Statement written and presented by CCEC President Loyse Hurley at the ISP Incentive Hearing on October 16, 2006, before the Chatham County Board of Commissioners.
Re: International Specialty Products - Economic Development Project
Gentlemen:
I am Loyse Hurley, President of Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities. I live at 16 Matchwood in Pittsboro.
You are proposing to give ISP a financial incentive of more than $2.6 million over a 5 year period, to locate a quarry and stone
chip facility in Chatham County - some $525,360 per year. Eighty percent of their estimated annual tax revenue.
This is a terrible waste of taxpayer money!
There are two significant issues on this proposed incentive:
1. The Chatham County resolution, passed on January 20, 2004, clearly lists the types of businesses that qualify for an economic
incentive, using definitions in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual of the Federal Government’s Office of Management & Budget, this was replaced by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Manual in 2002.
The enabling resolution cites “Manufacturing or Processing” as a business qualifying for an incentive. It lists eight other specific
businesses, but none of them are for “Quarrying or Mining.” The latter has its own separate category in the NAICS Manual.
I would guess that, when the enabling resolution was written, no one wanted to offer an incentive for a mine / quarry to locate
in Chatham County.
In this Manual, “Mining” is listed as a separate major category, Category #21. Under it, one finds Category #21231—“Stone mining
& manufacturing.” This description disqualifies any and all of ISP’s planned operations from being eligible for a financial incentive
under your resolution.
“Manufacturing” is listed in major Categories #31-33 in this Manual, under Category #327991-“Cut stone and stone product
manufacturing.” The part of ISP’s proposed operation where the stone granules will be painted might remotely fall under this
definition.
In either case the –quote--economic development incentives grant agreement with ISP Minerals, Inc. (ISP) for a quarry and
manufacturing facility in Chatham County, NC,--unquote-- as proposed by the notice for this public hearing is seriously
flawed. It proposes giving incentives for a business, stone mining and quarrying, that is not covered by the
enabling resolution!
Further, whoever calculated the amount of the proposed incentive was misinformed. The proposed incentive was calculated
using the entire $110 million investment proposed by ISP and crediting the entire 100-125 work force. Since, large portions of
the investment and work force, perhaps all of them, do not even qualify for incentives, these calculations are in error.
Passing the incentive as proposed would appear to put the County in legal jeopardy.
2. There is no need to grant this incentive. In their original application, ISP said only the Siler City site had the combination of
a large deposit of the desired “green stone”, an available railroad connection to the site, and convenient highways nearby. Siler City
was the perfect site. There is no record that they have filed a development proposal at any site other than Siler City. Nowhere,
have they indicated that their site selection decision hinged on obtaining financial incentives, which is required by your resolution.
Where is their certification, required by your resolution, that they would go elsewhere if the incentive is not granted?
Even the County staff seems to think they will come here without incentives. In their recent presentation to Moody’s in New
York City seeking funding for Certificates of Participation, they state on p.7, that “International Specialty Products (ISP)
Minerals announced plans for a $110 million investment—125 jobs.” This was the first item under the category of “Significant
Economic Developments” in the County. No mention was made of granting a significant financial incentive to attract ISP. If
such an incentive were essential, then I’m sure it would have been revealed to Moody’s.
The proposed incentive is nearly one cent on the annual tax rate for a period of five years. Why are we imposing this burden
on the County’s taxpayers, when there is a total lack of any public information showing that it is required to attract ISP?
Abandon any thought of giving needless incentives to ISP. If you must do so, then have someone go back and prepare a
careful, quantifiable proposal that agrees with the terms of your enabling resolution and bring it forward at a future public hearing.
Thank you,
Loyse Hurley - President
