What @sog_ced is reading on the web: July 2013

CED_Icon_for_Twitter1The following are articles and reports on the web that the Community and Economic Development Program at the UNC School of Government shared through social media over the past month. Follow us on twitter or facebook to receive regular updates.

North Carolina Auditor’s full report on the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center (Rural Center): bit.ly/1dGMbdR

The North Carolina State Budget was approved by the General Assembly: bit.ly/18DkVzT. Key sections for economic development and community development professionals:

  • Section 15.7A: Secretary of the Department of Commerce granted flexibility to reorganize the department and to establish a public-private partnership, presumably with a new private nonprofit entity. Up to $1 million in resultant savings from the reorganization may be used to “cover the costs of reorganizing positions.”
  • Section 15.10: New Rural Economic Development Division created in the NC Department of Commerce and Rural Infrastructure Authority established at Section 15.10.
  • Sections 15.14 and 15.15: Reallocates Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through 2015. Takes all funding for the specific categories of low-income housing, small business assistance, and “NC Catalyst” projects and diverts it to the categories of economic development and infrastructure.
  • Section 15.28: Repeals the authority for statutory economic development commissions(Article 2 of G.S. Chapter 158). Single-city and single-county statutory economic development commissions established pursuant to G.S. 158-8 would no longer be authorized by statute after the effective date. NOTE: This does not affect nonprofit organizations (economic development corporations) associated with a single city or county.

North Carolina Senate adjourned before taking up SB 127 that would provide additional structure for Department of Commerce public-private partnership re-organization. http://bit.ly/18GL4xL.

New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) impact reported: 1.usa.gov/18hyHop. For projects located in North Carolina metros, $458 million in NMTC investments led to over $1 billion total invested in those projects. Outside of metro areas in North Carolina, the numbers were significantly lower: $57 million in NMTC investments led to $121M total invested in projects.

Plans to establish industrial megasites in North Carolina received attention:

  • Article highlights perceived importance of state support in developing industrial megasites in North Carolina. bit.ly/111YAX2
  • Consultants suggest that Heart of North Carolina Megapark in Moore and Montgomery Counties should target wood products manufacturing, regional distribution, metals and machinery manufacturing, and biomass. bit.ly/15e7dgR
  • Report released on Chatham-Randolph industrial megasite, which is among 15 sites being considered in NC. bit.ly/13dXoOd

Harvard research: low-income children in North Carolina among the least likely to grow up to have higher incomes than parents. bit.ly/12fchF1

Need for energy-efficient housing in North Carolina? In national comparison, North Carolina energy costs take 8th highest percentage of disposable income. bit.ly/10QI4Jr

Commerce Secretary Decker: “important that we maintain our commitment to community redevelopment.” bit.ly/13PFHt7

Downtown Winston-Salem business improvement district (municipal service district) proposed: bit.ly/15cps6c

Surry Community College welding boot camp plays key role in #econdev recruitment negotiation: bit.ly/16h6dHH

Article highlights differences between North Carolina Senate and North Carolina House regarding new private economic development agency proposed by Governor and Commerce Secretary: bit.ly/1b2AZtA (Note: general authority to pursue a reorganization and contracting with a nonprofit was included in the budget, see above)

Community gardens in Forsyth County get a boost: bit.ly/1cufcsA

3 Responses to “What @sog_ced is reading on the web: July 2013”

  1. Dan Kornelis

    Sorry to see the General Assembly taking all the CDBG housing funds and diverting them to sewer and water projects. I think it will be difficult to meet the low income beneficiary requirements set by HUD.

  2. Tim Emmert

    I didn’t see any mention of an assessment of comparative need performed before directing funds away from housing to economic development and infrastructure — was there such a study?

    Are you aware of any discussion during this session of how the state will improve the oversight and accountability of economic development grant investments? This would seem to be a critical part of the equation, especially with more money coming to the table for economic development projects.

Leave a Reply

We will read all comments submitted to us, but we will publish only those comments that serve to advance our readers’ understanding of a post and are consistent with our institutional commitment to non-advocacy.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>