[{"_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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6504550,"mediaKeyId","5595112-6dc2cef839fe73ddaef641098f8febb4","parentId",5595112,"title","York County unveils organizational core values developed with staff survey","audioSeconds",227,"startMs",531000,"endMs",758000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5595112-6dc2cef839fe73ddaef641098f8febb4&start=531&end=758","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5595112-6dc2cef839fe73ddaef641098f8febb4/thumbnail_531000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6504550/York-County/South-Carolina/York-County-unveils-organizational-core-values-developed-with-staff-survey","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6504550-f62453add92e0e24ad09754a12b08881/orig.mp4?Expires=1770835591&Signature=RUBg7kWH9CCSenAbkLKKxxsbuGeFQd-9nItaw91bQZBG~iJPByqmgx~UdslTN2py90~PFaXL4-cwmLFZLEtiPzS0fCSGBg~NOLzJ48sTiyCU~w7giw~dVpzXweMEnjc7A7DGSA9vFEdolO0Dot9YD9NUXWPpjTjYUho7MAQ3QZbhCwh9d0fRNCs7f47f-iLEHzAXnNIl4tvHP7vp9fF2MuybyL-WyclFdxF3TRp78-~xQUaoy60IqDB9SSnUDuHlB8REnte13pDe9WlaCW5ayuB-hxfUu4leH9jI5o42~tHKz8DEIbxGqMP0aN9hO-qJvuRvPGK5aMSJBYEFcb90wg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","York County SC","date","2025-08-18T20:36:30Z","article","York County staff on Aug. 18 presented a year-long process that produced five organizational core values intended to guide employee conduct and county culture.

The initiative, led by the county manager’s office and a cross-department leadership team, surveyed more than 700 employees and convened a 50-person focus group of \"champions\" representing elected officials, judges, appointed officials and every department. County staff described the process as strategic-plan work to embed employee expectations across onboarding, job postings, internal training and recognition.

Greg Suskin of the county manager’s office and Ashley Faye of human resources presented the values and the rollout plan. The values produced by staff were listed as: respect, dedicated, integrity, knowledgeable and friendly. The center of the values graphic reads “excellence through professionalism,” which staff said captures employees’ preference that professionalism and excellence be at the core of county work.

\"Values are just not words on a wall,\" Suskin said, briefing council on the group’s approach to embedding the values in daily work. Faye described planned steps to operationalize the values, including incorporating them into email signatures, job postings, new-hire orientation, training language and employee recognition programs.

The presenters emphasized that the values will be supported by further presentations and staff training in the coming weeks and that the effort is intended to produce lasting culture change in county government.

Council members thanked staff for the presentation and said the values align with the council’s strategic goals for professionalism and service.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","York County Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","County staff presented the results of a year-long process that produced five core values to guide employee conduct and county culture: respect, dedicated, integrity, knowledgeable and friendly, centered on 'excellence through professionalism.'","taxTitle","York County, South Carolina","taxId",5759,"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},6504554,"Residents raise concerns about county zoning appeal counsel during public forum over Silfab Solar case",322,1101000,1423000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5595112-6dc2cef839fe73ddaef641098f8febb4&start=1101&end=1423","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5595112-6dc2cef839fe73ddaef641098f8febb4/thumbnail_1101000.jpg","/articles/6504554/York-County/South-Carolina/Residents-raise-concerns-about-county-zoning-appeal-counsel-during-public-forum-over-Silfab-Solar-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6504554-5b9a881488110e1de9b838bd0e03db74/orig.mp4?Expires=1770835591&Signature=HfPAH6W8zINiZEEuLCx28CH7WiVFlP7PS7-l3h-HHW2LT0pJpTNcIF5Z55Ck1Kl81ctXRT6kxazIiojjlUiL~c1AbEYen6~qCZJ2lZYPfZ38gvL2pA5~9wjqsxcsynU~3P8GajlyjI7sSa3AXgSnDgBCt6WDhL0F3zzCQVrH9LwYXK5XYkCfi~2zFOb5expN0bMeyRxR4yIV4Q1msJfZubUcl5wBpLU2fNpKLxpFPcyFyjKKeyhrRyZOEu00LkLd1pMPd7YN4z2qIAvdlC2lm20QjW2Vu3TjaYPC-W8~I~~1GLU8L9~UP6pEB8L0ZgjnpvXvHd~fZKi35Aw4EfFncA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Aug. 18 York County Council public forum, several residents asked the council to investigate the county’s legal representation in the ongoing court appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) decision involving Silfab Solar.

Ashley Horn, who identified herself as a Regent Park resident, urged the council to seek the resignation of the attorney she said represents the York County BZA in the Silfab Solar appeal. Horn said the BZA had unanimously ruled that a solar-cell manufacturing use is not allowed in a light-industrial zone and said county-authorized outside counsel had appeared in court in ways she described as siding with the appellant.

“As a taxpayer and citizen, this is deeply troubling,” Horn said during the public forum. She told the council the BZA “deserves proper representation of their decision” and described courtroom comments she said indicated counsel told a judge the county was “staying neutral.” Horn added allegations about overlapping personal and professional relationships among outside attorneys but did not present documentary evidence to the council during the public forum.

Another resident, Frank Jurnak, addressed the council on the same topic and focused on procedural questions. Jurnak told the council that, based on his reading of county code, construction plan approval does not substitute for zoning compliance and that an appellant’s ability to challenge zoning and administrative interpretations remains under the county code and by BZA process. He said staff’s denial of an appeal and the July 10 council action had denied the appellant “the right to be meaningfully heard.”

Council chair and staff reminded speakers that the Silfab Solar matter is in active litigation and that public hearings on contested items should follow the county’s hearing schedule; the meeting record shows the council did not take formal action in response to the forum comments. The public forum rules announced at the meeting also advised that speakers who intended to address pending public-hearing items should wait to speak during the relevant public hearing to ensure their remarks relate to the agenda item.

The transcript shows residents raised concerns about counsel and process; council members and staff did not respond with commitments to specific personnel actions during the meeting. The record indicates the Silfab matter remains in circuit court and that procedural disputes are being litigated there.","Multiple residents urged York County Council to review legal representation for the Board of Zoning Appeals in the ongoing Silfab Solar appeal, alleging perceived bias by the county's BZA counsel and pointing to procedural concerns.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_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":73,"_74":73},6504559,"York County Council approves local vendor preference, several rezonings; defers one zoning request",0,3260000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5595112-6dc2cef839fe73ddaef641098f8febb4&start=3260&end=3260","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5595112-6dc2cef839fe73ddaef641098f8febb4/thumbnail_3260000.jpg","/articles/6504559/York-County/South-Carolina/York-County-Council-approves-local-vendor-preference-several-rezonings-defers-one-zoning-request","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6504559-1eb57ff49542b8f1e104273d656ae516/orig.mp4?Expires=1770835591&Signature=mOjJQBKafCI617DDH0Um3dUPjONvKRXqw5LvPjqW06CMr4SMeGBw5Fbphj712o3PtQF2dynqELpG1s~pe39ZpEY6-W2WRMC1jD7ZjEtvmvO4ARnR~Tcv86nWLeeDFY1WVfMOtvpfDUu8BLvWttPWuH2~HQhaEYy2mv4GL0NicD3QOjaVgoidoefljla6px-XRAtzLy70FBw1l3nbYLLtnCJiOYy6f-McKfx9sPG5-dDhKimpxZ5ntGV3oxSbCwIzlpB5RDu~p3j-x0wRixmWHmR5EJrPTddioqgduDNyBNFo5lxCKnV3dMIdhJdURSNcAcydIdFk968taS0u3CtJpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","York County Council on Aug. 18 adopted a local vendor preference ordinance, approved several rezoning requests and economic-development measures, and deferred one rezoning for two weeks.

The council voted on multiple public hearing items and routine business during a meeting that included presentations on county organizational values and several committee reports. Most motions passed by unanimous voice vote during the meeting.

The vendor preference ordinance, presented by Procurement Director Tiara Sheffield, creates a tiered local-preference system for county-funded services, supplies and construction up to $25 million. Under the ordinance, the preference ranges up to 5 percent for smaller-dollar procurements (starting at the county bid threshold of $50,000) and scales down to 1 percent at the top tier; state- and federally funded projects are excluded. Councilmembers who spoke in favor said the policy is intended to increase local contracting opportunities while maintaining competitive procurement standards.

Council also moved on multiple rezoning matters after public hearings:
- Case 25-29 (tax map 7380000007 & 8): Rezoned from RMX-10 (residential mixed) to RUD (rural development) for about 11.49 acres in District 7 to allow an event/wedding venue while retaining existing structures; applicant representatives described plans to reuse existing houses, preserve the pond and pursue sustainability measures. Council approved the rezoning on first reading by voice vote.
- Case 25-30 (tax map 714000019 & 20): Rezoned from AGC and OI to ID (industrial development) for roughly 28 acres in District 7 for a utility operations center that will include warehousing, offices and outdoor storage. The council approved the rezoning and included, at the applicant’s request, a request that the applicant voluntarily record a deed restriction limiting certain ID uses on the parcel; council discussion noted staff had recommended no additional restrictions.
- Case 25-31 (tax map 1870000032/1580000011–16): Rezoned parcels from RUD to AGC for about 9.62 acres in District 3; approval included a condition to recombine parcels and record the recombination within 90 days (clarified by staff after the public hearing).
- Case 25-32 (tax map 3970000001): Rezoned from RSF-40 (regional single-family) to RUD on 3.45 acres in District 3 to allow a manufactured home; council approved the first reading.
- Case 25-24 (tax map 5950000135): A request to rezone 7.2 acres from ID to GC for a self-storage facility was deferred for two weeks at the applicant’s request.

In new business the council authorized applying for a South Carolina Coordinating Council economic development set-aside grant for “Project Cross” ($600,000, no local match required). The council also adopted an inducement resolution and approved first reading of a fee-in-lieu-of-tax (FILOT) ordinance related to Project Cross; the items were advanced by motion and voice vote.

Other formal actions taken by the council included adopting zoning and land-development code amendments (third reading) that convert certain AGC and RUD districts to legacy status and revise land-division and accessory-use rules as listed on the agenda; those motions carried by voice vote.

Votes at a glance (formal outcomes reported on the record): motion outcomes were recorded as approved or deferred during the meeting; in all cases where the chair announced a vote tally the council recorded the motions as carried (the meeting record shows voice votes with the chair declaring motions carried or deferred).","At its Aug. 18 meeting the York County Council adopted a local vendor preference ordinance and approved multiple rezoning requests and economic-development measures; one rezoning was deferred for two weeks.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

York County unveils organizational core values developed with staff survey

Residents raise concerns about county zoning appeal counsel during public forum over Silfab Solar case

York County Council approves local vendor preference, several rezonings; defers one zoning request