Laserfiche WebLink
225 <br /> <br />future school sites. He suggested that the Board use $1 million of this <br />proposed allocation to pay for the additional school building <br />maintenance funding approved last week. When the sale of the Lake <br />Concord property is finalized, proceeds can be allocated toward the <br />purchase of future school sites. <br /> <br />Industrial Development Incentive Grant Proqram <br /> <br /> There was lengthy discussion regarding the proposed Industrial <br />Development Incentive Grant Program. Issues discussed included the <br />following: Concord's program that further reduced the grant award <br />percentages and time period of awards; support by the City of <br />Kannapolis and the Town of Harrisburg for stronger incentive plans; and <br />general dislike of incentives but the need to diversify the County's <br />tax base and balance commercial and residential growth. Commissioner <br />Privette again contended that incentives are not needed due to the <br />prime location of Cabarrus County. It was also noted during discussion <br />that the County's incentive program might be different from the program <br />of the municipality in which a specific project is located. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Carpenter made a motion that the County adopt an <br />Industrial Development Incentive Grant Program with the same categories <br />and rates as the City of Concord with the two projects (Southeastern <br />Packaging Company and Roush Racing) currently before the Board to be <br />considered under the old Incentive Grant Program. The motion died for <br />the lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Fennel asked for a provision that the incentive <br />grant amount would be "up to" a certain percentage with the cost of <br />infrastructure paid by the County to be deducted from the incentive <br />grant. Mr. Clifton proposed that a new "bullet" be added that would <br />state that the amount of the grant would be reduced by an equivalent <br />amount paid by the County for infrastructure for a specific project. <br />Board members agreed with Mr. Clifton's recommendation. <br /> <br /> Chairman Barnhart asked for a provision to consider "issues of <br />significant importance related to a particular project." There was <br />consensus to the proposed provision. <br /> <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Fennel, seconded by Chairman Barnhart <br />with Commissioners Fennel and Casper and Chairman Barnhart voting for <br />and Commissioners Privette and Carpenter voting against, the Board <br />approved the Cabarrus County Industrial Development Incentive Grant <br />Program as presented with the addition of the two provisions concerning <br />infrastructure cost and issues of significant importance. Further, the <br />Board agreed that the two projects currently before the Board would be <br />considered under the new program. The Program as approved by the Board <br />was as follows: <br /> <br />CkBARRUS COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM <br /> <br />I. OVERVIEW <br />The economic welfare of the county is directly linked to the vitality, <br />diversity and success of its businesses and industries. Cabarrus <br />County has used financial incentives to stimulate development of new <br />industries and expansion of existing businesses. The original program <br />enacted in 1995 and modified in 1996 was directly or partially <br />responsible for industrial projects that had a substantial economic <br />impact in Cabarrus County. To remain consistent with its intent, it is <br />prudent that the program be periodically reviewed and modified to <br />account for changes in economic parameters, effectiveness and <br />applicability. <br /> <br />The County Commission directed staff to conduct routine review of the <br />county's incentive programs; recommend changes when appropriate; and, <br />monitor program effectiveness. The input of participating <br />municipalities, the Chamber of Commerce and the Cabarrus County <br />Economic Development Corporation was sought and received through direct <br />recommendations and endorsements. This document reflects amended <br />incentive program parameters adopted by the County Commission (June 1, <br />1999). <br /> <br />Each project considered under these guidelines shall be viewed <br />independently of any project previously considered, awarded or rejected <br />by the county and participating municipalities. A proposed project to <br />be located within the boundaries of a municipality may be subject to a <br /> <br /> <br />