Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances industrial incentive agreements, approves land purchase for Sopakco
Summary
Council approved a second-reading fee-in-lieu agreement for Project Cloud, advanced title-only readings for Project Hush and Project Blueberry Bill and approved a land purchase to fulfill a local incentive to Sopakco Manufacturing. Several votes included abstentions and one abstention on land purchase.
Marlboro County Council took multiple economic-development actions on June 10, advancing tax-incentive measures and authorizing a land purchase tied to a local incentive commitment.
On second reading Council approved Ordinance #860, authorizing a fee-in-lieu of ad valorem taxes agreement with a company identified as Project Cloud under Title 12, Chapter 44 of the South Carolina Code. The motion passed with six members recorded in favor and one absent.
Council also approved on first reading (title only) Ordinance #869 for Project Hush; the vote recorded five in favor and two abstentions (Council members Jason Steen and Pearly Lawson). Additionally, Ordinance #870 (first reading, title only) authorizing an infrastructure credit agreement for a company identified as Project Blueberry Bill passed its title-only reading; Ms. Pearly Lawson is recorded as abstaining on that item.
Separately, Council approved Resolution #06-25-04 to authorize purchase of land to complete a local incentive commitment to Sopakco Manufacturing. The resolution passed with six votes in favor and one abstention (Mr. Jason Steen).
County Administrator (transcript reference: Mr. Tony Clyburn) briefly described the Project Cloud item as a new project; the record contains no public details about the companies' operations, investment amounts, or specific incentive terms. All three project names (Project Cloud, Project Hush, Project Blueberry Bill) appear in the ordinance titles as placeholder sponsor names; the ordinances reference the county's authority under state law but do not list firm-level terms in the transcript. Council did not record further details in the public minutes during the meeting.
Because the transcript records title-only readings and abstentions for some votes, specific incentives, investment amounts and any performance conditions were not provided in the public remarks recorded at this meeting.
