PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
6/07 p:/CIRCIDateDue.indd-p.1
TURN Bu
"flu-
' ~hackout tron
Economic Impact of Military Base Closure:
A Case Study of Charleston, South Carolina.
By
Katrena R. Hanks
A PLAN B PAPER
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulï¬llment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Urban and Regional Planning Program
16 December 98
Copyright 1999. Katrena R. Hanks
All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.
In Loving Memory of
Elizabeth V. McKelvey
1949-1988
Acknowledgements
I wish to extend my gratitude to everyone who has supported on this and all of my
endeavors. Special thanks to Dr Zenia Kotval, my advisor and friend and Dr. Jane
McCollough, my mentor. Finally, I wish to express my sincerest appreciation to my
family and friends for their continuing support.
Abstract
The adaptive reuse of United States military bases is a timely issue that must be
addressed within the planning profession. Base closure and/or realignment can devastate
local economies which are dependent on the presence of the Military. Because these
facilities often represents a major employer within the community, planning for their
reuse is essential.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One- Introduction .......................................................................... 5
Purpose of Study .................................................................... 5
Need for the Study .................................................................. 6
Objective of the Study ............................................................. 6
Methodology ....................................................................... 6
Chapter Two- Background ......................................................................... 7
Base Reuse Implementation Process ............................................ 9
Chapter Three- Military Base Reuse ............................................................. 13
Successful Examples of Reuse ................................................. 13
Case Study: Charleston, South Carolina ...................................... 16
Chapter Four- Planning for Reuse ............................................................... 23
Recommendations for Communities .......................................... 25
Responsibilities of Planners .................................................... 27
References .......................................................................................... 29
Appendices
A. Military Department Tasks for Reuse
B. NEPA Requirements for Reuse
C. BRAC Environmental Process
D. Property Conveyance Methods
B. Population of the Metropolitan Region
F. New and Expanded Capital Investment
G. Charleston, South Carolina Amenities
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Base Reuse Implementation Process Flow Chart ....................................... 9
2. Loring Commerce Centre ................................................................. 13
3. England Industrial Airpark and Community .......................................... 15
4. Charleston Metropolitan Statistical Area ............................................... 16
5. Charleston Naval Base ..................................................................... l8
6. Annual Economic Indicators 1991-1997 Charleston Metro Area ................... 20
Chagter 1: Introduction
I. Introduction
The end of the Cold War coupled with the nation’s stifling deficit is often cited as
the reason for the Department of Defense’s (DoD) downsizing of the US military.
Government projections showed that fewer bases were needed to support our defense
mission and recommended the closure and/or realignment of US facilities.1
The decision to close the Charleston, South Carolina Naval Base and Shipyard in
1993 by the Base Realignment Advisory Commission altered the economic base in this
historic city. At its peak, the base supported thousands of workers and their families,
surrounding businesses and was a mainstay in the Charleston regional economy. Since
its closure, the Charleston area has succeeded in bringing new businesses onto the naval
facility and into the Charleston region in efforts to offset the economic distress caused by
the naval closure.
This paper intends to provide information on the process of base closure and/or
realignment, examples of successful base reuse with an emphasis on the Charleston,
South Carolina metropolitan area and recommendations for communities and planners
facing with base closure.
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the new businesses which have relocated
on the naval base and within the surrounding metropolitan area to determine if
Charleston’s economic base has been revitalized since losing the base.
' Gone But Not Forgotten: United States Naval Base. (23 September 97)
<http://www.iniders.corn/charleston-sc/29military.htm>.
Need for this Study
The need for this research is to enhance the knowledge of state and local ofï¬cials
when facing the loss of a stable business, industry or government installation.
Objective of this Study
The objective of this study is to evaluate new businesses that have relocated to the
navy base and within the metropolitan area to determine if the economic impact on
Charleston has increased, decreased or remained the same since the naval pullout.
Methodology
This analysis began with a comprehensive study of the base closure/and or
realignment process, communities impacted by base closure/and or realignment and
measures taken by communities to ensure economic recovery. The Charleston
Metropolitan Statistical Area (Charleston/Berkeley/Dorchester) was established as the
main case study of this analysis. Economic indicators were selected and evaluated in
efforts to provide an accurate assessment of the Charleston region prior and after base
closure. Recommendations, suggestions and strategies for communities facing base
closure/and or realignment conclude this report.
11. Background
In 1990, Congress approved the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act,
which provided for an independent commission to hold public hearings on base closure.
The task of this commission would be to compile a list of bases recommended for closure
with assistance from the Department of Defense. The criteria established by the DoD for
selecting bases for closure or realignment included the following:
The current and future mission requirement and the impact on operational readiness
of DOD’s total force;
The availability and condition of land, facilities, and associated airspace at both
existing and potential receiving locations;
The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization and future total force
requirements at both the existing and potential receiving locations;
The cost and manpower implications;
The extent and timing of potential costs and savings including the number of years,
beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to
exceed the costs;
The economic impact on communities;
The ability of both the existing and potential communities’ infrastructure to support
forces, missions, and personnel and
The environmental impact2
2 United States Department of Defense. 1990 Recommended Closures and Realignments. Washington:
GPO, 1990.
Chagter 2: Background
The next step in this process is to present the list to the president. The president is
able to accept or reject the list proposed by in its entirety. After the president, Congress
receives this list and if it chooses, the president’s actions can be vetoed. Because neither
Congress nor the president may remove an individual base from the list, the law, in
theory, ensures that elected ofï¬cials are not pressured to save a hometown base.3
The overall goals of this base closure and/or realignment process are to:
0 Close bases quickly, but in a mannerrthat will preserve valuable assets to support
rapid reuse and redevelopment.
0 Give high priority to local economic redevelopment when disposing of available real
and personal property.
0 Put available property to productive use as quickly as possible through leases and
conveyances to spur rapid economic recovery and reduce DoD caretaker costs.
0 Expedite the “screening†process, which identiï¬es interests in excess and surplus
property at closing and realigning bases.
0 Fast-track environmental cleanup by removing needless delays while protecting
human health and the environment.
0 Make every reasonable effort to assist the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) in
obtaining the available personal property needed to implement its redevelopment
plan.
3 Base Realignment and Closure. (Visited 23 September 97)
<http://infomanage.com/micconversion/brac/bracback.html>
Chapter 2: Background
- Support the local redevelopment process through sufficient planning grants and on-
site Base Transition Coordinators.
0 Coordinate Federal resources to assist community economic recovery.4
Base Reuse Implementation Process
The base reuse process is strewn with property rights issues and environmental
regulations that begin with the actual closing of the facility. Once a site has been
approved for closure, the reuse process begins with the ï¬rst phase: base-wide reuse
planning. Refer to Chart 1.
Chart 1. Base Reuse Implementation Process Flow Chart
Base-wine nisnosal
Reuse - .
- â€BOISIOII Nakln
Plannlntl 9
[RA Reuse planning kw Eiucuh Deed Achleve
. r 9'" kwucernn or Lune Ran"
Parcel-nv-narc 8|
â€BOISIOII
lmnlementati on
I'llilizur/ Department Disposal Planning .. Dntt cor-mu Eleeute Dud
(lapeld Pl." Mpllcetlone or L."
Begin -. , ' ' 3;; ., Male . . .' "a...“ ' Complete
Planning cu roast . - Initial“ -‘ » Duel-lone . - nlsnmal
Environmental Baseline Surv 585
Report
FOSTIs) or Attach to Band
FOSLII) or Lune
Slle Clam-p
Ind Close-om
Installation Mane ement Gunman: T r r
9 >- >—
Environmental Cleanup and Compliance ’ BRAC
Gannon Pin
Sup on Reun-
&clclon
Source: United States Department of Defense
4 United States Department of Defense. Base Reuse Implementation Manual. Washington: GPO, 1995.
Cha
ter 2: Back round
Phase One: Base-Wide Reuse Planning
Phase one, base-wide reuse planning, is the most elaborate and time consuming of
the three phases. It begins on the approval date of closure and/or realignment and it ends
when the Local Redevelopment Authority’s (LRA) redevelopment plan has been
prepared and submitted to the military. The LRA must complete a multitude of tasks.
Some include:
o Form[ation], be recognized by the DoD and receive economic adjustment planning
assistance.
0 Solicit, identify and consider various interests in installation property.
0 Conduct outreach activities that focus on community needs, including homeless
assistance needs.
0 Identify its own interests in available personal property.
0 Develop a comprehensive land-use plan.
0 Conduct market research and marketing activities to attract prospective property
users.
0 Prepare a comprehensive redevelopment plan and other essential reuse-related
planning documents.5
Additionally, the Military Department has tasks it must perform simultaneously
with the duties of LRA to ensure accurate and complete information. For a complete
listings of the tasks, refer to Appendix A.
5 Ibid.
10
The overall reuse process in phase one can be divided into four primary steps; the
first, comprehensive land-use and redevelopment planning. During this step, reuse
requirements and timelines are established in accordance to the Redevelopment Acts and
a cursory development plan is developed.
An environmental evaluation is conducted in step two of the process. Under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental impact statement must be
completed to address disposal alternatives and recommendations. An in depth account of
the NEPA process can be found in Appendix B.
The ï¬ve-tier BRAC environmental process, which addresses reuse planning,
clean up and transfer or lease suitability is the third step in this process. A detailed
description of this process can be found in Appendix C.
The final step of phase one reuse planning is installation management. This step
addresses the transfer of responsibility, duties, maintenance and procedures. A consensus
on these issues should be reached by the LRA and the Military Department prior to
beginning phase two.
Phase Two: Disposal Decision Making
Phase two, disposal decision making, consists of decisions made by the Military
and the LRA with regards to disposal and reuse decisions. During this phase, the LRA is
responsible for submitting its redevelopment plan to the DoD and the Military
Department issues its Disposal Record(s) of Decision (RODs). The ROD details disposal
ll
decisions and any required mitigation. This phase also contains requests for property
conveyances for public purposes.
Phase Three: Parcel-By-Parcel Decision Implementation
Phase three, or the parcel by parcel decision implementation, lasts until the
property has been conveyed. Eight property conveyance methods are available for
review in Appendix D. However, environmental clean up and disposal must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) before property is transferred. Once of all these steps are completed, the
facility will be ofï¬cially closed and ready for reuse.
12
Cha ter_:3 Milita Base Reuse
III. Military Base Reuse
Now that the process of base closure and/or realignment has been detailed,
examples of base reuse follows. Successful examples of reuse are plentiful and gives
hope to communities “under the gun†of base closure and/or realignment. But, adaptive
reuse can only be successful when redevelopment plans are tailor made for each military
facility.6
The first successful example of base reuse is the former Strategic Air Command
Air Force Base in Loring, Maine. An investment of over $300 million into this facility
transformed this base into the 8, 700 acre Loring Commerce Centre. New construction
and renovations provided Maine with a low cost incubator for new businesses or an
expansion site for relocation. Refer to Figure 2.
The Loring Commerce Centre has 3.1
million square feet of business, commercial,
industrial and aviation space. Loring, a fully
functional business has an on-site rail system
with connections to efï¬cient national and
international distribution systems.7 Some of its “‘_,\rr,-~mrl,x««mr~ ' I!" :
“if: 41-13(4) utA‘xSm.»ML 5%
new tenants include the Defense Finance Figure 2- Loring Commerce Centre-
Courtesy of Loring Commerce Centre.
and Accounting Service Center, SIT EL Corporation, Loring Job Corps Center of
Innovation and the Maine Army National Guard Vehicle Refurbishment Center.8
6 United State Department of Defense. Recovery Tools Available to Assist Base Closure Communities.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
13
Cha t .ita Base Reuse
The second example of a successful reuse base is the Sacramento Army Depot in
Sacramento, California. The primary purpose of this 485-acre Army installation was to
act as an industrial depot and repair, rebuild, and fabricate electronic communications
equipment.9 Closing this facility in August of 1997 resulted in a loss of 3,164 civilian
jobs and more than 3,000 secondary jobs.lo
But comprehensive reuse plans for this facility have generated new life on this
base. Packard Bell, the manufacturer of personal computers, has relocated on the depot
and created over 4, 000 new jobs. Long range plans with Packard Bell call for the
addition of over 6, 000 light industrial jobs at the base.â€
Two factors were fundamental to Sacramento’s success. First, reuse planners did
not experience any jurisdictional problems because the depot is located totally within the
city limits. And the second, the Sacramento Army Depot Economic Adjustment Reuse
Commission ensured community involvement in the redevelopment process by placing a
neighborhood representative on its board and sponsoring community workshops to help
identify issues of concern, establish objectives, generate ideas, and provide a medium to
keep the public informed. '2
7 Loring Commerce Centre. (18 October 98) < http://www.loring.maine.com>
8 Ibid.
9 Sacramento County Local Redevelopment Authority. ( 15 December 98)
<httpzllmtc.sacramento.ca.us/story_10.htm>
'0 United State Department of Defense. Recovery Tools Available to Assist Base Closure Communities.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
†Sacramento County Local Redevelopment Authority. (15 December 98)
<http:l/mtc.sacramento.ca.us/story_10.htm>
'2 Ibid.
14
The third example of a successful base reuse is the England Air Force Base in
Alexandria, Louisiana. Refer to Figure 3.
This base officially closed at the end of
1992 and by December of 1993 and the
England Industrial Airpark and
Community was formed. The England
Industrial Airpark and Community offers
multiple amenities for all types of
, _ . Figure 3. England Industrial Airpark and
busrnesses and Industrles. Community. Courtesy of England Airpark
and Community.
An inter-modal transportation
system contains 500 buildings designed for a variety of uses with approximately 2.5
million square feet of available space for aircraft operations, industrial buildings, ofï¬ce
space and community facilities.13 New properties on this facility include a driving
school, magnet elementary school, hospital expansion and maintenance firm.14
And the fourth and ï¬nal example of successful base reuse is the Charleston Naval
Base and Shipyard in Charleston, South Carolina.
‘3 England Industrial Airpark and Community: A Brief History. (14 December 98)
<http://www.englandairpark.org/history.htm>
'4 England Air Force Base. (18 October 97)
<http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/derpreport95/vol_2/nara056.html>
15
Chapter 3: Militag Base Reuse
Charleston, South Carolina
The City of Charleston, founded in 1783, occupies 87 square miles on the shores
of the Atlantic Ocean at the juncture of the Ashley and Cooper Rivers. As of 1998, its
total population was just under 100,122 residents. '5
The Charleston Metropolitan Statistical Area encompasses three counties:
Berkeley, Charleston and Dorchester. Refer to Appendix E for detailed population
estimates for the Charleston metropolitan region. The region includes over 90 miles of
Atlantic coastline and stretches 50 miles inland toward the intersection of Interstates 26
& 95 (Charleston Chamber of Commerce). Refer to Map 1.
Map 1. Charleston Metropolitan Statistical Area
Source: Charleston SMA 1998.
‘5 City of Charleston. Facts and Figures. (18 June 98)
<http://www.charleston.net/charlestoncity/ï¬gures.html>
l6
ha M _B__ Iii—use _
The charm of this historic city coupled with an abundance of arts, recreational and
cultural opportunities make it a haven for tourists. An estimated three million visitors
infuse the local economy with over 2.3 billion dollars annually“5
The Charleston area is also home to the largest containerized cargo port on the
South Atlantic and Gulf coasts, one of the Southeast’s most impressive medical hubs and
a well-established base of national and international manufacturers. '7
But, by far the leading employer the Charleston area had been the military, which
employed over 19% of the area workers and pumped over 4 billion dollars into the local
economy.18
Charleston Area Naval Facility
The naval presence in Charleston began in 1900 with the establishment of the
Naval Yard and expanded to include the naval base, a naval hospital the N AVELEX
facility, (the Naval Electronics Engineering Command) the Naval Weapons Station and
Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance by 1992. Refer to Map 2.
'6 Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce. An Introduction to the Charleston Metro Region. (13
September 98).<http://www.chamber.charleston.net/overview/introduc.htm>
‘7 Ibid.
18 City of Charleston. Facts and Figures. (8 February 97)
<http:l/www.charleston.net/charlestoncity/fgures.htm>
17
Chapter 3: Militarï¬y Base Reuse
Map 2. Charleston Naval Base
(3
(NON-CONTIGUOUS)
puff: ansewroE
©p- UTILITY
. - " -‘ . p . I " ' _ '. Th - ‘_ , 'r II;
SYSTEMS . . - _ .. _ itiï¬ESd-‘vtfily-
i . = -. . .. .- * .- J -~ ‘ t’353514731.5"...11‘3-"-"data 0 “View...
'- - ' ' ' '. ,"‘_'.i.".—l°:.‘.'"."f;‘-"-‘-. " mt. a,†t.
- -. j ' Liv-“r; ;' V. o '3' :
NAVAL BASE . ' . - . ;:.;~:-‘...ta,3,:llj._ .1“ g_ CREEK) t,;;,_,.ti'x?
, , .' - .J‘...‘ e.-‘-4l" .' [rm-:3"
CHARLESTON
s_--
iiiiiii
Source: Charleston Naval Base 1997.
During its 93-year history in Charleston, the Navy has played a major role in the
military history of this nation. Two prime examples being the establishment of a naval
training center at the Charleston Navy Shipyard during World War I and the fact that the
Charleston Naval Yard became the major overhaul facility on the East Coast for
submarines and the homeport for combatant ships of the Atlantic fleet.l9
In March of 1993, the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC)
announced that the Navy Base and Shipyard were on the list of bases under consideration
for closure and/or realignment. Over the next two months, Charleston raised over one
‘9 History of Charleston’ AFB, SC. (23 September 97)
<http://www.char1eston.af.mil/chas/facts/history.htm>
18
Chapter 3: Militag Base Reuse
million dollars and campaigned against the closure of its naval facilities, but to no avail.20
In April of 1996, the Charleston Navy Base and Shipyard were ofï¬cially closed.
However, a look at the annual economic indicators for the Charleston
metropolitan area today, reveals an encouraging sign for communities facing base
closure; a thriving economy. Refer to Chart 1. Charleston’s employment rates are at
their lowest levels since prior to base closure. Forecasters predict unemployment ï¬gures
for the tri-county area during the third quarter of 1998 to be 2.2 percent, nearly half of
last year’s third quarter rate of 4.4 percent.21 Total employment for the Charleston Metro
Area is expected to remain at nearly 5 percent.
A slight increase in port tonnage is expected in Charleston for the third quarter of
1998, nearly an increase 25 percent increase from 1991 ï¬gures.
Economic forecasts for gross retail sales for the third quarter of 1998 total just
under $3 billion for the third quarter, an increase of nearly 11 percent from the third
quarter of 1997.22
Charleston’s residential real estate market is expected to remain strong with an
increase in residential pennits issued over 1997 third quarter numbers.23
2" Palmer, Elizabeth A. “Fighting on the Homefront: Charleston Defends Itself.†Congressional
Quarterly Weekly 8 (May 1993): 1172.
2' McDermott, John. “Charleston’s Economy Pumpingâ€. Charleston Post and Courier Business Review, 6
July 98.
’2 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
19
Chapter 3: Militaz Base Reuse
Chart 1. Annual Economic Indicators 1991-1997 Charleston Metro Area
I
PI
Labor Force
l'olal I‘
II
.Ml‘l .()\’Ml"
l'
dail & \\ 'l'
" Fstnlc
itwcnmrurl
Mill l:
SI’ORTATION
C. Port '1' ll
1’ 639
Arr 657 44 667 l
)nrdrcstcr
ldrn arm
'w Car Salts"
2.1 I 94
171
TO! IRISM‘"
llot ( 66.69
I .
.R M ITS
Ill 1"
at New
NO"
l
I" i
. 1"
olal New
Non I
V
IS
231 r
I
479,914 455.230
Source: Center for Business Research 1998.
20
Chapter 3: Militag Base Reuse
New developments are expected to begin construction during the third quarter, which
should keep the non-residential construction market thriving. The total value of
commercial building permits is expected to reach more than $120 million dollars.
For the naval base, these positive numbers translate into more than forty new
companies. The Border Patrol, Americorps volunteers, a magnet school, utility
companies and a shipbuilding ï¬rm are now operating in 4.4 million of 5 million square
feet of the former Navy Yard. More than 70% of all of the piers and dry-docks are in
operation and a total of 4, 300 jobs were created in Charleston, with over 1, 100 going to
former base employees. An additional six thousand new jobs in the region have been
attributed to the new operations at the base.24 Appendix F has a list of all the new
business that have relocated to Charleston, their investment and number new jobs
credited to their presence.
The Keys to Charleston’s Success
The Charleston region’s ability to market itself as a city of opportunities, rather
than liabilities helped the region’s quick recovery. A solid infrastructure was the ï¬rst of
these opportunities. The Charleston region offers lower-than-average costs for most
basic services, including power, water, labor and transportation.25 Electrical service is
provided by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G), Santee Cooper and
24 Smyser, Dick. “The Charleston Experience: Lessons to Learn, Reasons for Hopeâ€. Oak Ridger, 12
August 97.
25 Charleston Region Development Alliance. Infrastructure. (15 June 98)
< httpzllwww.crda.org/istructure/idxinfrastructure.html>
21
______ __
two electric cooperatives -- Berkeley Electric and Edisto Electric. The Charleston region
has the lowest electrical rates in the Southeast, on average, 20% lower than the national
average. 26
Advanced telecommunication systems are another reason for the success of the
Charleston region. Over 21,000 miles of fiberoptic cable run throughout the Charleston
Region and keeps the area wired with the latest in technology.27
Charleston was able to attract scores of import/export companies and distribution
centers largely on the strength of its road and rail system combined with the port. The
region is served by three Interstate highways, three major US. highways and seven major
state highways. Approximately 100 motor carriers serve the area, and have just-in-time
access to the center of the nation’s consumer market. Additionally, the region is served by
three major rail systems, and air cargo is available.28 Refer to Appendix G for a list of
additional amenities that make Charleston an optimal location for business expansion or
relocation.
2° Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 City of Charleston. Facts and Figures. 18 June 98
<http://www.charleston.net/charlestoncity/ï¬gures.html>
22
Cha . ter 4: -.
IV. Planning for Reuse
In the wake of base closure, the Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented
recovery tools to assist communities affected by base closure.29 The first of which is the
Base Reuse Implementation Manual. This manual provides supplemental information on
existing, laws, policies and regulations that must be implemented during base reuse, but
does not supply information on how to proceed with the process of reuse. The manual
offers valuable technical information to communities in the form of guidelines that must
be performed by the Military prior to closure.
A second tool offered by the DoD is funding for planning grants and technical
assistance. Funds average one million dollars over a three to five year period and are
designed to underwrite part of the local planning organization’s costs.
In Charleston, the Charleston Naval Complex reemployment grant was
established to employ federal civilian workers displaced by the closure of the naval
facility. Grants provided services including special workshops, retraining and job search
assistance .30
The Office of Economic Adjustments (OEA) also provided technical assistance.
OEA provides on-site coordinators trained in base closure and/or realignment to assist
communities through the conversion process. They assist with creating a plan for
29 United State Department of Defense. Recovery Tools Available to Assist Base Closure Communities.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
3° Job Service. Charleston Naval Complex Reemployment Grant (15 September 97)
<http://www.jobservice.org>
23
_W,,__r
redevelopment, keeping environmental clean up on a fast track and pushing for the rapid
redevelopment of property and job creation.31
Federal assistance is the third tool offered to assist communities. Displaced
workers are given priority placement for other DoD jobs and health insurance beneï¬ts are
extended to unemployed workers. Additional services include outplacement referral
services, establishment of transition assistance centers and early retraining.32
Charleston’s displaced naval workers were given several options during base
closure. The ï¬rst option was the transfer to another military facilities. Naval facilities
throughout the country accepted workers and their families from Charleston. Due to
proximity considerations, a large majority of Charleston’s naval workers relocated to
military installations in St. Mary’s, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida.
The second option was job retraining. The region’s technical and community
colleges, including Trident Technical College and Johnson and Wales, provided
educational opportunities to displaced workers. Programs such as paralegal training and
food service management saw an increase in enrollees after the naval pullout.
The third option available for displaced workers was the early retirement option.
Employees who wanted to collect the retirement beneï¬ts were given the option and used
the funds to remain in Charleston or relocate throughout the country.
Finally, the Community Guide to Reuse is a publication that provides
communities with information on economic recovery. It summarizes the lessons learned
3' United States Department of Defense. Base Reuse Implementation Manual. Washington: GPO, 1995.
32 Ibid.
24
, _ Chater 4: Plannin or Reuse _____
and mistakes made by other communities during the reuse process and serves as a guide
for base reuse.
Recommendations for Communities Facing Base Closure and/or Realignment
The role of the community as a whole is very important in dealing with base
reuse. Effective decision making rests with those most impacted by closure; the residents
in the community. Communities must band together and assume many responsibilities to
ensure the economic recovery of their area.33 And the ï¬rst responsibility is awareness.
Awareness is key to understanding base closure. Communities must study the
potential impact of base closure on their area. They must know how many businesses are
dependent (directly and indirectly) on activity at the base and what base closure means to
their city.
For Charleston, awareness meant the formation of several base closure
commissions that addressed the regional importance of reindustrialization. The South
Carolina legislature appointed the Charleston Redevelopment Authority (CRA), which
voiced the concerns of Charleston, North Charleston and Berkeley counties residents, as
well adjacent areas of Mount Pleasant and Summerville.
The goal of the CRA was three-fold: job creation, interim leasing and “hot
turnoverâ€, making facilities suitable for leasing in the shortest period of time as
possible.34
33 United States Department of Defense. Community Guide to Reuse. Washington: GPO, 1995.
3‘ Smyser, Dick. “The Charleston Experience: Lessons to Learn, Reasons for Hopeâ€. Oak
Ridger, 12 August 97.
25
Cha o ter 4_lin or Reuse
Another goal of base closure communities is to find new opportunities for
economic growth. And one way of accomplishing this task would be to seek investment
from local and regional political and ï¬nancial resources in the community. By building
alliances across the entire spectrum of the community, the overall adjustment effort
should go easier. In Charleston, this meant the formation of the Charleston Region
Development Alliance (CRDA). The CRDA is a public-private partnership charged with
recruiting new and competitive business investment, with an emphasis on new
manufacturing, distribution, back office and headquarter operations, to the tri-county
region.35
Also instrumental in the Charleston region’s success was the formation of the
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments. This Economic Development
Administration funded district served three counties and under the Title IX Defense
Adjustment funding, applied and received almost $15 million for 11 projects including
water and sewer projects, the construction of a state aquarium and the renovation and
expansion of downtown Charleston.36
Leadership is also key in the base reuse process. Communities must become
catalysts for the area’s recovery effort. They must learn about all aspects of reuse and
give clear direction to their elected and appointed ofï¬cials on how to proceed.
Charleston’s area community and political leaders became coordinators of Charleston’s
35 Charleston Regional Development Alliance. (15 September 98) < http://www.crda.org>
3†Defense Conversion Pays Off in South Carolina. Economic Development Digest, 9 (1998): 10.
26
Cha a terflPlannin or Reuse
redevelopment efforts. Involving residents within the planning process assured equitable
redevelopment process.
Responsibilities of Planners in the Base Reuse Process
The role of planners in the base reuse is to ensure the best possible outcome for
communities affected by base closure. And the best way to accomplish this is by
working cooperatively with the LDR to reach agreements regarding reuse. Making
concessions regarding reuse plans early in the process will save valuable money and time.
Next, planners must consider the needs of those in the community in which they
are planning. Showing consideration for the needs of the communities will ensure that
redevelopment plans are site-specific rather than “cookie cutter†solutions that will not
benefit the community. Since Charleston relies heavily on tourism as a major industry,
care was given to revitalize the downtown and bolster its image as a world class city. A
redeveloped downtown and convention center in North Charleston, adjacent to the North
Charleston Coliseum, attracts large-scale events into the Charleston Metro Area.
Another way planners can assist communities is by motivating community
organizations into action and providing them with technical assistance on base reuse.
Having an informed constituency is vital for economic recovery. Charleston’s
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) relied heavily upon non-proï¬ts such as the
27
Cha re Plannin' or Reuse
N. E. W. Fund, to provide technical assistance to those residents affected by base closure.
37 In addition to CBOs, religious institutions and educational facilities served as
networks for assistance and information on base closure.
Additionally, planners must seek to be innovative and flexible in this reuse
process. This is a fairly new aspect of redevelopment and reuse plans are expected to be
new, different and innovative; creativity is essential.38 Charleston’s use of an industrial
brownfield as the site of its new aquarium and the use of government funds to address
city improvements, was an effective approach to redevelopment. By maintaining and
upgrading current issues within the city, future development has a stronger foundation to
build upon.
But by far, the most important strategy planners must address in base reuse is the
encouragement of local jurisdictions to work together. Because the Military played such
a large role in the economy of not only Charleston, but neighboring cities as well, pooling
resources with surrounding communities to attract new businesses proved to be the best
option for Charleston Metro Area. Today, their efforts have paid off with the Charleston
Metro Area seeing growth and prosperity unthinkable during the wake of base closure.
The revitalization of the economy of Charleston, South Carolina serves as a great
example of how a regional planning approach to reindustrialization ensures a successful
base reuse process.
37 The N. E. W. Fund is a non-proï¬t organization that provides grants, leadership training and assistance
with community organizing in Charleston, South Carolina.
38 United State Department of Defense. Recovery Tools Available to Assist Base Closure Communities.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
28
Reéerences
REFERENCES
Base Realignment and Closure. (23 September 97)
<http://infomanage.com/micconversion/brac/bracback.html>
Chanute Air Force Base. (18 October 97)
< http://www.dtic.rrril/envirodod/derpreport95/vol_2/nara03 l .html
Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce. An Introduction to the Charleston Metro
Region. (13 September98).
<http://www.chamber.charleston.net/overview/introduc.htm>
Charleston Naval Base. (7 October 97)
< http://www.navymil/homepages/navfac/env/maps/char97a1.html>
Charleston Regional Development Alliance. (15 September 98) < http://www.crda.org>
Charleston Region Development Alliance. Infrastructure. (15 June 98)
< http://www.crda.org/istructure/idxinfrastructure.html>
Charleston, South Carolina SMA. (7 October 98)
<http://research.badm.sc.edu/research/data/Charlesva.html>
City of Charleston. Facts and Figures. (8 February 97)
<http://www.charleston.net/charlestoncity/fgures.htm>
Defense Conversion Pays Off in South Carolina. Economic Development Digest, 9
(1998): 10.
England Air Force Base. ( 18 October 97)
< http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/derpreport95/vol_2/naraOS6.html>
England Industrial Airpark and Community: A Brief History ( 14 December 98)
<http://www.englandairpark.org/history.htm>
Fluor Daniel Consulting. (visited September 23, 1997)
<http://www.fluordanielconsulting.com/economic.html>.
Gone But Not Forgotten: United States Naval Base. (23 September 97)
(<http://www.iniders.com/charleston-sc/29military.htm>.
Gordon, Dianna. “Base Closings: Panic or Potential?†State Legislatures, no. 21 (1995)
: 25.
29
' endix A
Military Department Tasks for Base Reuse:
°Identify installation property, which is excess to DoD's needs and surplus to the Federal
Government's needs, that will be made available for reuse.
°Inventory personal property and consult with the LRA to identify the personal property
that will be made available to the LRA for reuse.
-Determine and analyze environmental impacts that may occur on the property as a result
of its disposal actions.
-Identify potentially impacted natural or cultural resources on the property and any
mitigation measures that may have to be taken.
-Conduct an environmental baseline survey to identify the environmental condition of
installation property, including property that is uncontaminated and can be made
available for reuse without further environmental actions.
-Refocus current environmental cleanup, compliance, and natural and cultural resources
strategies and schedules in light of the LRA's land-use plan and redevelopment priorities.
°Relocate active mission elements (mission drawdown).
°Plan for and carry out protection and maintenance (caretaking) of installation property
and facilities not immediately reused at the time of active mission departure/base closure.
Source: United States Department of Defense. Base Reuse Implementation Manual.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
A endix B 7
Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The NEPA process is intended to help the Military Department make informed
and environmentally responsible disposal decisions. The NEPA process requires the
Military Department to conduct environmental analysis concerning:
-The environmental impact of the proposed disposal action, including reasonably
anticipated reuse activities.
-Altematives to the proposed disposal and reuse action, including the "no-action"
alternative.
°Adverse impacts.
°Any appropriate environmental impact mitigation actions.
For disposal of closing or realigning installations, the NEPA process (described in
40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) is typically completed in one of three ways:
Categorical Exclusion. If applicable, a categorical exclusion may be used by the Military
Department when a parcel is to be transferred to another Military Department or Federal
Agency.
A categorical exclusion may also be used by the Military Department for interim
leases where there is no substantial change in land use.
Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA
provides the Military Department with sufficient evidence and analysis for determining
A}; _____
whether a FON SI or an EIS should be prepared. A FONSI is a determination that, based
on the EA, the disposal action will not significantly affect the environment and a full EIS
is not necessary. The Military Department may receive public comments on the EA and
the applicability of a FONSI. After a FONSI, the Military Department can issue a formal
disposal decision for the property.
OEIS/Disposal Record of Decision (ROD). Preparation of an EIS involves a more formal
public involvement process, which can be summarized as follows:
-The Military Department publishes a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register that a
property disposal action may be undertaken and that an EIS will be prepared and
considered.
0A public scoping meeting will be held in the geographical area to obtain public
comments about the possible environmental impacts of the proposed disposal action and
likely reuses, as well as the reasonable alternatives that should be considered in the
analysis. It is therefore important for the LRA and other interested community leaders to
participate in the scoping meeting.
°Data are collected and analyzed by experts in different fields, and the results are
published in a Draft EIS (DEIS). The DEIS will be made available for public review and
comment. Interested agencies, organizations, and individuals normally have 45 days to
review and comment. Also during this time, a public hearing is held in the community to
explain DEIS findings and to receive oral comments.
. Re erences
History of Charleston’s AFB, SC. (23 September 97)
<http://www.charleston.af.mi1/chas/facts/history.htm>
Job Service. Charleston Naval Complex Reemployment Grant (15 September 97)
<http://www.jobservice.org>
Long Beach Naval Shipyard. (7 October 97)
< http://www.navy.rrril/homepages/navfac/env/maps/long97a1.html
Loring Commerce Centre. (18 October 98) < http://www.loring.maine.com>
McDermott, John. “Charleston’s Economy Pumpingâ€. Charleston Post and Courier
Business Review, 6 July 98.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. “The Bottom Line.†Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 8
(May 1993): 1175.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. “Fighting on the Homefront: Charleston Defends Itself.â€
Congressional Quarterly Weekly 8 (May 1993) : 1172.
Sacramento County Local Redevelopment Authority. (15 December 98)
<http://mtc.sacramento.ca.us/story_10.htm>
Smyser, Dick. “The Charleston Experience: Lessons to Learn, Reasons for Hopeâ€. Oak
Ridger, 12 August 97.
Trade Zones: A Success Story. (visited September 23, 1997)
<http://web.infoave.net/scspa/24fa.htm>.
United States Department of Defense. 1988 Recommended Closures and Realignments.
Washington: GPO, 1988.
United States Department of Defense. 1990 Recommended Closures and Realignments.
Washington: GPO, 1990.
United States Department of Defense. Base Closings and Realignment Commission.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
United States Department of Defense. Base Closings and Realignment Commission’s
Memorandum for Correspondents. Washington: GPO, 1996.
United States Department of Defense. Base Reuse Implementation Manual.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
30
United States Department of Defense. National Pilot Project Report on Base Closings.
Washington: GPO, 1996.
United States Department of Defense. Recovery Tools Available to Assist Base Closure
Communities. Washington: GPO, 1995.
United States Department of Labor and Training Administration. Fact Sheet.
Washington: GPO, 1994.
31
A endix B
°The Final EIS (FEIS) is completed no later than 12 months after the submittal of the
LRA's redevelopment plan. The FEIS will address public and other comments received
on the DEIS. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FEIS will be published in the
Federal Register.
At least 30 days after publication of the FEIS, a disposal ROD is issued. The
disposal ROD indicates the disposal actions that have been selected, the alternatives
considered, the potential environmental impacts of each alternative, and any speciï¬c
mitigation activity to support the decision. After the ROD is signed and issued, the
availability of the disposal ROD is announced in the Federal Register. Then, the Military
Department may dispose of the property if other actions are complete.
It is DoD policy (DoD Guidance on Accelerating the NEPA Process for Base
Disposal Decisions, Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum "Fast Track Cleanup at
Closing Installations," September 1993--see Appendix F) that the Military Department
will generally use the LRA's redevelopment plan, if available, practicable, and not in
conflict with statutory or regulatory requirements, as the basis for the proposed action and
alternatives in complying with NEPA. If the elements of the redevelopment plan do not
constitute a reasonable alternative for disposal and reuse of the base, the Military
Department will identify the problematic elements of the plan and work with the LRA to
devise mutually acceptable plan modiï¬cations. Designation of the LRA's redevelopment
plan as the proposed action does not affect the Military Department's obligation under
NEPA to consider reasonable alternatives for the disposal and reuse of installation
property. In the event that the LRA does not reach a consensus or fails to prepare an
acceptable or timely redevelopment plan, the Military Department will prepare the NEPA
analysis using reasonable assumptions as to the likely reuse scenarios and their
reasonable alternatives.
Source: United States Department of Defense. Base Reuse Implementation Manual.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
Appendix C
The BRAC Environmental Process
The Military Departments have had ongoing environmental cleanup programs for
many years as part of the Department of Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
Environmental programs are emphasized and expedited at closure bases through the
BRAC Environmental Process, which includes environmental cleanup actions and other
environmental issues that may impact property reuse. Many environmental activities will
occur during the reuse planning phase. Therefore, it will be important for the Military
Department to be aware of the LRA’s reuse concepts as soon as they are formulated. It is
also important for the Military Department to communicate environmental issues to the
LRA early in the process, to ensure reuse planning is compatible with environmental
conditions. This way, environmental priorities can be reconciled with community reuse
priorities, and appropriate cleanup levels can be established to reflect anticipated future
land uses.
BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
The BRAC environmental planning process consists of five principal steps, which
can be described as follows:
°A BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT), an important source of information for reuse planning,
is designated for each base where property will be made available to the local community
for reuse. The BCT will include a BRAC Environmental Coordinator (or BEC--a Military
Appendix C
Department employee), and representatives from the State environmental agency and the
US. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regional office. The BCT should work
closely with the environmental subcommittee of the LRA. The LRA should receive
cleanup information from the BCT and should, in turn, provide the BCT with input on
reuse priorities and decisions.
-The BCT reviews the status of all environmental programs (including cleanup,
compliance, and natural and cultural resources programs) at the base, as well as the
LRA's redevelopment plan, unless it is not yet available. In the latter case, the BCT
should consider anticipated community needs.
°The BCT identifies action items requiring further effort, and develops a strategy for base
environmental programs to incorporate both reuse and environmental priorities.
°A BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP) is prepared, describing the status of base environmental
programs, and identifying strategies and schedules for integrating the environmental
cleanup with the community reuse plan.
°As contamination is remediated, the BCP is updated to reflect cleanup and site close-out
actions that have been taken, as well as any changes in community redevelopment needs.
Source: United States Department of Defense. Base Reuse Implementation Manual.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
Appendix D
Property conveyance methods:
'Federal agency transfers of excess base property to non-DoD organizations within the
Federal Government. These transfers require reimbursement to the Military Department
of the full fair market value of the property, unless:
-The Secretary of the Military Department and the Ofï¬ce of Management and Budget
grant a waiver; or 0A law specifically exempts the transfer from reimbursement.
°Public purpose conveyances for such public uses as airports, education, health, historic
monuments, ports, parks and recreation, and wildlife conservation. Generally, a Federal
agency with speciï¬c expertise in a conveyance category (e.g., the National Park Service
for park land and recreation conveyances) is authorized to serve as a sponsoring or
approving agency. Approved recipients may receive these conveyances at a substantial
discount (up to 100 percent of fair market value), following DoD consultation with the
appropriate agency.
°Homeless assistance conveyances (under the Redevelopment Act) at no cost, either to
the LRA or directly to the representatives of the homeless. Any deeds prepared by the
Military Department for conveyance of property directly to representatives of the
homeless should provide for transfer of the property to the LRA if no longer required for
homeless needs. Personal property may be conveyed to the local redevelopment authority
A endix D
for use by the homeless assistance provider. The LRA will be responsible for monitoring
implementation of the homeless assistance provisions of its redevelopment plan.
°Negotiated sales to public bodies or other qualified entities require payment of not less
than the fair market value, although payment terms are negotiable. Terms of negotiated
sales are subject to review by Congress.
°Advertised public sales may be made to the party that submits the highest bid, provided
it is not less than the fair market value. Sales to private parties for amounts over $3
million are subject to Attorney General review.
°EDCs to an LRA, for creating jobs and economic revitalization of the community, are
approved by the Military Department and may be sold at or below the estimated present
fair market value with flexible payment terms and conditions.
0Conveyances for the cost of environmental remediation may be made to those parties
who enter into an agreement to pay the costs of environmental remediation on the
property, provided that the total cost to the recipient is no less than the property's fair
market value. Implementing regulations for this conveyance authority, required by
Section 2908 of Title XXIX, have been promulgated as a proposed rule and are being
revised.
Appendix D
ODepository institution facilities may be conveyed to the operating depository institution,
by sale at fair market value, when the institution constructed or substantially improved
the facilities.
For property with ongoing cleanup efforts, leases may be used to achieve prompt
reuse. However, the Military Department must ensure that all environmental actions
necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken before any
transfer by deed can take place. This means that all remedial actions necessary for any
remaining contamination have been put in place and are operating properly and
successfully, to EPA's satisfaction. In any such case, the Military Department will remain
responsible for completing the cleanup.
Source: United States Department of Defense. Base Reuse Implementation Manual.
Washington: GPO, 1995.
Appendix E
Population of the Metropolitan Region
I 980 1990 Annual Ave. % I 994 AnnualAvg. %
Census Census of Change Estimate Change I 990 - I 994
â€3:33 94,727 128,776 3.6 138,839 2.0
Bonncau 401 374 ~0.7 4 17 2.9
Goose Creek 17,899 24,692 3.8 _ 27,454 2.8
1 Ianahan 13,224 13,176 -.()4 12,886 -0.6
Jamestown l 93 84 -5 .7 86 0.6
Moneks Comer 4,179 5,607 3.4 6,103 2.2
St. Stephen 1,850 1 ,697 -0.8 1,825 1 .9
Câ€""°‘"°" 276,556 295,039‘ 0.7 293,550 .01
County
Awendaw“ 324 NA NA
Charleston 73,757 80,4 14 p 0.9 76,854 -1 . 1
Folly Beach 1,478 1,398 - -0.5 1,606 3.7
Hollywood 2,365 2,094 -1.2 2,614 6.2
Isle of Palms 3,421 3,680 -0.8 4,123 3.0
Kiawah Island 266 7 18 I7 896 6.2
Lineolnville 808 716 -1 . 1 725 0.3
McClellanvillc 436 333 -2.4 325 ~0.6
Mcggctt 249 787 21.6 813 0.8
Mt. l’lcascnl 17,735 30,108 7 34,425 3.6
N. Charleston 65,681 70,218 0.7 67,720 -O.9
Ravcncl 1,655 2,165 3.1 2,567 4.6
Seabrook 233 948 30.7 889 -1.6
Sullivan's Island 1,867 1,623 -1.3 1,810 2.9
A- oendrx E
Source: Charleston Facts and Figures. (8 February 97)
<http://www.charleston.net/charlestoncity/fgures.htm>
â€â€˜32:?" 58,761 83,060 4.1 89,887 21
HarleyVille 606 633 0.5 663 1.2
Reevesville 241 244 0.1 249 0.5
Ridgcvillc 603 1,625 17 1,807 2.8
51. George 2,134 2,077 -0.3 2,635 6.7
Summervillc 1 1,985 22,519 8.8 21,842 -0.8
“1:11:30" 430,346 I 506,875 1.8 | 522,276 0.8
M_L
New' and Expanded
W_ . Investment. ’
lc lAnnounced
Date ompany Industry nvestment Direct Jobs
9/25/98 I'D/fin Stamping and ligamfaeturing - $.25 millionl 25
achine (DSM) rable Goods
9/21/98 Etrand- -Tech Martin, FIE/[anufacturing - $11.8 55
Inc urable Goods million
8/28/98 Vrckers Aerospace Manufacturing - $18.0 135
liviarine Defense urable Goods million
AMD) Group
6/11/98 IEuromart, Inc. Fholesale $.25 million: 5
istrubution-
ondurable
oods
6/10/98 Tull Metal Etanufaeturing- 25
[Processing Eurable Goods
5/22/98 Eacobs Applied ganufacturing- $18.0 500
echnologies, Inc. gurable Goods million
5/ 13/98 Sydney olesale $10.0 50
Harbour, Inc. Distribution- million
ondurable
ods
5/6/98 Airformed anufacturing $15.0 45
omposites, Inc. million
istribution-
urable Goods
5/4/98 Simpliï¬ed mployee $2.0 millionr 75
Employment dministration
Services nd Human
Southeast esources
4/8/98 Eational Service Eervices- $1.0 million. 100
irect, Inc. all Center
3/23/98 erranova Forest Manufacturing $10.0 50
Products, Inc. nd million
Distribution-
urable Goods
3/6/98 Ehrome Deposit lManufacturing- $5.0 million 20
orporation Durable Goods
2/25/98 IBenecol, Ltd., IChemieals- $22 million 20
[Raisio Group Epn—Durable
ods
2/23/98 Fen, Inc. anufacturing- $24 nrillion 600
rable Goods
12/ 1 5/97l0mega One Corp. anufacturing- $5.0 million 50
rable Goods
12/12/9 dvaneed anufacturing- $7.0 millionl 75
ntemational rable Goods
uilding Systems
A.I.B.S.) .
12/9/97 lLATl USA lastics $35.0 100
anufacturing million
11/19/97IUnion Corp. orporate $.25 million: 12
eadquarters
11/10/9 Santee River Ere and $32.0 110
ubber Company bber recycling million
11/5/97 Flamasco Steel processing $7.2 million 30
(1 distribution
10/ 16/9 ngineering warehouse/ $1.5 million 21
riction ' distribution
aterials, Inc.
FNL
/29/97 ialAmerica Services- $5.5 millionl 50
arketipg; Inc. [Call Center
9/4/97 llCorning anufacturing- $75 million 150
neorporated rable Goods
/28/97 ayer anufacturing- $60 million 45
[8 orporation ondurable
oods
18/13/97 ï¬itation Jgervices- $3 million 400
eIeServiees, Inc. all Center
7/10/97 in Stahl Inc. anufacturing - $2 million 15
urable Goods
4/15/97 INQ [Distribution $8 million 40
ndustrial Fabrics
4/22/97 rumor anufacturing - $150 200
urable Goods million
4/3/97 ortiï¬ber, Corp. anufacturing - $5 million 50
ondurable
oods
3/13/97 lNucor anufacturing - $50 million 50
urable Goods
3/7/97 ont anufacturing - $161 60
Foiper River'PIant Eondurable million
oods '
2/10/97 ILATI USA, Inc. [Services - 1 $1 million 1 10
-._ a._h_w—_.—.——' .
A endixF
2/6/97 Foliday Inn Eerviees - $ 7 6 500
orldwide eservations million
enter
12/19/96lENRJ, Inc. anufacturing - $1 million, 20
rable Goods
12/18/96IDivision Five, Inc. anufacturing - $0.77 25
urable Goods million
12/13/96iK-Cast Pattern Ltd. anufacturing - $1.4 millionl 3O
urable Goods
11/19/96rv1G Industries, Inc. Elanufacturing - $37 million 55
ondurable
oods
11/19/96|Charleston Mill Hnufaeturing - $6 million 30
Service, Inc. Kimble Goods
11/19/96E/1a1ine [Distribution $5 million 30
erminals of SC,
nc.
11/7/96 [Leader Pumps, Inc. gianufaeturing - $3 million 100
gurable Goods
10/21/96 AVEBE E1: anufacturing - $3 million 30
South Carolina, Inc. ondurable
ods
10/1 1/961Baueom's Nursery [Agriculture $10 million 100
9/27/96 lChemical Lime Co. anufacturing - $3 million 5
ondurable
oods
9/26/96 Sea Containers Hnufacturing - $5 million 140
America, Inc. rable Goods
8/22/96 WABCO anufacturing - $20 million 50
ompressor Mfg. Fu rable Goods
0.
18/7/96 lionnKenny [Distribution $6 million 100
pparel, Inc.
7/10/96 [Beneteau USA Eervices - $0.6 million 12
rpoorate
eadpuarters
6/25/96 hilips istribution $1.3 million] 60
onsumer
lectronics
4/23/96 Eapid ï¬lanufaetuling - $2 million 40
ranulator, Inc. urable Goods
4/10/96 Emeriean Paint anufacturing - $1.2 millionr 20
addle Co. urable Goods
3/19/96 ndon Pantry Manufacturing - $1.25 25
Nondurable million
Goods
A endixF
3/12/96 [Mikasa, Inc. [Distribution $60 million] 250
2/27/96 [Lnteractive [Services - $4.2 millionl 500
erforrnance, Inc. rocessing Center
2/27/96 G Lime Corp. anufacturing - $25 million 25
[AP Eondurable
oods
1/5/96 Fatima] Car Eervices - $10 million 400
ental System, Inc. eservation
enter
12/5/95 Felk Charleston Eervices - $12 million 200
egional Office orporate
eadquarters
11/30/95Fibron anufacturing - $18 million 100
ntemational Corp. rable Goods
11/1/95 [BoatLife Inc. Eamfacturing - $ 1 million 28
ondurable
oods
11/1/95 IlndChem Inc. [Distribution $0.5 million 15
10/26/95[Huntco Steel anufacturing - $8 million 30
urable Goods
10/10/95E'Ieartland Elanufacturing - $2 million 50
ndustries, Inc. urable Goods
10/5/95 [Datatronic, Inc. anufacturing - $0.15 75
urable Goods million
8/15/95 [Quoizel, Inc. ganufacturing - $10 million 300
rable Goods
8/11/95 [:ubner anufacturing - $5 million 30
ubber and Plastic rable Goods
7/20/95 [:Imerican anufacturing - $30 million 120
recision Steel rable Goods
7/13/95 axcess manufacturing - $3 million 50
echnologies, Inc. rable Goods
5/17/95 [Westinghouse [glanufacturing - $2 million 10
Energy Services Div. urable Goods
5/ 16/95 edaphis Services - $10 million 400
hysician Services flice Processing
5/5/95 lobal Eanufacturing - $1.5 million. 150
anufacturing rable Goods
5/1/95 US Postal [Distribution $1 million 450
ncoding Center
4/26/95 Amoco Chemical anufacturing - $200- 100
ï¬ondurable 300 million
oods
4/20/95 Auto Safety Glass [Distribution $5 million so
3/17/95 Scientific Services - $1 million 200
[Research Corp. lectronic
Appendix F
I ISystems Design
3/9/95 [Nucor Steel anufacturing - $500 600
urable Goods million
2/8/95 harleston Polymers anufacturing - $4.5 million 50
ondurable
ods
Source: Charleston Regional Development Alliance. (15 September 98)
<http://www.crda.org>
Appendix G
Amenities for Charleston, South Carolina
°One of the fastest growing non-residential construction markets in the US.
0Construction costs 22.2 points below national average.
°One of the highest productivity rates, complemented by the lowest work-stoppage rates
in the US.
-One of the most aggressive incentive packages in the US.
-Ideal location at the intersection of Interstates 26 and 95
-Over 120 motor carriers.
°Five commercial airlines offer 75 flights per day.
-Six private airports accommodate both corporate and private aircraft.
Quality of Life Factors
'91 miles of beaches
'27 golf courses, including 5 championship courses
°Freshwater lakes cover over 171,000 acres
OOver 120 parks with more than 8,000 acres
°More than 320,000 acres of national forests and wildlife refuges
'3 museums, 6 theaters, 4 arts festivals, 2 dance companies and a symphony orchestra
-Professional baseball, soccer and hockey teams
-Average annual temperature - 65.6 degrees Fahrenheit
°Sunny days — 63% of the year
-Average annual snowfall - 0 inches
Source: Charleston Regional Development Alliance. (15 September 98)
< http://www.crda.org>
__ _ _— —‘_—- _-_.-—< _ -
. . e .
,. r ' ‘
r - ,
. .
.. - .
a , .- ' . . . -
,. I - '
31293 02638 2642