Campbell County staff proposes rehab and utility-expansion pilots after wide-ranging incentives review

Campbell County economic development staff reviewed the county's business incentive portfolio at a joint work session with the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) and recommended two pilots: a residential rehabilitation program for occupied and unoccupied homes and a utility-expansion incentive aimed at encouraging single‑family and patio‑home residential development.

Nina, an economic development staff member leading the presentation, told the Board of Supervisors and IDA members the county's incentives are meant to “attack, attract, retain, invest, and stimulate” and walked the group through the industrial and small-business programs that the county already uses to recruit and retain investment.

The presentation described current programs and thresholds: a tax stabilization period added to policy in 2021 for greenfield investments above $5,000,000; a commercial and industrial rehabilitation property tax exemption added to the county code in 2013 for commercial or industrial buildings over 20 years old that increase assessed value by at least 40% without growing square footage more than 15%; an economic stimulus rebate for businesses investing at least $250,000 in taxable real estate or net‑new equipment; and an employment‑credit grant for firms creating at least five new full‑time jobs tied to pay levels relative to the county's reported average wage.

Staff presented performance data collected over the past four years: private capital investment reported at about $105,000,000, roughly $2,000,000 in incentives awarded, an observed revenue increase of about $7,000,000 tied to those projects, and 171 jobs the county has tracked through performance agreements. Nina noted one 2025 commitment that accounts for $20 million of pledged investment that will be realized across multiple years.

The conversation shifted to housing. Staff said the county's comprehensive plan and regional strategy highlight concerns about the county's low increase in housing stock (reported as 1.17% since February of the referenced baseline) and stagnant population. Nina said the county has the region's lowest median owner‑occupied home value at the time of the report (reported in her slide as $159,000), and that the comp plan calls for promoting safe, sanitary and affordable housing and capturing spending from workers who now commute in.

Board members and other attendees discussed multiple approaches. Options the group debated included: - Residential rehabilitation tax‑abatement programs that freeze assessed value while a homeowner invests in major repairs (to encourage building‑by‑building improvement rather than wide master‑plan redevelopment); - Capital contributions or credits to developers that lower the up‑front cost of roads or water/sewer extensions; and - Financing mechanisms such as tax increment financing or tax improvement districts to geographically target development.

Several supervisors and other participants emphasized utilities as the practical barrier to standard single‑family subdivision development in parts of the county. Participants described the high cost of running new water or sewer lines (estimates cited in the meeting ranged from about $1 million per mile for water construction and tens of thousands of dollars in equivalent residential unit/connection fees at the parcel level) and noted that hookup fees and capital‑recovery charges substantially increase up‑front developer costs. Utility authority participants (speakers who identified themselves in the meeting as representing the county authority) said the county currently has lower monthly rates than many neighbors but higher hookup fees, and that the authority has limited capital to proactively extend lines without reimbursement or a clear user base.

Staff proposed two near‑term follow ups for board consideration: (1) develop a rehabilitation incentive that could be applied to both owner‑occupied and vacant structures (for redevelopment or to reduce blight), and (2) draft a utility‑expansion pilot that would pair an incentive with a clearly defined development type (staff suggested single‑family and patio homes as a pilot) and set metrics for ROI and affordability. Nina said staff will return with more detailed program design, including eligibility, performance agreements and sample ROI calculations for targeted areas versus countywide approaches.

Board members asked staff to include school‑capacity and traffic implications in the follow‑up work and to be explicit about who would pay for utility expansions (developers, utility authority ratepayers, county investment or some combination). Several supervisors said a countywide, easy‑to‑administer program has appeal but also questioned whether it would be the most strategic use of public funds.

The session closed with staff summarizing next steps: draft a residential rehab program and a utility expansion incentive package focused on single‑family/patio‑home pilots, and return with program designs and maps of candidate target areas for further board direction.

Ending: Staff said they would bring the draft programs and supporting data back to the board for further policy direction and potential budget implications; no new incentive policy was adopted at the work session.