HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-06-2018 Item 1 - Economic Development Districts – Follow-up from Board RetreatORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 6, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: Economic Development Districts — Follow -up from Board Retreat
DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office &
Economic Development
ATTACHMENT(S):
A — Timmons Report Executive Summary
With Study Recommendations
Full 182 Page Report Only Available
Electronically at:
http: / /cros3 .revize.com /revize /orangecount
y /document center /CountyCommissioners
/ Economic %20Development %20District%
20SWOT %20Analysis %20F1 NAL %20Rep
ort %20FEB18 %20(1
B — Excerpt from January 26, 2018 Board
of Commissioners Retreat Minutes
C — Article 46 Sales Tax Report
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Travis Myren, 919 - 245 -2308
Steve Brantley, 919 - 245 -2326
PURPOSE: To discuss economic development strategy and implementation issues raised
during the 2018 Board of Commissioners Retreat.
BACKGROUND: During FY2017 -18, the County retained the Timmons Group to conduct an
analysis of the areas in the County that are designated for economic development activity. The
Report (Executive Summary provided at Attachment A — Full 182 Page Report available
at http: // cros3 .revize.com /revize /orangecounty /document center /CountyCommissioners /Econo
mic% 20Development% 20District %20SWOT %20AnaIVsis %20FI NAL %20Report %20FEB 18 %20(
1 ).pdf) concluded that Orange County's Economic Development Districts (EDD's) and
Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes (CITANs) create legitimate opportunity for
development, but the sites need to be better aligned with market needs and expectations.
The Board of Commissioners received the report during the 2018 Board of Commissioners
Retreat. The discussion during the Retreat (see minutes in Attachment B) raised more strategic
issues about how economic development priorities are established, framed, and executed given
PIA
current economic development limitations and the County's recent experience with industrial
recruiting.
The work session discussion will attempt to clarify the strategic issues raised by the Board
during the 2018 retreat and provide direction to staff on future economic development goals and
tactics. Staff will provide information and facilitate a discussion on the following questions and
themes:
1. What is the context for economic development in Orange County?
The Board has adopted a social justice goal and an operational goal related to economic
development. The social justice goal is to Ensure Economic Self Sufficiency and is
further defined as, "The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs
and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care
for themselves and their dependents."
The Board's adopted operational goal is to, "Implement planning and economic
development policies which create a balanced, dynamic local economy, and which
promote diversity, sustainable growth, and enhanced revenue while embracing
community values."
On an operational level, economic development may also influence the Board's current
policy priorities:
• Tax base growth to pay for increased demand for public services
• Living wages and housing
• Transportation
• Environmental preservation
• Impacts on the criminal justice system
• Economic diversification and quality of life
2. What activities are included in the category of economic development? How should
those activities be prioritized?
• Arts
• Commercial and Industrial Recruiting
• Small Business Development
• Agricultural Development
• Tourism
3. How much money is the County currently investing in economic development?
Specifically, how are Article 46 funds being allocated? What is the return on investment
for those activities?
4. What is the current land use framework in which economic development may occur?
K
5. What is the tax base profile and how has it changed over time? How has recent
economic activity changed the tax base?
6. What is happening in the Economic Development Districts that may impact future
economic development strategy?
• Status of water and sewer extensions
• Encroaching residential development
• Practical considerations of expanding utilities in the Eno Economic
Development District
7. What are the potential next steps for discussion and implementation?
• Using objective criteria identify the most marketable sites within the current
areas designated for economic development.
• Reduce development risk by preparing a site for development
• Identify willing sellers
• Conduct due diligence
• Gain property control for price certainty
• Extend utilities and other infrastructure
• Pre -zone property in the areas designated for economic development that are
within the County's zoning jurisdiction
• Reexamine the boundaries of areas designated for economic development
• Investigate the potential for research and development sites in cooperation with
area universities
• Reexamine the uses of Article 46 sales tax revenue
• Review permitting and regulatory procedures with respect to barriers to
efficient processing
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The discussion will focus on current investments and appropriations.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this item:
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board discuss economic
development strategy and implementation issues and provide direction to staff on future
economic development work.
C!
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
TIMMONIS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH CURS.
IMICamlantic Realty
� F"d L - -d,MU 4.uuasa 1M:- 10AIlk,
For
Orange County Economic Development
February 2018
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Table of Contents
NAICarolantic Fealty
1 ,.1i: -�. A P"d r4.0'- tia,u:i.,. 4'O AJ-. ,
5
TIMMONS GROUP
ExecutiveSummary .......................................................................................... ..............................3
Study Recommendations For Each Specific EDD and CITAN ........................ .............................12
ProjectBackground ......................................................................................... .............................14
GISSite Inventory ............................................................................................ .............................17
ExistingData Collection ........................................................................................... .............................17
General Site Analysis Approach .............................................................................. .............................18
SiteAssessment Study .................................................................................... .............................21
Economic Development Corridor Findings ...................................................... .............................23
Water Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map ...................... .............................28
General County Utility Background .......................................................................... .............................29
UtilitySummary Table ........................................................................................... ...............................
31
SiteSummary Table ................................................................................................ .............................32
BuckhornEDD Summary ........................................................................................ .............................33
AreaSummary .......................................................................................... .............................33
Summary of Wet Utility Infrastructure ........................................................ .............................34
Summary of Dry Utility Infrastructure ......................................................... .............................35
Summary of Transportation and Access ................................................... .............................35
RoadMap .................................................................................................. .............................36
HillsboroughEDD .................................................................................................... .............................37
AreaSummary .......................................................................................... .............................37
Summary of Wet Utility Infrastructure ........................................................ .............................38
Summary of Dry Utility Infrastructure ......................................................... .............................39
Summary of Transportation and Access ................................................... .............................39
RoadMap .................................................................................................. .............................39
ENOEDD ................................................................................................................ .............................40
AreaSummary .......................................................................................... .............................41
Summary of Wet Utility Infrastructure ........................................................ .............................41
Summary of Dry Utility Infrastructure ......................................................... .............................42
Summary of Transportation and Access ................................................... .............................43
RoadMap .................................................................................................. .............................43
BuckhornCITAN ..................................................................................................... .............................44
AreaSummary .......................................................................................... .............................44
Summary of Wet Utility Infrastructure ........................................................ .............................45
Summary of Dry Utility Infrastructure ......................................................... .............................45
Summary of Transportation and Access ................................................... .............................46
RoadMap .................................................................................................. .............................47
EastEfland CITAN .................................................................................................. .............................48
AreaSummary .......................................................................................... .............................48
Summary of Wet Utility Infrastructure ........................................................ .............................49
1 I Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
NAICarolantic Fealty
l
�.
..0000
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
Summary of Dry Utility Infrastructure ......................................................... .............................49
Summary of Transportation and Access ................................................... .............................50
RoadMap .................................................................................................. .............................50
WestEfland CITAN ................................................................................................. .............................52
AreaSummary .......................................................................................... .............................52
Summary of Wet Utility Infrastructure ........................................................ .............................53
Summary of Dry Utility Infrastructure ......................................................... .............................53
Summary of Transportation and Access ................................................... .............................54
RoadMap .................................................................................................. .............................55
HillsboroughCITAN ................................................................................................. .............................56
AreaSummary .......................................................................................... .............................56
Summary of Wet Utility Infrastructure ........................................................ .............................56
Summary of Dry Utility Infrastructure ......................................................... .............................57
Summary of Transportation and Access ................................................... .............................57
RoadMap .................................................................................................. .............................57
Cornelius............................................................................................................... ...............................
58
AreaSummary .......................................................................................... .............................58
Summary of Wet Utility Infrastructure ........................................................ .............................58
Summary of Dry Utility Infrastructure ......................................................... .............................59
Summary of Transportation and Access ................................................... .............................59
RoadMap .................................................................................................. .............................59
SWOTAnalysis Summary ....................................................................................... .............................61
Strengths................................................................................................. ...............................
61
Opportunities........................................................................................... ...............................
61
Weaknesses............................................................................................ ...............................
62
Threats.................................................................................................... ...............................
62
RecommendationsPrioritized .................................................................................. .............................64
Immediate Recommendations ................................................................... .............................64
Long -term Recommendations ................................................................. ...............................
67
Appendix A — Presentations
Appendix B — Area Maps
2 1 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RAICarolantic Fealty
11
N
..0000
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
Orange County has seen a significant rise in prospect activity in recent years, but has had limited success
getting projects to "land" in Orange County due to a multitude of reasons. As such, Orange County
Economic Development hired the team of Timmons Group, Britt Nance Collaborative and NAI Carolantic
Realty in May 2017 to complete an Economic Development Site Related SWOT Analysis of Economic
Development Districts (EDD's) and Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Nodes (CITAN's) located along
the Interstate 40 and Interstate 85 corridor. This report includes a summary of the findings and
recommended next steps for Orange County.
Orange County currently has eight (8) CITAN's and EDD's that were established in 1986 (over 30 years
ago). These include the following:
EDD / CITAN
Size
Eno EDD
776 acres
Hillsborough EDD
703 acres
Buckhorn EDD
900 acres
Buckhorn CITAN
719 acres
West Efland CITAN
242 acres
East Efland CITAN
433 acres
Hillsborough CITAN
4 acres
Hillsborough CITAN
46 acres
Geographic Advantage
Orange County is in an excellent location in North Carolina and Southeastern United States to take
advantage of the current economic upswing and have long -term sustainable and responsible economic
development growth. Conveniently located in central North Carolina at the intersection of 1 -40 and 1 -85, just
west of the Research Triangle Park and to the east of the Piedmont Triad, Orange County is the "gateway"
from Southeastern to Northeastern United States and Eastern North Carolina.
With eleven (11) Interstate interchanges located in Orange County, and eight (8) Interstate interchanges
within the CITAN's and EDD's, the 1 -40 and 1 -85 traffic counts reveal a significant opportunity for Orange
County to further leverage their geographic position along the east coast and as this potential "gateway ".
A review of the 2015 NCDOT traffic counts (see below) indicates traffic consistent with other large
metropolitan areas throughout North Carolina, such as Charlotte, Raleigh or Greensboro.
31 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
RAICarolantic Fealty
ilf.1,1. V1 Atwb,
LV
TIMMONS GROUP
This represents a significant "revenue" and growth opportunity for the County on multiple fronts. Each
vehicle that passes through the County is a potential customer for a local business or could represent an
opportunity for an economic development prospect to take advantage of the transportation infrastructure to
locate a business convenient to global markets.
Orange County Economic Development Opportunities Missed
Over the last several years, Orange County Economic Development staff has been tracking prospect
opportunities (RFI's, RFP's, etc.). A review of the data indicates that Orange County has been missing out
on some significant economic development opportunities, of which if the County had "ready to go" sites
and /or the appropriate water and sewer infrastructure, could have landed in the County. We've
summarized these missed opportunities below:
Manufacturing Sector: Between April 2015 and June 2017, Orange County missed out on approximately
$1.3 billion to $1.6 billion in manufacturing opportunities that could have created between 2,400 and 2,555
"living wage" and executive level jobs in Orange County. The requested water & sewer demands ranged
from 2.4 to 2.8 MGD (water) and 2.2 to 2.6 MGD (sewer) respectively, often times exceeding the available
capacity within their service territories.
Initiation
Interstate
2015 Traffic Counts
Investment
1 -40
58,000 to 73,000
1 -85
43,000 to 47,000
1 -40 & 1 -85
98,000 to 103,000
This represents a significant "revenue" and growth opportunity for the County on multiple fronts. Each
vehicle that passes through the County is a potential customer for a local business or could represent an
opportunity for an economic development prospect to take advantage of the transportation infrastructure to
locate a business convenient to global markets.
Orange County Economic Development Opportunities Missed
Over the last several years, Orange County Economic Development staff has been tracking prospect
opportunities (RFI's, RFP's, etc.). A review of the data indicates that Orange County has been missing out
on some significant economic development opportunities, of which if the County had "ready to go" sites
and /or the appropriate water and sewer infrastructure, could have landed in the County. We've
summarized these missed opportunities below:
Manufacturing Sector: Between April 2015 and June 2017, Orange County missed out on approximately
$1.3 billion to $1.6 billion in manufacturing opportunities that could have created between 2,400 and 2,555
"living wage" and executive level jobs in Orange County. The requested water & sewer demands ranged
from 2.4 to 2.8 MGD (water) and 2.2 to 2.6 MGD (sewer) respectively, often times exceeding the available
capacity within their service territories.
Initiation
Investment
Site Size
Water
Sewer
Industry
Industry Type
fobs
Date
(million)
(Acres)
(GPD)
(GPD)
April 2015
Italian Specialty
Food Processing
$50
300
30,000-
30,000-
Meat Mfgr
60,000
60,000
June 2015
Manufacturing
Biopharmaceutical
$450-600
275-300
30
100,000 -
80,000 -
Lab
160,000
130,000
Aug 2015
Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical
$325
500
15-20
636,000
636,000
Sep 2015
Manufacturing
Air Separation
$35
1S-25
5-10
72,000 -
11,500-
122,000
21,600
Nov 2015
Manufacturing
Food Processing
$20 -$25
100
30
100,000
100,000
Jan 2016
Manufacturing,
Food
$35
150
20 40
52,800-
52,800-
processing
264,000
264,000
Sep 2016
Manufacturing
Chemicals
$65-$75
60-70
40-100
300,000-
300,000-
400,000
400,000
Oct 2016
Manufacturing
Textile
$30-$70
17S-260
2S-35
500,000
470,000
Feb 2017
Manufacturing
Biopharmaceutical
$150 - $200
150
10
133,000
107,000
Mar 2017
Manufacturing
Medical
$180
600
50-75
200,000
200,000
June 2017
Manufacturing
Food Processing
75-100
30
250,000
200,000
$1.34 to
2,400 to
5 to 100
2.37 to
2.19 to
Totals
$1.6 Billion
2,555
acres
2.83 MGD
2.59 MGD
41 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
IVAICarolantic Realty
.I I.Lt, tid.a.i�.. V, v6jr h,
9
..0006
•
TIMMONS GROUP
Economic Development Projects that went to Alamance County: Between September 2012 and
November 2017, Alamance County announced six (6) economic development projects, mostly in the
logistics / distribution sector, with investments totaling $392.8 million, that created 1,304 jobs with average
annual wages ranging from $35,374 to $80,000 per job on sites ranging from 10 to 186 acres. It's important
to note that Orange County had a legitimate opportunity to recruit and potentially land these same projects
in Orange County, but didn't have either adequate sites or adequate incentives to close the deal.
Announced
Potential Investment
Potential Jobs
Investment
Jobs
Site Size
Distribution / Alamance
$393 Million
Company
Site Location
$328 million
1,100
Totals
Building Size (SF)
Date
(million)
Announced
(acres)
Sep
Sheetz Distribution
Burlington (1737
$52
254
44
250,000
-12
Center
White Kennel Rd.)
Dec -13
Wal -Mart
Mebane - NC
$100
550
186
450,000
Distribution Center
Commerce Park
Lid[ Distribution
Mebane - NC
80 full time
Jul -15
$125
90
850,000
Center
Commerce Park
120 hourly
Aug -16
Prescient
Mebane - NC
$18.8
205
20
135,000
Commerce Park
Nov -16
Lotus Bakeries
Mebane - NC
$50
60
20
160,000
Industrial Center
Nov -17
Airgas
Mebane - NC
$47
35
10
Industrial Center
Totals
$392.8
1,304
370
1.845 Million SF
Project Sky: Project Sky, currently an active project as of the date of this report, is a large grocery
distribution center project that represents a $328 million investment with 1,100 jobs at an annual average
wage of $41,000 per year. The project has not been announced, however, as of the date of this report
Orange County has had four (4) site visits to the County and the Board has met in closed session to pre-
authorize local incentives.
When you combine these opportunities with the current Project Sky Distribution Center, then Orange
County has missed out on approximately $2.0 to $2.3 billion of opportunities with the potential for over
4,800 jobs to be created.
Missed Opportunities from
2012-2017
Potential Investment
Potential Jobs
Manufacturing
$1.3 to $1.6 Billion
2,400 to 2,555
Distribution / Alamance
$393 Million
1,304
Project Sky
$328 million
1,100
Totals
$2.0 to $2.3 Billion
4,804 to 4,959
51 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Potential Annual Tax Revenue
HAICarolantic Fealty
..d 14..d r'Lt. tid..,.ia V, 11,1,116,
10
TIMMONS GROUP
These potential Economic Development investments can generate significant annual tax revenue for
Orange County. Below is a summary table based upon the 2017 Real Estate tax rate of $0.8377 per $100
real estate value, with a potential corresponding Capital Investment that could be made due to this potential
Annual Tax Revenue.
Real Estate Investment
Annual Tax Revenue
($0.8377 per $100)
Capital Investment
(20 yrs @ 4 %)
$100,000,000
$837,700
$11,520,000
$200,000,000
$1, 675,400
$23,040,000
$300,000,000
$2,513,100
$34,560,000
$400,000,000
$3,350,800
$46,080,000
$500,000,000
$4,188,500
$57,600,000
$600,000,000
$5,026,200
$69,120,000
$700,000,000
$5,863,900
$80,640,000
$800,000,000
$6,701,600
$92,160,000
$900,000,000
$7,539,300
$103,680,000
$1,000,000,000
$8,377,000
$115,200,000
Water & Sewer Capacity Relative to Target Industries
As we evaluated the utility infrastructure serving these sites, we identified very limited water and sewer
capacity. In addition, the Buckhorn CITAN and EDD were being served by City of Mebane utilities, which
also serves Alamance County. Below is a summary table with the available capacities:
61 Page
2016 Avg. Daily
Water Available
Water
Water Capacity
Sewer
Existing Sewer
EDD or CITAN
Provider
(MGD) 1
Water Demand
to the Site
Provider
Capacity (GPD) 1
(MGD) 1
(GPD)
Buckhorn EDD
Mebane
6
1.58
200,000
Mebane
250,000
100,000
Eno EDD
Durham
37.9
27.7
1,000,000
Durham
(Avail. Oct 2019)
108,000
Hillsborough EDD
Hillsborough
3.09
1.47
200,000
Hillsborough
(Avail. Aug 2019)
Buckhorn CITAN
Mebane
6
1.58
200,000
Mebane
250,000
Orange
250,000
West Efland CITAN
2'05
0.6
0
Mebane
Alamance
(Avail. 2020)
Orange
250,000
East Efland CITAN
2.05
0.6
0
Mebane
Alamance
(Avail. Dec 2019)
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
3.09
1.47
200,000
Hillsborough
<200,000
CITAN
61 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
WiCarolantic Fealty
. A R,.J kh& tir.vea:. 4b:rNtr 4,
11
TIMMONS GROUP
Unfortunately, the current water & sewer infrastructure lines up with industrial projects that only use minimal
water, such as retail, office, commercial or logistics / distribution and there is a direct correlation to $ /SF
investment. Below is summary table with an equivalent size facility to Morinaga (categorically in the food &
beverage industry) which had a $48 million investment for a 120,000 SF facility (or $400 per SF investment)
and the corresponding investment for industries being targeted by Orange County, NC. The property next to
Morinaga can accommodate three (3) similar size facilities, or another 360,000 SF of Economic
Development "build- out ". As such, we estimated the potential annual tax revenue that could be generated
from the various industry types.
Industry Type
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
3.09
1.47
200,000
Hillsborough
<200,000
360,000
$54,000,000
CITAN
Yes
Logistics /Distribution
$200
360,000
$72,000,000
$603,144
Yes
Food & Beverage
US 70 / Cornelius
Hillsborough
1 3.09
1 1.47
1 200,000
1 Hillsborough
<200,000
360,000
Unfortunately, the current water & sewer infrastructure lines up with industrial projects that only use minimal
water, such as retail, office, commercial or logistics / distribution and there is a direct correlation to $ /SF
investment. Below is summary table with an equivalent size facility to Morinaga (categorically in the food &
beverage industry) which had a $48 million investment for a 120,000 SF facility (or $400 per SF investment)
and the corresponding investment for industries being targeted by Orange County, NC. The property next to
Morinaga can accommodate three (3) similar size facilities, or another 360,000 SF of Economic
Development "build- out ". As such, we estimated the potential annual tax revenue that could be generated
from the various industry types.
Industry Type
$ /SF
Investment
Facilities SF
Potential Investment
($ /SF x Facilities SF)
Potential Annual
Tax Revenue*
Existing W &S
Capacity?
Retail / Office / Commercial
$150
360,000
$54,000,000
$452,358
Yes
Logistics /Distribution
$200
360,000
$72,000,000
$603,144
Yes
Food & Beverage
$400
360,000
$144,000,000
$1,206,288
Marginal
Advanced Mfgr
$600
360,000
$216,000,000
$1,809,432
Marginal
IT /Data Center
$1,200
360,000
$432,000,000
$3,618,864
No
* Based upon $0.8377 per $100
Land Prices Relative to the Market:
Based upon market research completed by NAI, it appears that the land prices on a per acre bases listed in
Orange County are significantly higher than land prices in neighboring Alamance and Durham Counties.
Below is a summary for comparative purposes:
County
High
($ per Acre)
Low
($ per Acre)
Average
($ per Acre)
Average Relative to
Orange County
Orange
$85,000
$27,512
$51,681
Alamance
$51,563
$12,138
$33,809
Orange is 53% higher
Durham
$62,758
$23,056
$40,774
Orange is 27% higher
While Orange County does not have specific control over the listing prices for the property owners, it's
important to note that this is an item that will need to be addressed with property owners that the County will
help market for economic development purposes.
71 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
RAICarolantic Fealty
12
..0000
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
Based upon our team's analysis, we have developed the following Study Conclusions and
Recommendations for Orange County:
Study Conclusions:
1. Data Indicates Orange County has legitimate prospect activities and opportunities to close
significant deals and needs to align the sites and infrastructure with the market needs.
2. There is less developable acreage than originally anticipated in the EDD's and CITAN's.
3. Water & Sewer capacity is a major issue and impediment for recruiting high investment ($ per SF)
industries such as Food & Beverage, Manufacturing /Bio or IT /Data Centers.
4. Orange County has some legitimate properties that can be developed, however, the County needs
to be thinking beyond the existing CITAN's and EDD's (i.e. adjusting the CITAN / EDD boundaries
as well as water & sewer boundaries).
5. Economic Development opportunities can generate significant tax revenues to help pay for
Infrastructure, Schools and other key County Services in addition to creating "living wage" jobs.
6. Land pricing is an issue that needs to be addressed within the private development community.
Immediate Study Recommendations:
1. Enter discussions with Mebane to increase available water & sewer capacity within the current
agreement.
2. Have the Planning Department interact with the Economic Development Department on a regular
(monthly) basis and during infrastructure planning stages.
3. Work with the Towns and revisit Intergovernmental Agreements to make sure they are conducive to
the needs of Economic Development in today's market.
4. Approach property owners about willingness to sell key properties within the Buckhorn, Efland and
Hillsborough EDD's / CITAN's.
5. Align zoning in the CITAN's to be consistent with development
6. Prioritize development of the top sites in EDD's / CITAN's
a. Buckhorn CITAN: Property on Ben Wilson Road
b. Buckhorn EDD: Rohl / Collins Property, Flea Market Property, Clark Property
c. East Efland CITAN: 304 Mt Willing Road — Rezone to align with development goals
d. Hillsborough EDD: Approach property owner on NW quadrant of intersection of 1 -40 and Old
86 to gauge willingness to sell. Closely watch or monitor the (Sagefield Business Park)
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
NAfrolantic Fealty
13
..0006
• ! •
TIMMONS GROUP
development currently underway in the southwest quadrant of the EDD to identity potential
opportunities.
7. Complete necessary due diligence to achieve Tier 4 status on top sites.
a. Geotechnical, Wetland Delineations, Topographic & ALTA Boundary Surveys, etc.
BUDGET. Site dependent but generally $1,000 to $1,500 per acre with Infrastructure already
in place (significantly increases the value of the property on a per acre basis)
8. Consider adjusting boundaries of EDD's and CITAN's and the Water & Sewer Districts to include
large tracts adjacent to these districts with low cost of development (minimal utility extensions, etc.).
BUDGET: $10,000 to $15,000 consultant time to evaluate parcels as well as Staff Time
Overall Study Recommendations
1. Complete a countywide water & sewer study to identify options to increase water & sewer
capacities. BUDGET $75,000 to $100,000
2. Complete a GIS Site Selection Study to identify sites with greatest development potential near or
adjacent to development corridors. BUDGET $15,000 to $25,000
3. Consider gaining "control" of properties (i.e. option agreements) with high development potential.
These sites would be identified with the GIS Site Selection Study. BUDGET: Generally $100 to
$200 per acre for options, however, property specific
4. Consider advantages of developing "Ready to Go" product. Could form a Public- Private Partnership
to accomplish this task.
a. Shovel / Pad Ready Sites
b. Spec Buildings
BUDGET: Site and Building dependent, but generally $50 to $100 per SF for Spec Buildings
and $50,000 to $100,000 per acre for Shovel /Pad Ready Sites
5. Reinitiate discussions and explore developing a research park with UNC- Chapel Hill and taking
advantage of the research and entrepreneurial culture of the Research Triangle Park (RTP)
91 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
RAICarolantic Fealty
14
..0000
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
As the County continues advancing its Economic Development initiatives, we wanted to note the following
items that would further enhance the County's position in the marketplace:
Other Considerations
1. The County should re- evaluate and potentially reallocate funds for existing water and sewer projects
that appear to have minimal ROL
2. Evaluate and enhance the "express" review process to make sure it is consistent with "fast- track"
permitting in the site selection market.
3. Pursue grant opportunities for the County's top sites. This will require obtaining property "control" in
order to obtain grants from the following entities:
a. Gold Leaf
b. Duke Energy Site Readiness Program
4. Evaluate underdeveloped interchanges in the county (Exit 263 & 266 in particular).
5. Consider changing the names of the EDD's and CITAN's to "Economic Development Corridors"
such as to reduce confusion in the industry.
Acknowledgements
The Timmons Group, Britt Nance and NAI team would like to thank and recognize the contribution of the
following individuals towards the development of this Economic Development Study. It has been an honor
and privilege working with the Orange County Economic Development Staff, Economic Development
Advisory Board and Board of Commissioners to complete this study. Our team looks forward to assisting
the County as they move forward with implementation of their Economic Development vision for Orange
County.
In particular, our team would like to thank the following Orange County staff members for their input into our
report as well as the County Commissioners and the Economic Development Advisory Board:
Orange County Commissioners
• Mark Dorosin, Chair
• Penny Rich, Vice -Chair
• Mia Day Burroughs
• Barry Jacobs
• Mark Marcoplos
• Earl McKee
• Renee Price
10 1 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Economic Development Advisory Board
• Jim Kitchen, Chair
• Paige Zinn, Vice -Chair
• Mark N. O'Neal, Secretary
• John Anderson
• Delores Bailey
• D.R. Bryan
• Anthony Carey
• Keith Coleman
• Sharon Hill
• James Watts
Orange County Staff
NAfrolantic Fealty
.I 1.1d,, tia.u;i.,. VO AJaH ,
• Travis Myren, Orange County Deputy County Manager
• Steve Brantley, Director — Orange County Economic Development
• Amanda Garner, Business Recruitment Economic Developer
• Mike Ortosky, Agriculture Economic Developer
• Yvonne Scarlett, Business Retention Economic Developer
• Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director
Proiect Team
15
. •••''•0
• ! •
TIMMONS GROUP
The Timmons Group, Britt Nance Collaborative and NAI team consisted of the following professionals:
• Lee Anne Nance, Principal, Britt Nance Collaborative
• Bob Lewis, CCIM, SIOR, Broker, NAI
• Mike Solomon, PE, NC Economic Development Director, Timmons Group
• Blake Hall, PE, PLA, LEED AP, Principal - Project Manager, Timmons Group
• Joe Hines, PE, MBA, Principal — Director of Economic Development, Timmons Group
Limitation of Liabilit
Timmons Group, Britt Nance Collaborative and NAI have provided the best advice and utilized best
professional judgment based upon the available information provided by Orange County for this study and
report. As such, should there be any significant changes to the information, our team will be glad to re-
evaluate the information and update our recommendations accordingly.
111 Page
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
IVAICarolantic Fealty
.I 14'e" V" 11,1,116,
STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH SPECIFIC EDD AND CITAN
Buckhorn EDD
16
..0000
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
• Work with Flea Market property owner on land price vs comparable land sales
• Complete due diligence items for available properties
• Work with the City of Mebane to increase water and sewer capacity availability
Hillsborough EDD
• Meet with land owner for property on northwest quadrant to determine willingness to sell
• Extend sewer south of Interstate 40
• Complete Due Diligence items such in order to achieve Tier 4 status
Eno EDD
• Investigate willingness of key property owners to sell large tracts on western side of district,
properties leased to PSNC and former driving range. Although these do not have sewer, long term
goals show providing sewer to this area.
• Look at reducing size of the EDD to minimize residential
• Work to develop option to make the US 70 /1-85 interchange more user friendly
Buckhorn CITAN
• Work to rezone parcels to protect them from development that is not in the best interest of Orange
County and Economic Development staff.
• Secure the land south of Morinaga to prevent from residential development.
• Look to expand water and sewer boundary in the agreement and extend water and sewer boundary
south of Bowman Road
• Look for opportunities to extend water service within the district.
West Efland CITAN
• Study options to provide transportation access to sites in the CITAN north of 1 -40 and 1 -85
• Determine feasibility of providing rail service to the sites within the CITAN
• Complete a wetlands delineation with US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) confirmation to
determine if streams and buffers are correct.
• If the above can be accommodated look to extend sewer service to the properties.
East Efland CITAN
• Work to provide access from Exit 160 at Ben Johnson Road to extend to the large pod to the west.
• Work with Orange- Alamance Water to expand water availability and service for new users in the
area
• Complete due diligence for Tier 4 status for the largest developable properties
• Look into options to support one large user (may require relocation new sewer)
12 1 Page
17
_.� • � ..0006 0
ORANGE COUNTY VAICarolan�ic Fealty •�•
NTY :.
NORTH CAROLINA T I M M O N S GROUP
Hillsborough CITAN
• Look for site options to expand the existing facilities should Piedmont Electrical Membership
Cooperative (PEMC) want to remain on site
• On the smaller 4 acre parcel to the north, work with residents to determine willingness to sell. This
is a small parcel with heavy environmental constraints that will make this site challenging for
development.
Cornelius
• Look to market vacant properties for redevelopment
• Improve aesthetics within the district.
• Add sidewalks and bus shelters at bus stops
• Improve main intersections
• Focus on creating pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to Cornelius Street
• Look for grant opportunities for redevelopment
131 Page
W-
APPROVED 2/20/2018
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT
Maple View Agricultural Center
January 26, 2018
9:00 a.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for their annual Board retreat on Friday,
January 26, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the Maple View Agricultural Center in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Mark Dorosin and Commissioners Mia
Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker.
FACILITATOR: Andy Sachs, Dispute Settlement Center
Resource Persons: Kevin Knutson, Regional Vice President, and Francine Ramaglia, Senior
Manager, Management Partners; Joe Hines and Blake Hall, Timmons Group.
Observers — Department Directors and members of the public and news media
Desired Outcomes
• Greater awareness of the impact of any new policies, programs, and projects upon the
County's budget and tax rate.
• Priorities for the County's FY18 -19 budget.
• Updated view of the potential and design challenges related to Orange County's Economic
Development Districts and Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes.
• Prioritized strategies for realizing the potential of our EDDs and CITANs.
9:00 Convene
Commissioner Dorosin welcomed the attendees. He invited the County staff to raise questions
and participate in today's conversation.
Commissioner Rich asked to comment on the Board's January 23, 2018 meeting. The meeting
lasted past midnight. She thanked the Chair for leading a good meeting. Following up on a
suggestion by Commissioner Marcoplos, she said that Board members should feel free to take
a stretch during lengthy meetings. She thanked everyone for staying engaged in the meeting,
including County staff and members of the public. We moved the needle forward on every single
topic on the agenda, she said. Commissioner Price said it was a good meeting with good
agenda items, but it was unfair that people had to sit through such a long meeting or wait for so
long to get to the podium, especially those who came from out of town. I would prefer to
continue to another time a meeting that is going over time rather extending it for so long, she
said.
19
22
Commissioner Dorosin said that the message should not be depressing, about scarcity. We
should emphasize some of the positive things we are doing around affordable housing,
around FSA, around the things the bond is allowing us to do at Chapel Hill High and for
housing. We are careful and responsible stewards of the public's monies, and from that
stewardship we are accomplishing great things for our residents. Ms. Hammersley added
that this is a manageable situation. It is not "slash and burn;" it will help us to be even more
creative at finding better ways together to meet our residents' needs. Commissioner Dorosin
added that the long term picture looks especially good.
1:45 Stretch Break
2:00 Economic Development Districts
After a short break, Jim Kitchen, Chair of the County's Economic Development Advisory Board,
introduced Joe Hines and Blake Hall of the Timmons Group. Timmons Group presented on the
Economic Development Site - Related SWOT Analysis that they had conducted (PPT):
SWOT ANALYSIS
Overview
❑ Why is Economic Development
Important to the County
❑ Background Review
❑ Study Findings
❑ Study Recommendations
❑ Wrap-up discussion
Why do you need Economic Development?
❑ Creates hiving Wage" Jobs & Opportunity for ALL your citizens (blue collar and white collar
jobs)
❑ Local tax revenue from Real Estate and Machinery &Tools
❑ State tax revenue from Employee Wages & State Income Tax
❑ Helps build resourcesfor your locality and state
❑ Creates wealth within your community
❑ Social Justice- allows you to build schools, pay for healthcare and other social programs as
well as help set up training programs for your citizens
Where Orange County stands today....
❑Lacking "Ready to Go" Sites and Buildings
❑ Not as much developable property as we thought once you place constraints on the
properties & remove inhabited properties
❑ Ever increasing competitive market with shorter and shorter timelines for decisions tobe
made (i.e. Need diverse "Ready to Go" Product)
❑ Properties are overpriced compared to adjacent localities(Alamance)
❑ Lacking water & sewer capacity (gallons per day) in districts
❑ Missing out on opportunities for Prospects due to lack of Sites andBuildings as well as
inadequate water & sewer capacities
Desired Outcomes of Study
❑ More balanced" Residential vs. NonmResidential Split of Tax Revenues
❑ Try to accomplish 70/30 Split Countywide
20
23
❑ Create Living Wage Jobs for existing residents
❑ Preseive Uniqueness & Culture of Orange County
❑ Economic Development outcomes should be a major consideration for infrastructure
investments
❑ Better coordination with other County Departments and Utility Systems (i.e. Planning, Utilities,
etc.)
The Big Picture
❑ Economic Development Partnership of NC and North Carolina is moving up the business
rankings
❑ Need to align your sites &infrastructure with the market
❑ It takes time and resource (financial and political) to commit to a longterm Economic
Development Strategy
❑ Orange County appears to be at the intersection of Commerce andTrade with 1 -40 and 1 -85
merger
❑ We're bullish on the future of Orange County
❑ Now is the time to align your resources and commit to make your own future"
❑ Economic Development is getting increasingly competitive
Site Selection Magazine
Site Selectors' Top Location Criteria
1 Existing Workforce Skills Strong
2 State and local tax scheme Marginal to Competitor Localities
3 Transportation Infrastructure Strong
4 Utility Infrastructure Lacking / Needs Improvement
5 Land / Building prices & supply Marginal / High
6 Ease of permitting & regulatory procedures Marginal
7 Flexibility of Incentive Programs Neutral
8 Right -to -work State Strong
9 Availability of incentives Neutral
10 Access to higher education resources Strong
How fast are prospects moving?
$4.93 billion investment & over 14,000 jobs
2014 — Boeing announced $1.1 billion & 2,000 add7 jobs
Orange County — Unique Assets & Opportunities
m Two Interstates: -185 and 1 -40 Merge
m UNC Chapel Hill & Durham Technical Community College
E1[--1 Adjacent to Research Triangle Park
E1[--1 RDU and GS International Airports
m On the cusp of RTP and Piedmont Triad
mDiverse Culture &Millennial Coolness'Factor
m Rural Character with Urban Access / AmenitiesActs as a "Gateway" for Northeast US
(via 1 -85) and Eastern NC (via 1 -40) to Western NC and Southeastern US
Orange County — Southeastern US
Access to markets via 1 -40, 1 -85 & 1 -95
• Map
21
24
Orange County — Regional Perspective
• Map
Orange County — 2015 NCDOT Interstate Traffic Counts
• Map
Orange County vs. Rest of NC Comparative Traffic Counts
County (City) Interstate
Durham (Durham) 1 -85
1 -40
Wake (Raleigh)
1 -40
Alamance (Burlington)
1 -40 & 1 -85
Guilford (Greensboro) 1 -40
& 1 -85
Mecklenburg (Charlotte)
1 -85
1 -77 74,000 to 182,000
Forsyth (Winston - Salem)
1 -40
1 -40 Bus
Orange
1 -40
1 -85
1 -40 & 1 -85
2015 NCDOT Traffic Counts
46,000 to 96,000
90,000 to 181,000
104,000 to 167,000
111,000 to 123,000
69,000 to 135,000
108,000 to 178,000
52,000 to 103,000
50,000 to 77,000
58, 000 to 73, 000
43, 000 to 47, 000
98, 000 to 103, 000
Natural Opportunities - 8 Interstate Interchanges within the CITAN's and EDD's
• Map
Opportunity Costs — Does Water &Sewer Matter? What Mfgr Opportunities has Orange missed
out on...
• Graph
Opportunity Costs? What has Orange County lost out on to Alamance
• Graph
Project Sky — Large Grocery Distribution Center
❑ $328 Million Investment
❑ 1,100 jobs
❑ $41,000 / yr ( riving Wage" Jobs)
❑ Orange County Submitted
❑ 4 site visits to Buckhorn Road Sites
❑ Met in closed session to pre- authorize local incentives
❑ TBD where they will locate -- •.
What has Orange County had a legitimate shot to win?
Opportunities from2012 — 2017 Potential Investment
Jobs
Manufacturing
to 2,555
Distribution / Alamance
Project Sky
Totals
$1.3 to $1.6 Billion
$393 Million
$328 million
$2.0 to $2.3 Billion
Potential
2,400
1,304
1,100
4,804 to 4,959
WA
25
Water & Sewer Capacities for EDD's / CITAN's
• Graph
METHODOLOGY FOR SITE ANALYSIS
❑ Sites Analysis
❑ For Sale /Vacant
El Less than 5 Acres / Residential (excluded from developable area)
❑ Greater than 5 Acreswith structures on land (excluded need to approach land owners)
Environmental / Physical Constraints
❑ Streams, Buffers
❑ Easements
❑ Topography
❑ Wetlands, Floodplains
Jurisdictional
❑ Impervious limitations
❑ Landscape Buffers
❑ Building setbacks
❑ Zonirg
❑ Highway overlay buffer
Additional Considerations
❑ Adjacent land use
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Engineering Judgement
Buckhorn CITAN — Case Study
• Map
Eno CITAN- Case Study
• map
Overall Summary — Developable Acres- graph
Totals 549 3,010 615 2,396
ACTUAL Developable Acreage of PODs = 668 Acres or 22%
* Assumes no property constraints, structures, setbacks or parcel boundaries
Overall Summary — Developable Acres
Total County Acreage — 272,546 Acres
EDD's
Acreage within EDD's — 2,379 Acres
GIS Acreage (Excluding R/W) — 1,856 Acres
Available & Vacant Lands — 832 Acres
Developable Pods - 454 Acres - 0.17% of Total land in County
CITAN's
Acreage within CITAN's — 1,494 Acres
GIS Acreage (Excluding R/W) — 1,154 Acres
Available & Vacant Lands — 495 Acres
Developable Pods - 214 Acres - 0.08% of Total land in County
Industrial Investment & Trends- graph
❑ Morinaga: $48 Million for 120,000 SF ($400 per SF)
❑ Water & Sewer Requirements: 40,000 GPD
❑ Site Size: 21 acres
❑ Adjacent Parcel: 55 acres
❑ Potential Build -out: 360,000 SF (3 Morinaga's)
23
26
What can Economic Development afford the County? A realistic scenario... graph
Real Estate Tax Rate: $0.8377 per $100
Key Take Aways
❑ Data Indicates Orange County has Legitimate Prospect Activities and Opportunities to close
deals
❑ There is less developable acreage than originally anticipated in the EDD's and CITAN's
❑ Water & Sewer capacity is an issue for recruiting high $$ per SF industries (Food &
Beverage, Manufacturing /Bio, IT /Data Centers)
❑ Orange County has some legitimate properties that can be developed, however, the County
needs to be thinking beyond the existing CITAN's and EDD's
❑ Economic Development opportunities can generate significant tax revenues to help pay for
Infrastructure, Schools and other key County
Services in addition to creating "living wage" jobs
Other factors to consider...
❑ Curb Appeal & Compatible uses are factors
❑ Ease of access to Interstates &Turning Movements
❑ Residential Development &Potential Traffic Patterns
Land Prices Revisited
Alamance County — Comparable Land Sales- graph
Land Prices Revisited
Durham County — Comparable Land Sales- graph
Current Listings on Real Estate Market Alamance County (as of Dec 31, 2017) -graph
• Average Price Per Acre= $33,809
Current Listings on Real Estate Market Durham County (As of Dec 31, 2017) -graph
• Average Price Per Acre= $40,744
Current Listings on Real Estate Market Orange County (As of Dec 31, 2017)
• Average Price Per Acre= $51,681
Relative Comparison of Real Estate Pricing
Relative Comparison of Real Estate Pricing
County
Buckhorn EDD — Optimistic Build Out 3.1 M SF
Why are projects NOT locating here?
• Adjacent Residential Development
• Adjacent to Schools / Soccer Fields
• Limited access due to rail on north side of interstate
• Lack of Water & Sewer
• Land costs significantly higher than competing sites in adjacent locals
Immediate Recommendations
❑ Enter discussions with Mebane to increase capacity within water & sewer agreement
❑ Have Planning Department interact with the Economic De ve lopme nt Department on a regular
(monthly) basis and during infrastructure planning stages.
❑ Work with the Towns &revisit intergovernmental agreements to make sure they are
conducive to the needs of Economic Development
❑ Approach property owners about willingness to sell their properties within the Buckhorn,
Efland and Hillsborough EDD's / CITAN's
ME
27
Prioritize development of the top sites in EDD's / CITAN's
❑ Buckhorn CITAN: Property on Ben Wilson Road
❑ Buckhorn EDD: Rohl / Collins Property, Flea Market Property, Clark Property
❑ East Efland CITAN: 304 Mt Willing Road— Rezone to align with development goals
❑ Hillsborough EDD: approach property owner on NW quadrant of intersection of 140 and Old
86 to gage willingness to sell. Continue activity at southwest quadrant.
Immediate Recommendations
Complete necessary due diligence to achieve Tier 4 status on top sites.
❑ Geotechnical, Wetland Delineations, Topographic &ALTABoundary Surveys, etc.
Tier 4 is considered "Certifiable" status and has eliminated any UNKNOWNS or
RISKS regarding site or infrastructure development that could negatively impact timeline for
development. Generally 9 -12 months of development timeline.
BUDGET: Site dependent but generally $1,000 to $1,500 per Acre with infrastructure
already in place (significantly increases value of property on a per acre basis)
Immediate Recommendations
❑ Align zoning within CITAN's and EDD's to be consistent with preferred development goals
Immediate Recommendations
Consider adjusting boundaries of EDD's /CITAN's AND Water & Sewer Districts to include large
tracts adjacent to these districts with low cost of development (utility extensions, etc.).
Significant property within the EDD's and CITAN's have been lost to Non or Minimal Tax Paying
entities such schools, soccer fields, solar farms, etc. In order to potentially gain that area back
there may be opportunities to expand or redraw the boundaries of the EDD's and or
CITAN's. There are a few larger tracts with minimal environmental impacts located near or
adjacent to the existing EDD's/CITAN's that could be explored; however this may mean
adjusting the water sewer agreements.
BUDGET: $10,000 to $15,000 in Consultant time to evaluate parcels as well as Staff Time
Thinking outside the EDD's and CITAN's - Buckhorn CITAN — Example Parcels- MAP
Study Recommendations
Complete a countywide water and sewer study to identify options to increase water and sewer
capacities.
A countywide water and sewer study would identify opportunities to increase and expand water
and sewer capacities within each service area. A full study would help the County to better
understand the limiting factors and what the cost and timelines are needed to increase the
availability. The ED staff is losing opportunities regularly based on not being able to meet the
demands for water and /or sewer.
This needs to be completed on behalf of the County, and not the jurisdictions or authorities who
own and manage the water & sewer systems.
BUDGET $75,000 to $100,000
Study Recommendations
Complete a GIS Site Selection Study to identify sites with greatest development potential near
or adjacent to development corridors.
A GIS site selection study is a non -bias computer based site selection study that can look over
all parcels within a county or selected area to determine developability based on selection
criteria defined. For example, if the parameters were to identify all parcels with XX acres of
25
4 H.11
developable acres adjacent to rail within XX miles of the interstate, queries would be run to find
the best parcels available. Once the data is assembled running queries can be run quickly.
BUDGET $15,000 to $25,000
Study Recommendations
Consider advantages of developing "Ready to Go" product. Could form a public - private
partnership.
❑ Shovel /Pad Ready Sites
❑ SpecBuildings
Approximately 60 -70% of inquiries come in for Shovel / Pad Ready Sites and /or Existing
Buildings. Shovel ready and speculative building has some risk based on the financial
investment needed to develop sites; however, it is best way to reduce development timelines
and has proven to be a successful model in other locations throughout the state.
BUDGET: $50 to $100 per SF for Spec Buildings (including site work)
$50,000 to $100,000 per acre for Shovel /Pad Ready Sites
Study Recommendations
Consider gaining "control" of properties (i.e. option agreements) with high development
potential. These sites would be identified with the GIS Site Selection Study.
Approximately 60 -70% of inquiries come in for Shovel / Pad Ready Sites and /or Existing
Buildings. Shovel ready and speculative building has some risk based on the financial
investment needed to develop sites; however, it is best way to reduce development timelines
and has proven to be a successful model in other locations throughout the state.
BUDGET: $100 to $200 per acre for options
Study Recommendations
Reinitiate Discussions & explore developing a research park with UNC Chapel
Hill and taking advantage of the research and entrepreneurial culture of the Research Triangle
Park (RTP).
Developing a relationship with UNC and developing a common goal to create a research park
could be an easy step to help the County and University attract talent and industry to the region
similar to other Universities throughout the Country.
BUDGET: Staff Time
Comparable University Parks- graph
Other Considerations
❑ Re- evaluate and potentially reallocate funds for existing water and sewer projects that appear
to have minimal ROI.
❑ Evaluate and enhance the express "review process to make sure it is consttent with "fast -
track" permitting in the site selection market.
❑ Pursue grant opportunities for top sites (this will most likely require property cbntrol').
❑ Gold Leaf
❑ Duke Energy Site Readiness Program
❑ Evaluate underdeveloped interchanges in the county (Exit 263 & 266 in particular).
Recommendation Per Area
Buckhorn EDD
❑ Work with Flea Market property owner on land price vs comps
❑ Complete due diligence items for available properties
❑ Work with the City of Mebane to increase water and sewer availability
Hillsborough EDD
M
29
❑ Meet with land owner for property on northwest quadrant to gage willingness to sell
❑ Extend sewer south of interstate 40
❑ Complete Due Diligence items such as environmental investigation
Recommendation Per Area
Eno EDD
❑Investigate willingness to sell large tracts on western side of district,
(potential rail sites, although these do not have sewer, long term goals show
providing sewer to this area).
❑ Look at reducing size of district to minimize residential
❑ Work to deNelop option to make the 70/85 interchange more user friendly Buckhorn CITAN
❑ Work to rezone parcels to protect them from development that is not in the best interest of
Orange County and Economic Development staff.
❑ Secure the land south of Morinaga to Frevent from residential development.
❑ Look to expand water and sewer boundary agreement and extend boundary south of
Bowman Road
❑ Look for opportunities to extend water service within the district.
Recommendation Per Area
West Efland CITAN
❑ Study options to provide access to site
❑ Review site to determine if rail service is possible
❑ Complete an environmental investigation to determine if streams and buffers are correct.
❑ If the above can be accommodated look to extend sewer service to the properties.
East Efland
❑ Work to provide access from exit 160 at Ben Johnson Road to extend to the large pod to the
west.
❑ Work with Orange - Alamance water to expand serviceability for new users in the area
❑ Complete environmental assessments for the largest deve0pable property
❑ Look into options to support one large user (may require relocation new sewer)
Recommendation Per Area
Hillsborough CITAN
❑ Look for site options to expand the existing facilities should the existing user want to remain
on site
❑ On the smaller site to the north, work with residents to see willingness to sell although this is
a small parcel with heavy environmental constrains make this site challenging for development.
Cornelius
❑ Look to market vacant properties for redevelopment
❑Improve aesthetics within the district.
❑ Add sidewalks and bus shelters at bus stops
❑ Improve main intersections
❑ Focus on creating pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to Cornelius Street
❑ Look for grant opportunities for redevelopment
A Site Selector's Perspective
Additional Consultant Recommendations
❑ Regional Cooperation and Collaboration is a Major Key to Economic Development Success.
❑ Abandon the EDD & CITAN names— confusing to the Site Selection professionals relative to
other localities. Label them "Economic Development Corridors" or "Development Corridors"
WA
30
❑ Look at developing supplier / logistics parks for OEM's and other manufacturing companies.
Orange County has a tremendous opportunity given the logistics network in place with 1 -40 & I-
85 and proximity to RTP & Research Universities
❑ More swiftly implement Article 46 Funds for infrastructure related projects.
Study Conclusions
❑ Lacking beady to Go" Product
❑ Not as much developable property as we thought once you place constrains on the
properties & remove inhabited properties
❑ Ever increasing competitive market with shorter and shorter timelines for decisions to be
made (i.e. Need diverse "Ready to Go" Product)
❑ Properties are overpriced compared to adjacent localities(Alamance)
❑ Lacking water & sewer capacity in districts
❑ Missing out on opportunities for Prospects due to lack of product & inadequate water & sewer
capacities
In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Hall explained that vacant properties
were included in the site selection methodology regardless of whether the properties were for
sale; properties greater than five acres with housing structures on them were not included.
In reply to a question about living wages from Commissioner Marcoplos, Mr. Hines said that the
County's first step is to have a product, a suitable parcel with water and sewer available. That
way the County would be in the position to say No to undesirable prospects as opposed to the
prospects rejecting the County. Once the County has suitors, it can be more selective, for
example by using living wages as a criterion, he said.
Commissioner Jacobs said he has a mixed reaction to the report. For the most part what you
are describing is positive and hopeful, he said. I think we can address most of the concerns that
Timmons Group has raised. But it reads as though it does not understand Orange County's land
use plan, its environmental ethics, some of the reasons why we have done what we have done.
For example, siting a school in an EDD was the only way we were able to extend water and
sewer to the EDD at that time. Instead of looking at that as a negative, you should understand
that the school was how we got water and sewer to the area. Second, the two Interstate
interchanges you recommend for development are in the Rural Buffer, which for 25 years and
as an essential component of our land use plan is not to have water and sewer extension. Third,
you should not be referring to a countywide water and sewer plan; I think you mean a water and
sewer plan that is inclusive of the development corridor. We have watersheds into which we
decided 35 years not to extend water and sewer. Some of this just feels like boiler plate.
The other ideas — trying to get property ready for sale and trying to have property pre -zoned —
may be worth exploring, he said, although we just approved a development on a property that
was pre -zoned and the neighbors did not understand; we would need to accompany this
approach with a public education process.
Steve Brantley, Director of Economic Development for the County, said the county has some
theoretically developable properties, but they are disbursed across buffers, utility lines, streams,
homes, and properties that are not for sale. We don't see a lot of projects looking for one acre
sites, he said, and there are not a lot of one -acre sites contiguous to each other that can be
combined to support a larger footprint. The average site per acre of developable properties is
quite low, he said.
31
In reply to a question from Commissioner McKee, Mr. Hines said the limited availability of water
and sewer is most significant factor is making the County's EDDs unattractive.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Hall said if there was not a sufficient supply
of willing land owners within an EDD then the availability of willing land owners adjacent to an
EDD might open up new opportunities.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Hines said that "legacy issues" were factors
in the ability of the Planning and Economic Development Departments to collaborate. We want
to ensure that both departments are on the same page, he said. He referred to a transportation
study conducted by Planning that had not engaged Economic Development. A collaboration gap
exists between Orange County and Hillsborough as well, said Mr. Hall.
Commissioner Marcoplos suggested that the Board revisit the Eno EDD during a future work
session. We might no longer be looking at that area in the same way as we did 30 years ago, he
said. Perhaps some modifications are in order. There are a lot of residents near there, sensitive
environmental areas, a blighted Scottish Inn property which I can't imagine much better
replacing right now, and uncertainties about water and sewer. Maybe at that work session or
another time the Board can talk about boundary adjustment for the Buckhorn EDD.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Hines clarified that sewer service is an
even greater constraint than water supply. There is a limit on capacity now, and a further limit
imposed by the cost of providing that capacity, he said. If Mebane is going to spend $20M
upgrading its treatment capacity, for example, is Orange County going to pay for a proportion of
that cost in order to gain access to a proportion of that capacity? In addition, there are costs
associated with extending the water and sewer systems to the properties. Commissioner
Dorosin then asked f would make more sense to raise the profile of properties where there
already is water and sewer, beyond the EDDs.
Commissioner Dorosin wondered how realistic it is to think in terms of "getting another
Morinaga." Perhaps we're not competitive for developments like that, and instead should be
more strategic about realigning our approach to another model. Mr. Hines said that it would be
smart to prepare for the next Morinaga — at least to know the costs of water and sewer
extensions to likely sites -- so that when it appears the County is positioned to act. You won't
have time to act when the opportunity shows up. You need 12 months or less to extend the
utilities.
Commissioner Jacobs said that during negotiations with Mebane about the Buckhorn EDD, the
City opposed future water and sewer extension below NC -10. If Timmons is recommending that
kind of expansion, then the implementation is going to be much more complicated than
Timmons appears to appreciate.
Commissioner Jacobs said that Duke University might be interested in a research campus at
the Eno EDD. It's so expensive to bring water and sewer to that area that we will need a
partner, and the only partners possible are Duke and Durham. We tend to be focused on
Carolina, but Duke is Orange County's largest property owner.
Commissioner Jacobs said that "big game hunting" needs to fit into a larger economic
development strategy. Part of that is, how much are we willing to invest in a framework for "big
game hunting." We never have had that conversation. It would be good to have numbers to
inform us on what that would mean. Settlers Point was already zoned, but people still were very
4TJ
32
unhappy that we were changing the way in which that property is going to be used. We should
not speak lightly about changing the borders of an EDD without doing a lot of outreach in
advance with the public. People here have a more aggressive attitude than elsewhere in the
state about how they want to be treated with regard to their land. I felt reading the report that
Timmons was doing what it was supposed to do, but that it was not as tuned to local conditions
as we are.
Commissioner Burroughs said she was struck this morning by the immediate impact the
Wegman's project has on the Orange County budget. "Big game hunting" can make a difference
on the budget, on the quality of life in Orange County, on taxes, and on the resources we have
available to do what we want to do.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Burroughs, Mr. Hall explained that sewer service
already exists on NC -10. In order to make the 95 acres south of NC -10 next to the Buckhorn
EDD available, the water and sewer boundary needs to be updated, he said. Water would need
to be extended from the Morinaga site. Mr. Benedict added that the land use plan would need to
be changed in order for the water and sewer boundary to change. Commissioner Burroughs
said she thinks it is time to have a discussion about changing the water and sewer boundary in
that area; 35 years is a long time, she added. She also said she is open to another conversation
with Mebane. I don't want us to assume that what we have done in the past in what we will do in
the future. On a smaller note, she added, I'm open to eliminating the name "CITAN." Every time
I see it I have to look up what it means.
Commissioner Rich said that the Board needs to have a work session to follow -up from today's
discussion. I would like to learn at that work session how much we are paying to support our
economic development efforts, and what the payoff is from that investment. I've been on this
Board for six years, and other than Morinaga and Wegman's I've not seen the needle move
forward, she said. In addition, at the work session we need to discuss Article 46 funding, she
said. The Towns have been asking for Article 46 funding, but we tell them we cannot give any of
it to them because we are investing it into economic development infrastructure.
I also agree with my colleagues here who already have said that we can think much further
outside of the box. Lots of smaller development might be more fitting than another Morinaga,
for example. Another research campus such as Carolina North might not be an appropriate
model for us, she said; that effort fell apart. And let's be careful about referencing Amazon as
the kind of business we would want to attract. Amazon has destroyed Seattle. It gentrified the
City, chased away the artists and grunge community, took away its charm, and raised the cost
of living to a ridiculous level.
Finally, she said, Mebane has a $4M surplus because it is directing its non - residential
development to its Alamance side and its residential development into Orange. Commissioner
McKee said that Mebane is directing non - residential development into Alamance because the
timeframes and cost of development are lower in Alamance than they are in Orange.
Commissioner McKee said that the County's fiscal situation calls for an approach to economic
development that is optimistic, hard headed, and realistic. Some of the decisions might get us
unelected, but let's not do the same things over and over and expect different results; that's the
definition of insanity. We've been doing the same thing with EDDs for 30 years. It's only recently
that we have put water and sewer in Buckhorn. Only in the past few months has this Board
moved forward with a sewer system in Hillsborough. The Eno EDD is still "on the books," but I
don't have a clue as to what that means. There are sites across Old NC -10 from the Buckhorn
30
33
EDD that we won't touch, but we all say it needs to be included. Let's pick a number — a
thousand feet, two thousand feet — and draw a line. A couple of years ago, he said, we added
five words to the Unified Development Ordinance that almost eliminated development at every
intersection with 1 -40 in Orange County: "where sewer and water exist." Those words were
added on the fly. Those words eliminate the otherwise prime developable properties at the 1 -40
intersections with NC -86 and New Hope Church Road, because those areas are in the Rural
Buffer. I don't have an issue with the Rural Buffer, but I do have an issue with a conversation
dominated by "you cannot touch this." We have to revisit this sacrosanct attitude. We can use a
little common sense here.
We're not going to catch a lot of "big game," he said, but we caught one with Morinaga and
another with Wegman's. They will have an immediate impact. Maybe we need a lot more along
the scale of USA Dutch. I agree with that. I have no problem with all sizes. And they are paying
decent wages. It's disconcerting to me to hear phrases like "Orange County values" and
"Orange County vision." Orange County is gentrified. We are not a rural county. Chapel Hill is
not a village. Hillsborough is not a mill town. If we don't take a different path with our economic
development then we are going to become an elitist, gated community.
I want to know what my fellow Board members mean when they say we need to realign our
strategy, he said. Does that mean we walk away from what we have been doing? I hope that
means we need to go out to get everything we can get. Commissioner Rich said that to her it
means an inventory of what we already have and what we have not yet gotten, of thinking of
new ideas for what we are doing. What we're doing now — what we have been doing for 30
years -- is not working. We need to start thinking at a higher level than how we have been
thinking. Commissioner McKee said that we should not change our approach just because there
will be a backlash in the community. I don't want to impinge upon the established residential
community next to the Eno EDD, he said, but we can take an area out of Eno, put water and
sewer there, and support some development. We have to have the willpower to stand up to the
backlash that's coming, he said.
Commissioner Price said that the Board has tried to protect the existing residential community
next to the Eno EDD. We've tried to put transitional kinds of development across the street from
residential areas so people are not living across from a manufacturing plant. Any plans should
be flexible. We need to reassess areas that have been stagnant for 30 years and decide anew
what to do with these chunks of land.
Commissioner Price said she was not seeing anything in the Timmons study about incubators,
cottage industries, small technology, etc. Those are the kinds of projects Jim Kitchen has been
working on with people in Chapel Hill. She noted that some of the Article 46 funds are being
used for small businesses. But most of the Timmons report is about manufacturing. I find that
kind of narrow, she said. Mr. Hines replied that Timmons looked for the "game changers" - the
big components and opportunities being missed for the small sites in Orange County if you had
the appropriate water and sewer infrastructure in place. There are a lot of indirect benefits to the
kinds of development Commissioner Price is talking about, he said. But we saw you already
taking steps to implement those sorts of things and wanted to show you the kinds of things you
are missing out on. Commissioner Price said she thinks the incubators, cottage industries, and
small technology businesses do not have to be indirect players, but significant components of a
diverse economic ecosystem.
Mr. Hines said that while sub - economies can underlie a local economy, Orange County will not
attract the kind of development it needs if it does not solve the water and sewer infrastructure
31
34
issues Timmons is raising. We are aware that UNC -CH said no to that site, but times change,
people change, and there are too many of these university parks popping up around the country
to say that Orange County should not revisit that kind of development. American Underground
in downtown Durham is a phenomenal success story that contains Google and Apple and other
components. The business school at Duke University has an international footprint of over 60
countries that are alumni. I've had conversations with NC Commerce Secretary Copeland about
using that network as a path to attracting international companies to North Carolina. There is so
much here in the Triangle.
Commissioner Dorosin said that it would be relatively inexpensive for the County to address the
marginal rating identified on p. 7 in the Timmons report regarding "ease of permitting and
regulatory procedures." If there is other lower hanging fruit like that then I think we should
identify and address them, he said.
On the macro scale, he continued, I think a realigned economic development strategy means an
expansion of our options. If we have to do something different to make the EDDs successful,
then we have to determine what that is, such as extending water and sewer where we can, and
how much that costs, and then whether that cost is worth it. But I'm not sure it is worth it.
Wegman's is not in an EDD, it's in Chapel Hill. American Underground and Amazon want to be
close to a community and a downtown and things like that. I think we need to identify the most
valuable parcels in the County and focus on those. And where are the other opportunities?
There's the NC -54 study taking place that might identify potential in that corridor for commercial
development. There are issues associated with Old NC -86 we can discuss. I don't have the
answer, but I think there is a more comprehensive context to set before we agree to extend
water and sewer to these big parcels in order to better market them for economic development.
I worry that we might have over valued the highway as the greatest lure. I'm hearing that
Amazon wants an attractive social setting for its employees, where people can go to restaurants
and bars and cultural venues.
Commissioner McKee said that in the late 70's through to the early 2000's his perception of
"Orange County values" was that it was anti - business. We got behind our neighbors because of
that. Shopping centers located just beyond our borders would have provided millions of dollars
for us to use for parks and social services. I'm not interested in turning our intersections with I-
40 into Myrtle Beach. I am interested in determining whether a small foot print is available at the
Eno EDD that would not have a negative impact on the existing residential area, and in deciding
about whether to expand Buckhorn, and in looking elsewhere in the county including the Towns
for economic development. Wegman's wanted to be in town; I have no problem with supporting
the effort where ever it needs to be. But this Board is going to have to push forward.
Commissioner Marcoplos said that he used to imagine EDDs all built out. I now believe that's
not going to happen. Another way to look at this for the 21St century is to set a target of, say,
three larger businesses, to ask what kinds of businesses would have the impact we need in
terms of taxes and jobs, instead of trying to fill up all the EDDs. Then we can focus on those
while at the same time providing the kind of support needed by local businesses and some of
these other creative ideas. Then we might say, where is the land today that would generate the
most interest now among the kinds of two or three larger businesses we are interested in. Never
mind the lines they drew in the 80's when these EDDs were being created. That would help us
to shift our attention to the land that is going to get us where we want to go. Maybe we take the
east side of the Buckhorn district out, for rural land.
32
35
And if we got a minor league baseball team here, he added, we could call it the Orange County
Values.
Commissioner Jacobs said that no Board member has ever opposed the extension of water and
sewer to the EDDs. Some of us worked hard to change the perception of Orange County from
being anti - business, and to a large extent I think we have succeeded, he said.
I would like to define a holistic view of economic development for Orange County, he added.
"Big game" has to fit into a context. There is a broader mosaic that we're working on that
includes the arts, tourism, agricultural economic development, etc. We need a conversation
about how all these things fit together and how we want to use our resources.
In addition, he said, it is no small thing for the people who are affected for us to change the land
use plan and have an effect on properties that people live on. We must talk with the residents
adjacent to the Eno EDD, and have a public component to this conversation.
Finally, he said, I do believe there are untouchable places here. We don't want to be like Wake
County or Durham County, and we sure don't want to be like Alamance County. It doesn't even
have zoning. We want to look like Orange County ten years from now, and fifty years from now.
We're way ahead of those counties in a lot of respects. We should be talking about the things
we have that we are proud of, not what we lack. Instead of talking about our land values being
so high, let's talk about how beautiful our land is. That's where tourism comes from.
Mr. Brantley thanked the Board for devoting time at the retreat for discussing economic
development. I've been here for over six years, and this is the first time we have had this level of
discussion. Please recall, he said, that the SWOT analysis was not intended to be a county
economic development review. It is specific to the EDDs and CITANs, which necessarily comes
with an industrial and warehousing focus. Also please recall that Article 46 was passed in 2011
in order to create a funding mechanism for extending utilities to economic development districts.
Recall that the 2005 economic development plan set 2010 as the target for when all the EDDs
would have infrastructure. The County did not have the funding, or start the Phase 1 Efland-
Mebane sewer line until 2010 -11. It will be two years from now before the Hillsborough EDD line
is completed, before the Efland Phase 2 line is completed, and maybe before the Eno EDD is
completed. We have not been waiting 30 years for the EDDs to generate economic value,
because in truth they have had no zoning up until recent years, no incentives until 2011, no
marketing, and no utilities. Article 46 also created funding for small business. That includes
PFAP, Launch, the small loans and grants, and arts and tourism. We're not discussing those
areas. I was hired in 2011 to be the Big Game Hunter. It was specific to not only managing the
Department's overall functioning and budget and to include these other areas, but also for the
first time to try to layer in some larger businesses recruitment in which Orange County had been
deficient for decades. We were fortunate in 2013 to get Morinaga. Our office sees new
prospects knocking on the door on a daily basis. We've gone over six years from getting zero
inquiries to now having seventy to eighty qualified inquiries a year that could help us meet the
budget that would have us paying at or beyond the living wage, creating job opportunities,
slowing or reversing gentrification, especially among blue collar residents. We're at a point in
market interest now that we should have been at 25 or 30 years ago. I get impatient when I see
projects, like Lidl -- $110M- $150M, 200 -300 jobs -- that should be here but go somewhere else.
It could have been on one of our sites. We need to have utilities in place, and land that can have
houses on the sewer line paid for with Article 46 funds to serve Morinaga and other companies.
We do have some projects that max out our sewer capacity. The irony is that many of these
projects represent the tax base or the salaries at high levels that we want. We need to a have a
33
36
piece of Orange County economic development in addition to agriculture, tourism, and small
business, which we do well, focused on larger scale industrial recruiting. When we hit on that
regard we are going to be having a big win. When Morinaga announced here, they needed 90-
100 people; 900 people showed up at Durham Tech to apply for those jobs. In the first week of
February, I'm going to be meeting with two clients. One wants to put a hotel in one of our EDDs
and a large warehouse in another. The other has a 200 job, $20M project to make a medical
product. These are the kinds of projects that can fit here: we have the land, the sewer capacity,
the zoning, and the quality of life. So, that's what we should be focusing on in addition to all else
that we are doing. Let's not throw in the towel in terms of industrial recruiting at this level. Even
though we are not Alamance County, in the past three years they've announced 2,000 jobs and
a $1 B in investment. We can get a piece of that. RTP is east of us and Alamance to our west.
Chatham to the south of us has the new Chatham Park. We can't afford to be in a vacuum. We
have to be prepared to try to get what we want to attract.
Commissioner McKee said that the Board needs to have an honest conversation moving
forward. We will be walking into a buzz saw if we activate the Eno EDD, but we need to have
the conversation. I agree that there are Orange County values to uphold, he added. And I agree
that there are untouchable areas. I just don't think the land immediately to south of Old NC -10 is
untouchable.
Commissioner Rich said she is not ready to throw in the towel on "big game hunting." But none
of the current members other than Commissioners Jacobs and McKee were on the Board when
the Article 46 funds were designated for EDD infrastructure. I don't know why people from the
Towns did not speak up for those funds then, but it's a problem now when they ask for those
funds. I think that's wrong. There is economic development in the Towns that could be
encouraged with those funds. That's where businesses like Google want to be. I would like to
talk more about the Article 46 funds when we get back together to talk about economic
development.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he does not think it is all that risky to activate the Eno EDD.
While there may be a "buzz saw" on one side, somebody else will be handing us flowers. We'll
be thanked for expanding the tax base, for thinking about jobs, for making use of a district that
was set aside for economic development purposes.
Commissioner Price thanked Mr. Brantley for his remarks. She said she would be interested in
hearing from a university expert about the trends in entrepreneurship. I hear about young
people inventing things, starting businesses, and then moving from Orange County to expand.
Why aren't they remaining here when they expand? I want to hear about trends other than those
related to "big game hunting." I'm interested in economic development for the urban areas. Eric
Hallman has asked me why the County is not interested in this. I think Chapel Hill and Carrboro
would be interested in this as well. I also hear from people living near the Eno EDD: they are not
opposed to all development. They wouldn't mind a bank, for example. Or maybe drug store.
They just didn't want to see manufacturing. So we should continue to talk to people there.
Commissioner McKee said that he would be open to considering a proposal from the Towns to
use the Article 46 funds. If Wegman's had needed a sewer line, for example, then I would have
supported it, he said. Commissioner Jacobs said that it is only recently that Article 46 funds are
available. We told the towns that they would benefit from the tax revenues that would come from
the EDDs, and they supported our proposal to use Article 46 funds for the EDDs. We can
evaluate proposals from the towns on a case by case basis, but the philosophy is to use those
funds to catch up our capacity to support economic development in the EDDs by providing
34
37
infrastructure. If we want to change the formula, then also should be talking about our small
business loan program, which is not as active as I had thought it would be. Let's put all this in
the context of a larger economic development strategy.
3:45 Retreat Wrap Up
Last thoughts from each person at the table reflecting on the retreat, including what worked well,
what to consider doing differently in future retreats?
Each person at the table had the opportunity to share their last thoughts:
Commissioner Rich — I always get something good from our retreats. It is helpful to talk freely
and to learn. The room does not have good acoustics, so I don't think I would want to return to
this location. Otherwise a good day.
Commissioner Dorosin — I appreciate everyone's candor. I think it would be better to have more
engagement from staff, at least to have staff sitting closer so that it would be more conducive for
staff to participate. There was more presentation today than I would have wanted. I value the
back and fourth among us. I wonder if next year the presentations could be provided at a Board
meeting prior to the retreat or as material to review in advance. Resource people could be
available for questions, but not to present. I liked having the focus today on a single or two
related topics; these were the right topics to take up now. Finally, I think we need to consider
our messaging: how what we talk about gets talked about. The facilitator did a good job.
Commissioner Burroughs — The "appreciation" ice breaker at the start helped us to disagree
comfortably later in the day. I liked the presentations here, in real time. They focused my mind
and kept the material fresh for our conversations. I wish you all luck next year!
Commissioner Marcoplos — I find it valuable and satisfying to have these kinds of discussions,
to have ancillary ideas arise from our back and forth. I think we should have a conversation
about our communications: how we communicate, how our ideas get communicated, how our
policies get explained, how we operate in this new media environment. Thanks to all in
attendance. This was a great event.
Mr. Myren — It was a great discussion. We got sufficient direction. I look forward to putting
together the budget.
Ms. Hammersley — This was very helpful to us, and for the team that is here today. We do not
see the challenges as a negative. It is always the case that there are not enough resources to
do everything we want. This meeting today was beneficial because the Board's input to us is
very important. We heard from you today, before we enter the budget process, and that will
make the coming process even better than the ones we have had before — which you have told
me you have appreciated. It is scary when you see gaps, but we're going to balance the budget.
It does not have to be painful as long as we are honest about what we can do and what we
cannot do. Thank you for today.
Commissioner Price — Today has been informative. I appreciate the Chair's focus on "where we
are going." That's what retreats are for: talking about the future. Not doom and gloom. There is
a horizon ahead, and as long as we are moving toward it then we will make progress.
Commissioner Jacobs — I always enjoy the conversation. I don't think we have ever figured out
how to involve the staff in such a way that it is worth their time to be here. I appreciate that so
many members of the staff came and listened. The more you can hear our conversations the
35
better we all are as going forward as a team. The facilitator does a good job, but I would like to
have conversations that are not moderated, part of the time. It doesn't have to be comfortable,
but it can be useful. It's awkward to have to wait 5 -10 minutes to respond to what someone else
has said. The topics on today's agenda fit together. It may be worth having a retreat topic on
how we communicate; we have done that in the past but obviously we have not surmounted that
problem. Another topic for a future retreat might be the land use plan. The single greatest
investment of a lot of people is their home, and when we talk about changing the character of
their neighborhood through changes in the land use plan, and then it gets reported, then we are
causing uncertainty or distress, and that is not the way to treat people. So, we may need to be
more sensitized to land use, zoning, and how we work through all that. Maybe we need to do a
better job at having community meetings before we have discussions of land use, so people are
a little more plugged in. Commissioner Dorosin asked when the last time the County had a long
range visioning process. Commissioner Jacobs referenced the Shaping Orange County's Future
process from the mid -90's, and an effort by the Planning Director "to do the good plan," which
"got shot down." Commissioner Price referenced a lengthy Comprehensive Plan update
process. Mr. Benedict mentioned some small areas planning processes for Efland, Eno, and
Hillsborough.
Commissioner McKee — Appreciated the work of the retreat planning committee. You chose two
"red meat" issues. We had a good discussion today. The back and forth was respectful and
informative.
The meeting adjourned at 4:OOp.m.
Mark Dorosin, Chair
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
0.
ORANGE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
Article 46 Sales Tax
Budgeted Amounts And Expenditures
for Economic Development
5/14/2018
ORANGE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Article 46 Expenditures To Date
■ County & Municipalities ■ County Carrboro ■ Chapel Hill E Hillsborough ■ Mebane
Hillsborough
11%
Chape
14'
County & Municipalities
2%
Mahana
1%
County
55%
NORTH CAROLINA
Area
Expenditures
Additional Details
County &
Municipalities
$106,549.00
Countywide Services and Events (i.e. Agriculture Summit)
County
$3,780,411.31
Utility infrastructure /Debt service for Economic Development Districts, Small
Business and Ag Grants to Businesses and Farms in unincorporated areas
Carrboro
$85,604.00
Small Business Grants, Utility Infrastructure
Chapel Hill
$966,533.60
Loans, Small Business and Ag Grants, Collaborative Outreach, Launch
Hillsborough
$731,283.04
Loans, Small Business and Ag Grants
Mebane
$1,150,384.00
Morinaga & AKG Incentives, Morinaga Related Infrastructure, Small Business and
Ag Grants
*All expenditures through 2/28/18, except for Business Investment and Agricultural Grants through 5/9/18.
Durham Tech - Orange
County Project Connect
(Scholarships) ,
$200,000
Local Fest Planning,
$3-c
Economic Develop
Summit, $30,0
Agricultural Summi
$5,000
Incentive Payments,—/
$347,835
Business Investm(
Grants, $150,00
Agricultural Grants,
$100,000
Article 46 Sales Tax
FY 2018 -19
(Manager's Recommended)
Launcn uiapei nisi
$73,500 $20,000
38 ��
DPANGE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
Debt Service on
'astructure, $814,641
vice
with
Mebane, $50,000
Economic Development Use of Proceeds
Recommended
FY 18 -19
%
Of Total
Debt Service on Infrastructure
$814,641
44.61%
Utility Service Agreement with Mebane
$50,000
2.74%
Collaborative /Outreach
$20,000
1.10%
Innovation Center - "Launch Chapel Hill"
$73,500
4.03%
Agricultural Grants
$100,000
5.48%
Business Investment Grants
$150,000
8.21%
Incentive Payments
$347,835
19.05%
Agricultural Summit
$5,000
0.27%
Economic Development Summit
$30,000
1.64%
Local Fest Planning
$35,000
1.92%
Durham Tech - Orange County Project Connect (Scholarships)
$200,000
10.95%
Total
$1,825,976
100%
`a
Food /Farm Products,
$50, mr)
Local Fest Plannin
$15,000
Economic Develop
Summit, $30,0(
Agricultural Summit,.
$5,000
Incentive Payments,
$337,310
Business Ii
Grants,
Agricultural Grants,
$60,000
ORANGE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
Durham Tech - Orange
County Project Connect
(Scholarships), Article 46 Sales Tax
$200,000
1 FY 2017 -18
Launcn Lnapel HIII , l.V I I auv I auvc/ vuu Cal. 11, -
$73,500 $20,000 Mebane, $50,000
Debt Service on
astructure, $814,936
Economic Development Use of Proceeds
FY 17 -18
Of Total
Debt Service on Infrastructure
$814,936
46.42%
Utility Service Agreement with Mebane
$50,000
2.85%
Collaborative /Outreach
$20,000
1.14%
Innovation Center - "Launch Chapel Hill"
$73,500
4.19%
Agricultural Grants
$60,000
3.42%
Business Investment Grants
$100,000
5.70%
Incentive Payments
$337,310
19.21%
Agricultural Summit
$5,000
0.28%
Economic Development Summit
$30,000
1.71%
Local Fest Planning
$15,000
0.85%
Food /Farm Products
$50,000
2.85%
Durham Tech - Orange County Project Connect (Scholarships)
$200,000
11.39%
Total
$1,755,746
100%
3
FY 2017 -18
Business Investment Grants
6%
38%
■Carrboro
■ Chapel Hill
Hillsborough
56%
Area
# of Grants
Amount of
Funding
Carrboro
1
$5,000
Chapel Hill
10
$49,150
Hillsborough
3
$33,200
FY 2017 -18
Agriculture Grants
Me
■ Chapel Hill
Hillsborough
Mebane
Unincorporated
Orange County
Area
# of Grants
Amount of
Funding
Chapel Hill
1
$9,225.60
Hillsborough
2
$19,259.56
Mebane
1
$10,000
Unincorporated
3
$21,514.84
Orange County
4
Incentive
$25f
Business Investment
Grants, $100,000
Agricultural Grant
$60,000
Innovation CentE
"Launch Chapel H
$40,000
Small Business
Pool, $100,0(
Coll
Durham Tech - Orange
County Project Connect
$20,000 Utility Service
Agreement with
Mebane, $50,000
1 0 —
ORANGE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
Sales Tax
116 -17
at Service on
ucture, $817,477
Economic Development Use of Proceeds
Recommended
FY 16 -17
Of Total
Debt Service on Infrastructure
$817,477
54.36%
Utility Service Agreement with Mebane
$50,000
3.32%
Collaborative /Outreach
$20,000
1.33%
Small Business Loan Pool
$100,000
6.65%
Innovation Center — "Launch Chapel Hill"
$40,000
2.66%
Agricultural Grants
$60,000
3.99%
Business Investment Grants
$100,000
6.65%
Incentive Payments
$258,886
17.21%
Agricultural Summit
$7,500
0.50%
Durham Tech — Orange County Project Connect (Scholarships)
$50,000
3.32%
Total
$1,503,863
100%
Allocations for Prior Years' Excess Collections Since Inception ($382,806)
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Treats Analysis
$75,000
Incentive Payments
$307,806
FY 2016 - 17
Business Investment Grants
3%3%
■ Carrboro
i Chapel Hill
Hillsborough
Unincorporated
Orange County
Area
# of Grants
Amount of
Funding
Carrboro
1
$2,000
Chapel Hill
13
$43,776
Hillsborough
5
$17,320
Unincorporated
1
$2,000
Orange County
.,y:
FY 2016 - 17
Agriculture Grants
■ Chapel Hill
-' Hillsborough
196
Mebane
61%
6% Unincorporated
Orange County
Area
# of Grants
Amount of
Funding
Chapel Hill
1
$10,000
Hillsborough
2
$13,464
Mebane
1
$4,115
Unincorporated
5
$42,453.98
Orange County
6
Innovation i
"Launch Cha
$100,10
Small Business Lo;
Pool, $200,000
Collateral Mate
$20,000
Collaborative
$20,(
ORANGE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
Business Investment Article dG Sales Tax
.5 -16
Debt Service on
structure, $857,288
Economic Development Use of Proceeds
Recommended
FY 15 -16
%
Of Total
Debt Service on Infrastructure
$857,288
60.92%
Utility Service Agreement with Mebane
$50,000
3.55%
Collaborative /Outreach
$20,000
1.42%
Small Business Loan Pool
$200,000
14.21%
Innovation Center - "Launch Chapel Hill"
$100,000
7.11%
Agricultural Grants
$60,000
4.26%
Business Investment Grants
$100,000
7.11%
Collateral Materials
$20,000
1.42%
Total
$1,407,288
100%
AMAi
FY 2015 -16 FY 2015 -16
Business Investment Grants Agriculture Grants
5% 13%
■ Carrboro ■Chapel Hill
33%
Chapel Hill ■ Hillsborough
47% 35%
Hillsborough Mebane
49% Unincorporated Unincorporated
Orange County 12% Orange County
Area
# of Grants
Amount of
Funding
Carrboro
6
$40,360
Chapel Hill
27
$152,369
Hillsborough
15
$100,485.95
Unincorporated
2
$15,000
Orange County
FY 2015 - 16
Small Business Loan
■ Hillsborough
Chapel Hill
Area
# of Loans
Amount of
Funding
Chapel Hill
2
$190,000
Hillsborough
2
$150,000
Area
# of Grants
Amount of
Funding
Chapel Hill
2
$11,000
Hillsborough
9
$58,884.28
Mebane
2
$20,000
Unincorporated
10
$80,596.49
Orange County
O
8
45
Lifetime
Business Investment Grants
4 0 ° 10%
33%
53%
Carrboro
Chapel Hill
Hillsborough
Unincorporated
Orange County
Area
Article 46 Sales Tax Budgeted Amount
Amount of
for Economic Development
$2,000,000
Funding
$1,900,000
8
$1,800,000
Chapel Hill
$1,700,000
$242,295
$1,600,000
23
$1,500,000
Unincorporated
$1,400,000
—
$1,300,000
$1,200,000
$1,100,000
$1,000,000
FY 2015 -16
FY 2016 -17
FY 2017 -18
Recommended
FY 2018 -19
Amount
$1,407,288
$1,503,863
$1,755,746
$1,825,976
Lifetime
Business Investment Grants
4 0 ° 10%
33%
53%
Carrboro
Chapel Hill
Hillsborough
Unincorporated
Orange County
Area
# of Grants
Amount of
Funding
Carrboro
8
$47,360
Chapel Hill
50
$242,295
Hillsborough
23
$151,005.95
Unincorporated
3
$17,000
Orange County
Lifetime
Small Business Loan
5%
1%
Hillsborough
Chapel Hill
Unincorporated
Orange County
Area
# of Loans
Amount of
Funding
Chapel Hill
9
$415,000
Hillsborough
10
$487,848
Unincorporated
1
$47,000
Orange County
M
49
Lifetime
Agriculture Grants
12%
■ Chapel Hill
■ Hillsborough
Mebane
Unincorporated Orange
County
Area
# of Grants
Amount of
Funding
Chapel Hill
4
$31,740.60
Hillsborough
13
$91,829.09
Mebane
4
$34,115
Unincorporated
18
$144,565.31
Orange County
M.
10