Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Ballast topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kershaw County advances Project Ballast tax package despite residents’ warnings about proposed Bethune gas plant
Summary
Council approved second reading of a fee‑in‑lieu (FILOT) and special source revenue credit for Project Ballast despite sustained public opposition from Bethune‑area residents who warned of risks to groundwater, air quality, noise and property values. The vote was 4–3.
Chairman Jimmy Jones said the council would take up second reading of a tax package tied to a large economic project called Project Ballast, and the measure passed the chamber on second reading after more than an hour of public comment and debate.
Several Bethune‑area residents urged the council to block the project’s tax package because they say a gas‑fired power plant near Timrod/Thiem Road would harm health and property. Denise Rollins, who identified herself as a longtime Timrod Road resident, told council, "We are asking you to reject the proposed natural gas plant that's planned less than 2 miles from our homes," and said her family relies on private wells and local agriculture.
Other commenters detailed specific concerns and asked for studies and monitoring: Pam Gainey asked whether a full environmental impact statement had been completed and where residents could review permits; Tommy Gainey warned of noise and property‑value loss for homes roughly 1,800 feet from the site; and Jim Curley cited public‑health findings he said linked particulate emissions from gas plants to increased healthcare costs.
Supporters of the economic package — which staff characterized as having an approximate $900 million intended investment and other tax parameters — said the council was voting only on a tax incentive framework, not land use or emissions permits. County staff and proponents explained that the FILOT/SSRC (special source revenue credit) mechanism would make a large project economically feasible and that zoning and permits would be separate processes.
Council debate reflected the split. Councilman Cato said he could not "support this tonight" and emphasized his obligation to constituents raised near the site; Chairman Jimmy Jones likewise said he would "put people before money" and could not vote for a measure that might jeopardize neighbors’ livelihoods. Councilmembers Shoemake, Tucker, Connell and Tomlinson voted in favor; Councilmembers Brazell, Cato and Jones opposed. The ordinance passed second reading 4–3 and will return for further consideration.
What happens next: the second‑reading vote advances the FILOT/SSRC package to the next step in Kershaw County’s ordinance process; zoning, permit reviews and any environmental studies referenced by residents remain separate processes and would be handled by relevant agencies and permitting authorities.
