HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-24-2011 - 1~~~
CQ AT TACHMFNT 3
so~,~her nCe pt p~a~
'~ Hu-nan Naas `~---~.
~e~~~es
Campus
~^
~~
5.,.~~
{
{ f
Yr~ '~ o ~ ~ w c
~~
..; ~ .M
~'r. }!~
~ y`
~~
V~•
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ -~
r ^R a
C < ~ ~ F T-
'<<4
~~
3~5 xiq~, ~Ot~^+y a.
ar
~ erY~YM stn kohn ~~~ ~~ ~ zQ7G
arum: Noetn amp s Bane r4M~
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 24, 2011
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting Discussion items
1
DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Town PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
Manager/County Economic
DevelopmentlCounty
Planning/Asset Management
ATTACHMENT(S):
As noted in "Background" section
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Clifton, 245-2300; Roger Stancil,
968-2743; Gary Shope, 245-2325; Craig
Benedict, 245-2592; Karen Lincoln, 245-
2580; Pam Jones, 245-2650; Greg Wilder,
245-2300
PURPOSE: To discuss topics of mutual interest between the governing boards of Orange
County and the Town of Chapel Hil{.
BACKGROUND:
1. Economic Development
a) County Initiatives (Changes in EDC Board Structure and Future Investments)
b) Joint Collaborations and Marketing Efforts (Recognize Recent Efforts)
c) Incentive Policy Discussions (Need and Formalization)
The attached documents provide background information for the discussion. Staff will provide
any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to
this item as necessary.
Attachment 1-a -Building Upon Past Efforts - Creating A Future Focus (materials from
the February 11, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Retreat
Agenda)
Attachment 1-b -Summary of Select lncentive Policies from Neighboring Jurisdictions
Attachment 1-c -Economic Development Strategy for Orange County
d) Phase II of County Unified Development Ordinance Process
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is scheduled to consider adoption of "Phase I" of
the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) at its meeting on April 5, 2011. Phase I has
primarily consisted of consolidating existing County land development ordinances into one
unified ordinance. Replacing the existing Planned Development zoning districts with conditional
districts was also part of the work undertaken.
Throughout the Phase I process, which began in August 2009, County staff has been noting
suggestions made concerning County regulations that were not authorized as part of the Phase
I work. The list of suggestions received to date will be analyzed and priorities will be
designated. The County's consultant, Clarion Associates, is currently preparing an
"Implementation Bridge" report that is scheduled to be presented at the April 5 BOCC meeting
and which will include some recommendations to the County on future UDO amendments (i.e.,
Phase II).
After Phase I of the UDO is adopted and the BOCC has received the consultant's report, the
BOCC will decide how to proceed with future amendments to the UDO and will prioritize topics.
Since the list is lengthy, all topics cannot be addressed at once due to the volume of
suggestions. As per the Joint Planning Area (JPA) Agreement, Orange County staff will
continue to keep the staffs of the Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro notified of any
amendments that pertain to or that could affect the respective Joint Development Review Areas
in the Rural Buffer so that the Towns may make recommendations as set forth in the JPA
Agreement.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
issues related to this item as necessary.
No Attachments
e) Improvements to Interstate Highway System through Orange County
At a joint meeting on February 24, 2011, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the
Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners discussed the need for the I-85 improvements
with respect to economic development occurring in their designated Economic Development
Districts. The improvements at interchanges programmed with TIP Project I-0305A (see
attached map) are vital to economic development in the central area of the County.
The Draft 2011-2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes
improvements to both I-85 and I-40 in Orange County as shown in the attached map.
TIP Project I-3306A
TIP Project I-3306A will add additional lanes to I-40 from I-85 to the Durham County Line. The
Draft STIP programs construction to begin on this project in FY 2019.
The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization released its draft
Metropolitan TIP (MTIP) in February and anticipates adopting a final MTIP in May or June. The
Draft MTIP proposes constructing I-3306 A in two phases:
Phase A - I-40 from the Durham County Line to NC 86, construct an additional
westbound lane (no additional eastbound lane) in FY 2016-2017;
Phase C - I-40 from I-85 to NC 86 and NC 86 (eastbound) to the Durham County Line,
program for funding in future years.
TIP Project I-0305
TIP Project I-0305A will widen I-85 to six lanes from I-40 to west of SR 1709, Lawrence Road,
with reconstruction of the interchanges at Old NC 86 and NC 85. The Draft STIP programs
funds to acquire right-of way and relocate utilities for Phase A in years FY 2017-2019, and to
start construction in 2020 and continuing in future years that are not funded at this time.
Project I-03056 will widen I-85 from east of SR 1709 to the Durham County Line with
reconstruction of the interchange at US 70. The draft STIP programs Phase B to be funded in
future years
Project I-0305 in Orange County is a first priority Highway Trust Fund project. Highway Trust
Funds can only be used for roads stipulated in the 1989 legislation that created the fund. I-40 is
also named as one of the corridors in the Highway Trust Fund legislation but the legislation
specifies first priority will be given to the I-40 corridor in Buncombe, Haywood, Guilford, Wake,
and Durham counties.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
issues related to this item as necessary.
Attachment 1-e -Map: Improvements to Interstate Highway System through Orange
County
2. Solid Waste Issues
a) Inter-local Agreement Modifications for Solid Waste
The Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) conducted discussions this past fall regarding the
future of the Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste (IA), as well as how to consider the matter of
Alternative Technologies. These discussions were prompted by a Board of Commissioners'
(BOCC) request following the decision to end the search for a transfer station site and a
subsequent decision to haul waste at least for an interim period from Orange County to the City
of Durham Transfer Station. Given that a basic tenet of the existing IA is the County's
responsibility to provide Orange County governments with solid waste disposal facilities in
exchange for government's pledge of wastes to that facility, the existing IA's continued value
and usefulness is brought into question.
The SWAB submitted a memorandum dated November 11, 2010 (attached) to the BOCC
making recommendations with regard to the IA and the issue of pursuing alternative
technologies. The SWAB recommends initiating conversations among the IA signatories in
order to begin the process of reconsidering the current IA. The SWAB acknowledges that the
direction the local governments may take on the IA may be influenced by decisions made with
regard to long-term waste disposal decisions. The SWAB also recommends that a partnership
among governments in the interest of environmentally and economically responsible solid waste
management should continue or even be enhanced if possible.
4
Attachment 2-a -Memo to BOCC from SWAB dated November 11, 2010
b) Extended Landfill Life Cycle (Community Improvements Fund -Surcharge
Option)
Beginning in 1972 with the initial opening of the County landfill to the present, the expected life
of the landfill has evolved. There are numerous variables involved with these continually
changing capacity expectations and projections. Disposal volumes have varied over the past
40 years. Changes in regulations, changes in operational best management practices,
equipment and techniques, effectiveness of recycling and waste reduction programs, public
environmental knowledge and awareness, state and local bans, increasing tipping fees,
evolving regional disposal options, etc. have all contributed to extending the life of the facility.
There is also the difficulty with predicting the landfill biodegradation process at work that varies
due to the types of waste, moisture content, age of waste, compaction, etc. However, moving
forward, there are fewer opportunities to significantly extend the life of the facility as the above
variables will have a diminishing impact.
Upon hiring a new engineering consultant (HDR Engineering, Inc.) last summer, County staff
asked that the facility be given one last thorough evaluation to prepare for facility closure and to
determine if any final possibilities for obtaining further capacity might be identified, without
expansion of the facility footprint. HDR's evaluation is summarized in the attached
memorandum to the County Manager. This memorandum proposed three potential courses of
action with regard to landfill capacity and remaining life. In a March 2 memorandum County
Solid Waste staff recommended option two, which would extend landfill life to about January
2017.
In discussing the landfill closure options issue, the concept of instituting a tipping fee surcharge
with the intent of generating, over the remaining life of the facility, funds for landfill
neighborhood improvements may also be considered. Currently the FY 2011/12 projection of
municipal solid waste tonnage is 48,000 tons. This means that each dollar on the tipping fee
would generate about $48,000 annually. Staff advised during this discussion that the provision
of neighborhood benefits may be subject to legal constraints regarding the use of enterprise
fund monies.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
issues related to this item as necessary.
Attachment 2-b -March 2, 2011 Memorandum to County Manager with:
• Advantages/Disadvantages Table
• 2/3/11 HDR Engineering Memorandum
c) Opportunities to Pursue along-Term Solution for Solid Waste
The Solid Waste Advisory Board included in its November 11, 2010 recommendation to the
Board of Commissioners an assertion that the organizational issues relating to the
reconsideration of the existing Interlocal Agreement and the notion of long term waste disposal
solutions were inextricably linked and should be considered and discussed together. The issue
of long-term waste disposal solution had been taken to also include technological alternatives
as well. Together with the parallel issue of reasonably extending the life of the current landfill to
optimize capacity, it appears that there may be a window of opportunity that could allow local
governments to avoid or at least severely limit the duration of the interim delivery to the City of
Durham Transfer Station by moving expeditiously to discuss future organizational issues within
the larger framework of long-term disposal alternatives. The Solid Waste Advisory Board
indicated that a report regarding alternative technologies had already been developed for and
presented to the Board of Commissioners, and that further examination of the range of
technical, economic and risk-related issues surrounding a thorough and effective consideration
of alternative technologies for solid waste may require more resources and expertise than the
SWAB has available.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
issues related to this item as necessary.
Attachment -See Attachment 2-a -Memo to BOCC from SWAB dated November 11,
2010
3. Future Facility Development at County Southern Human Services Center
The County's main southern-Orange services campus at 2500 Homestead Road is the location
of two facilities: the Southern Orange Human Services Center and the Robert and Pearl
Seymour Senior Center.
The Board of Commissioners has previously discussed campus expansion including, but not
limited to, a dental clinic and additional operating space at the Human Services building.
In February 2007 the Board of Commissioners approved a master plan of the Southern Human
Services Center site. In November 2010 the Board authorized the preparation of a formal
master plan of the campus, updating the long-term needs and correlating such with the
available capacity of the site. In addition, the Board accepted the recommendation that the
County explore the possibility of advance site preparation of identified building sites, which will
require modification to the Special Use Permit currently governing the site. A recommendation
for funding such an initiative will be considered during the upcoming Capital Investment Plan
deliberations.
Staff will briefly discuss the existing approved master plan at the meeting and receive questions
from Council members and Commissioners, and the governing boards can discuss issues
related to this item as necessary.
Attachment 3 -Concept Plan 2006: Southern Human Services Campus
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with discussion of these
topics. There are no action items requiring formal decisions.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Managers recommend the governing boards discuss the topics
listed and provide appropriate direction to the respective staffs.
A~tt,~~ .~-Q 6
BUII.DING UPON PAST EFFORTS - CREATING A FUTURE FOCUS
A County-wide task force developed a Five Year Strategic Plan (2005-2010) after a
collaborative involvement of residents. The Plan was endorsed by the County
Commission; the Carrboro Boazd of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Board, the
Hillsborough Town Board, the Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce and
the Chapel HillJCarrboro Chamber of Commerce..
Staff changes within county government, a national economic decline and funding
constraints have delayed or deferred efforts to pursue the goals the Plan established. The
commitments.and observations still have relevance and are worth pursuit:
Improved Local Business Climate
1. Develop clear criteria defining desirable businesses -including agricultural
options
2. Identify bamers
3. Provide outreach, recognition and expedited service to new and expanding local
businesses to meet development criteria
4. Form partnerships to create a stronger business climate and market changes to
existing and potential employers
5: Focus public education efforts on sustainability, social, economic and
environmental contribution of businesses
Infrastructure Investment to Increase Commercial Taz Base by Retaining and
Attracting Targeted Businesses
1. Extend water and sewer to the economic development zones
2. Facilitate the establishment adequate high speed information networks
3. Support Carobna North
4. Provide constnzctive input into the UDO
5: Encourage compact higher density development in areas with water and sewer
6. Encourage mixed use development
7. Promote public transportation.
8. Support Schools APFO
Work Force Development
1. Work closely with Durham Tech, UNC, local school systems and others to
provide training options for adults seeking employment.
2. Link desired business market segments with training programs.
3. Promote a living wage and benefits philosophy within economic development
programs.
4. Consider the importance of workforce needs such as transportation, childcare,
eldercare, healthcare and affordable housing.
5. Support lifelong learning and retraining opportunities.
7
Quality of Place
1. Increase the commercial tax base and support the revitalization of downtowns in
Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough.
2. Support Waal agriculture and encourage local markets along with conservation of
natural resources.
3.~ Preserve and promote historic structures and resources.
4. Provide life long learning options.
5. Promote inclusiveness and diversity.
6. Promote `hipness' by focusing on the uniqueness of each municipality and the
County as a whole.
Summary:
The goals established of creating 5,000 new private sector jobs and adding
$125,000,000 in new commercial property to County taz roles ~by 2010 were not fully
achieved. HOWEVER and more importantly, the basic parameters and goals as
outlined above still have relevance and appear a sound basis'for moving forward.
The allocation of resources and establishment of priorities (every priority can not be
number one) remains to be addressed in a comprehensive manner.
Failure of the local option 1/a cent sales and use taz last November was a set back.
The County (County Commissioners) must address how revenues and staff
resources will be allocated as we pursue outcomes associated with these efforts.
Economic development is NOT a quick fiz effort. Today is the foundation for the
future. Building utility and communication infrastructure for future business
ventures; investing in appropriate workforce training opportunities; establishing an
"open-for-business" image; and seeing a return on those investments is a forever
process.
EIements beyond the County's control (general economic conditions, shifts in
business trends, changing business markets, etc.) will influence the timing and
intervals of success. If we remain committed, short-term hurdles will not impede
long-term outcomes.
8
Building on Past Efforts-Creating a Future Focus
Excerpts from Notes from November 2009 Discussion
Definine the terms of the ED eoal:
Implement planning and economic development policies which create a balanced,
dynamic focal economy, and which promote diversity, sustainable growth and
enhanced revenue while embracing community values.
"balanced"
• Employment opportunities for every level ofeducation/experience/skill
• Local availability of most goods and services
• Mix of locally owned and non-local businesses
"dynamic"
• Jobs that evolve, keep up with technology and cultural changes
• Open to change
• Progressive
• Provide opportunities for start-up businesses
• Modifying regulatory environment and moving with the times
• Thriving, marked by continuous and productive activity
"diversity"
• Diversity of jobs for different skill levels **[this goal may be in conflict with the
goal of creating more high-paying jobs] **
• Ensure that all residents have an equal chance to benefit from ED, including
access and training for high-quality, high-paying jobs
• National and local-economy jobs. Large and small employers
• Geographical diversity: jobs dispersed around county
• Diversity in type of industry: light industrial, retail, etc.
"sustainable growth"
• Protect the environment, promote social justice and equity, and ensure sound
fiscal management, while facilitating economic development
• Low-polluting industries, low water usage
• Greenness
• Use what you've got, focus on assets
• Affordability: pay attention to tax burden
9
"enhan.ced revenue"
• Expanding revenue sources: go beyond residential property tax
• Change ratio of residential to commercial tax base
• Cost of services.vs. benefit of bringing in more residents. How will retail attract
workers?
• Being able to provide jobs and housing to handle inevitable population growth
• ~ Promote ED that produces more revenue for county than it received previously,
after factoring in the costs of providing capital funding and county services
"community values"
• Education: life-long learning, education at all levels
• Social equity: heterogeneous, inclusive, sharing benefits of prosperity, lower
poverty rate, higher affordability
• High quality of life
• Progressive on environmental issues, protection of natural environment
• Focus on attracting businesses we do want instead of keeping out businesses
we don't want (removing regulations that are a hurdle) .
• Regulation: flexibility vs. certainty?
• Clarity of standards (regarding regulation)
• Promotion of well-being of all county residents
Jonathan Morean's presentation: Economic Development in OC
Three main approaches to ED:
• .Recruiting new businesses
• Supporting and retaining existing businesses
• Growing new businesses
Supplementary strategies:
Creativity and Talent Strategies and Place-Making Strategies
• Orange County is already doing this well. (Arts and culture, social capital, quality-of-
life amenities, attracting residents, downtown development, etc.)
• Partnerships are important ways to stay strong in these areas.
Themes that emerged from the discussion:.
1. Provide INFRASTRUCTURE:
• Orange County is already a very attractive place for businesses and
residents. But we lack the capacity to accommodate all the businesses that
might be interested in~locating here. Big need for more space for these .
10
businesses, need to improve the infrastructure for them.
• Existing businesses also need physical infrastructure: office space, wet-fab
space. Improving infrastructure will Help us retain/support those
businesses. ~ ~ .
• The great shoe-store analogy of 2009: Our county islike ashoe-store. [t's
not just about attracting the bus"messes into the county (into the shoe-
store}, we also have to be able to accommodate them when they get here
(we have to have the shoes they want in the right size!)
2. Streamline the PERMITTING PROCESS:
• Think of how to bring in businesses we do want, rather than using
regulations to keep out businesses/industries we don't want.
• Use advocates to aid businesses to understand the systems and
requirements. ~ ,
3. Adopt TARGETED STRATEGIES:
• We need to know what kinds of businesses we want to attract/retain/grow.
We need to know what size shoes those businesses need. Then we can
shape our efforts strategically around that. Need to focus and be proactive,
not just take whatever scraps come along. .
4. Focus on RETAINING EXISTING BUSINESSES:
• Existing businesses are a big resource; let's not throw all our money and
time into recruiting new businesses when we have businesses right here
already.
• Underscore the value Orange County places on home-grown business.
• Be responsive to local businesses' needs by tracking needs and providing
supportive infrastructure, space, etc.
• Partnerships can help us retain and support businesses-need to work with
the universities and with other city/county governments.
5. Build on the STRENGTHS and ASSETS Orange County already has:
• Attitude: the Board is talking about ED in a new way: focusing on what they
want rather than what they don't want.
• Location-proximity to highways, universities, UNC healthcare system, etc.
• Highly educated population
• We're already doing "place-making" strategies well: [ots of cultural assets
• Agriculture ~ .
• High quality of life here that is attractive to residents and businesses
• County has some big parcels of~land set aside yet undeveloped
• Public education system, universities, community colleges
11
Understandine the role of the board, moving forward
Questions that need to be answered:
• What other partners do we need to engage for economic development? (talks are
underway at the ED-staff level]
• What is the next step for water and sewer w/ Mebane and Durham to" EDD? (Board
is ready to invest money-what needs to happen next?)
• Which types of businesses/industries do we want to attract? ,
There's general consensus on the following next steps:
• Direct staff to begin working on improving infrastructure. This is a long process.
Let's start now.
• Find ways to make the regulatory process easier for businesses. Establish an
"advocate" who helps guide businesses through the process. .
• Focus on retaining and supporting existing businesses. Broad agreement that this is
an important strategy for Orange County.
• Orange County already does a good job with the place-making strategies (amenities,
etc.] We need to stay strong in that way, and add in these other strategies at the
same time.
• Continue to work on defining a more proactive, deliberate strategy: still need to
answer the question of: what kinds of businesses do we want to recruit?
• .Communicate with the public about the Board's ED plan and discussions. Need to
create a synopsis for the press.
~~**•
12
STATUS OF ORANGE COUNTY ECONONIIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS
1. Employment of an Interim Director to lead the County's efforts is now in place.
Mr. Gary Shope brings considerable North Carolina. and regional experience to
the County. He will be analyzing our organization providing recommendations
designed to build upon our strengths and address needed improvements.
2. The Planning. Board and county staff aze actively moving the U.D.O project
toward adoption and implementation.
3. The Efland sewer system completion is being pursued. It is a $4 million project
with $1.4 million in federal grant funding.
4. County staff is negotiating expanded utility options with the cities of Mebane and
Durham with the intent to extend utility availability into the County's economic
development zones located along Highway 70 and I - 85.
5. Engineering services are under contract for the design of alternative sewer and
water system extensions from the system operated by the City of Mebane into the
Buckhorn economic development zone.
6. County staff is formalizing recommendations for consideration and adoption by
the County Commission for a program providing business developmentlexpansion
incentive grants.
7. County staff is refining a proposal for County Commission consideration that
would establish an appropriate number of specific utility districts within the
County's economic development zones. These districts would provide the basic
financial vehicle via a special assessment or property tax to assist in funding
utility infrastructure. .
8. A need exists to provide high speed Internet services and broadband coverage
within many azeas of Orange County including the County's economic
development zones. County staff is establishing priority locations where cell
towers could be~placed to expand access to broadband coverage throughout the
county especially in areas of potential economic development. The County is
seeking partnerships with private sector providers to deliver these services.
9. Thy County's small business loan program has become an active tool to assist
. local business expansions and diversification.
10. County staff has initiated and will expand discussions with local landowners and
private development groups to facilitate prepared sites and business parks to be
marketed within Orange County for new business expansions.
13
11. County staff is working closely with the staff of the County's towns and city to
facilitate coordinated approaches to site selection inquiries from site seazch firms.
Active project request responses are being prepared that involve the Towns of
Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and City of Mebane.
12. We are working closely with various elements of UNC to develop useful
collaborations and expanded relationships to enhance our economic development
efforts. We collaborated with the Department of City and Regional Planning to
gain graduate student research services and facilitate ongoing assistance including
Graduate Interns to assist in specific research prof ects. The UNC Institute of
Government is assisting in organizational analysis and other aspects of improving
the County's economic development program.
13. The County is in the process of completing construction of a regional food
processing center targeting small entrepreneurs in the food production business.
The facility should open late spring or early summer. A facility managei is in the
process of being hired. That person will promote and manage the facility which is
ultimately to be leased to a yet undetermined non-profit or not-for-profit.
14. County staff is evaluating the potential to establish one or more small business
incubators in available vacant county owned buildings. This project is being
evaluated for merit and specific proposals will be brought back to County
Commissioners once evaluations are complete.
15. The County is working with the Orange County branch of Durham Technical
Community College on potential job skill training programs that facilitate closer
ties between DTCC and the County. A most recent example is the proposed use
of commercial kitchen facilities at County's Senior Centers for a DTCC culinary
arts program. Further collaborations are possible.
16. Similarly related efforts are being pursued in various County departments. A
primary initiative is to expand partnerships where county resources can be linked
to efforts of other agencies, non-profits and private sector groups to enhance local
economic development and further diversify employment options for residents. .
State Sales and Use Tax Information inc. Gross Collections and Taxable Sales FY 2009 - 2010 (July 1-June 30)
Classification of Sales: Orange Alamance
Durham
Chatham
1. Unclassified Sales
2. Food Sales (inc. resturants)
3. General Merchandise
4. Lumber and Bldg Materials
5. Automotive Supplies
6. Apparel
7. Furniture 21 %
35 /0
°
20%
12%
0.05%
°
0.04%
. 0.02 /0 o
28 /0
20%
25/0
°
o
11 /0
0.07%
0.05%
0.03%
45%
~ 15%
22%
6%
0
0.04 /0
0.05%
0.02%
20%
21%
26 /o
17%
0
0.08 /o
0.01%
0.06%
Total Sales $946,263,485 ~ $1,382,375,460 $3,778,439,315 $321,040,737
Multiple of Orange Taxable Sales 100%. 146%
399% °
34 /o
Sales Tax Related Items of Interest Worth Noting:
Orange County and its Towns have traditionally, been reluctant to host large scale retail projects. Without assuming any specific portion with
regards to socio-economic consdierations regarding retail development, it is important to recongnize the impacts of such development.
According to corporate financial reports:
1. The average Walmart Super Store generates annual retail sales of $69 Million per year. '
2. The average Sams Wholesale Store generates $79 Million per year.
3. The average COSTCO Store generates $135 Million per year. A COSTCO would equate to 14% of current retail sales in Orange County
Large scale retail projects "properly" located within Orange County would have major impact on local sales tax revenues and.represent
a potential significant economic development opportunity, especially along the Interstate 85 transportation corrider.
1-28-11 fwc
.A
15
PROPERTY TAX VALUATIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY - (1-31-11)
TOTAL REAL PROPERTY VALUES = $14,356,519,468
TOTAL BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY =.$369,676,271
TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES = $228,934,751
TOTAL MOTOR VEHICLES = $498,806,282
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS AND OTHER EXEMPTIONS = $61,986,016
(Over 1000 residential properties qualify for senior or disabled releases.)
TOTAL OF 51,700 TAXABLE PARCELS OUT OF 54,000 TOTAL PARCELS
TOTAL REAL PROPERTY VALUATIONS = $14,356,519,468 (1.00%)
RESIDENTIAL VALUATION =$12,139,498,221(84.6%)
(Includes agricultural lands)
COMMERCIAL VALUATION = $2,217,021,247 (15.4%)
• This number includes residential apartment completes and any residential
property used etclusively as investment property for lease or rent (IF) the
property owner files accordingly. .
• Currently, County records indicate the listed valuation of apartment
completes with 40 or more units at $456,703,758 (20% of commercial values)
• The NET value of Commercial (NON Residential) is estimated at
$1,760,317,489 or approtimately 12.2% of Real Property Valuation
• This does not account for residential rental completes of 40 units or less.
IN NET TERMS, REAL PROPERTIES WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY ARE
ROUGHLY 88% NON COMERCIAL (RESIDENTIA.L AND OTHER). NONE OF
TffiS ANALYSIS CONSIDERS THE TAXABLE VALUE OF ALL OF THE
VARIOUS TAX EXEMPT PROPERTIES WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY OTHER
THAN THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS NOTED ABOVE.
Transferring these numbers to actual tares paid equates to direct tares paid by Non
Residential taxpayers (Commercial Interests, excluding Public Utilities) to roughly
13.8% ($18.3 million of a total of $132.6 million).
• IN REAL TERMS, EXPANSION OF THE NON RESIDENTIAL TAX BASE
WOULD HAVE A DIRECT IlViPACT ON ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENTS AND
TAXPAYERS. (No impact for sales tat generation is included in this analysis.)
(fwc 1-31-I1)
16
FOCUS POINTS FOR NEAR FUTURE COUNTY EFFORTS
(To be adjusted based upon changing variables within our local economy.)
1. Adopt and monitor a business investment and job creation incentive grant
program targeted toward desired outcomes and supportive of local values.
2. Maintain an accurate system of measuring economic data used to determine if
economic development programs and policies are producing the desired impacts.
3. Implement an economic development corridor along Interstate 85 and Highway
70 seeking those business opportunities that locate near Interstate Highways.
Examples: distribution/warehouse operations, commerciaUretail operations,
corporate office%perational centers, and light manufacturing operations where
truck traffic is facilitated by those locations.
4. Move forward with utility related infrastructure needs along the Interstate 85 and
Highway 70 comdor. (Water, sewer and communications technology to support
targeted business operations.) Pursue establishment of utility districts as a.basic
method of financing some of the capital costs associated with these needs.
5. Seek professional assistance and partnerships with private developers willing to
invest in the development of speculative or build to suit office, commercial and
retail facilities along the Interstate 85.and Highway 70 corridor.
6. Support the new food processing center with marketing assistance~and encourage
it successful transition to non-profit management status.
7. Expand partnerships with UNC for specific economic development research and
data management and advisory services that provide support for new industries
considering Orange County and existing businesses seeking to expand.
8. Remain open to collaborative relationships and interaction with the Towns and
Cities of Orange County. Partner when joint resources can be max;mi~ed.
9. Support and expand opportunities for Tourism related development where the
County and Towns can work together to increase visitor expenditures.
1:0. Ensure that the image of the County, its towns and cities is seen as supportive of
diverse and quality businesses interests that share common values.
11. Commit funding that remains available to ensure programs, policies and
comprehensive economic development are sustainable.
12. Reformulate a new economic development citizen advisory group based upon
recommendations brought forth by UNC and charge that group with tasks
that support planned activities. (Today's discussion.)
~ "".W.#'t.~N~w M
17
SUMMARY OF SELECT INCENTIVE POLICIES
Prepared 11%29/2010
ALAMANCE COUNTY - "Incentives -The Carolina Corridor"
• ape -Primary local incentive is cash grant
o Also offer utility upgrades/extensions
o Utility rate incentives
o Expedited regulatory processes
o Various fee waivers for development costs
• Incentive Basis -Capital investment
• Incentive Amount -Negotiable
Date of Policy -unknown
DURHAM CITY- "Resolution Establishing an Economic Development
Financial Assistance and Incentive Policy for Job Creation and Retention and
Capital Investment"
• ape -Not specified, other than'payment'
• Incentive Basis -Jobs and/ or capital investment
• Tob-Based Incentive Award - up to $2,500 per new or retained job, with
maximum of $1,000,000 (varies by designated area)
• Capital Investment Incentive Award
o From 1.5% to 16% of capital investment to maximum of $10,000,000
(varies by designated area)
o Can be combined with required job creation
• Required Capital Investment -From $187,500 to $45,000,000 (varies by
designated area)
• Required job Creation Range - 5 - 25 new jobs (varies by designated area)
during specified time period
Required Tob Retention Range - ' ...more than 100...' retained jobs during
specified time period
Time Period for job Creation /Capital Investment Completion - 2 years
to maximum 5 years (varies by designated area)
• Job Quality Criteria
o Full time, permanent
o Retained for at least 5 years
o Must be posted in local ESC office
o Must pay City's livable wage rate
o Jobs creation levels maintained for continuous 12-month period
o Payment based on employer's certified unemployment insurance
filings with NCESC
o Lower job creation requirement may be offered for jobs in
'Targeted Industry'
Page 1 of 13
18
Evaluation Criteria (varies by area)
o Need for assistance verified ("But for...")
o Financial commitment of investors /Developer equity
o Amount of new or expansion investment
o Tax increment revenue exceeds incentive
o Similar experience of developer
o Number /type of jobs created and corresponding salaries
o Type of product /service provided
o Location of project
o More specific criteria provided for targeted development areas within City
Miscellaneous Information
o Policy includes multiple'development areas' with specific policies
tailored to each area (e.g. Community Development Area, Urban
Growth Area, Parrish Street Project Area
o Specific investment criteria for the specific areas
o Specific industries are called out (e.g. health care facilities, R&D,
biotech, etc) -varies by area
o Provide adjustment for job creation targets (i.e. lower) for specific
industries
o Provide criteria for what expenditures are eligible for incentives
(e.g. design/engineer, infrastructure improvements, etc)
o Specific project details provided in'incentive agreement'
HARNETT COUNTY - "Economic Development Incentive Grant
Program"
• ape
o Grant based on actual value, schedule and payment of county
property taxes
o Property taxes paid in full each year; if criteria are met, portion of
property tax will be returned
Amount of Incentive
o Refund 80% of property taxes for varying number of years (3 - 7
years)
o Number of years of 'refund' increases with investment level
• Incentive Payment Period - 3 to 7 years depending on criteria met
• Required Capital Investment
o Three tiers of investment for both new and expansions
o New Investment:
^ $1.5 million or greater
^ $10 Million or greater
^ $20 million or greater
o Expansions:
^ $750,000 or greater
Page 2 of 13
19
^ $5 Million
^ $10 Million
Tob uality Criteria-110% of County's average weekly wage
Municipal Involvement -Municipalities have agreed to match terms of
County's proposal
Date of Policy -unknown; provided on website
SILER CITY - "Economic Development Incentive Policy" [from web page -
ape
o Grant based on payment of property taxes due
o If incentive requirements met, a specific percentage of taxes paid
will be granted in the form of an economic incentive grant (see
table below for percentage)
Length of Incentive Period -pre-determined percentage of property taxes
returned for 5 years
• Required Tob Creation- Grant based on matrix of job creation AND
investment -four categories of job creation are provided
• Required Capital Investment- grant based on matrix of job creation AND
investment -three categories of investment are provided
New or Expansion
Amount 0-39 jobs 40-74
Jobs 75-99
Jobs >100
Jobs
$500,000-
$2,499,999.99 55 % 60 % 65 % 70
$2.5M - $7,499,999.99 60 % 65 % 70 % 75
$7.5M and u 65% 70% 75% 80%
Wage Requirements - at least 100% of county's average weekly wage
. Protocol -Business submits letter to Manager requesting incentive to
contain:
o Estimated property value increase
o Product/ service produced
o Number jobs created, average weekly wage and benefits
o Schedule for construction completion
o Preliminary site plan
o Certification that company would not make investment without
assistance
Miscellaneous
o Specific industries targeted
o Retail is excluded
CHATHAM COUNTY - "Chatham County Incentive Policy"
Page 3 of 13
20
• TXpe -'...financial incentive grant based on the percentages of annual
property taxes paid ...for five year period."
• Length of Incentive Period - up to 5 years
• Incentive Award
0 30% to 90% of property taxes granted for 5 years ranges from based
on overall score.
o Percentage of award decreases from Year 1 to Year 5
• Required Tob Creation Range -varying points based on jobs created,
ranging from 10 - 200
• Wage Requirements -varying points based on county and state average
. Tob Quality Requirements -varying points based on benefits included
(e.g. health insurance, vacation, employee owned company, etc)
• Required Capital Investment -varying points based on level of
investment ranging from <$500K to more than $25 million
Local Hire Requirement -varying points based on County residents hired,
ranging from 10 - 200
• Environmental Impact -varying points based on building reuse, location,
LEED certification, various sustainable features
• Specific industries -varying points awarded for industries in county-
specified clusters, company headquarters and supply-chain relationship
with existing businesses
• Miscellaneous Information
o Incentive policy based on scoring matrix with points awarded for
specific criteria up to 100 possible points
o Most potential points awarded for job creation criteria (up to 50
points)
DURHAM COUNTY - "Resolution Adopting Economic Development Policy"
. Type
o Not specified -referred to as '...expenditures for economic
development... "
o Applied to value of'new or expanded' investment
Capital Investment Incentive - 2.25 % (up to 2.75 % if one of *optional
evaluation criteria included) of new investment
Tob-Based Incentive
^ 200-500 jobs - up to $1,000 per job
^ 501-1000 jobs - up to $1,500 per job
^ >1001 jobs - up to $2,000 per job
^ Note - a portion of the funding may be provided for training of
County citizens
. Required Investment Period - 5 years
Incentive Payment Period - up to 8 years
• Required Capital Investment - $50M for new projects, $30M for expansion
. Required Tob Creation -Minimum 200 new jobs
Page 4 of 13
21
Wage Requirements
o Must be at least equal to average wage (by appropriate category) to
Durham County wage
o Health insurance must at least equal that required by Article 3J
credits (at time of Resolution this required health insurance for full
time positions with 50% of premium paid by company)
Process -Developer provides county with written statement containing
the following information:
o Estimated value and square footage of project
o Estimated value and type of equipment
o Estimated design/construction costs of land preparation if County
is being asked to pay for these activities
o Description of product/ service of company
o Name/address of developer seeking incentive
o Estimated number jobs created and corresponding salaries
o Location of project
o Schedule for construction or relocation
o Identify if facility will have on site child care(*optional)
o Description of any sustainable features (*optional)
Evaluation Criteria
o Incentive as deciding factor ("But for...")
o Amount of investment
o Number new jobs
o Type of business relative to tax base
o Company reputation
o Existence of competitors for project
o Location in community (*optional)
o Capacity of available infrastructure(*optional)
o Value of incentives with respect to taxes collected
o Prior incentives awarded to developer
o Capacity of available infrastructure (*optional)
o Sustainable design/construction/operating practices (*optional)
Miscellaneous Information
o No awards to properties classified as 'historic' for ad valorem
taxation
o Several claw-back provisions are included
o Claw-back provisions take effect if company doesri t not employ at
least 90% of employees promised in contract or if reduce employees
by more and 10% within 5 years of contract
o Claw-back also applies if facility closes within specified time period
schedule
Page 5 of 13
22
LEE COUNTY - "Lee County, City of Sanford and Town of Broadway
Economic Development Investment Guidelines"
• ape -not specified; referred to as '...various financial investments...'
• Required Investment -Minimum of $5M for new project, of $1M for
expansion
• Wage Requirement -100% of applicable industry sector in Lee County
• Targeted Industries -Only specific industries qualify
• Miscellaneous Information -also references the inclusion of the Town of
Broadway, City of Sanford in the policy
• Use of Funds -examples provided, but not limited to: '... site acquisition,
site preparation, internal and external infrastructure, site improvements, job
training or other purposes which leave value in the community'.
Exclusions:
o Company not current in ad valorem taxes
o No assignment of grant to another company without written
consent
o Projects that pose significant risk to environmental degradation
FRANKLIN COUNTY - "Franklin County Incentive Policy"
• TXpe -cash grant based on tax valuation of project; paid either as single
payment or via14 payments over 4 years
• Required Investment - no minimum stated in order to help both small and
large businesses
• Incentive Amount -1 % to 3 % of investment
• Job Requirement -not specified, but must have a job creation component
to qualify for incentive
• Time -project must be complete in 18 months
. Evaluation Criteria
o Does business fit in defined business cluster for County
o Number of jobs(no minimum requirement)
o Amount of investment (no minimum requirement)
o Does business offer healthcare/benefits package
CITY OF BURLINGTON - "City of Burlington Economic Development
Incentive Policy"
• Type -grant paid from ad valorem taxes create by new/expanded tax
base from an Economic Development Fund
• Incentive Amount -1% of total investment; additiona10.5% for corporate
headquarters relocation or HQ expansion with 50 new jobs
o Other incentives may include streets, site mitigation, clearing,
water & sewer extension etc.
Page 6 of 13
23
Miscellaneous Information
o Must be current in all taxes, fees etc
o Reimbursement provision included in contract
o Each project evaluated on individual basis
o Retail excluded
o Criteria may be waived for specific projects
• Required Capital Investment - $8M for new projects, $1.5M for expansion
• Wage Requirements - at least equal to average hourly wage of all industry
in county
• Payback Period - 5 years
• Other Evaluation Criteria (in addition to jobs and investment)
o Impact on infrastructure
o Impact on county resources (public safety, public works, etc)
• Process
o Written application
• Miscellaneous Information
o Retail excluded
o Incentive contract will contain claw-back provisions
WAKE COUNTY - "Wake County Business Investment Grant Policy"
• Type _ not specified, referred to as 'grant'
• Incentive Amount - up to 2.25 % of assessed value of new investment
• Incentive Term -grant paid over a period up to 8 years 1'
Required Capital Investment - $100M (in 2004 dollars) (value of land not
included) for new projects, $50M for expansions if existing valuation is at
least $75M
. Required Tob Creation - 50 new jobs
• Wage Requirements -Full time, pay at least 120% of average county wage
• job Quality -offer health insurance at least equal to that required under
William S Lee Act (i.e. must pay 50% of premium cost)
• Evaluation Criteria
o Type of business, relative to current tax base
o Types of new jobs
o Company reputation
o Competition for project
• Miscellaneous Information
o All projects considered on case by case basis
o 'Special consideration provided for Fortune 500 companies and
large international companies
o Policy assumes collaboration with municipalities for projects
located within municipality
Page 7 of 13
24
CARY
• No formal policy -review each project on individual basis
• Capital investment and number/quality jobs are prime evaluation criteria
FUQUAY VARINA
• ape _ appropriate of funds, town services or another 'appropriate form
• Wage Requirements -equal to or greater than median wage in Wake
County
• Payback - 36 months
• Process -provide Town Manager with confidential request to contain:
o Company profile (history, business, current financial statement,
economic and employment philosophy)
o Employment numbers for previous 5 years
o Number new jobs proposed
o Median wage, benefits, health insurance for employees
o Water & sewer needs
o Amount/type hazardous waste used, generated, discharged
o List of governmental grants/incentives received by, applied for, to
be applied for or offered to business
o Amount of capital investment to be made
Terms -to include:
o Construction/expansion complete'within a time specified"
o Business must operate at stated employment capacity 'for a time
specified'
o Business to identify size, type cost of capital investment
o Identify number hires, number work shifts and employment terms
o Wage rates
o Incentive will be recouped within 36 months
o Promise to be 'community involved' industry and encourage
employees to reside in Fuquay and to become involved in
community organizations
Miscellaneous Information
o Pose little/no environmental threat
GARNER
• Type _ Reimbursement of new property tax revenue on the following
schedule;
o Year 1- 95
o Year 2 - 85
o Year 3 - 5 (or until max incentive amt met)- 75
o Incentive paid after documentation of taxes paid and request for
reimbursement provided to Town
Page 8 of 13
25
• Incentive Amount -1 % of total investment of new or expanded tax value;
additiona10.5% for corporate HQ with 50 new jobs with wages greater
than median Wake County wage.
• Wage Requirements -Greater than Wake County median wage
• Required Capital Investment -$10M and provides at least $1,100 of tax
base per gallon of sewer allocated; $8M for expansion
• Payback Period - 5 year, maximum (10 years for retail)
. Process -using application obtained from town manager, provide written
request to include:
o Amount of capital investment
o Previous years' employment numbers
o New job projections
o Water and sewer needs
o Type of business activity
o Any hazardous waste used, generated, discharged
Evaluation Criteria
o Amount of new investment in community
o Number and type new jobs
o Average wage rate
o Level of state or county participation
o Timeframe for investment /job creation
o Potential for expansion
o Reputation of company
o Competition for the project
o Impact of existing quality of life
o Corporate HQ
o Past record of community involvement
o Amenities provided (if mixed use project)
Miscellaneous Information
o Goal is 50%-50% residential -non-residential tax base split
o Retail/mixed use only considered for incentives if met other
criteria and adhere to set of design requirements/amenities
included in agreement
o All recipients of public funds will be involved in community, either
.actively or financially. Entity shall become member of Chamber of
Commerce as long as incentive payments being granted. Will
encourage employees to become involved in community
organizations
o Policy reviewed for updates every two years
o Specific criteria for Retail/Mixed Use projects ($50M investment
and greater than 50 acres with associated design guidelines)
Page 9 of 13
26
KNIGHTDALE
• Type -Reimbursement of new property tax revenue on the following
schedule:
o Year 1 - 95
o Year 2 - 85
o Years 3 - 5 (or until max incentive amt met)- 75
• Grant Amount -1 % of total investment of new or expanded tax value;
additiona10.5 % for corporate HQ with 50 new jobs with wages greater
than median Wake County wage.
• Required Capital Investment - $5M
• Miscellaneous Information
o Goal is 60% residential 40% non residential
o Tax Increment Financing (TIF) may be an incentive offered to
finance infrastructure
o Specific industries are targeted
MORRISVILLE
• Type -not specified, referred to as'... performance-based cash grant...'
• Incentive Amount -benchmark of 1 % of total investment of new or
expanded tax value will guide discussions; 0.5% additional incentive for
corporate HQ with at least 50 new jobs. Funded in long term financial
plan and paid from new/expanded tax base from an Economic
Development Fund
• Required Capital Investment -$10M for new business, $5M for expansion
• Required Tob Creation - 50 jobs for new business, 'some sustainable job
creation for expansion
• Wage Requirement -greater than or equal to average hourly wage of all
industry in county
• Job Quality -full time only, employers must pay at least 50 % health
insurance premium for full time employees
Time Period - 8 years, maximum
Evaluation Criteria
o New jobs created
o Average wage rate
o Amount new investment in community
o Employee benefits
o State or County participation in project
o Eligibility for One North Carolina Funds
o Timeframe for investment /job creation
o Impact on public safety, public works, etc
o Sustainable building concepts
o Innovation in design concept
Page 10 of 13
27
o Consistency with and furtherance of Town planning and
development objectives (e.g. downtown development, provision of
greenways etc)
Process -submit written request to town economic development office
Miscellaneous Information
o Retail excluded
o Must have both capital investment and job creation component
CITY OF RALEIGH
• No formal policy -review each project on individual basis
• Job growth, investment and project merits are prime evaluation criteria
WENDELL
ape _ not specified; referred to as'grant payments'
Capital Investment Requirement
o New - $5M; for each additional $5M can receive additional 5 % tax
assessment deductions up to 95% of annual assessment (for
minimum $25M investment)
o Expansion - $1M
o Small Business - $100,000
• Tob Creation Requirement
0 20 new jobs
0 5 expansion jobs
o No job creation requirement for small business
• Incentive Amount - 75% of property tax assessment on new investment
• Investment Time Period - up to 5 years
• Wade Requirements -100% of average county wage rate
• Tob Quality -company shall underwrite at least 50% of health insurance
premium
Miscellaneous Information
o Provide 'non-financial incentives' including reductions in parking
requirements, density bonuses, property donation, technical
assistance with other incentive applications, annexation delay
• Process -Request submitted to Town Manager and shall include:
o Type of business
o Any hazardous waste generated, used, discharged
o Site Plan /survey of property
o Pre-investment tax valuation
o Basic business plan
o Financial statements
o Total amount of capital investment
o Existing employment profile
Page 11 of 13
28
o New job/ local job projections
o Wage structure/benefits
o Water & sewer needs
o Transportation/ access needs
• Evaluation criteria
o Amount of new investment
o Number/type new jobs vs. relocations
o Job training incentives
o Wage structure
o Employee benefits
o Amount of state/ Wake County incentives
o Timeframe for investment /job creation
o Potential for expansion
o Business plan/financial history of applicant
o Competition for project
o Impact on existing quality of life
o Past record of and proposed community involvement
o Compatibility of project with Comprehensive Plan
o Increase in marginal tax base vs. increase in marginal water &
sewer usage
o Impact on traffic
o Green technology/environmental impact
ZEBULON
• Ty~e - `business investment grant'
• Amount of Incentive -1.5% of value of new investment
Incentive payment period - up to 5 years
. Capital Investment Requirement - $10M
job Creation Requirement - 50 new jobs
• Wage Quality
o Pay at least average wage for Wake County by occupation
o Provide health insurance at least equal to minimum required un
William S. Lee Act, i.e. minimum of 50% of premium
. Miscellaneous Information
o All project reviewed on case-by-case basis
Evaluation Criteria (minimum)
o Types of new jobs
o Potential for expansion
o Reputation of company
o Competition for project
o Water an sewer needs
o Impact on existing quality of life
Page 12 of 13
29
SELECT INFORMATION ON STATE INCENTIVE AWARD
PROCESS
• Uses evaluation model developed in conjunction with Dr. Michael
Walden, NCSU Economist
• The state runs a 'preliminary' evaluation early in the process to see if the
project qualifies for incentive consideration
• Projects do not go to 'committee review unless the initial model shows a
'net positive impact'
• All awards are specified to be'contingent on economic model' performed
by the state
NC STATUTE PROVIDING AUTHORITY FOR
INCENTIVES
g.s.158-7.1 (to be attached)
Page 13 of 13
Economic Development Strategy for Orange County
I. Forma "hybrid" Board of Advisors made of our community-wide ED partners.
a) Chapel Hill ED/Town Manager/Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber
b) Carrboro ED/Town Manager/ Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber
c) Hillsborough Town Manager/Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber
d) Mebane Town Manager
e) Orange County County Manager/OCED
f) UNC-Economic Development/Kenan Center for Private Enterprise
Establish ED policy that focuses on collaboration going forward, whereby all voices
can be heard. Assist in creating ED "wins" for our partner towns, inclusive of new
business locations, expansions of existing businesses, creating economic wealth
through innovation and entrepreneurship, ag-based initiatives, travel & tourism, etc.
III. Continue to engage directly with the North Carolina Department of Commerce and
the Research Triangle Regional Partnership in presenting a "credible" economic
development story to respective staff and developers.
IV. Participate more fully with "industry-specific" trade shows that focus on life sciences,
ITC, software, data/cloud computing and green-based technologies.
V. Enhance Orange County ED's interface with potential clients, including development
of a separate Orange County website with more business-friendly URL,
improvement of accessibility of available space opportunities and creation of
appropriate promotional materials.
VI. Implement next step for existing industry visitation program.
VII. Host the First Annual Orange County Industry Appreciation Day along with
"Economic Health" Summit.
VIII. Provide input from Orange County EDC in creating a coherent and business-
friendly UDO.
IX. Continue to move forward with the implementation and delivery of water/sewer
service, along with high-speed data lines to EDDs.
X. Strive to reinforce need to create varying job opportunities county-wide as well as
"balance" tax base via new/expended business development efforts and real estate
re-use.
XI. Support the growth of local small businesses and entrepreneurs with available
resources, including the Small Business Loan Fund and SBTDC guidance.
XII. Sustain the Agricultural ED momentum provided by the Piedmont Food &
Agricultural Processing Center by supporting new ventures that develop from the
Center.
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN ORANGE COUNTY
a
ITIP PROJ~E-C.T I-0305 A °~
w
~~ TIP PROJECT I-0305 B
~~~~~~
MTIP PROJECT I-3306 PHASE C
~ ~$i
MTIP PROJECT I-3306 PHASE A
TIP PROJECT I-3306
STIP PHASE A
les ''
0 0.5 1 2 3 NoT ro SSE
a
-~
n
n
rn
z
w
f ~~t ~~°t ~•~' ca~ ~+~ 3 2
Memorandum
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Jan Sassaman, Chair
Solid Waste Advisory Board
Subject: SWAB Interlocal Agreement and Alternative Technology
Framework/Timeline Recommendation
Date: November 11, 2010
The Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) has been discussing issues concerning the
future of the Interlocal Agreement (IA) as well as a possible response to the Alternative
Technology Timeline and framework request made by the BOCC in item 4 of its motion,
adopted December 2009, to utilize the City of Durham transfer station as a disposal site
when the Orange County-owned landfill ceases to accept waste.
At the SWAB's November 2010 meeting, general consensus was reached on a number of
points that are presented below. These issues will probably be further discussed at the
December SWAB meeting. In addition, the SWAB has identified those elements that we
believe should be incorporated/included in any new Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste
Management for Orange County. .
Key Points from SWAB
Discussions on revising the current IA should proceed at a higher political and
managerial level than the SWAB. We believe that a group of representatives
from the four jurisdictions should be formed immediately to begin active
discussions on the political and functional possibility of a future partnership for
local solid waste management. These discussions could even consider the notion
of a public solid waste authority. The SWAB feels strongly that the
organizational issue and what the governments will do with their waste during and
following a possible 3-5 year interim period following landfill closure are
inextricably related and need to be addressed with all due haste.
The governing bodies should move deliberately as the 3-5 year period will pass
very quickly and a goal of not only deciding what to do and how to do it, but of
actually implementing a solution, would be in our mutual best economic and
environmental interests. In fact, with staff continually endeavoring to extend the
life of the landfill, a timely organizational and operational resolution could avoid
or at least limit the interim option and related expense of hauling to the City of
Durham. In other words, the process for post-Durham transfer station waste
management should begin immediately, along with the organizational discussion.
33
The range of technical, economic and risk-related issues surrounding a thorough
and effective consideration of alternative technologies for solid waste may require
far more resources and expertise than the SWAB has available. If the Board
wishes the SWAB to remain lead entity in conducting this evaluation, a clear and
detailed set of parameters and criteria for evaluating technologies needs to be
provided.
SWAB also felt that many of the issues associated with alternative technologies
(i.e. those associated with emerging thermal technologies for waste conversion)
had already been presented to the Board in the GBB report of August 2008 and
those technologies that would incorporate multi jurisdictional actions were
beyond the scope of the SWAB as we understand it to be and would, furthermore,
be dependent upon any mutual agreement of Orange County and the individual
municipalities that would be affected.
Based on the inter-dependence of the IA and consideration of alternative means to
dispose of solid waste, and the imperative to find a workable solution for Orange
County and it's municipalities, SWAB agreed that an interim Memorandum of
Understanding among the current IA signatories to agree to work together to find
a solution and in the interim to commit to use of the Durham transfer station,
should that become necessary, was an important initial step in this process.
• Mr. John Stephens of the UNC School of Government might be considered to
provide professional assistance with process issues related to organizational
discussions and/or long-term waste disposal decisions. Mr. Stephens's areas of
expertise are Inter-agency and public policy dispute resolution; citizen
participation; group collaboration and facilitation.
Recommended Elements of a New Interlocal Agreement
The SWAB has reached consensus with regard to the elements that should be
included/incorporated into any new IA. The SWAB concept is for a comprehensive solid
waste management agreement that builds on current successes, improves existing
shortcomings and provides a means to deal with future challenges.
• Financial responsibility for closure and post-closure of landfills -Identifies and
clarifies financial responsibilities.
• Provision of storm debris management/processing -Provides for effective
ongoing emergency storm debris management.
• Provision of yard waste management/processing -Continues and encourages
responsibility for improvements in organics management.
2
34
• Greene Tract issues - Addresses as necessary any remaining issues pertaining to
the County-owned 60 acre portion of the Greene Tract, including enterprise fund
reimbursement.
• Solid waste transfer and disposal -Assigns responsibility and accountability for
providing environmentally responsible and economically viable/cost-effective
waste disposal solutions, involving other jurisdictions when feasible/beneficial
and providing opportunity for meaningful public input.
• Local government solid waste advisory body -Necessity of a permanent advisory
body to represent citizens and the governments in Local solid waste matters.
• Solid Waste Collection systems in Orange County, including Convenience
Centers -Consideration of cooperation, collaboration and/or consolidation of
waste collection operations among the jurisdictions.
• State waste planning and plan preparation/coordination -Clarifies centrally
managed and coordinated State planning and reporting responsibilities.
• Provision of recycling and waste reduction services/programs -Continue County
leadership in recycling and waste reduction services, facilities and programs.
• Long-term management of solid waste enterprise fund and programs/facilities -
Maintain system wide management of facilities and continue enterprise fund
financing utilizing diverse income streams, examples of which may be user fees,
tipping fees, household fees, recyclable material revenues, etc.
SWAB Recommendations
SWAB recommends that the BOCC initiate conversations with the other IA signatories
and other potentially interested parties (such as the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill) in order to begin the process of modifying the current IA or developing a
new IA that is responsive to the present solid waste priorities of Orange County and its
municipalities.
SWAB further requests clarification from the BOCC regarding the Board's request for a
framework and timeline for evaluating alternative technologies in terms of the scope of
inquiry and role of SWAB as noted in our "Key Points" enumerated above.
We remain committed to assist you in these matters and we look forward to taking these
next steps, especially as the Solid Waste Plan Draft has been completed and provides a
continued framework for continuing local dialogue for future solid waste handling and
disposal for Orange County.
35
Memorandum
To: Frank Clifton, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: MSW Landfill Expansion Capacity Options
Date: March 2, 2011
I have been evaluating the HDR Engineering memorandum of February 3, 2011
(attached) that presents three options for obtaining additional capacity for the county
landfill. This memorandum has previously been shared with you and indicates that the
county may want to extend final capacity using one of these options. All three options
will considerably extend current capacity estimates of March-June 2013.
None of the options would result in a lateral expansion of the facility and the existing
landfill footprint would remain the same. Options 2 and 3 would require a public process
led by the State and assisted by the Solid Waste Department because the current
permitted capacity would be increased by more than 10%.
I have attached a table summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of each option and
I am recommending option #2. Option #2 would extend capacity until about January
2017.
The basis for my recommendation is as follows:
• Option 3 would provide the greatest capacity, but would be extremely difficult to
construct.
• While I don't relish the required brief public process due to the strong feelings of
a small number of residents in a nearby neighborhood, I believe extending
capacity would be in the best interest of the residents of the county as a whole, be
a considerable benefit for users who depend on landfill, would delay expenditures
for closure and post-closure, would delay the more expensive delivery of waste to
the City of Durham Transfer Station, would allow for the continued reserving of
funds for closure and post-closure, and provide additional time for local elected
officials to explore other longer-term waste management alternatives.
• It would appear that we have an obligation to reasonably optimize the use of the
public infrastructure.
If you concur I will direct HDR Engineering to develop the permit modification
accordingly. In the event you do not concur, we will proceed with Option # 1.
36
1.
•
•
• • ~
452,000 CY Remaining
70 Months
January 2016
Revise slopes from 4:1 to 3:1
Less than 10% capacity
increase
Additional 191,591 CY or
126,450 tons _, , _
Advanta es
• No public involvement process
• Extended site life
• Additional tipping fees ($50 x 126,450 extra tons =
$6,322,500) compared to existing permitted capacity
• Easily constructed and maintained side slopes
• Does not exceed existing permitted height
• Consistent with existing slope construction
•
No additional cell construction
Disadvantases
• Does not maximize potential airspace
• Extended site life may have negative impact on
public perception
2. 530,000 CY Remaining Advantaees
82 Months Extended site life
January 2017 . Additional tipping fees ($50 x 177,930 extra tons =
$8,896,500) compared to existing permitted capacity
• Revise slopes from 4:1 to 3:1 • Easily constructed and maintained side slopes to
• Maximum landfill height achieve maximum airspace
• Additiona1269,591 CY or • Consistent with existing slope construction
177,930 tons • No additional cell construction
Disadvantaees
• Public involvement process
• Construction permit application renewal (5-yr permit)
• Slightly increases overall landfill height
• Extended site life may have negative impact on
public perception
3. 617,000 CY Remaining Advantaees
96 Months • Extended site life
March 2018 • Additional tipping fees ($50 x 235,350 extra tons =
$11,767,503) compared to existing permitted
• Revise slopes from 4:1 to 3:1 capacity
• Maximum landfill height • Maximum airspace
• Includes slope wedge • No additional cell construction
• Additiona1356,591 CY or Disadvantaees
235,350 tons • Public involvement process
• Construction permit application renewal (5-yr permit)
• Slightly increases overall landfill height
• Considerable difficulty in constructing wedge
airspace recovery over existing constructed side
slopes
• Extended site life may have negative impact on
public perception
37
ONE COMPANY M e m o
~~ Many Solutions`"
To: Gayle Wilson (Orange County)
From: Doug DeCesare (HDR) Froiect Orange County MSW Landfill
cc: Ed Shuffler (HDR)
Date: October 28, 2010 ,lob No: 35207-142839-018
Revised February 3, 2011
RE: MSW Landfill Expansion Capacity
Under Work Order No. 2 .HDR has prepared different options regarding the proposed final grades of the
landfill. It is intended to prepare a permit modification that revises the current permitted side slopes of 4:1 to
3:1. The steeper side slopes provide better drainage, enhances positive drainage after settlement, and
provides additional capacity. If the revised permitted capacity of the landfill increases by 10% or more, North
Carolina General Statutes considers the permit modification to be a substantial amendment. A substantial
amendment requires public involvement during the review and approval process with NCDENR.
The public involvement process would generally follow 15NCAC 13B .1603(c) of the Solid Waste
Management Rules. Upon approval of a substantial amendment, NCDENR would prepare a draft, permit and
a fact sheet for the applicant and anyone who may request a copy. When the draft permit is ready, NCDENR
would give public notice that a draft permit has been prepared at which time a 45-day public comment period
is opened and/or a public hearing is scheduled. The public notice may be in the form of publication in a daily
or weekly local newspaper of general circulation or by posting the notice in the post office and public places of
the municipalities nearest the site. All comments received would be considered by NCDENR in making the
final decision. At the time of final permit decision, NCDENR would provide a response to all comments
received.
Currently the bottom third of the landfill has been constructed at slopes steeper than 4:1 to account for future
settlement. HDR has projected the remaining final grades at a 3:1 beginning at existing side slopes that
closely represent 3:1 slopes. By projecting 3:1 slopes and remaining below the 10% threshold, the landfill
would have a remaining capacity of about 452,000 CY as of 3/19/10 (date of latest survey). At 51,120
tons/year and a waste density of 1,320 Ib/cy, the remaining site life would be 70 months and reach capacity in
January 2016. Additional capacity could be realized beyond the 452,000 CY if the 10% threshold were
exceeded.
In the event the County elects to maximize the landfill, HDR projected the final grades at a 3:1 slope from the
existing slopes to a higher elevation that results in a remaining capacity of about 530,000 CY. In this case the
remaining site life would be 82 months and reach capacity in January 2017. Maximizing the landfill capacity
based on these grades is achievable and can be easily constructed. If the County was interested in
reworking all the slopes and begin the 3:1 slopes at the toe of the landfill (at the base liner anchor trench), the
maximum capacity of the landfill would be greater than 530,000 CY. In addition to projecting the 3:1 slopes
from the existing slopes, HDR projected grades from the toe of the landfill which creates an additional wedge
of airspace between the existing slopes and the projected slopes. With the additional wedge, the maximum
remaining capacity of the landfill is about 617,000 CY. This yields a remaining site life of about 96 months
which reaches capacity in March 2018.
Per our meeting October 27, 2010, it was concluded to proceed with the permit modification such that the
10% threshold will not be exceeded. Unless otherwise directed by the County, HDR proceeded with the
preparation of a permit modification to steepen the side slopes and remain under the 10% capacity increase
threshold.
HDR Engineering, InC. 13733 National Drive I Phone (919) 7851118 I Page 1 of 1
C:lpwworldnglfpa1d023525112011-02-04 DTD-Wilson Capacity Memo.DOC Suite 207 Fax (919) 7651187
Raleigh, NC 27612 vnvw.hddnc.com