Horry County Council approves lease and property transfer to keep Myrtle Beach Pelicans in county

Horry County Council voted unanimously May 20 to approve a new lease arrangement and related property transfer intended to keep the Myrtle Beach Pelicans in the county.

Council approved Ordinance 49-2025 on third reading to execute a lease agreement between the City of Myrtle Beach and Horry County with the Pelicans, and also approved Ordinance 59-2025 authorizing the county administrator to negotiate and execute a deed conveying the county’s interest in property on 21st Avenue North to the city. Council additionally recorded support via a related resolution. The measures passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition.

Why it mattered: staff described two parallel approaches developed over months of negotiation — either the county contributes a one‑time share (staff discussed a $6,000,000 figure as a county contribution) or the county removes itself as a contracting party and the city executes the lease directly. County staff framed the options as ways to preserve minor league baseball while limiting the county’s ongoing obligations; staff also proposed a funding pathway that would capture incremental tax growth through a proposed multi‑county business park.

Supporters and community impact: multiple residents and local leaders urged passage. “Please keep the Myrtle Beach Pelicans in Myrtle Beach,” said Scott Strange, who described long family ties to the team and the organization’s work with local nonprofits. The mayor of Myrtle Beach told council the city had already approved its lease and warned that conditioning the county’s approval on an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) tied to the business‑park proposal could jeopardize jobs and charitable programs supported by the Pelicans. A Pelicans representative said the team had contributed more than $3,000,000 to local charities since 2013 and noted direct tax payments and local spending tied to the organization.

Financial context and council concerns: county finance staff and a council member pressed for fiscal clarity before authorizing capital spending. Shannon, identified in the meeting as the county finance official, told the council the county subsidizes roughly $5.10 of every ticket sold and, combined with the city, the subsidy would be about $17 per ticket if capital expenditures proceed. Shannon said the county was projected to lose over $400,000 in the current fiscal year and that the combined capital plan could increase losses to an estimated $700,000–$800,000 per year. Council members emphasized looking for non‑recurring funding sources and the proposed multi‑county business park as a revenue mechanism that could be phased over time to limit taxpayer impact.

What happens next: with ordinance approvals and the property conveyance authorized, staff now have the authority described in Ordinance 59-2025 to pursue conveyance negotiations; council recorded unanimous approval of the package and adjourned the meeting. The city indicated it has a signed lease contingent on the county’s action; Major League Baseball’s timetable for required capital improvements was cited by city and team representatives as a factor in the urgency of the decision.

Actions recorded: Ordinance 49-2025 (lease approval) — approved; Ordinance 59-2025 (authorize conveyance) — approved; Resolution R-71-2025 (support transfer) — recorded in support. Quotes and attributions are from participants’ remarks during the May 20 meeting.