Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colleton County advances fee-in-lieu agreement tied to Gehl Foods in first reading
Summary
On Oct. 4, 2022 Colleton County Council approved first reading of a restated fee-in-lieu/lease-back agreement involving Gehl Foods Southeast and NM GL, LLC, covering about $33 million for four new manufacturing lines and an additional $9 million for a spec building; additional readings are required under state law.
Colleton County Council on Oct. 4 approved on first reading a restated fee-in-lieu of tax and lease-back arrangement that will allow Gehl Foods Southeast — and a related lease company, NM GL, LLC — to formalize incentives tied to operations at the former Crescent Dairy site.
The agreement, introduced by Administrator Kevin Griffin, covers roughly $33 million for four new manufacturing lines and another $9 million for improvements to a spec building the county recently closed on with the company. Griffin said the company will convert the property into a manufacturing and distribution facility for products currently prepared elsewhere in the county.
"They are doing a lease back funding for the project for what was Crescent Dairy that turned into Gehl Foods Southeast," Griffin said. "That portion will be about 33 million on the lease back for four new manufacturing lines ... and another 9 million that will go into the spec 2 building." He added that state law requires a restatement and three readings for new lease-back tax arrangements.
Councilman Art Williams moved to approve the ordinance on first reading; Dr. Joseph Flowers seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The ordinance package includes assignment and assumption documents tied to prior incentive agreements involving Crescent Dairy & Beverages, LLC.
Why it matters: the restatement clears a statutory and procedural step required for lease-back financing and tax arrangements; it will proceed through additional readings before becoming final. The council did not discuss employment estimates or fiscal impact details at the meeting.
Next steps: the county will bring the ordinance back for subsequent readings as required by state law. Additional implementation details, including any tax schedules or performance conditions, were not specified during the Oct. 4 meeting.
