A Study of communities and counties within the Triangle J and Kerr-Tar regions examining how future spending was projected for the subsequent five years, categorized into fourteen areas of spending.
1. Version 2.0
19 March 2009
Local Infrastructure
Investment Plans
2.
3. Triangle J Council of Governments Local Infrastructure Investment Plans
Development & Infrastructure Partnership Version 2.0 19 March 2009
TRIANGLE REGION Table 1: Capital Improvement Programs within the Triangle J Region
Beyond
Local governments in the Tri-
2008
2006
2009
2020
2007
2010
2018
2014
2016
2019
2012
2013
2015
2017
2011
Organization CIP Total
angle have identified over $4 Bil-
Chatham County 2009-2013 50,696,651
lion in infrastructure needs, dur- Durham County 2008-2017 1,285,531,277
ing Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and Johnston County In Process
Lee County 2009-2013 51,985,475
2010 to serve the region‟s citizens
Moore County 2008-2017 352,985,052
and businesses. This report ex- Orange County 2008-2018 450,946,791
amines the Capital Improvement Wake County 2009-2015 1,341,185,000
Total County 3,533,330,246
Programs – multi-year spending
Aberdeen 2009-2013 4,423,000
plans for infrastructure – for
Apex 2009-2017 138,026,000
each jurisdiction in Region J with Benson 2009-2028 18,616,050
a population of more than 1,000; Broadway In Process
Carrboro 2009-2014 26,381,386
a total of seven counties and 36
Carthage NO CIP
municipalities. Cary 2008-2018 981,241,561
Chapel Hill 2009-2023 55,769,978
Six counties, and twenty-two
Clayton
municipalities within the Durham (City) 2009-2014 809,631,126
region have Capital Improve- Four Oaks
ment Programs, or CIPs. Fuquay-Varina In Process
Garner 2007-2011 31,460,539
Hillsborough 2009-2018 52,245,300
Johnston County, the only
Holly Springs 2009-2012 68,176,000
county without a CIP is in Kenly 2009-2013 1,347,000
the process of creating one. Knightdale 2009-2014 6,337,000
Morrisville 2008-2033 85,128,402
An addition six municipali- Pinebluff
Pinehurst 2009-2013 19,793,650
ties are either drafting CIPs Pine Level NO CIP
or hiring someone to do so. Pittsboro In Process
Princeton 2014-2028 2,039,943
Later versions of this report Raleigh 2009-2018 3,110,378,722
will add information for the Robbins
Rolesville 2006-2012 1,897,220
local governments in the six Sanford 2009-2013 67,997,000
counties of Region K and Selma In Process
also for other organizations Siler City NO CIP
Smithfield 2008-2012 28,117,600
in the region that fund infra-
Southern Pines In Process
structure. Wake Forest In Process
Wendell 2008-2012 10,236,000
Table 1 summarizes the status Whispering Pines NO CIP
of the most recently adopted Wilson's Mills In Process
Zebulon 2009-2014 8,844,500
CIPs in the region. Communities
Total Municipal 5,528,087,977
vary widely in the scale and scope Total 2009-2021 9,061,418,223
of their CIPs. Apex, Broadway, Fuquay-Varina, Pittsboro, Selma, Southern Pines, Wake Forest, and Wilson's Mills are
either hiring a person to create a CIP or are in the procees of creating a CIP.
There are approximately $9
Billion dollars of capital improve-
ments identified within the
(Continued on page 2)
1
4. Triangle J Council of Governments Local Infrastructure Investment Plans
Development & Infrastructure Partnership Version 2.0 19 March 2009
(Continued from page 1) front were to focus on transit investment and to create
twenty-seven programs, during the periods of the re- a Fifty-Year regional plan for water supply, quality,
spective CIPS, ranging from 10 to 50 years. The conservation, and drought response. There were
amount of potential capital improvements do not in- twenty-four options. The projects that are identified
clude all the infrastructure to be built in the region. in the current municipal and county CIPs indicate lo-
Wake Public Schools has identified over $500 cal and county priorities reflect these same concerns,
Million in school needs during Fiscal Years 2010- especially at the municipal level.
2012. These costs are not in the current three Figures 1 and 2 also reveal that the trends in pro-
year school CIP nor the County‟s CIP. posed investments show more detail in the near term
than further out in the planning timeframe. This
Transit and transportation projects for the region
variation is a function of needing a „sharper pencil‟ for
are not fully factored into the local CIPS. For ex-
upcoming budgets, and using a broader brush stroke
ample, Chapel Hill Transit capital improvements
to identify general needs out in the future. It appears,
are stand alone requests and are not included in
the town‟s CIP unless a major structure is re- looking at the tables, that in some instances values are
quired. Chapel Hill Transit is in the process of used as place-holders for future CIPs.
creating a 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. The decline seen in Figure 1 does not account for the
previously mentioned $500 million in identified
There are also other transportation projects found
school CIP spending for Wake County.
in the CAMPO and DCHC MPO Transportation
Improvement Programs that are also not reflected Tables 2 through 7 (Pages 4 through 14) summa-
in the individual municipal programs. DCHC rize investment plans by infrastructure type over five
MPO has identified in excess of 402 Million dol- Fiscal Years, FY 2008-2012. Schools account for the
lars of potentially funded projects during FY 2008 largest share of planned spending on the county level,
-2018. exceeding $1.6 Billion. Planned spending on wastewa-
ter treatment, water resources (including stormwater
OWASA has a 15 Year CIP that projects $328.5
management), and transportation each approaches or
Million in Spending.
exceeds and additional $1.4 billion at the municipal
Figures 1 and 2 on the opposite page show the level million.
areas funded by County and City CIP programs over a Tables 8 through 22 review the data by category
five fiscal year range. The two bar charts have been and year, breaking out one category at a time for the
created using the same legend. The charts indicate counties and municipalities within the region. Five
that counties are programming large amount of fiscal years are compared side by side.
money for School, Public Safety, and General Services
It needs to be noted that some of the CIP data may
while Municipalities are foreseeing spending large
be under-valuing future needs, in part due to the co-
sums of money on Wastewater, Water, Transporta-
operative nature of some local services.
tion, Public Safety, and Open Space.
Orange County and Wake County are major pro-
The Development and Infrastructure Partnership
viders of Solid Waste Service. Member communi-
met with Triangle J Staff to discuss what topics were
ties will not show planned future investments in
most important to they and the organization they rep-
this category.
resent. A series of three listening sessions provided
four categories of needs for the region as a basis for Raleigh provides water, sewer, or water and sewer
discussion for the first joint meeting: Transportation, to numerous communities. High expenditures for
Water Resources, Other Infrastructure, and Develop- Raleigh masks the underlying service being pro-
ment. The two main projects that came to the fore-
(Continued on page 32)
2
5. Triangle J Council of Governments Local Infrastructure Investment Plans
Development & Infrastructure Partnership Version 2.0 19 March 2009
Figure 1: Trends in Proposed County Investments
Figure 2: Trends in Proposed Municipal Investments
3