York County approves $30 million infrastructure credit for proposed Costco distribution center despite resident concerns

York County Council approved a $30 million performance‑based infrastructure credit for a proposed Costco distribution center near the Porter Road interchange in Rock Hill, following a multi‑hour presentation by county staff and Costco consultants and a sharp public debate about traffic, cost allocation and public benefit.

Mitch Miller, the county’s economic development director, told council the project would sit on roughly 168 acres and that Phase 1 would include a roughly 541,000‑sq‑ft depot with about 125–165 initial jobs, increasing to about 165 when built out; staff estimated wages and benefits at roughly $15 million over time. Miller said the total site and off‑site infrastructure need is just under $44 million; Costco asked the county for a $30 million infrastructure credit as a performance‑based incentive toward that work. "It is Costco Wholesale, and they are considering a site ... roughly about 168 acres," Miller said.

Costco representatives explained trip counts and operations during Q&A. The company distinguished receiving truck movements (shipments into the depot) from store‑distribution trips and said employee vehicle trips and service visits are also included in the car counts. A Costco spokesperson said the trucks are primarily 'receiving trucks' and that many car trips are employees and visitors; the company also described measures intended to keep trucks on private site roads where possible.

Residents and local speakers pressed council on safety and fairness. Cindy Helms, who lives on Willowford Road, argued much of the $44 million described in staff materials was private, on‑site work and that the public would receive only a roundabout and a turn lane; she asked, "If this is good for York County, why is there secrecy?" Other speakers raised graphic scenarios of heavy truck traffic in the corridor, with opponents citing higher trip estimates and warning of increased wear on nearby ramps and local roads.

Council debate centered on whether the economic benefit justified the size of the credit and whether the county, Rock Hill and the school district should share costs differently. One council member offered an amendment that calculated a $17 million cap focused only on off‑site public work; the amendment was discussed but the final vote approved the full $30 million credit by a 4–3 margin. A council member who supported the full ask said the improvements would create a 'field of dreams' for additional development, including power upgrades and roundabout capacity that could attract more manufacturing jobs.

What the agreement requires: The credit is performance‑based; staff emphasized the project would need to meet investment and job commitments before credits are applied. Council directed staff to work through allocations and legal language with the city and school district and to provide details on cost apportionment and the consultant traffic analysis.

Next steps: Staff will finalize the infrastructure credit agreement language and work with Rock Hill and the school district on cost‑sharing and property dedications (e.g., a substation parcel). The council record shows the motion passed 4–3.