Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fairfield County approves fee‑in‑lieu agreement and land sale for 'Project Red'

2833120 · March 24, 2025
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 Ordinance No. 842 authorizing a fee‑in‑lieu of taxes agreement and a purchase‑and‑sale with an entity described as Project Red, anticipating a $13.7 million investment and 75 full‑time jobs; vote was 6‑0.

The Fairfield County Council voted unanimously to approve an ordinance authorizing a fee‑in‑lieu‑of‑ad‑valorem‑taxes (FILOT) agreement and a purchase‑and‑sale with an entity identified in the meeting as Project Red.

"What you have before you this evening is ordinance number 842 as the title says," a presenter identified in the meeting as Dr. Robertson read to the council and described the measure as authorizing a FILOT agreement and a purchase agreement by which the prospect would buy "approximately 30 acres in the Fairfield Commerce Center." Dr. Robertson told the council the project is anticipated to invest about $13,700,000 and create 75 new full‑time jobs in Fairfield County.

A motion to approve the ordinance was made, seconded and carried on a voice vote with the clerk recording the tally as 6‑0 in favor. The meeting transcript did not record the names of the motion maker or seconder.

The ordinance, as read to the council, authorizes the execution and delivery of a fee‑in‑lieu agreement, provides for payment of the FILOT by the project, authorizes certain infrastructure credits, and authorizes the execution of a purchase‑and‑sale agreement for the land transfer. The ordinance title and reading were entered into the meeting record; no amendments or conditions were recorded during the discussion.

Council took no further action on related board or commission appointments, and no additional budgetary specifics were disclosed during the item. The council did not attach a timeline for closing or any additional reporting requirements in the meeting discussion; those matters were not specified in the record of the meeting.