County Commission approves Merck deal, gives nod to meals tax referendum

Today's H-S has two useful news bites from recent metro reporter addition Matthew Milliken, both from the Monday night County Commission meeting.

First, the BOCC approved $2 million in incentives needed to entice Merck to expand its vaccine production plant up by Treyburn in northern Durham County. The pharma giant, which has yet to start producing vaccines at the site (the FDA requires several years' worth of operation before the meds can come on the market, with a 2010 bow projected for the chicken pox formula produced there), will almost double its capital investment in Durham with the new construction.

A site at Pennsylvania was the runner-up for this expansion; the $2 mil in incentives pay for extending utility infrastructure to the plant, something the Keystone State site already had in hand.

Not a shabby investment, it seems, for a project that will drive construction jobs up-front and an additional 150 jobs to the area.

In other news, the BOCC formally approved the addition of the 1% prepared foods sales tax referendum to the November ballot, in a relatively procedural move.

Michael Page and Durham mayor pro tem Cora Cole-McFadden were among those publicly supporting the vote; Page, with fellow Commissioners Ellen Reckhow, Lewis Cheek and Becky Heron, all voted in favor of the item, with Philip Cousin absent for the vote.

The support of Page, Cole-McFadden, and tax booster Bill Bell all sets the stage for an interesting interplay with the Durham Committee, which has historically backed all three officials. Committee chair Lavonia Allison has been stalwart in her opposition to the measure, with one report claiming that the Committee would only support the tax if its proceeds were dedicated to workforce training.

As proposed, 80% of the revenues from the tax would go to civic and cultural facilities in Durham County. Milliken's report notes that the list of possible fund recipients now includes a Durham-to-Roxboro rails-to-trails program. (The property we suspect would be intended for such a trail was pulled off the market a couple of years ago by Norfolk Southern, which continues to negotiate with the City over the Duke Beltline rail line near downtown.)

Comments

[Michael Bacon]

I'm glad to see that the incentives here are structured largely as infrastructure improvements. I wish all development incentives were structured that way, instead of as cash grants to the company. (Here it may be cash grants to pay for infrastructure, but that's an acceptable compromise I guess.)

While cash grants often have provisions about how long the company has to maintain operations, that's a pretty weak tie-down. With the county paying for infrastructure investment, though, if Merck pulls up and leaves in 10 years, those improvements don't, and you have a site that's ready for someone else to move into.

[David Rollins]

I could not agree more with Michael. While I am opposed to all forms of corporate welfare (including incentives such as this one), at least we'll get something out of it if they go tits up.

With regards to the meals tax, this is a tax on the poor plain and simple. The Durham Committee is right to oppose it, and it is the actions of Floyd "Here on Geer" McKissick to pass this tax that prompted me to run for office against him in the fall.

(I keep waiting for the Republican party to mount a lawsuit challenging his residency, or the intrepid N&O reporter to expose this sham, but I can't wait forever. Donations welcome to help the cause.)

[mcdemc]

This will bring Merck's investment in Durham to $750 million since deciding to locate here in 2004. They will employ about 400 people when fully operational, not to mention all of the temporary increases in construction jobs in building their facilities. Merck is an excellent partner for Durham and their continued investment here shows their commitment to this community and their appreciation of the synergies that make Durham and the entire area so attractive to business and talent.

David: Regarding the Prepared Foods Tax, I'm not sure how you can simply say it is a tax on the poor. It is a tax on Prepared Food which, unless I'm mistaken, just about everybody, rich and poor, eats. I understand that any amount a poor person pays is a disproportionately higher percentage of their income relative to that of a wealthy person. That applies to anything and everything a poor person does, tax or not. Saying this is a tax on the poor is like saying the cost of food is a tax on the poor. It certainly is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be paid. Everyone, including the abundant out-of-towners who come to Durham for our excellent selection of quality restaurants, will be paying this tax. This option is being pushed forward because we need the revenues from it to ensure the cultural amenities of Durham continue to grow and thrive. Unless you have a better way to pay for this growth, I find it hard to see why, as a proud resident of Durham, you wouldn't support the growth of Durham's cultural amenities. And if you want to see Durham grow and prosper into the cultural capital of our state, then you should support the Prepared Food Tax, plain and simple.

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

Thanks, I think you made my point for me (taxes a bigger proportion of income for the poor).

Go ask Lavonia Allison why she is opposed to the meals tax. The Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People is correct in their opposition, and I hope they hold Pretty Boy Floyd's feet to the fire.

Regarding growth, who said it was a good thing? I'll take eating over entertainment any day -- especially when tax dollars are used to fund white middle class amenities rather than provide for Durham's disenfranchised. (Note that I personally donate a fair amount of money to Durham's cultural institutions.)