and Arch Area sidewalk work), and that Kershaw and Heath Springs each have CDBG projects in the region. Staff and Morgan noted several priority sites from the county's list: the King Circle area, Kershaw Mill area, Dobson School area and Emerald Estates.

Discussion focused on how to make likely projects eligible: councilmembers and staff discussed targeting projects that lie inside HUD-designated LMI census areas (the city of Lancaster and Heath Springs are citywide LMI designations) or else conducting income surveys in non-incorporated areas to document a 51% LMI benefit. Councilmembers asked about candidate projects staff has discussed internally, and staff said possibilities included a fire truck purchase to serve LMI areas, upgrades to the historic courthouse, and an EMS station in Marion/Bonefields. Morgan emphasized that projects such as transportation-related services are more difficult to qualify unless survey data demonstrate that at least 51% of ridership or direct beneficiaries are LMI.

Council members also asked procedural questions about competitive scoring and readiness: Morgan explained the program is competitive statewide, projects that are \u0017ready to go\u0018 (environmental review, design and permits completed) are more likely to score well in the \u0017Ready-to-Go\u0018 category, and the \u0017Local Priorities\u0018 category supports locally defined eligible activities including historic preservation, parks, energy conservation and resiliency projects.

Council direction and next steps: staff invited council members to submit suggested priority lists and told council they could provide updates by the following Wednesday or over the coming week. Staff said they will continue to confirm eligibility questions (for example whether a fire truck serving LMI blocks that also serves non-LMI areas can be eligible) and will bring suggested CDBG application project packages back to council for consideration.

Council members asked staff to consider projects that would relieve concentrated needs in the northern panhandle of the county and to explore pairing county matching funds, in-kind contributions or other local matches to improve competitiveness.

Ending: staff said they will accept council priority lists in the coming days, will continue eligibility work with the Catawba Regional Council of Governments and will present proposed application packages for council review ahead of the spring and fall application deadlines.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lancaster County Regular Council Meeting 4-14-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Lancaster County Council heard a public presentation on the county's Community Development Block Grant needs assessment and discussed potential CDBG projects, including fire apparatus, water/sewer extensions and historic courthouse work.","taxTitle","Lancaster County, South Carolina","taxId",56441,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6269120,"Council approves conditional use for K-8 charter school near Lancaster racetrack after planners find UDO compliance",3633,247000,3880000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319&start=247&end=3880","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319/thumbnail_247000.jpg","/articles/6269120/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Council-approves-conditional-use-for-K-8-charter-school-near-Lancaster-racetrack-after-planners-find-UDO-compliance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6269120-4e2fb89a20f143f99f6ea95be25d3258/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173869&Signature=KTXNnFqxicDHp9U9xCNuUuuN0udmN3lwxCwRKMs9Osh4D80G90-zWIwJy8Ojsg3f4AwARmSE~SUZx7FaVdYKJTjijDDfcxOGdKnPR38wKtLjbPGa28COlcBill9r5mniyCeaSkX27H~H4s4KM75gok9tLnbg7Txz75W6qfVpoffic60JM9dyOcNbqsG8ZUDQkYJ7O2r72DSprMRY9NQa-QcB80DD~LGUxdu7-~VdaRep0Xt40ugCjsOAOF16jrhuL2sut9iZrUJmujOTaN47ax4P7PNwAz5g6ewutKfO9aL-yQVVQVL-GgLg0DbNiXv424enrvI3ZGNCWVozC4aFpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lancaster County Council voted unanimously to approve a conditional-use resolution allowing a K-8 charter school on a 22-acre parcel on Shiloh Unity Road after planning staff and the planning commission recommended approval.

The county's planning staff reported the site plan met Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements and had received Technical Review Committee (TRC) comments and approval. The parcel identified in presentations is approximately 22 acres and is designated in the county's future land-use map as \u0017municipal growth area,\u0018 which staff said is consistent with an institutional or educational use.

Why it matters: The school site is located across from an existing racetrack that residents and council members said has operated for decades. Several residents who signed up to speak during the citizens' comment period earlier expressed concern that new development near the racetrack would eventually lead to complaints or pressure on the racetrack's continued operation.

Public comments and applicant response: Resident Brandy Baker told council she and other nearby residents feared a school next to the racetrack could trigger complaints and steps that might lead to the track's closure. Another resident, Jeff Knight, said he believed sewer routing for the proposed school might cross recently purchased private property and said he expected the water and sewer district to contact property owners.

Applicant Cameron Gill, representing True North K-12 (the charter operator), said the school would operate Monday through Friday, roughly 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., and that the racetrack season operates primarily on Saturday nights from March through October, so staff did not expect routine schedule overlap. Gill said the school would occupy the western portion of the site and that the applicants planned to preserve roughly 7 acres as an undisturbed vegetative buffer between the school and the racetrack; the applicant also committed to the landscaping and type B buffers required by the UDO.

Council reaction and protections requested: Multiple council members emphasized the racetrack's long history and said they wanted to avoid future disputes. One councilmember asked the county attorney whether the council could require a legal agreement between the school and the racetrack to acknowledge the racetrack's preexisting operations; the county attorney said she would research whether a binding agreement of that nature would be appropriate under applicable law. Councilmembers praised the applicant's stated intention to be a \u0017good neighbor.\u0018

Action taken: The council approved Resolution 1292 R2025 (a favorable recommendation of the planning commission) by unanimous vote. Planning staff had recommended approval; the planning commission had recommended approval by unanimous vote at its March 18 meeting.

Ending: Council approved the conditional use with the standard UDO buffers and the TRC conditions; staff and the applicant said they would continue working to address any outstanding operational coordination with the racetrack and local utility/delivery routes.","Lancaster County Council approved a conditional-use resolution allowing a K-8 charter school on a 22-acre Shiloh Unity Road site; planners found the proposal met UDO requirements and the planning commission recommended approval.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6269124,"Council weighs transportation sales-tax options, timing and bond financing for major road projects",3150,7393000,10543000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319&start=7393&end=10543","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319/thumbnail_7393000.jpg","/articles/6269124/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Council-weighs-transportation-sales-tax-options-timing-and-bond-financing-for-major-road-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6269124-dc879f24ed541bf0999816ae54b7bbc0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173869&Signature=JZiZJaRT6YXNCeerYoajtTzdKJgzJN6KxbKyJCIKLvQDZ8ESwtqq2RIZledRxv-EUQkq7OtqdzyTHXYS~k8VNLzMQFBuQ~QWbnlTge~fAv2OEy7dgaPWM8bn-5EVAyog~je1bGKI~UyhBDcZNWDk4vfv9Es3Pvdh041iUgnERr7zSLQAqZ87yy7O5~-Md8ZwfoMup4O7~V6EXH5AT7JteErvL6WtXvfvvoc3aH5eBuMJrnTQKrueI0JplWVgOJ1C-iZeomvkbRBvEgk7iVgAUaehvW14JUrvQOX~RBJZygzaoTN3iqGFyAL6ttuuICs66xeaZl3lMY0UtwDy-35yKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lancaster County Council heard a detailed briefing from the county transportation committee and staff on a potential countywide transportation sales tax and discussed next steps, project lists and whether to seek voter approval this year or delay to 2026 for more public outreach.

Presenters from the Lancaster County transportation technical committee (CTC) and county staff summarized prior retreat direction and CTC recommendations for a county transportation package. Committee members said the CTC's compiled recommendation aggregated major buckets of work including a targeted investment toward widening sections of U.S. Highway 521, municipal and county roadway improvements, intersection work and a smaller allotment for roundabouts, sidewalks and greenways. The CTC's total package was presented to council as approximately $216 million.

Staff presented a variant that preserved the program's major elements but reallocated specific projects: staff proposed substituting Henry Harris Road for Barbourville Road in the larger road-widening bucket, adding roughly $2 million for greenways and sidewalks and increasing a miscellaneous/reserve line intended to cover escalation and utility relocation costs over a multi-year program. Staff noted existing funding already committed to U.S. 521 includes about $10 million programmed from the county's Capital Projects Sales Tax 3.

Why it matters: Lancaster County leaders and residents have repeatedly flagged traffic and inadequate road capacity as top concerns in fast-growing parts of the county. A transportation sales tax could raise local matching funds to leverage state and federal dollars for major corridors and local streets, but the council must choose a program size, project mix, financing strategy and timeline for voter consideration.

Council members raised three recurring issues: timing, project prioritization and how to accelerate work if voters approve the tax. Several members urged caution about taking the question to voters in November 2025, arguing the county should allow more time for public education and to refine project phasing; at least one council member said 2026 would be preferable. Others warned that without bond authority the county would need to wait years for revenue to accrue before starting major projects.

Bonding and state participation: staff reiterated that the last time the county pursued a similar plan, the inclusion of bond authority enabled the county to accelerate large projects while seeking state infrastructure bank support for additional funding. Staff told council that the transportation sales tax is structured differently than a capital projects sales tax and could be paired with bond financing to start larger projects sooner, but doing so raised voter-education and ballot complexity concerns.

Costs and risks: councilmembers and staff discussed utility relocation costs (staff relayed a utility-sector estimate that moving local utilities could run into multi-million-dollar-per-mile figures in some scenarios), the need for a traffic planner/program manager to prioritize and oversee a multi-year program, and the limited amount currently budgeted for miscellaneous contingencies. Staff also highlighted the county's ongoing annual road-fee revenue (roughly $3 million to $3.5 million per year), which could be folded into a program but would need to be explicitly accounted for in any plan.

Next steps and timeline: staff said an ordinance placing a transportation sales-tax question on the November general-election ballot must be adopted by Aug. 1, 2025, to meet administrative deadlines. Council asked staff to return with additional analysis and a recommended ordinance; several members asked for more time to conduct public outreach and education before deciding whether to run the question in November or defer until 2026. Staff offered to provide additional information at the council's next regular meeting and to prepare materials for committee-level discussion.

Ending: Council did not vote on a ballot ordinance or financing package at the meeting. Members were split on timing; staff will return with more detailed financial scenarios, recommended project prioritization and a schedule for public outreach.","County staff and the transportation committee presented competing packages and fiscal tools for a possible local transportation sales tax; council debated Road 521 funding, municipal allocations, potential bonds to accelerate work, utility relocation costs and whether to seek voter approval this November or in 2026.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6269110,"Council approves special source revenue credit for Project Block; company pledges $21M investment and 30 jobs",326,3284000,3610000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319&start=3284&end=3610","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319/thumbnail_3284000.jpg","/articles/6269110/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Council-approves-special-source-revenue-credit-for-Project-Block-company-pledges-21M-investment-and-30-jobs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6269110-37c93966b94d912f2d5f74adee6394d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173869&Signature=TWQp5BPokz5yziRgk2ZxJQsgQPgNHAV8X1Cj4KkDQ5SrHwPw2PY0jI8csX9oNZOuIPce47-Z-ktDlMqm4xSaZJ5zRW7lN4Go4YNF9ehr~4vRFDH0h0PLIQLmFTGrDrQRYVuqJ4-kWcjcOwkQl5O08~jx8p37W3M1YmfZD1p0vP~~J6nRpPAQdO5SX8FRQ2o6ZT~5jZOnScV0X-TcUJko3pfw0RFtxAHDVOaaDvb6oVCOFMQ5Gu1TNO~ZcdOGXNqPkh~~UMpJM8Rb2lOrAJjxQaZtFDizm8qudjRFlLIC0hsMjQvo5H37qsUG57g1-w9mxVALOBvMqr9niguZSI1Z6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lancaster County Council approved second reading of an agreement to provide a special source revenue credit (SSRC) to an entity identified by staff as Project Block, which staff said will invest in an existing site in a multi-county industrial park.

Economic development staff member presenting the item described Project Block as a European company that purchased an existing 30,000-square-foot building and roughly 20 acres in District 1 in a site zoned HI (Heavy Industrial). According to staff, the company plans about $21 million in total investment with most of that going to new equipment, and a five-year hiring commitment to employ 30 people.

Staff outlined the SSRC structure: council would provide a special source revenue credit equal to 25% for each of five years; staff estimated the county's cost of that SSRC would be about $319,000 over five years while projecting that the county would collect roughly $3 million in property tax revenue over 20 years despite the short-term credit.

Why it matters: The agreement would provide a near-term revenue credit to incentivize capital investment and local job creation while preserving long-term property tax streams.

Council action: With no questions for staff, council approved second reading by unanimous vote. Economic development staff recommended the measure and asked for council's affirmative vote on second reading.

Ending: Staff will proceed with the SSRC agreement process as provided in the ordinance; details of any final execution were not changed at the meeting.","Council voted unanimously on second reading to authorize a 25% special source revenue credit agreement for an entity identified as Project Block; staff said the company will invest approximately $21 million, purchase a 30,000-square-foot building and site, and commit to hiring 30 employees within five years.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6269115,"Council adopts amended rules of parliamentary procedure after debate on remote participation and citizen comments",2062,4986000,7048000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319&start=4986&end=7048","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3047981-476a79818bff7ab138bce3baa9c1d319/thumbnail_4986000.jpg","/articles/6269115/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Council-adopts-amended-rules-of-parliamentary-procedure-after-debate-on-remote-participation-and-citizen-comments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6269115-6d6210664d53f59b51631ca116f90183/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173869&Signature=IobT2MJ98Hn2VJ3xSTeYR0RHyfUG-Abok2MUxvY96xRScOhq4eKV03vYMz4hI6XNDt52MkqV3kT7v5LmajtTgCKBt9EboNVXJPXcrBODfcVjtcTmECg9wCI3GaIEwWAEAH6vqZDdot6y61kiWuhuurkkgRfYFiCDzBqfJzm3tBXlb0YMbY3UmZjhnjiRd4MMLJ4glidRwG52ZUkU-MldF3l2Xlzb-YQafiYAiZlUgQbXphgd7GkV8ELMxQhuyAr8oF0x5D0USYRmo-yT5AbOmWwSga2L5qAv4FfvW8tZZBVkQXiVp67L~4259qwB4Bzdu7QVrg39cOlJD-7E6PHjDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lancaster County Council adopted amendments to its chapter on rules of parliamentary procedure after extended discussion about remote participation, agenda control, public comments and disciplinary language.

County Attorney Mert DuPont reviewed the ordinance on third reading and responded to council questions about electronic participation, FOIA definitions and the reach of the new rules to appointed boards and commissions. Council focused on several contested provisions and approved a set of member amendments before voting to adopt the ordinance as amended.

Key changes and debate: Councilmembers raised concerns and secured edits in three principal areas:
- Agenda control: Council removed the word \u0017policy\u0018 from a subsection that would have specified that \u0017policy agenda items\u0018 be set by the council chair. Several members said the phrase as drafted narrowed the chair's discretion and could remove items from the broader agenda process.
- Remote participation and quorum: The ordinance retained two approaches. One section allows alternative electronic attendance for individual members but requires a physically present quorum at the meeting location for such hybrid participation. A separate section authorizes an all-electronic meeting format. Council discussed whether to permit an electronic quorum by default and concluded to keep the current hybrid design that requires a physical quorum for alternative attendance while allowing fully electronic meetings under separate rules.
- Citizen comments and repetition: Council discussed proposed language that would restrict speakers from readdressing issues that had already received a duly held public hearing. Some members argued that language could limit free public comment; others said it helped preserve meeting time. Council ultimately amended other parts of the ordinance and left enforcement discretion with the presiding officer.

Discipline language: Council removed the phrase \u0017or such other punishment\u0018 from a disciplinary section that discussed censure and removal from active participation pending a two-thirds vote. Several members said they preferred to keep disciplinary actions subject to the body's formal vote rather than expand unspecified sanctions.

Application to boards and commissions: Members asked whether the rules would automatically apply to appointed boards and commissions; the attorney confirmed that these rules are incorporated by reference into county code and therefore apply, but council discussed whether some guidance language should remain advisory rather than mandatory; the council amended a sentence to change \u0017shall\u0018 to \u0017should\u0018 regarding councilmembers speaking to boards in a private capacity.

Action taken: After debating multiple amendments and approving several member-proposed edits, the council passed third reading of the ordinance as amended by unanimous vote.

Ending: Council adopted the amended rules and directed the clerk to update published procedures; county staff and the attorney will advise boards and commissions about any procedural changes that affect their meetings.","Council approved third reading of an ordinance amending its rules of parliamentary procedure with several member-driven changes: removal of the word \u0017policy\u0018 in agenda-setting language, softened language about council appearances before boards (\u0017shall\u0018 to \u0017should\u0018), and deletion of a vague punitive phrase from the discipline section; council also","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lancaster County reviews CDBG priorities and eligibility as staff seeks project ideas

Council approves conditional use for K-8 charter school near Lancaster racetrack after planners find UDO compliance

Council weighs transportation sales-tax options, timing and bond financing for major road projects

Council approves special source revenue credit for Project Block; company pledges $21M investment and 30 jobs

Council adopts amended rules of parliamentary procedure after debate on remote participation and citizen comments