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.