Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Kershaw County holds title-only votes tied to ‘Project Gemstone,’ enters executive session to discuss incentives

Kershaw County Council · June 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council approved title‑only first readings for economic‑development items tied to a prospective investor called "Project Gemstone" and moved into executive session under state law to discuss potential location and incentive terms; councilmembers said details are limited in open session.

Kershaw County Council on Tuesday approved title‑only first readings of economic‑development items tied to a prospective investment labeled "Project Gemstone" and then entered executive session to discuss the matter further.

During the meeting the council voted to give first‑reading, title‑only approval to a Special Source Revenue Credit (SSRC) agreement and to an amendment expanding the boundaries of a joint industrial park with Fairfield County. Council members and staff told the room that the documents contain confidential commercial details and that specifics would be discussed in executive session.

"This is a first reading — title only," the chair said, adding that particulars of the SSRC proposal are part of the executive‑session material. A member of the council asked for a legal briefing before future votes so members could consider any implications in public session.

After the title readings, councilors voted to enter an executive session under South Carolina Code §30‑4‑70(a)(5) to discuss the proposed location, expansion and provision of services intended to encourage the location or expansion of industry identified as Project Gemstone. Council later reconvened in open session and recorded no public votes arising from the executive session.

Councilors cautioned that while title‑only votes advance the procedural timeline for consideration, they do not approve incentive terms or final agreements. Several members said they want a fuller legal briefing and more public‑facing detail before taking final votes on incentive packages.

The council also scheduled further consideration of related items in subsequent meetings; staff indicated that more documentation would be released consistent with state open‑meetings and economic‑development confidentiality rules.