Sunteți pe pagina 1din 24

Economic Incentives: County By County

By Sarah Curry and Catherine Konieczny

Executive Summary

North Carolinas 100 counties derive their


spending authority from the General Assembly.
The state legislature permits local governments to
raise tax revenue, budget and manage that revenue,
and disburse funds to support activities at the
discretion of elected officials. Counties have also
been given broad authority to engage in economic
development activities. Some of these include
employing agents to meet, negotiate with, and assist
businesses interested in locating or expanding in the
community, administering unsubsidized revolving
loan funds, distributing cash grants, developing
strategic plans for economic development, and
constructing public facilities.

Currently there is no single data source that tracks


the expenditure of tax revenue on economic
development activities at the local level. To address
this need, we collected and categorized economic
development spending in all 100 counties in North
Carolina.
Between FY 2009 and FY 2014, 81 out of North
Carolinas 100 counties participated in economic
development activities. Counties entered into 776
contracts worth nearly $284 million in incentives
over the five-year period. Actual payments,
however, totaled $144 million.

Contents

3 Methodology
3 Types of Incentives
3 Performance
3 Non-performance
4 Infrastructure Grants
4 Tax-based Reimbursement
4 Legal Authority
5 Findings
5 Outliers
7 Recommendations
8 Appendix: Details of property
tax reimbursement incentives

The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the staff or board of the John Locke Foundation. For more
information, call 919-828-3876 or visit www.JohnLocke.org.
2015 by the John Locke Foundation.

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

ounty governments are increasingly being


asked to participate in economic development
activities advanced by state legislators,
replicating approaches, albeit on a smaller scale,
pursued by state and federal officials. This study
surveys North Carolinas counties and examines how
they conduct economic development at the local level.

Methodology

For local entities, economic development includes a


variety of efforts made by cities and counties to promote
economic growth, often in economically distressed areas.
In nearly all cases, the goal of economic development is
to increase private investment and job creation, thereby
broadening the local tax base. This study focuses on
the distribution of cash grants and reimbursements by
counties to private companies that have an interest in
relocating operations or remaining in North Carolina.
Currently, no government agency, trade organization,
special interest group, or non-profit organization
collects or publishes economic development data for
North Carolina cities, municipalities, and counties.

partnerships, but some counties categorized those


activities as economic development and reported
dollars spent on them. When reported, those amounts
are included in county totals.
Data were much more difficult to collect and interpret
than was anticipated. The point of contact for the
counties changed over time, and because many counties
have economic development offices, the branches of the
county government would not share information about
the agreements with each other. Counties frequently
omitted figures or were vague when specific information
was requested. Each county has a different way of
keeping records of their incentive activities, which
makes it extremely difficult to make comparisons and
capture the same data for every county. Some counties
were able to summarize all requested information, while
others sent in dozens of pages of original documents.

Types of Incentives

Every county participating in economic development


activities has a wide array of incentives available
to them. Some choose to use one type of incentive,
In order to gather the data, each countys manager and while others choose to use a variety of incentives. For
public information officer were sent a public records the purposes of this study, we have categorized the
request asking for their countys economic development incentives differently than state statute does.
financial data for fiscal year 2009-10 through fiscal year Performance
2013-14, that is, July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014.
Counties self reported the information to the John Overall, 64 counties use performance-based incentives.
Performance incentives are categorized by the
Locke Foundation.
benchmark requirements each private entity is given
We requested that each county provide the amount with the expectation the business will meet those
approved for each agreement to be paid by the requirements within a certain time frame. The two most
county to the named entity, the stated justification for common performance measures used are 1) the number
the incentive, requirements to meet the incentives of jobs created and 2) the monetary investment in real
objective (if applicable), the duration of the agreement, property or existing infrastructure within the countys
and outcomes associated with the terms of the incentive. jurisdiction. The employment requirement includes
The data in this report reflects only agreements where the creation of new full time positions, either a specific
the county disbursed its own earned revenue or used number of new jobs or an acceptable range. Investment
a revolving loan fund managed by the county, not requirements typically involved expenditures (or a
where the county acted as a pass-through entity for range of expenditures) on property and/or equipment.
another source of funds. Matching dollars required as
a condition of a state or federal grant are included here. Non-performance
The state or federal portion is not, to the best of our Non-performance incentives are unconditional awards
knowledge.
that could not be classified as infrastructure. For
As referenced above, we define economic development example, Alleghany County used non-performance
incentives as funds from the county given to private incentives for a dentist to serve Medicaid patients and a
entities. We did not intend to capture community large-animal veterinarian. Neither service was offered
development, revitalization efforts, or public-private within the county, and elected officials awarded the
Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

incentives based on their perception of public need. government to offer incentive payments are broadly laid
Gates County discounted the sale of a historic school out in the North Carolina General Statutes.2 According
building that did not qualify for a state building re- to the UNC School of Government,3
use grant. Granville County paid for the renovation
When a North Carolina government turns funds
of an existing building and provided matching funds
over to a private entity for expenditure (through an
for grants from other sources. Rutherford County only
incentive payment), the local government must give
used local funds to match One NC grants. Warren
prior approval to how the funds will be expended
County waived permit fees for private businesses.
by the private entity and all such expenditures
Infrastructure Grants
shall be accounted for at the end of the fiscal year.
Furthermore, the funds must be made subject to
These incentives reimburse companies to meet state
recapture in an incentive agreement. Additional
building code requirements or connect to public utilities.
procedural requirements are imposed when the
These include fire hydrants, roadway intersections,
expenditure involves the purchase or improvement
and sewer and water lines. Brunswick, Currituck, and
of property, which is almost always the case for an
Yadkin counties were the only jurisdictions that solely
economic development incentive that is contingent
used these forms of incentives. Perquimans County
on making investments that increase the property
only had one incentive grant, a discounted sale of eight
tax base.4
acres of county land at $25,000 an acre.
Tax-based Reimbursement
This category includes any incentive that reimburses
taxes paid. Since counties use different methods to
report the budgeting and value of tax-based incentives,
they cannot be fully accounted for until paid. Bladen,
Catawba, Cleveland, Cumberland, Duplin, Durham,
Franklin, Gates, Harnett, Johnston, Pitt, Richmond,
Rowan, Scotland, Stanly, Transylvania, and Wilkes
counties all use this form of incentive.1
Of those counties that reported economic development
expenditures, six had no performance requirements,
five did not report any reason for the incentive, and
another six counties only awarded cash grants for
infrastructure investment. The remaining counties tied
their incentive to various performance measures. Of
those counties participating in performance agreements,
33 counties, or 44 percent of the total, did not disclose
performance results or outcomes, even though these
counties confirmed payment. This suggests that there
are gaps in the data and reporting deficiencies, but it
is not evident why economic development efforts lack
transparency.

Legal Authority

While state statutes lay out the process, the restrictions


imposed by statute are not the final word. Economic
development incentives are typically payments of
public taxpayer funds to private entities, resulting in
a mix of public and private purposes. Although the
North Carolina general statutes give permission to
counties to participate in economic development, local
governments are not permitted to offer gifts of public
property, legally referred to as exclusive emoluments,
to private entities.5 The UNC School of Government
gives a clear legal explanation of this problem,
Exclusive emoluments are permitted only in
consideration of public services. That is, the
public must get something in return known as
consideration in contract law for a payment
to a private entity. A separate set of constitutional
provisions requires that expenditures by local
government and contractual payments to private
entities must serve a public purpose.6 As long as
a payment or expenditure serves a valid purpose,
it satisfies not only the constitutional provisions
regarding public purpose, but the exclusive
emoluments provision as well. The courts alone
2

Section 158-7.1 of the Local Development Act of 1925

4
5
6

Ibid. pp. 295-6


Section 32 of Article 1 of the North Carolina Constitution
Section 2 of Article V of the North Carolina Constitution

County governments are a creation of the state and must 3 Kara Millonzi, (2014). Introduction to Local Government
be granted statutory authority by the state to engage in
Finance. The School of Government at the University of
economic development. Actions required for a county
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
1

The details of each countys tax incentive method can be


found in the Appendix.

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

not the legislature, not statutes decide what is a


valid public purpose under the constitution.7

Findings

Between FY 2009 and FY 2014, 81 out of North


Carolinas 100 counties participated in economic
development activities at the county level. This totaled
776 agreements and nearly $284 million promised to
the private sector over the five-year period. The amount
actually paid out during this period was $144 million.
The difference is due to the fact that many agreements
are made in one year but paid out over multiple years. In
addition, some agreements are contingent on companies
meeting particular terms and may not therefore be paid
in full if those terms are not met.

There are multiple forms of incentive activities, such


as cash grant incentives that function as tax abatement.
Fourteen counties in the state employ these kinds
of incentives. They follow a common pattern. The
county offers to make annual cash grants over a number
of years. The business invests certain amounts in the
county, such as building a new facility or expanding an
existing facility. The amount of the cash grant is tied
to the amount of property taxes paid by the company.
For example, in Rowan County, incentive agreements
provided reimbursement for between 70 and 75 percent
Surprisingly, there were no obvious trends among or
of the property taxes paid over a five-year period.
between the metropolitan development areas.11 The
For most states, tax abatement is an acceptable and popular perception of economic development is that
widely used form of incentive, but the North Carolina wealthier urban and suburban counties are able to
Constitution does not permit it. According to Article V, leverage greater resources for these activities. Yet, on a
Section 2 of the constitution, property tax exemptions per-capita basis, there is no evidence of a divide between
and classifications may be made only by the General rural and urban counties. Iredell, Davie, Halifax,
Assembly and only on a statewide basis. The UNC Lenoir, and Buncombe counties had the highest per
School of Government explains why similar forms of capita dollars approved for incentive agreements, each
incentives, like those used in Rowan County, have not budgeting over $100 per resident. Wilson County was
been deemed unconstitutional,
the only county to pay over $100 per capita. Person,
Lee, Lincoln, and Catawba counties spent over $50 per
These (incentive) policies closely approach tax
capita each.
abatements but with two important differences:
the company receiving the cash incentives has
paid its property taxes, and the grant payment is
contingent not solely on payment of property taxes
but also on performance of some public benefit,
such as job creation or construction of affordable
housing. One note of caution: no court has
directly addressed whether this sort of policy is an
unconstitutional attempt to enact a tax abatement
or whether it is simply a constitutionally permitted
cash grant.8

The issue of constitutionality was examined by the


North Carolina Supreme Court in 1996,9 and as recently
as 201010 by the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The
legal discussions regarding local government incentives
is far from over, and hopefully shedding light on where
counties choose to participate in economic development
activities will further that discussion.
7
8
9
10

Millonzi, p. 294
Ibid. p 295.
Maready v. City of Winston-Salem, 342 N.C. 708 (1996)
Haugh v. County of Durham, 208 N.C. App. 304 (2010)

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Outliers

There are a few notable outliers. Iredell County


approved, but did not pay, $222.65 in incentives per
capita, more than any other county in the state and 78
percent more than the next highest in the region, Davie
County. Despite their inflated approved incentives
budget, Iredell ended up paying only $47.41 per
resident, second only to Lincoln Countys $57.26
expenditure. Both paid more than twice the average for
counties of comparable size.
Several of the highest paying counties were skewed
by one or two exceptionally large agreements, with
payments reaching over $1 million.
Catawba County entered into an agreement with
Apple for a tax-based incentive that required one
billion dollars in investment. At the time of our
11 Per capita approved (or spent) amounts did not correspond to
trends in per capita income. Urban-rural classifications are
based on US Census data. A full explanation is available at
cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_166.pdf
5

data collection, Catawba County had paid over $8


million, equaling almost 95 percent of the countys
total dollars spent within the five-year time frame.

Iredell County is home to Lowes Home


Improvements headquarters and entered into a
single, large agreement that resulted in over $3
million in payments, just over 40 percent of the
Cleveland County agreed to a tax-based incentive
countys total payments for the time frame.
with AT&T that required $851 million in investment
with a promise to refund 67 percent of the ad Person Countys agreement with Eaton Corporation
valorem tax revenue in each grant year.
has resulted in the county paying $2 million to

Income, Approved Incentive Amount, and Paid Incentive value


per capita, by economic development level

Colors in the table correspond to those of counties


in the map. Economic development levels are CDC
classifications from most urban to most rural and are
based upon US Census data. A detailed explanation is
available at cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_166.pdf.
Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

the private firm, 80 percent of the countys total


payments since fiscal year 2009.
Randolph County agreed to an incentive agreement
with Malt-O-Meal, and has made payments of $2.3
million in the last five years, totaling 94 percent of
the countys total paid incentive dollars.
Wilson County was the highest ranked county for
paid incentive dollars per capita due to $5.7 million
in payments related to the Bridgestone-Firestone
agreement.

Recommendations

The North Carolina General Assembly should mandate


that counties meet a standardized reporting requirement
for all economic development activities. In addition,
legislators should allocate funding for a web portal that
gives taxpayers access to aggregate and county-specific
economic development expenditures and machine
readable documents. Elected officials should then
use this information to evaluate whether the costs of
incentives outweigh the benefits. We suspect that, in
most cases, there are much better uses of tax revenue
and much more efficient ways to spur economic growth,
such as lower tax rates and reduced regulations.
Sarah Curry is Director of Fiscal Policy
Studies at the John Locke Foundation.
Catherine Konieczny will graduate from North
Carolina State University in May 2016 with a B.S. in
Economics and a minor in Political Science.

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Appendix: Details of property tax reimbursement incentives


Bladen Investment measured as new taxable Pitt Refund of 25% - 35% of the net increase in ad
investment with a given rate (.25% - .63%) of tax
valorem taxes paid on real property to cover facility
on that investment and reimbursed as a grant after
and equipment expenses.
payment, not to exceed 74% of total taxes paid.
Richmond Cash grants in the form of refunds
Catawba Reimbursement of ad valorem tax
given by percentage of taxes paid through a
revenue received from the company, 40% - 75%
tiered system. Level 1 grants: 50% of taxes to be
of total taxes paid. Apple agreement refunds up to
reimbursed with a tax valuation of $1,000,000 85%.
$4,999,999. Level 2: 60% reimbursement with
valuation
between
$5,000,000-$19,999,999.
Cleveland Agreements based on investment
Level 3: 70% reimbursement with valuation
and job performance standards with grant amount
between $20,000,000-$49,999,999. Level 4:
based on reimbursement of ad valorem tax revenue
85% reimbursement with valuation greater than
received from the company at 40% - 90%, including
$50,000,000.
three agreements based on conveyance of property.

Cumberland 50% of ad valorem tax value of Rowan 70% - 75% reimbursement for a period
of 5 years.
invested property.
Duplin 80% grant of tax bill paid in one agreement; Scotland Four specialized agreements: one a
refund of 90% of the ad valorem tax base outright;
cash grants, state matching, and reimbursement for
two with sliding scales of refund percentages (one
construction of natural gas pipeline.
beginning at 80% and decreasing to 50% of ad
Durham A maximum value approved in
valorem tax rate multiplied by the depreciated value
agreements but actual paid value of the incentive
of equipment, one beginning at 50% and decreasing
calculated using total taxes (property, person, and
to 35% of ad valorem tax rate multiplied by the
other), specifics of each agreement not included in
property tax value of equipment investment.); one a
the data received.
cash incentive of $57,000 per year for three years.
Franklin Actual payment of 3% of the tax Stanly Refund of 50% - 90% of county taxes on
valuation of the investment in equipment, machinery,
investment value over 5 years.
property, and buildings for all agreements, with
separate stipulations for investment and job creation Transylvania Refund of 50% of property taxes
paid to the county.
for each individual agreement.
Gates Only one agreement, a refund for half of the Wilkes Most purely performance based with two
exceptions: one a 70% refund of real property taxes
property taxes paid on an historic school property
paid in addition to an outright cash grant, and the
sold by the county.
other reimbursed payments for rent from the county.
Harnett 50% - 80% refund of total taxes paid by
year.
Johnston All agreements refunding 50% - 100%
of ad valorem tax value with a decreasing percentage
over the life of the incentive, performance
stipulations with minimum investment and job
values by individual agreement.

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

47,854

27,423

25,822

11,069

37,528

152,531

55

72

74

94

65

18

Population Rank

$34,379

$30,290

$26,409

$33,011

$32,402

$32,929

Per
Capita
Income

Population

37

77

99

47

57

48

31

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Beaufort

Ashe

Anson

Alleghany

Alexander

Alamance

County

$1,770,790

$100,000

$106,207

$35,832

$499,468

$1,980,250

Approved

31

64

63

70

49

28

Rank

Agreements

$37.00

$3.35

$4.11

$3.24

$13.31

$12.98

Per
Capita

23

58

57

60

40

42

Rank

$1,526,790

$-

$106,207

$35,832

$468,799

$24,900

Paid

31

78

61

69

51

70

Rank

Paid

$31.91

$-

$4.11

$3.24

$12.49

$0.16

Per
Capita

13

78

59

60

41

75

Rank

Performance
incentive, state
match, and
discounted sale of
property

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Non-performance

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

Revised July 31, 2015

181,253

90,722

243,855

110,140

35,148

12

31

25

67

Population Rank

$38,079

$31,694

$36,341

$34,739

$31,127

Per
Capita
Income

Population

20

62

26

34

67

22

17

23

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Cabarrus

Burke

Buncombe

Brunswick

Bladen

County

$4,919,086

$919,791

$29,728,143

$2,985,000

Percentage
of tax
liability, not
a fixed value

Approved

16

40

20

77

Rank

Agreements

$27.14

$10.14

$121.91

$27.10

$-

Per
Capita

29

46

30

77

Rank

$4,919,086

$919,791

$5,158,903

$36,577

$878,236

Paid

40

68

41

Rank

Paid

$27.14

$10.14

$21.16

$0.33

$24.99

Per
Capita

18

49

25

72

21

Rank

No requirements
given

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Infrastructure
contribution

Tax based
performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

10

10,460

27,300

64,553

154,992

9,921

83,117

95

73

40

17

97

33

Population Rank

$29,221

$27,459

$50,697

$34,716

$42,078

$28,121

Per
Capita
Income

Population

87

96

35

93

15

47

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Clay

Cherokee

Chatham

Catawba

Camden

Caldwell

County

$185,000

$11,044

Nonmonetary,
subsidized
use of public
facilities

$6,356,589

$19,700

$5,172,000

Approved

57

75

77

13

72

15

Rank

Agreements

$17.69

$0.40

$-

$41.01

$1.99

$62.23

Per
Capita

37

73

77

22

66

11

Rank

$185,000

$11,044

$1,129,309

$8,507,650

$19,700

$1,530,750

Paid

57

75

36

72

30

Rank

Paid

$17.69

$0.40

$17.49

$54.89

$1.99

$18.42

Per
Capita

30

71

33

65

28

Rank

Performance
incentive

Matching
infrastructure
contribution

11

Facility construction
and performance
incentive

Tax based
performance
incentive and land
sale

Job based
performance
incentive

Performance
incentive, given
amount per job
created

Type

Incentive

23,643

327,643

104,965

57,657

98,209

78

27

49

28

Population Rank

$42,239

$45,590

$39,078

$29,551

$32,852

Per
Capita
Income

Population

16

86

50

13

28

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Currituck

Cumberland

Craven

Columbus

Cleveland

County

$182,672

$498,941

$30,850

$1,855,753

$4,167,160

Approved

58

50

71

29

17

Rank

Agreements

$7.73

$1.52

$0.29

$32.19

$42.43

Per
Capita

49

68

74

25

21

Rank

$182,672

$4,144,473

$23,138

$1,012,658

$2,467,403

Paid

58

13

71

39

21

Rank

Paid

$7.73

$12.65

$0.22

$17.56

$25.12

Per
Capita

52

39

73

32

20

Rank

Infrastructure
contribution for
sewer connections
and firehydrants

12

Tax based
performance
incentive and state
match

Performance
incentive and
discounted property
sale

Performance
incentive

Tax based
performance
incentive and state
match

Type

Incentive

272,314

59,476

41,560

163,364

34,216

46

60

15

69

Population Rank

$40,963

$30,804

$38,552

$35,513

$41,208

Per
Capita
Income

Population

11

72

18

29

10

13

35

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Durham

Duplin

Davie

Davidson

Dare

County

$13,803,095

$1,733,142

$7,228,155

$3,970,194

$2,089,152

Approved

32

11

18

27

Rank

Agreements

$50.69

$29.14

$173.92

$24.30

$61.06

Per
Capita

15

27

32

13

Rank

$9,181,812

$1,733,142

$499,525

3,027,694

$1,536,857

Paid

26

49

17

29

Rank

Paid

$33.72

$29.14

$12.02

$18.53

$44.92

Per
Capita

11

16

45

27

Rank

Tax based
performance
incentive

Tax based
performance
incentive,
infrastructure
contribution, and
state match

Performance
incentive,
infrastructure
contribution, and
state match

13

Performance
incentive, discounted
land purchase, and
state match

Performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

11,944

207,506

61,651

354,878

56,089

93

42

50

Population Rank

$30,387

$34,812

$31,063

$39,583

$28,697

Per
Capita
Income

Population

75

33

68

15

90

14

12

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Gates

Gaston

Franklin

Forsyth

Edgecombe

County

Percentage
of tax
liability, not
a fixed value

$450,000

$1,684,586

$27,859,345

$1,172,137

Approved

77

52

33

37

Rank

Agreements

$-

$2.17

$27.32

$78.50

$20.90

Per
Capita

77

64

28

33

Rank

$-

$3,645,482

$699,621

$4,355,937

$1,800

Paid

78

14

45

11

77

Rank

Paid

$-

$17.57

$11.35

$12.27

$0.03

Per
Capita

78

31

46

42

77

Rank

Tax based refund


on sale of historic
school property

Performance
incentive

14

Tax based
performance
incentive and state
match

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

59,684

118,615

54,397

495,231

60,863

45

24

51

44

Population Rank

$34,080

$30,059

$31,433

$39,037

$30,722

Per
Capita
Income

Population

38

78

63

17

73

20

10

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Haywood

Harnett

Halifax

Guilford

Granville

County

$376,166

$100,000

$8,209,414

$7,952,415

$2,769,163

Approved

53

64

23

Rank

Agreements

$6.30

$0.84

$150.92

$16.06

$45.50

Per
Capita

52

71

38

18

Rank

$-

$348,930

$1,683,543

$2,654,599

$1,171,277

Paid

78

54

27

19

35

Rank

Paid

$-

$2.94

$30.95

$5.36

$19.24

Per
Capita

78

61

15

56

26

Rank

Performance
incentive

Tax based
performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

No requirements
given

15

Matching to state
grants, infrastructure
contribution, and
one performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

161,522

5,815

49,065

24,466

108,448

16

99

54

75

26

Population Rank

$35,994

$33,302

$33,268

$28,728

$37,856

Per
Capita
Income

Population

27

43

44

89

22

51

20

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Iredell

Hyde

Hoke

Hertford

Henderson

County

$35,962,245

$11,902

$108,750

$749,255

$6,665,741

Approved

73

62

44

12

Rank

Agreements

$225.65

$2.05

$2.22

$30.62

$61.46

Per
Capita

65

63

26

12

Rank

$7,657,306

$11,902

$108,750

$360,255

$2,659,472

Paid

73

60

53

18

Rank

Paid

$47.41

$2.05

$2.22

$14.72

$24.52

Per
Capita

64

63

36

22

Rank

16

Performance
incentive and state
match

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive, not all
requirements given

Type

Incentive

79,026

59,314

58,304

10,327

172,570

35

47

48

96

13

Population Rank

$36,580

$34,630

$33,332

$37,924

$35,210

Per
Capita
Income

Population

25

36

41

21

31

18

15

12

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Lincoln

Lenoir

Lee

Jones

Johnston

County

$551,894

$7,945,500

$2,868,390

$-

Percentage
of tax
liability, not
a fixed value

Approved

46

10

22

77

77

Rank

Agreements

$6.98

$133.96

$49.20

$-

$-

Per
Capita

51

17

77

77

Rank

$4,525,052

$2,174,690

$3,460,149

$-

$2,114,275

Paid

10

23

15

78

24

Rank

Paid

$57.26

$36.66

$59.35

$-

$12.25

Per
Capita

10

78

43

Rank

Performance
incentives that use
investment tier to
determine value of
payment

Performance
incentive

No requirements
given

17

Use a revolving loan


fund for incentives

Tax based
performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

89,395

940,697

45,462

24,083

34,459

32

59

76

68

Population Rank

$40,636

$47,426

$27,808

$32,414

$32,028

Per
Capita
Income

Population

13

95

56

59

29

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Moore

Mecklenburg

McDowell

Martin

Macon

County

$1,821,048

$25,296,832

$827,000

$1,500,000

$40,500

Approved

30

42

35

68

Rank

Agreements

$20.37

$26.89

$18.19

$62.28

$1.18

Per
Capita

34

31

36

10

69

Rank

$1,083,024

$4,228,843

$590,885

$412,050

$39,541

Paid

37

12

47

52

67

Rank

Paid

$12.12

$4.50

$13.00

$17.11

$1.15

Per
Capita

44

58

38

34

66

Rank

Infrastructure
contribution and
performance
incentive

No requirements
given

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

18

13,537

53,437

135,776

21,844

206,774

96,122

90

52

21

79

29

Population Rank

$33,019

$32,480

$51,702

$32,555

$37,559

$35,459

Per
Capita
Income

Population

46

54

53

23

30

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Perquimans

Pender

Orange

Northampton

New Hanover

Nash

County

$100,000

$2,654,398

$1,443,950

$969,297

$8,800,000

$330,000

Approved

64

24

36

39

55

Rank

Agreements

$7.39

$49.67

$10.63

$44.37

$42.56

$3.43

Per
Capita

50

16

44

19

20

59

Rank

$104,500

$1,666,500

$80,000

$1,023,878

$5,816,750

$52,057

Paid

62

28

63

38

65

Rank

Paid

$7.72

$31.19

$0.59

$46.87

$28.13

$0.54

Per
Capita

53

14

68

17

70

Rank

Discounted sale of
land

Land donation,
fee waiver, and
performance grant

Performance
incentive and state
match

Sale of property
combined with
performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

19

46,459

142,901

20,453

170,263

39,700

57

19

84

14

63

Population Rank

$28,820

$31,062

$40,232

$35,743

$31,237

Per
Capita
Income

Population

88

69

14

28

66

16

10

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Richmond

Randolph

Polk

Pitt

Person

County

$230,000

$863,535

$120,700

$462,840

$2,525,000

Approved

56

41

61

51

26

Rank

Agreements

$4.95

$6.04

$5.90

$2.72

$63.60

Per
Capita

55

53

54

61

Rank

$1,218,195

$2,398,535

$120,700

$1,420,692

$2,525,000

Paid

33

22

59

32

20

Rank

Paid

$26.22

$16.78

$5.90

$8.34

$63.60

Per
Capita

19

35

55

51

Rank

Tax based
performance
incentive

Performance
incentive and
infrastructure
contribution

Match of state
employment
incentive

20

Tax based
performance
incentive and state
match

Performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

63,746

68,392

138,309

93,558

134,651

41

38

20

30

22

Population Rank

$32,818

$28,123

$31,365

$32,307

$26,399

Per
Capita
Income

Population

51

92

64

58

100

21

21

25

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Sampson

Rutherford

Rowan

Rockingham

Robeson

County

$3,513,234

$757,924

$37,500

$6,095,595

$1,123,262

Approved

19

43

69

14

38

Rank

Agreements

$55.11

$11.08

$0.27

$65.15

$8.34

Per
Capita

14

43

75

47

Rank

$54,185

$773,477

$3,129,038

$1,183,108

$6,654,910

Paid

64

44

16

34

Rank

Paid

$0.85

$11.31

$22.62

$12.65

$49.42

Per
Capita

67

47

24

40

Rank

Performance
incentive

21

All matches to state


grants

Tax based
performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Non-performance

Type

Incentive

33,275

73,575

47,551

60,936

36,029

70

36

56

43

66

Population Rank

$32,689

$31,970

$33,064

$32,463

$29,592

Per
Capita
Income

Population

52

60

45

55

83

16

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Transylvania

Surry

Stokes

Stanly

Scotland

County

$345,886

$2,531,800

$4,800

$57,975

$171,000

Approved

54

25

76

67

59

Rank

Agreements

$10.39

$34.41

$0.10

$0.95

$4.75

Per
Capita

45

24

76

70

56

Rank

$345,886

$488,123

$4,800

$2,035,689

$824,890

Paid

55

50

76

25

43

Rank

Paid

$10.39

$6.63

$0.10

$33.41

$22.90

Per
Capita

48

54

76

12

23

Rank

22

Tax based, no
requirements given

Performance
incentive,
infrastructure
contribution,
discounted lease of
buildings, and state
match

Match to state grant

Tax based
performance
incentive

Tax based
performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

123,710

20,883

925,938

45,558

205,717

23

83

58

10

Population Rank

$33,620

$26,882

$44,839

$31,058

$38,130

Per
Capita
Income

Population

39

98

70

19

10

14

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Wayne

Warren

Wake

Vance

Union

County

$1,661,525

$11,575

$18,499,844

$2,869,145

$548,173

Approved

34

74

21

47

Rank

Agreements

$13.43

$0.55

$19.98

$62.98

$2.66

Per
Capita

39

72

35

62

Rank

$652,400

$11,575

$7,931,128

$836,287

$44,570

Paid

46

74

42

66

Rank

Paid

$5.27

$0.55

$8.57

$18.36

$0.22

Per
Capita

57

69

50

29

74

Rank

23

All matches to state


grants

Waived construction
fees

Performance
incentive,
infrastructure
contribution, and
state match

Performance
incentive

Performance
incentive

Type

Incentive

38,442

81,380

69,592

64

34

37

Population Rank

$32,859

$35,197

$33,313

Per
Capita
Income

Population

49

32

42

11

Total
Number
Rank
of
Contracts

Policy Report
Economic Incentives: County by county

Yadkin

Wilson

Wilkes

County

$500,000

$150,000

$564,959

Approved

48

60

45

Rank

Agreements

$13.01

$1.84

$8.12

Per
Capita

41

67

48

Rank

$500,000

$8,573,178

$192,283

Paid

48

56

Rank

Paid

$13.01

$105.35

$2.76

Per
Capita

37

62

Rank

24

Infrastructure
contribution to city

Performance
incentive

Tax based grants,


one discounted
sale of land, others
are performance
incentives with state
matching

Type

Incentive

S-ar putea să vă placă și