Professional Documents
Culture Documents
February 2003
for:
Acknowledgments
We owe a debt of gratitude to several organizations and individuals whose partnership made the project possible and whose help improved its quality. Most important,
we thank the Golden LEAF and its executive director, Valeria Lee, for providing the
funding for the study to the Research Triangle Regional Partnership (RTRP). The Foundation considered a study of mini-hub development promising not just for citizens of
the non-core counties of the RTRP region, but in other regions in the state, as well.
Accordingly, we approached the project as a pilot that could be replicated elsewhere
in North Carolina and around the country where there is a relatively prosperous and
densely developed core surrounded by less prosperous and less developed counties.
RTRP was not just a client for this work, but also, an active partner. Indeed, while
Charles Hayes did not invent the idea of mini-hubs, he had the imagination to commission a study to see if they made sense in his region. He and Ted Abernathy provided support, data, contacts, and advice to us throughout the project.
Early in the project, Charles and Ted invited a cross-section of business and political leaders to convene and advise us about the likely feasibility of the concept. Those
individuals included: Dee Freeman, Ronnie Goswick, David Lawrence, Andy Levine,
Neil Mallory, Paul Meyer, Susan Seymour, and Jim Talton
Among the members of the advisory group was Neil Mallory, executive director
of the Kerr-Tar Council of Governments (Region K). He recognized the possible value
of a mini-hub for the five region K counties and invited us to several meetings to
present the concept to his constituency. Those meetings were important testing grounds
for us. We received helpful comments that we then incorporated into the plan. Significantly, the audiences to whom we presented seemed to agree with our assessment
and wanted to move ahead as a pilot site.
We also need to thank the county economic developers who helped us evaluate
their industrial sites: Benny Finch, Ronnie Goswick, Jerry Hartgrove, Bob Heuts, Allen
Kimball, Glen Newsome, Mike deSherbinin, Robin Spinks, Tony Tucker, and Leon
Turner.
The Office of Economic Development team that worked on this report included
Leslie Stewart, OEDs associate director; Brande Roberts, OED staff; Jonathan Perry, a
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
Ph.D. student in the Department of Public Policy, and Jun Koo, a Ph.D. student in the
Department of City and Regional Planning.
Of course, neither Golden LEAF nor RTRP is responsible for any errors of fact or
interpretation. Neither are the ideas we present intended to constitute the official
policy of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
ii
Contents
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ i
I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
II. The Problems to be Addressed by Mini-Hubs ......................................................... 3
Economic Disparities ................................................................................................... 4
The Failure of RTP to Spin-off Manufacturing ....................................................... 8
The Limited Effect of State Policy Efforts .............................................................. 12
Too Little Inter-county Cooperation, Too Many Industrial Parks ..................... 13
III. The Mini-Hub Concept .............................................................................................. 17
Mini-hubs Defined .................................................................................................... 17
What Mini-hubs Are, and Are Not ......................................................................... 18
How Mini-hubs Can Pay Off for the Sponsoring Counties ............................... 21
IV. What Needs to be Done to Create Mini-Hubs ....................................................... 23
Areas Currently Designated for Mini-hub Sites ................................................... 23
Sub-regional Steering Committees ......................................................................... 23
Decisions to be Made ................................................................................................ 24
Ownership/management options ........................................................................... 24
Choice of sites ............................................................................................................. 25
Choose appropriate cluster focus ........................................................................... 26
Necessary enhancements and incentives .............................................................. 26
Financing ..................................................................................................................... 28
V. Some Examples ............................................................................................................... 31
Missouri Research Park ............................................................................................. 31
The Milwaukee County Research Park .................................................................. 32
Stout Technology Park .............................................................................................. 34
References ............................................................................................................................. 37
Appendix A: Office of Economic Development Site Survey Instrument ............... 39
Appendix B: Notes on Potential Sites in Northern and Southern Counties .......... 43
Appendix C: Industry Groupings within Sample Clusters ....................................... 51
Appendix D: Legal Considerations and Examples of Revenue/Cost Sharing ........ 53
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
iii
iv
SECTION ONE
Introduction
Fifty years ago, visionary leaders in North Carolina hatched a plan for a new kind of
industrial park. Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, and its environs were suffering a considerable brain drain of talented, young individuals whose skills and aspirations were
out of sync with the jobs that were available at home. So they took their new college
degrees with them to San Francisco, Boston, and other such places.
Romeo Guess and Luther Hodges, among others, targeted land in the center of
the triangle of cities to be home to new kinds of businesses not the traditional
manufacturing companies that had been the staple of the region, but research and
development (R&D) operations associated with burgeoning new high-tech companies. The objective was to create jobs that would retain the best and brightest. The
success story of the Research Triangle Park (RTP) is well documented by Link (2002),
and Luger and Goldstein (1991).
Research Triangle Parks founders understood that R&D firms required close proximity to research universities and an airport, and RTP had those attributes. But that
raised another concern: what about the parts of North Carolina that also suffered
brain drain and lagging economic development, but did not have those features? The
answer the founders gave was that their initiative would benefit those other parts of
the state nonetheless if the companies locating in RTP also moved their manufacturing facilities to the state, to be near their R&D labs.
That did not happen to any large degree. Consequently, the gap between the
best-off and worst-off counties widened. In this region, the core counties (Durham,
Orange, and Wake) have median family incomes above the national average and what
Goldstein and Luger (1992) have termed a brain draw. But the outlying counties of
the greater region still suffer relatively low wages, higher unemployment, and the
loss of talent. The same is true for other peripheral and rural counties in the state.
In retrospect, the failure of the RTP to generate associated manufacturing activity outside the core counties is not surprising. It was merely a hope, not a plan of
action. No sites were identified to receive those related plants. No connections were
established between possible locations and the RTP. No incentives were provided to
induce specific companies to co-locate R&D and manufacturing in the same state.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
The mini-hub idea that is the subject of this report is an attempt to provide the
plan of action that has been missing from the RTP model. The concept is to provide
enhanced sites appropriate for mid-tech businesses that would benefit from proximity to the RTP and the resources located in the core counties of the region, but require
more and/or cheaper land than is available in the RTP itself. These mini-hubs would
be different from the many traditional industrial parks that are a common element in
counties economic development repertoire. They would be focused on specific clusters of businesses that are consistent with the states and regions strategy for the 21st
century. They would include facilities, services, and amenities that would be particularly attractive to those types of businesses. Ideally, they would have a special certification as an RTP-affiliate, so they can benefit from the cachet of that park. And, possibly, they would provide special incentives to targeted businesses to induce them to
come.
The cost of developing these mini-hubs will be greater than for traditional industrial parks, because of the enhancements. Even with federal and state support (which
is yet to be determined), the cost would be too high for any single non-core county to
incur. Accordingly, the mini-hubs are conceived as multi-county projects, with shared
costs and benefits. Cost and revenue sharing are not new concepts in the U.S., but
have not been used much in North Carolina. Experts argue that multi-jurisdictional
cooperation as embodied in cost and revenue sharing is required if regions are to
compete successfully in the global marketplace of the 21st century.
This report is intended only to outline in broad strokes the mini-hub concept,
not to be an operational document. It is meant to provoke sufficient interest among
stakeholders in the RTRP region to justify the next, operational phase.
The report is divided in to four further chapters. Chapter 2 expands upon the
problems faced in this region today, which demand some type of response. Chapter 3
presents the mini-hub idea: what mini-hubs are and are not meant to be. Chapter 4
specifies the steps that need to be taken to move the idea forward. And Chapter 5
provides some examples of parks elsewhere in the U.S. that bear some resemblance to
what we describe here. We relegate some supporting material to the appendices.
SECTION TWO
The Problems to be
Addressed by Mini-Hubs
The mini-hub concept was developed to address persistent problems that affect regions, like the Research Triangle Partnership, that are characterized by a relatively
healthy core and a less-vibrant periphery. The core-periphery differences show up in
many measures of economic performance and have several undesirable effects. They
reflect the market tendency for economic activity to concentrate near the most developed resources (for example, the most complete infrastructure and best-educated labor), creating a gap between have and have-not regions that public policy has difficulty overcoming. The problem is compounded by a lack of coordinated effort among
the peripheral counties. Going it alone, which is the typical approach to economic
development, invariably results in duplication of effort and destructive competition.
The mini-hub idea is not new. It is based on the same rationale as research parks
(which, in our parlance, are the hubs) that were developed as growth poles in lessdeveloped and/or more rural regions. In those locations, the parks have provided the
urbanization and localization economies that were absent.1 Of course, not all research
parks have been successful, but some have been shown to be an important engine of
regional development (Luger and Goldstein, 1991). One of the most notable examples
is the Research Triangle Park (RTP).
The idea of mini-hubs as an instrument of rural and smaller town economic development in North Carolina dates back at least to the first two terms of James B.
Hunts governorship. He proposed the idea of a Triangle East park, to be developed
amid Zebulon, Rocky Mount, and Wilson, providing a locus for manufacturing facilities that may have R&D operations in RTP. That idea was picked up again during the
Vision 2030 meetings throughout the state, where regional leaders puzzled over ways
to provide the impetus for cluster development outside the major urban centers. The
1. Urbanization economies are present in well-populated areas where the density of households
and businesses enables a large number of support services and amenities to be economically
viable. Localization economies arise when many similar businesses co-locate to take advantage of
a density of a common pool of workers and other similarly demanded inputs.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
Rural Prosperity Task Force also raised the question of whether mini-hubs might be a
viable rural development strategy.
Economic Disparities
The unevenness of economic development among North Carolinas counties has long
been recognized, and has been a focus of state policy for decades.2 In 2001, for example, the five healthiest counties had an average unemployment rate 8.7 percentage
points lower than the five worst-off counties (2.7 vs. 11.4 percent),3 and an average
median household income $23,262 higher ($49,339 vs., $26,077).4 Those types of differences have persisted through good and bad economic times.5
The worst-off counties in North Carolina generally are rural and toward the periphery of the state. That can be seen in the most recent tier map of North Carolina
(Figure 1) which shows five levels of counties by level of distress. Those tiers are
used to target tax incentive and other programs toward the counties most in need.
Tiers 1 and 2 (the worst-off) tend to be at the states rural edges.
FIGURE 1: Tier Designations
2. An early example of this was the 1986 North Carolina Commission on Jobs and Economic
Growths year-long study to identify the major economic challenges facing the state. Chief among
its findings was the growing disparity between rural and urban North Carolina. That study led to
the creation of the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center in January 1987.
3. The worst-off counties in 2001 in terms of unemployment rates were Halifax, Swain, Cleveland, Robeson, and Yancey. The best-off counties were Watauga, Orange, Currituck, Chatham,
and Camden. Source, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics.
4. The worst-off counties in 2001 in median household income were Bertie, Tyrrell, Hertford,
Halifax, and Graham. The best-off counties were Durham, Cabarrus, Mecklenberg, Union, and
Wake.
5. In 1997, for example, the difference between the top and bottom five counties in unemployment rates was even greater 1.88 vs. 11.34 percent.
Each of the seven economic development partnership regions of the state has
marked variation among its constituent counties, though to different degrees. The
Northeast Partnership, for example, contains just Tier 1, 2, and 3 counties. Other regions have at least a few Tier 4 and 5 counties to go along with their lower tier counties.
The Research Triangle Regional Partnership (RTRP), shown in Figure 2, is perhaps the most interesting case because it contains three of the wealthiest counties in
the state (Durham, Orange, and Wake), which house major universities and sophisticated high-tech companies. The core part of the region is centered on one of the
worlds oldest, largest, and most successful research parks. At the same time, RTRP
includes a Tier 3 (Person) and two Tier 1 counties (Vance and Warren).
Some of the differences in demographics among counties can be seen in Table 1.
Figure 3 shows differences in educational attainment.
The tale told by the data is one of two subregions: the haves and the have-nots.
Residents of the core counties Durham, Orange, and Wake had better access to
jobs, with November 2002 unemployment rates at 5.5, 2.9, and 4.8 percent, respectively, compared to 7.4, 8.8, 12.3, and 8.8, and 12.3 percent in Harnett, Person, Vance,
and Warren, Counties, respectively. Citizens in the higher unemployment counties
that did work tended to commute longer to their jobs. Over 20 percent of all workers
in Harnett, Warren and Person Counties drove more than 45 minutes to work, compared to 11 percent or less in each of the core counties. Job quality and pay follow
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
TABLE 1: Differences in Demographics Among RTRP Counties Core, Southern, and Northern
Percent
Workers
Commuting
45 or More
Minutes to
Work
Percent
Workers
Working
at Home
Median
Household
Income,
1999
Unemployment
Rates,
Nov 2002
Total
Population
Percent
Population
White
Percent
Population
Black or
AfricanAmerican
Durham
Orange
Wake
7.2%
8.0%
11.0%
2.7%
4.4%
3.8%
$43,337
$42,372
$54,988
5.5%
2.9%
4.8%
223,314
118,227
627,846
50.9%
78.0%
72.4%
39.5%
13.8%
19.7%
32.2
30.4
32.9
Chatham
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
Moore
17.5%
21.5%
23.3%
15.6%
10.6%
4.5%
1.9%
2.3%
1.8%
4.1%
$42,851
$35,105
$40,872
$38,900
$41,240
5.3%
7.4%
5.1%
7.2%
6.2%
49,329
91,025
121,965
49,040
74,769
74.9%
71.1%
78.1%
70.0%
80.2%
17.1%
22.5%
15.7%
20.5%
15.5%
38.8
32.5
34.2
35.9
41.8
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
30.8%
18.4%
25.0%
13.6%
21.0%
2.1%
1.9%
2.5%
1.3%
3.2%
$38,968
$39,965
$37,159
$31,301
$28,351
6.1%
6.5%
8.8%
12.3%
8.8%
47,260
48,498
35,623
42,954
19,972
66.0%
60.7%
68.8%
48.2%
38.9%
30.0%
34.9%
28.2%
48.3%
54.5%
35.8
36.2
38.0
35.0
39.7
County
Median
Age, both
sexes
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population; North Carolina Employment Security Commission.
Northern tier
Southern tier
50.0%
40.0%
No high school diploma
30.0%
Bachelor's, graduate, or
professional degree
20.0%
10.0%
Le
e
M
oo
re
ur
ha
m
O
ra
ng
e
W
ak
Fr e
an
k
Gr lin
an
vil
le
Pe
rso
n
Va
nc
W e
ar
Ch ren
at
ha
m
H
ar
ne
tt
Jo
hn
s to
n
0.0%
similar patterns. Median household income in the core counties ranged from $42,400
to $55,000 compared to around $30,000 in the Tier 1 counties in the northern part of
the region.
The commuting patterns that arise due to the unevenness of quality job supply
can be seen in Table 2. That table uses recently released 2000 data to show the cross
commuting among the 13 counties in the RTRP region. The shaded cells along the
diagonal indicate the percent of workers that stay within the same county of residence to work. One hundred percent minus that amount (shown as the column totals) is the proportion of workers commuting out of their county of residence.
We can see that 74.9, 57.6, and 80.5 percent on the workers in Durham, Orange,
and Wake Counties, respectively, were able to work within their home counties. In
Franklin, Harnett, and Warren Counties (for example), the percentages were much
less: 34.9, 39.2, and 44.9 percent, respectively. Moreover, the gap between the core and
non-core counties in within-county commuting has grown since 1990.
There are at least three consequences of long commutes from outer to inner counties. First, there is an equity issue with lower-paid workers having to spend more time
than higher-paid core county workers every day in their car, incurring out-of-pocket
costs as well as the opportunity cost of their time.6 Second, the commuting creates
TABLE 2: Cross-commuting in 2000
Franklin County
Granville County
Harnett County
Johnston County
Lee County
Moore County
Orange County
Person County
Vance County
Wake County
Warren County
11.11%
0.09%
0.18%
0.11%
0.29%
5.73%
0.61%
17.06%
0.03%
0.00%
11.12%
0.00%
11,018
2,739
21
45
26
71
1,413
150
4,206
Durham County
0.31%
74.94%
0.19%
1.25%
0.00%
0.36%
0.16%
0.00%
8.24%
0.24%
349
84,262
211
1,410
409
178
9,262
270
130
13,929
Franklin County
0.21%
4.27%
34.93%
2.77%
0.13%
1.27%
0.09%
0.00%
0.24%
0.13%
4.37%
46.51%
0.27%
47
951
7,772
616
28
282
21
54
29
973
10,347
60
Granville County
0.06%
22.49%
1.16%
53.46%
0.01%
0.40%
0.29%
0.03%
1.21%
1.08%
5.01%
12.15%
0.08%
12
4,609
238
10,957
82
60
249
221
1,026
2,489
16
Harnett County
0.61%
1.35%
0.06%
0.04%
39.20%
3.75%
11.16%
1.25%
0.21%
0.00%
0.04%
21.78%
0.00%
248
547
24
18
15,916
1,521
4,530
508
84
18
8,841
Johnston County
0.21%
2.80%
0.16%
0.18%
2.38%
45.97%
0.32%
0.01%
0.42%
0.01%
0.05%
40.27%
124
1,645
92
107
1,399
26,971
187
246
30
23,628
Lee County
6.04%
1.68%
0.07%
0.14%
1.37%
0.21%
71.56%
3.62%
1.03%
0.00%
0.03%
9.15%
0.00%
1,383
384
17
31
313
47
16,382
828
236
2,094
Moore County
1.24%
0.18%
0.03%
0.05%
0.16%
0.02%
4.50%
76.10%
0.14%
0.00%
0.01%
0.96%
398
57
10
17
51
1,441
24,365
44
308
Orange County
1.30%
27.06%
0.14%
0.32%
0.01%
0.17%
0.15%
0.00%
57.60%
0.23%
0.02%
6.92%
0.01%
792
16,470
83
196
105
91
35,053
142
12
4,212
Person County
0.26%
23.83%
0.05%
3.40%
0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
4.06%
58.13%
0.44%
3.71%
0.00%
43
3,939
562
671
9,609
73
614
Vance County
0.00%
3.03%
2.10%
13.10%
0.06%
0.12%
0.06%
0.00%
0.33%
0.16%
70.13%
6.56%
542
377
2,347
10
22
10
60
29
12,561
1,175
329
Wake County
0.26%
12.80%
0.72%
0.42%
0.27%
1.20%
0.34%
0.04%
1.05%
0.05%
0.14%
80.46%
0.01%
873
43,351
2,430
1,422
916
4,050
1,167
145
3,552
166
478
272,432
18
Warren County
0.10%
2.90%
2.74%
4.13%
0.00%
0.21%
0.00%
0.00%
0.70%
0.06%
24.58%
3.85%
44.87%
50
1,757
275
3,208
60.80%
24,683
54.03%
31,704
28.44%
6,511
23.90%
7,653
42.40%
25,807
41.87%
6,922
29.87%
5,350
19.54%
66,170
55.13%
3,941
Working
Outside RTRP
Durham County
44.69%
Total County
Workforce
Chatham County
County of Work
County of Residence
Chatham County
% commuting out
# commuting out
207
196
295
55.31%
13,639
25.06%
28,171
65.07%
14,476
46.54%
9,537
17
15
2,743
0.12%
12.39%
8.99%
24,657
2,217
0.01%
1.79%
112,433
2,015
4.80%
22,248
1,068
2.57%
20,494
526
20.55%
40,599
8,344
0.02%
7.19%
58,675
4,221
5.12%
22,893
0.00%
1,171
16.60%
32,018
5,315
6.06%
60,860
3,687
6.02%
16,531
995
1.84%
2.51%
17,911
449
2.25%
338,602
7,602
15.88%
7,149
1,135
Data taken from the US Census Bureau website at http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html. Cells with no values entered had no workers listed; percentages are rounded. Actual number o
shown beneath percentage.
6. The opportunity cost of their time is lower, but the cost as a percentage of their income is
higher.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
bottlenecks on the major arteries. Though I-85 and US 1 generally are not at capacity,
level of service (LOS) is deteriorating. At times now, and increasingly in the future,
there will be serious congestion. The Triangle Transit Authoritys proposed regional
rail will have minimal benefits for the outer counties. The traffic patterns referred to
above are shown in Figure 4. The third, related consequence of long commutes is
increasing air pollution. The Research Triangle metro area already exceeds EPA thresholds for clean air on many occasions. (For example, www.lungusa.org ranked the Research Triangle MSA the 13th worst metro area in the U.S. in terms of ozone in 2001).
Counties in the region also differ in their demographics. Vance and Warren Counties had the highest percent of African-American population in the region and among
the older populations when retirees are excluded. And they have the lowest educational attainment in the region, with Person, Franklin, and Granville close behind.
The southern counties also have older and less well-educated populations.
7. A notable exception is the GlaxoSmithKline facility in Zebulon, in the rural part of Wake
County.
Durham
Orange
Wake
223,314
118,227
627,846
132,681
57,567
229,006
2.30%
3.50%
5.80%
90,633
60,660
398,840
Chatham
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
Moore
49,329
91,025
121,965
49,040
74,769
29,554
49,667
61,737
30,476
39,048
2.20%
2.80%
3.30%
2.00%
3.00%
19,775
41,358
60,228
18,564
35,721
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
47,260
48,498
35,623
42,954
19,972
26,820
32,762
25,914
32,691
15,340
2.50%
1.60%
1.20%
1.00%
1.00%
20,440
15,736
9,709
10,263
4,632
County
Average
Annual
Change
Number of
New
Residents
Total
Population,
2000
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
TABLE 4a: Largest Employers in Northern Tier (Kerr-Tar) Counties, with Size and Year Established
Franklin county
Granville county
425
315
650
1949
314
450
1998
165
450
1984
125
125
125
102
1,600
1987
300
300
1936
250
1978
240
1942
1976
101
225
100
225
1988
91
203
1982
88
200
1969
70
180
1995
65
175
1975
60
165
1901
60
165
60
52
145
50
125
1965
50
100
1987
Person county
2221 Silk & Man-Made Fiber (Primary)
145
1988
Vance county
1,100
750
1979
550
600
1960
525
600
1895
Electricity Production
300
550
1904
270
350
1952
200
300
1960
200
270
1959
200
150
1987
200
145
1946
140
135
1974
100
100
1999
75
100
1974
79 Entertainment Complex
60
95
1956
60
90
1978
45
80
1981
20 Soft Drinks
40
75
1999
30
40
1996
Cable Harnesses
25
40
1945
25
40
35
Power/Steam Generation
25
750
1979
155
1970
145
1978
145
1991
125
1917
101
2000
83
1997
55
1991
47
1952
1977
Warren county
Data processing
34
1989
22
1966
19
1998
18
1974
17
1986
1995
1995
1920
1989
1976
10
TABLE 4b: Largest Employers in Southern Tier Counties, with Size and Year Established
Chatham county
Harnett county
750
800
700
300
1893
650
250
1984
1967
600
250
1973
550
200
1932
400
160
1966
260
140
1986
230
120
1979
225
120
1985
220
114
1975
200
95
1983
150
90
1991
110
75
1976
105
65
1948
100
65
1976
100
60
1994
100
60
100
55
1974
95
50
1950
90
50
1946
1,040
1989
1987
Johnston county
Lee county
1,300
800
970
Warehouse/Distribution
780
930
1971
650
740
1976
3564 Filters
400
625
1978
300
500
1971
270
480
1971
250
475
200
460
1978
200
450
1972
175
130
1991 2051 Bread, Bakery Prod. Exc Cookies & Crackers (Primary)
1975 Brick clay, common face
450
435
1990
1988
130
400
100
385
100
350
1987
100
325
1996
94
300
1983
85
300
1988
80
300
1988
80
300
1996
Moore county
2273 Carpets & Rugs (Primary)
455
1965
350
1965
300
1982
235
1984
200
1992
185
160
1985
150
1987
150
1950
150
1987
135
1972
130
1987
120
1979
110
1976
100
1963
100
1949
90
1969
90
70
1920
70
1947
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
11
Number
Recorded
13
5
10
16
3
6
16
15
14
10
Examples
Software, computer networking equipment (2), furniture (2)
Telecommunications equipment (2), infusion systems, textiles/apparel
Apparel/textiles (5), mobile home mfr., furniture, semiconductors
Apparel/textiles (6), mobile home mfr., furniture, tobacco-related (2)
Apparel/textiles (2), wood containers
Apparel/textiles (2), furniture, poultry processing
Apparel/textiles (4), mobile home mfr., furniture (2)
Apparel/textiles (6), mobile home mfr., furniture
Apparel/textiles (5), furniture (2), agriculture, wiring devices/products (3)
Apparel/textiles (3), mfd. homes (2), poultry processing
12
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
13
14
The problem with this approach is that, arguably, there are too many parks competing for a limited number of tenants, and as a result, land prices are kept down by
competition and persistently low vacancy rates in the parks. To illustrate: based on
land sales information in the RTRP database for February 2003, the price of an average
acre of industrial land in Person, Vance, and Warren Counties was between $7,000 and
$12,000. The next close-in counties outside the core are Franklin and Granville, with
averages of $16,000 and $29,000 (and Franklin having over 10 times as much acreage
available). Similarly, the averages per acre in the southern tier rural counties range
from $11,000 to $20,000 per acre. Not surprisingly, land in the core counties is more
expensive: $47,000 to $59,000 per acre in Durham, Orange, and Wake. Of course, land
prices conform to a gradient as densities fall. Our point is that the relative oversupply
of land in the non-core counties, relative to industrial demand, is keeping that gradient steeper than it might otherwise be.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
15
16
SECTION THREE
Mini-hubs Defined
A mini-hub is an enhanced industrial park intended to serve as a growth pole outside of the urban center of a region. The growth pole idea is not new. It has been the
guiding principle for many of the research parks established outside major metropolitan areas in the past fifty years (see Luger and Goldstein, 1991). A park in less-dense
places can substitute for the urbanization and localization economies that otherwise
would exist, and help create a critical mass of economic activity that can be selfsustaining.
When Research Triangle Park was established in 1959, the core counties of the
RTRP region were not as populous or developed as they are now, and indeed, the
park was responsible for much of the economic growth that has occurred since. Luger
and Goldstein (1991) estimated that one of every four new jobs in the region created
between 1959 and 1991 were directly or indirectly attributable to the park. So, one of
the best examples of a successful growth pole is right here.
Today, the Research Triangle Park can be characterized as a major (or maxi-) hub.
With about 40,000 employees in the park, direct links with the areas research universities, the existence within the park of such facilities as the NIEHS, EPA, MCNC, and
the N.C. Biotech Center, the park is a major center of gravity not just for the region
and state, but also for the U.S. Indeed, the success of the park is a primary factor in
North Carolina being cited as one of the nations top biotech centers (Brookings, 2002),
and for the Research Triangle region being a perennial member of the countrys hightech elite.
The designation of a new type of more rural park as a mini-hub recognizes the
existence of that center of gravity. The proposed enhanced industrial parks would not
be stand-alone developments, but would link in some way with the maxi-hub (RTP)
and to each other.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
17
In the remainder of this section, we explain more about what mini-hubs are and
are not, and discuss the types of linkages they can have with RTP and each other.
8. This Office worked with President Lancaster of the N.C. Community College System on a
concept to develop a series of Industrial Cluster Resource Centers that would train workers in
skills appropriate for clusters, not specific industries (as do the Focused Industry Training (FIT)
and New and Expanding Industry Training (NEIT) programs). See Gorham, Luger, Stewart,
Rosenfeld, and Jacobs (2000).
18
dustrial Cluster Resource Center report (2000), Vision 2030 project (2000), and RTRP
Competitive Marketing Action Plan (1997).
The different studies refer to clusters using somewhat different language, but
there are some similarities: in telecommunications and information technology, including services and software; in life science-related, including pharmaceuticals and
biotech, labs, and hospitals; and in chemicals and plastics and related products. The
RTRP study also considers warehousing and distribution and sports-related businesses.
Further work needs to be done to update these lists and specify which are most appropriate for the various subregions of the greater RTRP service area.
Just as mini-hubs are not intended as traditional industrial parks, neither are
they intended to be high-end research parks, like the RTP or Centennial Campus. It
would be unrealistic to expect the kind of companies that are in RTP and Centennial
Campus, and eventually in UNC-Chapel Hills Carolina North project, to locate even
40 miles to the north or south of the core counties. Location surveys indicate that
those companies value immediate proximity to the universities and airport, as well as
to each other, as well as highly educated labor and the prestigious address of the RTP
or research campuses.
Positioned between traditional industrial parks and research parks, the mini-hubs
could be viewed as mid-tech parks, accommodating businesses that use skilled labor to make advanced products, rather than on R&D. Appropriate functions would
include:
Processing, manufacturing, and some back-office activities (sophisticated call
centers, data processing and storage/retrieval) might be appropriate tenants.
Spin-offs from RTP and Centennial campus (and elsewhere), seeking less expensive space and access to appropriate labor.
Clusters of Innovation
Communications
equipment
Industrial Cluster
Resource Centers
Telecommunications
equipment
Vision 2030
Information technology
and instruments
RTRP Competitive
Marketing Action Plan
Information technology
and telecommunications
business
Communications
services and software
Pharmaceutical/
biotechnology
Pharmaceutical/
biotechnology
Pharmaceutical and
medical technologies
Health-related businesses,
including pharmaceutical/
biotechnology
Manufacturing, including
automotive supply,
metalworking, and plastics
Warehousing and
distribution
Sports-related businesses
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
19
As discussed in section two, the outer counties already have examples of these
types of businesses, but they are too few and too scattered to spawn significant additional economic growth.
Central to the mini-hub concept is the existence of meaningful linkages between
the mini-hubs and the maxi-hub, and among each other. The connection to Research
Triangle Park could take several forms. The Research Triangle Foundation, which governs and manages RTP, could govern and manage the mini-hubs, as well. But that
would require the mini-hubs to have additional characteristics, including a not-forprofit private organizational structure, an explicit connection to the regions universities, and the types of land use restrictions, such as small footprint, minimum lot size,
and design and landscaping standards, that have made RTP such an attractive physical location.9
Alternatively, the mini-hubs could undergo a qualification process to be certified by the RTF, as an official affiliate. That would allow those marketing the minihubs to use the Research Triangle brand, which has global appeal. It would also distinguish the mini-hubs from the hundreds of other public and private industrial parks in
the region.
In any case, it is essential for the mini-hub and RTF staffs to work cooperatively,
to maximize the likelihood that RTP companies doing R&D would consider the minihubs as sites for their back office, production, distribution/warehousing, or spin-off
facilities.
Similarly, it is essential for the mini-hubs within the RTRP region (at this stage,
two are conceived) to coordinate efforts. The overall strategy is for the mini-hubs to
have different cluster foci, so that they are not competing with each other, and can
develop differentiable products. They then could realize economies of scale in marketing and other management functions. They could cross-refer tenants that better fit
the other mini-hub.
The overall scheme would be marketed to site selection consultants, businesses,
and others as an articulated regional system, or what the economic development literature refers to as a technopolis.10 The RTP, airport, universities, community colleges, mini-hubs, other industrial parks, governmental resources, all constitute parts
of that system that are coordinated and synergistic. This concept is shown schematically in Figure 6.
The dotted lines show the connections among the mini-hubs. The blue lines signify the connections with RTP. Each mini-hub itself over time would establish connections with resources in its own region, as shown for the mini-hub in the upper left
hand corner. The small green dots might be existing traditional industrial parks that
would get referrals from the mini-hub staff, of companies not appropriate for the minihub.
9. Based on an interview with James Roberson , Gary Shope, and Elizabeth Rooks, of the RTF
staff, on August 12, 2002.
10. See, for example, Luger, Gibson and Oh, eds. (1998).
20
Figure 7:
mini
mini
Central
hub
mini
mini
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
21
been forthcoming. The mini-hub concept is particularly consistent with principles espoused by the Bush administrations Economic Development Administration. Assistant Secretary David Sampson has identified projects that apply regionalism and a
cluster focus as higher priority for infrastructure funding from his agency.11 A focus
on biotech, for example, would tie into a state priority to solidify North Carolinas
advantage, and could capitalize on the Golden LEAF decision to invest $42 million in
bioscience companies developing products or manufacturing in North Carolina. The
networking emphasis might be attractive to the Rural Internet Access Authority,
through the e-communities initiative. These and other possibilities would need to be
explored in further work.
It is important to stress that mini-hubs would not necessarily compete with existing industrial parks for tenants. Their pool of prospects would be different, just as the
companies RTP recruits are not typically prospects for traditional industrial parks. In
fact, it is more likely that mini-hubs would stimulate business locations in industrial
parks. In short, a rising tide floats all ships. Other, lower-tech companies that trade
with the mid-tech tenants targeted for the mini-hubs would seek locations nearby.
That is beginning to occur in northeast North Carolina around the NuCor steel plant.
It is expected to happen in Greensboro around the Federal Express facility. And it has
occurred around Research Triangle Park.
11. Sampson discusses four rules for competitiveness in the 21st century: Think regionally to
compete globally; Industry clusters drive regional performance; Economic input-advantage fuels
cluster competition; and Collaboration achieves economic advantage. See www.commerce.gov/
eda.
22
SECTION FOUR
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
23
contracting. And they would be instrumental in garnering political support for the
initiatives.
Decisions to be Made
The steering committees will have to make decisions regarding ownership and management, specific sites, appropriate cluster focus, necessary enhancements and incentives, and financing.
Ownership/management options
Industrial and research parks employ a variety of ownership and management models. Ownership and management may or may not be by the same entity. For example,
states or local governments that own parks may manage them themselves or contract
out management to a private company that specializes in that activity. But parks are
not owned just by states and local governments (including public institutions of higher
learning), but also by private developers, private universities, and not-for-profit organizations (such as the Research Triangle Foundation).
Public ownership has some benefits, including the possible use of eminent domain to assemble the land. Parks are often built on land that had been in public use for
24
other purposes, such as a military base or state hospital, so that a significant monetary
transfer is not required.
To the extent that public funds are used to help develop mini-hubs, on the grounds
that the parks have economic development benefits for the region, some public accountability is desirable. That can be achieved by creating a governing board whose
members are appointed by the governor, speaker of the house, and president pro-tem
of the state senate, for example, and/or who represent local governments in the region. That approach characterizes the governing boards of several of the regional economic development partnerships (the Eastern region, for example). A more local version of that characterizes such public authorities as the Triangle Transit Authority.
The participating counties must agree on the constitution of the public governing board, their by-laws and procedures. State law will affect the entitys authority to
issue bonds, condemn land, and other legal actions.
Choice of sites
We visited a number of potential sites, meeting such criteria as: (1) within 45 minutes
of RDU and the research universities in the core counties, (2) near concentrations of
underemployed and lower-income workers in the peripheral counties, (3) near major
highways, (4) served by common utilities/infrastructure, (5) large enough with sufficient unbuilt space to accommodate a major new project. We provide the protocol we
used to collect information on potential sites, as Appendix A.
Figures 8 and 9 show the most likely sites in the northern and southern parts of
the RTRP area, respectively. We narrowed the list to these possibilities with the help of
local economic development professionals.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
25
26
cilities and services appropriate for the mini-hubs focus. Among the facilities might
be incubators or accelerators, testing and research labs, advanced information and
communications technology centers, and meeting and conference space. Those are
the types of facilities commonly found in research parks (see Luger, 2003). The services to be provided might include special training, marketing and export promotion,
expedited regulatory review and approval, and technical and managerial assistance
(as provided by such organizations as the small business and technology development center, the Department of Commerce, and the industrial extension service).
Businesses on the mini-hub site would benefit from the co-location of these facilities and services. Having regulatory agencies in one place enables one-stop shopping. Similarly, businesses would have easy access to two different kinds of technical
assistance. The service providers would also benefit from co-location, which would
provide opportunities to coordinate and collaborate.
An important financial incentive already is provided businesses that would move
to or expand in a mini-hub. If an industrial park spans or is owned by several counties
with different tier designations, the designation of the lowest of those counties applies to businesses seeking William S. Lee act credits, regardless of the designation of
the county in which the park is located.
Radius
(A)
Butner
Business Park
(B)
Oxford
Business Park
(C)
Triangle North
Industrial Park
(D)
Daniel
Site
(F)
Capital Blvd
Site
(I)
US-1 (Soul
City) Sites
Total Population
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
7,866
59,918
511,271
2,529
28,962
398,745
5,563
50,917
156,909
4,200
50,917
156,909
9,754
44,786
175,146
6,121
36,824
137,114
Population 1824
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
357
3,369
53,834
233
2,317
32,886
405
3,922
12,093
329
3,922
12,093
609
3,394
13,504
433
2,912
10,418
Population 5564
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
500
4,908
37,537
313
2,853
31,105
413
4,846
14,635
315
4,846
14,635
1,073
4,208
16,320
552
3,301
13,729
Median Household
Income
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
$55,214
$53,267
$42,780
$32,251
$39,559
$40,212
$44,391
$31,669
$32,903
$41,211
$31,669
$32,903
$33,388
$32,417
$33,318
$27,657
$25,742
$30,549
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
1,757
13,419
89,449
614
7,852
81,373
1,332
12,271
40,554
1,037
12,271
40,554
2,023
10,594
45,589
1,694
9,321
34,211
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
906
8,198
75,687
177
1,531
49,823
390
3,836
10,519
228
3,836
10,519
1,014
3,588
11,717
397
2,082
9,730
Graduate Degree
Education, 25+
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
452
3,854
46,567
0
783
24,799
125
1,176
3,499
53
1,176
3,499
342
1,165
4,149
131
577
2,945
Total Employed by
Place of Residence, 16+
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
4,760
33,594
260,854
1,239
11,879
204,963
2,971
27,057
74,932
2,192
27,057
74,932
5,551
23,986
85,154
2,478
16,849
65,218
Total Employed by
Place of Work, 16+
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
835
13,285
183,377
344
5,991
157,101
1,457
18,566
43,649
1,222
18,566
43,649
3,466
14,869
49,188
445
12,228
38,109
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
27
Financing
The cost of developing mini-hubs will be considerably more than for standard industrial parks. Certainly, roads, water, sewer, gas, telecommunications, and electricity need
to be in place. But to make the mini-hub a first-class development attractive to very
selective, footloose, mid-tech companies, all wires and cables will need to be buried
and the site will have to be prepared for high-speed broadband and/or wireless communications. In addition, the park will have to be developed at a relatively low density, possibly including minimum lot size and maximum footprint requirements, to
ensure the appropriate physical appearance. Finally, additional resources will have to
be devoted to landscaping and signage.
The cost of these land use and development add-ons would fall on the counties
undertaking the project, with possible help from the U.S. Economic Development
Administration. In addition, there will be costs associated with what we referred to
above as enhancements specialized facilities and programs. The steering committee will have to work with federal and state organizations and agencies to identify
funds for them.
The high cost of site development would make mini-hubs infeasible for any one
of the non-core counties in our study region. However, because the mini-hub is to be
TABLE 8: Radius data for Southern Sites, 2000
Southern Subregion
(A)
(B)
(C)
Radius
New Hope
Farms Site
Samarcan Site
Catawba
Site
Total Population
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
6,673
29,733
424,976
7,150
19,728
144,131
7,528
26,505
196,805
8,271
41,930
304,320
12,460
50,135
525,773
28,801
64,405
545,490
Population 1824
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
573
2,090
40,988
503
1,338
10,523
481
1,739
15,559
632
3,027
29,116
2,072
4,856
53,727
2,246
5,159
51,548
Population 5564
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
845
3,187
39,324
683
2,252
14,974
770
2,442
19,461
712
3,854
23,710
1,053
4,656
38,586
2,495
5,365
43,597
Median Household
Income
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
$38,225
$35,999
$37,093
$29,072
$36,273
$36,424
$32,069
$38,091
$36,246
$42,185
$36,124
$42,820
$33,090
$32,977
$41,268
$34,579
$38,851
$39,783
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
2,246
8,842
104,105
1,773
4,811
35,100
2,106
6,892
47,848
2,236
10,552
62,307
2,305
12,968
110,202
6,726
15,630
120,492
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
341
1,842
43,498
293
1,598
14,527
361
2,336
18,681
647
3,872
39,427
1,136
3,161
58,682
2,730
5,870
65,131
Graduate Degree
Education, 25+
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
154
583
16,716
167
783
5,433
152
741
6,446
249
1,198
18,252
784
1,528
21,708
885
1,977
20,761
Total Employed by
Place of Residence, 16+
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
3,676
16,242
236,468
2,752
8,199
67,330
3,670
13,034
88,055
4,601
22,242
134,915
5,845
22,114
235,127
15,381
35,036
293,117
Total Employed by
Place of Work, 16+
5 Miles
10 Miles
25 Miles
1,602
8,930
172,760
1,738
5,396
48,649
630
4,604
65,542
5,639
20,684
77,378
5,070
12,486
150,995
10,702
18,903
198,508
28
(D)
Lee County
Industrial
Park
(F)
(I)
Layton
Property Site
Talton
Property Site
developed by a consortium of counties, the costs would be shared. The steering committee will need to develop a formula to allocate the costs. Because the selected site is
not likely to be a green field, the formula might take into consideration investments
already made on the site by the county in which the site is located.
The allocation of costs would most likely relate to the sharing of benefits. Those
benefits would include at least property and sales tax (local portion) revenues generated on the site. If the assumption that the mini-hub will induce other economic activity nearby, but not on the site is correct, there would be a basis for sharing other tax
revenues, as well.
A number of institutional mechanisms could be put in place to facilitate the sharing of costs. The participating counties could enter into inter-local agreements, whereby
the counties execute a contract regarding the services and costs for a specific parcel.
The sharing of revenues also could be arranged through the use of a revenue sharing
agreement. The simplest version would cover the benefits generated on-site only. More
sophisticated approaches would include off-site induced benefits.
Multi-county projects are a stated priority of the Economic Development Strategic Plan for North Carolina completed by the Governor s Economic Development
Board in October 2002. There is currently nothing in the North Carolina General Statutes to preclude the inter-local agreements required for revenue sharing, but Ernie
Pearson of the Sanford Holshauser law firm recently submitted an opinion to the North
Carolina Economic Development Board that state legislation would nonetheless be
desirable for encouraging such agreements.
Appendix D provides further comments about the legal environment for interlocal agreements, and examples.
Wages
Employment
Wages
Number
of establishments
Clusters
Employment
Biotech
35
$673,638
2,834
$45,735,549
14
Plastics and
chemicals
59
$473,173
4,736
$48,813,629
26
Information
technology
and comm.
equipment
596
$5,137,291
57
4,790
$45,714,161
199
Medicalrelated
146
$933,698
89
$1,226,074
Source: N.C. Employment Security Commission, ES-202 files. See Appendix B for groupings of industries within
clusters.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
29
30
SECTION FIVE
Some Examples
We know of no developments elsewhere called mini-hubs that have all the features
proposed here. However, there are many examples of what their developers refer to
as research or technology parks, which, because of their location in rural places
and lack of adjacency to major universities, are really mid-tech parks, such as we
propose.
In this section we review a few examples of such mid-tech parks that appear
from their literature to be interesting illustrations. Of course, success is a normative
judgment, and absent detailed analysis of longitudinal data, we cannot say unequivocally that the parks we summarize have, indeed, succeeded.
Our examples are drawn from the membership list of the Association of UniversityRelated Research Parks (AURRP) and from articles in Site Selection magazine.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
31
These include mid-tech companies (for example, Central Rolled Thread Die Co.,
Diagraph which makes automated metering, coding, and labeling equipment
and Zoltek Corporation a producer of carbon fiber), some research, and several
government facilities, including the FAA and National Weather Service.
Consistent with the mini-hub model, the park also includes special amenities,
including an award-winning 235-acre golf course, wooded recreational trails, fullylighted concrete streets, strict protective covenants to ensure first-class, low-density
development, and all underground utilities (12.5KV electric, broadband fiber, natural
gas, water, sewer). The park is owned and managed by the University of Missouri
system. That enables the park to advertise affiliations with University of Missouri
faculty and research personnel.
32
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
33
bodies.
Resilient Networks, Inc. Telecommunications provider of data, voice,
Internet, and video services to local and metro area enterprises and institutions.
Serlio Software Corporation.
SPS Productions, LLC 3d multimedia animation, web content and hosting,
and e-commerce.
Tailored Solutions, Inc. Job tracking software for the printing industry.
TechWorks, LLC Managed technology services (MTS) business with operations that monitor and manage, both onsite and remotely, information technology systems for small to medium sized companies.
Time Warner Telecom - IDD High speed Internet service for business and
institutions.
Tobin Solutions, Inc. Providing a full range of information technology services for business.
Topical Networks, LLC Internet software and web design with a focus on
digital music distribution.
TPI Technologies Industrial and prototype design using composite materials.
Uni-Comm Corporation Engineers and designs PBX, wireless, and other
telecommunications.
Wisconsin Internet Solutions Company, LLC Wisconsin Viral Research Group,
Inc. Medical diagnostics laboratory focusing on virologic research.
34
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
35
36
References
Cortwright, Joseph and Heike Mayer (2002). Signs of Life: The Growth of Biotechnology Centers in the
U.S. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Goldstein, Harvey A. and Michael I. Luger (1992). Carolina Impact: UNC-Chapel Hill and the States
Economy. University of North Carolina Bicentennial.
Gorham, Lucy, Michael Luger, Leslie Stewart, Stuart Rosenfeld and James Jacobs (2000). Maintaining Competitiveness in the New Millennium: A Plan to Establish Industry Cluster Resource Centers in
North Carolina. For the North Carolina Community College System.
Link, Albert N. (2002). From Seed to Harvest: The History of the Growth of the Research Triangle Park.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Foundation.
Luger, Michael I. (2001). Assessment of the William S. Lee Tax Act. For the North Carolina Department of Commerce. Available at www.oed.unc.edu.
Luger, Michael I. (2003). Research Parks and the Economic Development Trajectory: Countries
Ambition and Capacity. Ms. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Economic Development
Luger, Michael I., David Gibson and D. S. Oh, editors (1998). Technopolis as Regional Development
Policy. World Technopolis Association.
Luger, Michael I. and Harvey Goldstein (1991). Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional
Economic Development. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Monitor Group, in affiliation with Dr. Michael E. Porter (2002). Clusters of Innovation in the Research
Triangle Region. Council on Competitiveness.
North Carolina Rural Prosperity Task Force (2000). Recommendations Summary. Available at http://
ruraltaskforce.state.nc.us.
Office of Economic Development (2000). High-Tech Clusters in North Carolina. For the North
Carolina Board of Science and Technology, Vision 2030 project. By Edward J. Feser, Henry
Renski, and Aaron Cain.
Stewart, Leslie S., Barnett, Camille, Leaman, Sam (1997). Competitive Marketing Action Plan for the
Research Triangle Region. Research Triangle Institute.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
37
38
APPENDIX A
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
39
Community Resources
Cities/Towns [w/ population]:
Distance to town w >5000 population (town center): ____________
Minutes to downtown Raleigh: ____________
Hospital(s):
Minutes to nearest hospital:
Designation of facility: ____________
Available Housing (rental, spec, etc.,):
Median housing price (3 bedroom single family house) in the nearest town:
____________
Infrastructure Resources
Water/Sewer access:
Rates at site (cost) in per gallon terms: ____________
Availability: ____________
Designated water provider:
Capacity (average use):
Sanitation (waste disposal):
Rate per ton/month: ____________
Designated provider: ____________
Electric Utility:
Rate per hour: ____________
Designated provider: ____________
Natural Gas:
Availability: ____________
Rates: ____________
Designated provider: ____________
Educational Infrastructure Resources
Universities: ____________
Miles/minutes to nearest UNC campus: ____________
Miles/minutes to nearest other college: ____________
Community College(s): ____________
Miles/minutes to nearest facility: ____________
Classification of site (satellite, main campus, etc.,): ____________
Availability of special industry targeted or other programs: ____________
Secondary School(s): ____________
What secondary school serves the nearest town (name): ____________
Quality of educational facility (Dept of Public Instruction rating): ____________
County level percentage of children in public vs. private schools: ____________
Economic Resources
Tier Designation: ____________
Nearby manufacturing industry: ____________
Nearby service industry: ____________
Countys largest employers:
Population:
Population density: ____________
County property tax rate(s): ____________
40
Human Resources
Unemployment Rate (current): ____________
Nature of Workforce: ____________
Unemployed:
Under-employed: ____________
Migrant worker population: ____________
Skill characteristics: ____________
Other workforce characteristics: ____________
ESC monthly unemployment rates:
Selected last four month rates: ____________
Unemployment rate from previous year: ____________
General education level (county):
Percentage with HS degree: ________ Percentage with 4-year degree: __________
Commentary on workforce and measures:
Economic Developer [is unemployment rate a good measure, etc.,]:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
ESC representative [who walks in the door, what do they look like]:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
41
42
APPENDIX B
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
43
44
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
45
South
We visited the sites in Lee, Harnett, and Chatham Counties in August and September
2002. We contacted the economic developer in each county for information on each
site, and in most cases a developer accompanied the OED representative to the site.
46
owned by one property owner who is interested in development projects that would
benefit the county.
(7) Taxation
(9) Telecommunications
(10) Size
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
47
48
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
49
50
APPENDIX C
Southern counties
SIC Code
Industry Classification
SIC Code
Industry Classification
2824
2834
2844
2851
2875
3579
3634
3643
3644
3674
3821
3843
7371
7372
7375
7379
8711
8712
8713
8731
8734
Plastics/Chems
Biotech
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Info/Comm
Medical
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Plastics/Chems
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Biotech
Info/Comm
2821
2824
2834
2836
2841
2844
2869
2875
2879
2891
2899
3559
3577
3624
3625
3643
3661
3663
3669
3672
3676
3679
3812
3825
3826
3829
3841
3842
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7379
8071
8092
8093
8099
8711
8712
8713
8731
8732
8734
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Biotech
Biotech
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Info/Comm
Plastics/Chems
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Medical
Medical
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Plastics/Chems
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
Biotech
Info/Comm
Info/Comm
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
51
52
APPENDIX D
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
53
460, N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A 17, N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A 274, and N.C. Gen. Stat. 162A 14
which relates specifically to water issues) the six entities drafted a twelve-page agreement that contemplated sharing costs for the dam by a pro rata metering out of the
water supply. Based on interviews concerning this and other inter-local attempts at
cooperation, the most immediate obstacle to success cited was the presence of local
politics as a barrier to initial cooperation among the entities involved.
A second example of cost and revenue sharing in North Carolina is in Burke and
Caldwell Counties. The towns of Morganton and Lenoir, in cooperation with the counties, proposed the creation of the Foothills Airport Authority, a joint entity, to operate
the Morgan-Lenoir airport. The North Carolina General Assembly ratified a bill to
create the Authority in its 2001 session (in Session Law 2001-306, Senate Bill 653).
The new Authority is using 300 of the 1,100 acres for the airport, and reserving
800 acres for future development. By inter-local agreements, the taxes collected from
users of the property are to be submitted to the Authority and then divided equally
among the four participating political subdivisions, each receiving a quarter share.
Costs for development also are to split among the participating entities.
54
(4) In general, a desire for growth without pain on the part of the participating
entities was troublesome to overcome, even with the understanding that
this particular economic development vehicle was one of the few available
for such projects in rural settings.
In a February 11, 2003, address to the Emerging Issues Forum, former Michigan
Governor Engler talked about the use of tax sharing arrangements in the Grand Rapids metro area as a way to spur economic development. He credited those arrangements for much of the new vitality in that area. At the same forum, Tim Franklin of
Virginia Tech discussed a successful revenue sharing agreement between the city of
Danville and Pittsylvania County, Virginia.
The Feasibility of Mini-Hub Development in the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Region
55
56