My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 1999 04 19
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1999
>
AG 1999 04 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 5:58:24 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:49:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
4/19/1999
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
198
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and can also be utilized for shakedown work prior to a race. Phase II at an <br />estimated construction cost of $17,287,000.00 is scheduled to begin in 2001 <br />and will consist of a ~museum" or a facility for corporate sponsors to <br />display their products. Phase III will begin in 2003 and will include two <br />office buildings at an estimated cost of $19,220,000.00 for construction and <br />equipment. Plans are to complete the project in five years at a total cost <br />of $69,545,000.00. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jeff smith, President of Roush, presented additional information <br />concerning Roush's plans to consolidate its various business units at the <br />Concord complex. He explained that the "museum" would actually be a sponsor <br />display area to allow sponsors to display their products away from the race <br />shops. Also, Roush will use one of the office buildings and the second will <br />be leased to other companies. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jim Scarbrough, Attorney representing a group of residents living <br />in the vicinity of the Roush project, spoke in opposition to the proposed tax <br />incentive agreement. At Mr. Scarbrough's request, a large nunlber of persons <br />present for the meeting indicated their opposition to the Roush project by a <br />show of hands. He listed the following reasons against the tax incentives <br />for Roush: (1) Project will not create any new jobs, thus fails to meet the <br />County's industrial incentive guidelines; (2) Property is not properly zohed <br />for industrial use; (3) Project would discourage commercial development along <br />the Highway 29 corridor; and (4) Tax incentives would give Roush an unfair <br />market advantage over competition in the county. Stating Roush would receive <br />over $3 million in tax rebates from the City and County, Mr. Scarbrough asked <br />the Board to vote against the Roush proposal as submitted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mike Stritch, speaking on behalf of residents of the Roberta Farms <br />Subdivision that borders to the rear of the Roush property, objected to the <br />Roush project. He stated the test track running along the outside of the <br />property would negatively impact the community. Also, he expressed concerns <br />about noise, the impact on the development of Highway 29 as a commercial <br />corridor, the depreciation in property values and the decrease in the <br />salability of homes in the area. <br /> <br /> Ms. Terri Smedley, speaking as a concerned homeowner and mother living <br />in the Cedar Springs Subdivision, spoke in opposition to the Roush proposal. <br />She strongly objected to ~property tax rebates" to Roush, stating in her <br />opinion the car manufacturing and racetrack facility would be of no benefit <br />to the County. Further, Ms. Smedley cited concerns regarding noise, <br />pollution, the impact on the Highway 29 commercial corridor, the project's <br />incompatibility with surrounding property, the negative impact on the nearby <br />property values and salability of homes in the community. <br /> <br /> Ms. Cathy Snell of the Roberta Farms Community opposed the Roush <br />project. She stated concerns about a decrease in property values and the <br />impact of the noise on nearby schools, homes and churches. <br /> <br /> Mr. Larry Airey addressed the negative impact of the shakedown or test <br />track noise on churches, high school and stores in the area. He stated the <br />proposed project would not create any new jobs, would cause an increase in <br />traffic and would reduce the tax value of nearby homes. Stating 200 <br />homeo~rners in the area represent a $50 million investment, Mr. Airey opposed <br />any "tax rebates" to Roush. <br /> <br /> Mr. Todd Rogers expressed concern that the proposed project would <br />negatively impact the undeveloped properties along Highway 29 and would not <br />be the highest and best use of the property. Re stated persons would not <br />want to develop property in the vicinity of the Roush project, thus causing <br />the County to 10se revenue with the underdevelopment Of surrounding property. <br /> <br /> Mr. John Howard, Chairman of the Motorsports Committee of the Cabarrus <br />Regional Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the Roush project. He <br />discussed the importance of the motorsports industry, stating it is the sixth <br />largest employer in Cabarrus County. He read the following resolution from <br />the Cha~er of Commerce. <br /> <br />CAB~kRRUS REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE <br /> RESOLUTION <br /> <br />SUPPORT OF ROUSH P~CING <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the Cabarrus Regional Cha~er of Commerce has an active <br />Motorsports Committee which has as its primary mission to advance the <br />economic impact of the motorsports industry in the Cabarrus region; and <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.