Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-17-1995 - X-A ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: October 17, 1995 Action Agenda item # X—A SUBJECT: EDC Strategic Plan Update DEPARTMENT: Economic Development PUBLIC HEARING:_Yes_ ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: May Kickoff Information Packet (2-34) Updated Data Scan(35-58) Executive Committee Membership (59-60) Subcommittee Interim Report (61-64) Ted Abernathy(ext. 2325) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 699-7331 Mebane - (910) 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 Purpose: To provide an interim report on the work of the Economic Development Strategic Plan Update Work Group Background: On April 18, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners appointed a citizen committee to update the 1989 Economic Development Strategic Plan. The group received a charge to update the 1988 Data Scan, to produce an environmental scan of existing programs, to review the 1989 Plan and identify areas of accomplishment and areas that need additional work, to promote a broad discussion of major economic development issues, and finally, to prepare and recommend an updated Strategic Plan. Chair Howard Lee, Vice-chair Betty Eidenier, and the EDC staff will provide an update and seek commissioner ideas and input. Recommendation: The Manager recommends that the Commissioners receive the Update as information. 2 ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN KICKOFF INFORMATION PACKAGE MAY 209 1995 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Group Charge . . . . . . . 3 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Scan Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-14 Data Scan Points of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-32 4 STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE WORK GROUP CHARGE: To review the Orange County Economic Development Strategic Plan and to recommend updated goals and programs by: 1. Updating the Data Scan completed in 1988 to determine any changes or trends in Orange County and any changes over the past 6 years. 2. Producing an Environmental Scan of existing programs and activities related to economic development. 3. Reviewing the 1989 Plan and identifying areas of accomplishment and areas than need additional work. 4. Promoting a broad discussion of major economic development issues facing . Orange County and its municipalities through the end of the century. These issues should include but not necessarily be limited to growth, environmental quality, unemployment, underemployment, tax base, utilities, tourism, affordable housing, agriculture, small business assistance, training, and local regulations. 5. Prepare and recommend an updated Strategic Plan 5 THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN ORANGE COUNTY 1975 "Growth Options for Orange County" 125 citizens,held a 2-day conference to map out a strategy 1982 "Policy Metiiorandum, on Recommendations for Economic Development in Orange County" Dr. Ed Bergman led an effort to compile information and make recommendations 1988 - "Preliminary Economic Development Study" Sarah Rubin prepared 3 reports to start the strategic planning process 1989 - "Orange County Tomorrow" Economic Development Strategic Plan A 33-citizen Executive Committee prepares a plan which wins,NACo awards and directs the EDC work Plan 1995 The Plan Update Begins 6 ORANGE COUNTY TOMORROW PRESERVATION, PROGRESS, PEOPLE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MISSION STATEMENT Our purpose is to ensure the desired quality of life in Orange County by encouraging economic development through investment in human resources, the expansion of existing businesses, and the creation of diversified and environmentally safe businesses. The aim of this investment is to provide jobs for county residents(and to increase the non-residential tax base, thus enhancing the quality of life. I. Geog=hic Focus. Develop a geographically targeted economic development plan to address the economic development needs of the three areas of Orange County: Southern Orange County, the Orange Interstate Corridor, and Northern Orange County. H. Types of Investment. -- Identify and develop recruitment/encouragement strategies for business and industry that will contribute to county and municipal revenue without straining public services. Define and make recommendations concerning the relationship between the sales tax and commercial development. — Define environmentally sensitive industries(non-smokestack, low waste generators, low water use)and develop a selected recruitment policy for those industries. — Promote agricultural industries,particularly the marketing of locally grown products. Develop and promote a Rural Agricultural Center, including Carrboro Farmers'Market. — Promote the expansion of retail and commercial development in Orange County in appropriately targeted areas. — Identify tourist opportunities and develop a plan to capture tourist market for Orange County. 7 M. Existing g,. usineg�, -- Develop assistance programs for existing businesses, including financing programs and assistance in proceeding through the development approval process. -- Develop recommendations on streamlining the review process for development. IV. JobQpvortunities and Skills. -- Promote the diversification of the labor force through appropriate job training and vocational education for lower-skilled persons. -- Develop a strategy to ensure equal distribtition of jobs, with emphasis on jobs compatible with the skills of current residents in the different section of the County. — Provide job opportunities close to the"underemployed", particularly in rural areas. — Develop transportation strategies for rural areas for transportation to and from employment. S Summary of EDC Strategic Plan Challenges Challenge 1. Identify Recruitment Targets and Appropriate County Areas for Location. Identify appropriate industry, commerce, institutions for each area of the county, based on an evaluation of the effects/impact of industrial development. This evaluation will also be used as an input into the program to inform the public and seek public input. Challenge 2. Create Active Economic Development Program. Create an active economic development program for targeted industry. commerce, institutions matched to appropriate geographic areas. Challenge 3. Support Farm Viability and Farm Land Preservation. Support long-term viability of agricultural operations and the preservation of farm lands. Challenge 4. Public Information Program to Foster Awareness of Economic Development Benefits. Well thought out, planned economic development is essential for a vital, healthy community. Develop and implement a program to foster an awareness of the contribution that properly regulated economic development can make to the well-being of the community. Challenge S. Small Business - Retention and Recruitment. Provide incentives, financing and support available. We are a community of small businesses, which. because of their size. have acute problems getting loans, financial backing, etc. Non-traditional financing options are needed. We need to create an atmosphere of support for small and developing businesses. including innovative financing and risk-sharing. Challenge 6. Streamline Local Government Regulations Affecting Business. Simplify and expedite the regulatory process in order to reduce frustration and cost. Promote climate of mutual respect. understanding, and cooperation between the regulators and the business community. Challenge 7. Infrastructure-Transportation, Telephone Service, Water/Sewer, Trainins Facilities. Provide appropriate infrastructure to make Orange County an attractive opportunity for economic development consistent with community standards and quality of life. 9 Challenge 8. Promote Low and Moderate Income Housing. Increase the availability of low and moderate housing in order to ensure balance and diversity within the community. Provide a good local labor pool for business. Challenge 9. Tourism _ Program to Attract and Serve Visitors. Develop and implement comprehensive county-wide programs that attract visitors and, at the same time, encourage the preservation and appreciation of our historical, cultural and natural resources. Challenge 10. Train Everybody to be Productive in the Job Market. Orange County needs to increase the competencies of its entry level labor force, with academic and job skill preparedness training (and re- training as necessary) that prepare* youth and adults for a productive place in our economy. We need to provide school and community college facilities for training everybody. Challenge 11. Provide Jabs for the Highly Skilled. Orange County needs to recruit and spawn new business and industry which will tap the human potential of the educated, experienced, and often under-employed, work force of available professional and managerial applicants. Challenge 12. Fund the Economic Development Program. Obtain significant funding from county government, municipalities, and the private sector for the purpose of conducting a professional and effective economic development program. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS • Establishment of Research Triangle Regional Partnership ($800,000/yr. marketing Recruitment) - Trade Shows - Video - Brochures • Establishment of Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau(reports to EDC) • Establishment of Small Business and Technology Development Center Regional Office in Chapel Hill(EDC funds$10,000 per year) - Provides free assistance • Establishment of Orange County Community Housing Corp. • Passage of Economic Development Districts(adding 1,653 acres of pre-zoned land) • Establishment of Utility Extension Fund and procedure for use • JOBS program with EDC contract for placement • Smart Start Program to address early childhood issues • Women Business owners'Roundtable provides targeted assistance • Extended area phone service adopted • Fiscal impact model in use by Orange County Planning • Carrboro and Hillsborough's Farmers'Markets now thriving • Goodwork Micro Loan Program • Midway Development Commission • New EDC Publications Assist Businesses • Limited success in the area of county-wide utility coordination s 11 EFFORTS IN PROGRESS • Skill Development Center Task Force • Utility Service Boundary Group • Municipal economic development planning efforts including Chapel Bill Northwest Area Plan, Horace Williams Tract, Downtown Plan, and Highway 54 Entranceway, Cantoro Small Area Plan, Hillsborough Cooperative Plan • Rural Education Center Small business Loan Pool • School To Work Transition Plan 12 GENERAL ECONOMY HIGHLIGHTS • Strong Job Growth - From 1987 to 1993,job growth was from 35,222 to 46,051 (31%) • Low Vacancy Rates - Very little inventory of available buildings • Strong EXpansion of Eadsting Businesses - Blue Cross, General Electric, Home Health Agency, Village Companies, Carol Woods, PHE, Royal Home Fashions, FGL Parker Hannifin • Strong Small Business Creative - 100 net new businesses per year • Continued Low Unemoloy,msa _- Since 1988, yearly unemployment has ranged from 2.0 to 3.0 • Too 5 Ranlona - Orange County economic development results have consistently been ranked high among N.C. counties. • National recognition for the region 13 SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE IN ORANGE COUNTY FINANCING • Carrboro Revolving Loan Pool • Chapel Frill Economic Development Community Development Program • SBA • Goodwork • Center for Community Self Help TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE , • SBTDC EDC • SCORE • Women Business Owners Roundtable(WBOR) • Midway Development Corp. TRAINING • Durham Tech • Chambers of Commerce • WBOR ADVOCACY • Chambers of Commerce l r 14 NEW AND EXPANDING BUSINESSES IN ORANGE COUNTY EXPANSIONS NEW Blue Cross/Blue Shield Eurosport General Electric Brookshire Home Health Agency American Board of Pediatrics Mebane Packaging Ask The Pharmacist Village Companies SysPak, Inc. PHE H&T Sales FGI Polymer Reclaim Royal Home Fashions Feedback Carol Woods Armstrong World Industries Southern Seasons Performance Parker Hannifin Piedmont Health Services Major Business Forms Hancor EBand Hosiery Britthaven Vietri Kamtec Touch America Simply Delicious Carolina Gym�upply 15 VISITOR SERVICES (TOURISM) • PROFESSIONAL VISITORS' BUREAU • PUBLICATIONS * VISITORS' GUIDE * SPORTS&MEETING PLANNING GUIDE * CALENDAR OF EVENTS * ACCOMMODATIONS DIRECTORY • CONVENTION SERVICES • PROMOTION OF LOCAL EVENTS • RESULTS * OCCUPANCY TAX UP 22% (2 YEARS) * SERVICES TO 90 GROUPS 16 0 c� a► t : IK $ loop M� Li i ti Awp SCA f" - le000' ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA w c ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELAPMENT COMMWON P.O. BOX 1177, 110 E 1@N(' ST. EN.UBOROUGK NC 27218 ' TELEPHONE: (9M 7324181, EXT. 2325 17 DATA SCAN - POINTS OF INTEREST • Population growth is much slower than projected • Commuting has increased dramatically - both in and out commuting • Fewer and fewer high school graduates are going to work Retail sales are still a weakness but shows signs of improving • Job growth has been strong but not in the lower skill areas • Public transportation usage as a means to work dropped between 1980 and 1990 18 cc cc L ,c CL o c Q� r 00) r : o O M C cc i cc : : : ti E a O TM t m L O L O to O °1 N N r T Eg <f} p ci 0 N 19 : LO � M : 0) O 00 V : : co T. L a L : : : : v _ o U O O O O O O O O O O C 00�O d' N O N er O �r� m m L 3 N 20 THE GROWTH SLOWDOWN In 1987 we projected In 1995 we Imow the population to be: and the State projects 1990 1092758 933,851 1995 12931688 105,350 2000 153,378 11310786 2005 1812570 1229063 Source: North Carolina Population Projections, Office of State Plaaning - Winter 1995 s 21 CO) r i o� 00 C) BEEME : 000 i o) Go r a 0 L LO Go 0 C) 0 LO 0 a ao U r O O O O O O m Z O tt� O LO c N N r r •0 L N 22 LO O � C; N ca cu > 01 - LO cu FL N : CO W L ~ cc _ r' ; o - CO) cu 00 0 cc 0 C m m V O U) a v► = E � o = L C LO � Cf) cm °C r o LL a 23 c 4) Z -V M vo Von V 0 Mc c� o� 0 r o L a 00 cc Cf) c c � � 3 c .. m N O (D CM cc M � a c Z 0 «. ai L o � N 24 �C. Z � N r r N r r r r r r .N 0 m ° 4) • v � 0 � t0 *_ — O M O O N m 00 � �a ti ti O O v O m w co aft w4k in � _ C O 1% O N O to cn N N m w O 1` � w O (a r � 00 Z Tom .O M g' 1` 00 cl, N V (O O m N 1` '' O N O t0 N r ' 0 �+ N r r N T- r N r r c.. _ 61% 6W.P. 410. 4& 40 ov. 61% 44 o O3 O O Z — M c0 0 v O N O C.) V ti N O O M O O M O N N d' N CO M 4' M O � O N O O *- t` N ■� � w w M w w �O d' O co N N tc r 0 0 (O I` 00 O O *- N M V O E0" 00 00 00 c0 Qf 4) O QD O I- x O (7) (7) O) 0) O O) O) O m r TM r r r TM r TM r L LL 0 25 COMMUTING FACTS (1990) ♦ 83% of jobs in the Triangle are held by Triangle residents ♦ 96% of workers who live in the Triangle also work here ♦ 40% of Durham jobs are:held by non-Durham residents - 3/4 by Orange & Wake residents ♦ Commuters grew at about double the rate of either job or worker growth over the past 20 years 26 TRIANGLE COMMUTING PATTERNS PERCENT IN-CON OUTING COUNTY 1970 1980 1990 Orange 26 31 35 Durham 21 27 40 Wake 14 17 19--7 PERCENT OUT-CON AUTING COUNTY 1970 1980 1990 Orange 38 33 37 Durham 9 15 18 Wake 8 10 15 --7 PERCENT RESIDENT A PLACE EMPLOYMENT(NON-COMMUTERS) COUNTY 1970 1980 1990 Orange 74 69 65 Durham 79 73 60 Wake 86 83 81 27 IN 1970 IN 1990 OUT OUT 1,964 Alamance 24% 2,299 Alamance 13% 5,660 Durham 69% 12,185 Durham 690/o 282 Wake 3% 2,085 Wake 12% 351 All Other 4o/2 998 All Other 6% 8,257 1000/4 17,567 1000/0 IN 1970 _ IN 1990 IN IN 482 AWnaace 11% 2,722 Alamance 17% 2,043 Durham 46°/0 6,715 Durham 42% 277 Wake 60/9 1,462 Wake 90/0 1,307 Chatham 290/0 3,671 Chatham 23% -AU tea' _$ls 1.422 All Other 4,447 1000/0 15,992 100'/0 28 PERCENT INCREASES FROM 1970 TO 1990 COUNTY JOB GROWTH WORKER POPULATION GROWTH GROWTH Orange 147.00% 112.00% 63.00% Durham 107.00% 76.00% 37.000/o Wake 148.00% 151.00010 86.00'/0 COUNTY IN-CON 4UTERS OUT-CON WUTERS Orange 237.00% 104.00% Durham 290.00% 264% Wake 240.00% 350.00% 29 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE INTENTIONS CHAPEL IM L/CARRBORO 87-88 91-92 4 Year Institution 71% 78% Community College 8% 8% Jr. College 2% 2% MifitarY 1% r 10/0 Other 180/0 11% ORANGE HIGH 37-N 91-92 4 Year Institution 33% 43% Community College 25% 33% Jr. College 40/9 1% Military 90/0 4% Other 29% 190/0 TOTAL 91_9Z 4 Year Institution 560/0 62% Community College 15% 190/0 Jr. College 3% 1.5% Military 4% 2.5% Other 2219/9 15% 30 WOMEN cc i N W �+ r 00 a rLon Cc Go V � o L co 0 Um � � m ao m c M m co CC 0 O Oo O N a r; Ef. 49. c 4 z 0 N 31 O 0 LE O cc c r cc o V V mU Q co O m O M E cL CL et t'7 N r v z - d ' L N 32 i JOB SKILLS AND OCCUPATIONS 1980 AND 1990 OCCUPATIONS 1988 1990 % CHANGE Managerial& 12,659 18,811 +49% Professional Technical, Sales& 11,811 16,219 +370/a Admin Support Service Occupations 4,681 ` 5,867 +25% Family, Forestry& 791 971 +23% Fishing Precision Production 3,336 4,539 +36% Operators, 4,205 4,264 +1% Fabricators,Laborers TOTAL LABOR 37,483 50,671 +35% FORCE (Population Growth-22%) Source: US Census Dat4 33 YEAR FACULTY& TOTAL SQUARE SPONSORED STAFF STUDENTS FEET RESEARCH 1988 8,124 23.579 9.46 M 128 M 1989 8,293 23,592 9.59 M 138 M 1990 8,259 23,852 9.64 M 162 M 1991 8,255 23,794 9.88 M 174 M 1992 8,506 23,944 10.56 M 211 M 1993 8,917 24,299 10.70 M 228 M 1994 9,012 .24,463 10.70 M 245 M %INCREASE 11% 4°!0 13% 91% s 34 C 0 a O t0 01 t0 N v t0 ti w � Q!N r r L to c V 4) CM N N LO W, O 0 0 0 I-- V La CO) I` r 4) � E cc 0 et t0 O N N t d0' ch w C. r 0 > _ cc i Z a m E o " oZ 0 C O ++ 0! O > c 0 z W M W T !� O a W C ., O! o 0 t d C 3 �' qv v t d v m C C 0 � cc d 0! E �+ CL Cc r- IM CL CA o CD o c V so c E as c r �, m o s 0 30 W CL V 0. U. V V a` 35 ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE DATA SCAN MAY 209 1995 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 1: Major Employers&Population By Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 2: Orange County Population Trends&Projections by Township . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 3: Population Projection By Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 4: Gender By Race- Selected Counties(1980& 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 5: Job Skills and Occupations(1980 it 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 6: Education Level By Race(1980& 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 7 and Table 8: High School Graduate Intentions, 1991-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 9: UNC at Chapel Hill, Graduates by State and Region, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table U: Per Capita Income 1980-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 12: Annual Retail Sales Per Capita, Selected Counties, 1984 and 1994 . . . . . . 12 Table 13: Effective Buying Income- Selected Counties, 1986& 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 14: Employment Projections To 2005,Region J Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 15: Employment By Sector, Orange County, 1975 - 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 16: Civilian Labor Force Estimates, Selected Counties, 1982& 1992 . . . . . . . 16 Table 17: Employment By Place of Work, Selected Counties(1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 18: Civilian Labor ForceTmployment by Place of Work, Orange County . . . . 18 Table 19: Means of Transportation to Work By Race . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 20: Commuting Patterns for Orange County, 1960- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 24: Per Pupil Expenditure Ranking(PPE), Selected Counties&Cities . . . . . . 21 Table 25: Orange County Employers With 50+Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 37 This data scan attempts to update the statistical materials provided on the September 21, 1988, to the Executive committee which shaped the Orange County Economic Development Strategic Plan. Where updated information was available, it has been included. In some cases, data sources no longer exist or data is collected differently making comparisons impossible. As was the case with the first Scan, these numbers are a broad brush review of Orange County's position and should be used by the committee as information. Additional data will be gathered throughout the process to met the needs of the committee. 38 Table 1*. Major Em to ers&Population By To hip Township 1994** 1994 % County % County Ratio: Jobs to Population Jobs Population Jobs Population Cedar Grove 3,747 5 3.6% 0.02% 0.001 Little River 2,361 0 2.3% 0.000/0 0.000 "North" Total 6,108 5 5.9% 0.02% 0.001 Cheeks 5,548 2,195 . 5.4% 7.00% 0.396 Hillsborough 10,997 3,934 10.70/a 12.600/6 0.358 Eno 6,094 61 5.9% 0.20% 0.010 "Muddle" Total 22,639 6,190 22.00/a 19.800/0 0.273 Bingham 5,967 51 5.8% 0.200/a 0.009 Chapel 10 68,046 24,943 66.1% 80.000/0 0.367 "South" Total 74,013 24,994 71.90/a 80.20% 0.338 County Total 102,894 31,189 99.8% 100.000/0 0.303 * Modified by data available ** Township projections are rounded,total does not equal Orange County Total. Source: Population Projections by Orange County Planning Department. "Orange county Major Employers";December 1994, Economic Development Commission + 39 00 O� Q r- N O of to n o0 r• N ~ ~ _ TJ v1 v�T 0 00 O O C N an v� EC 00 ri V v1 C% O, Off" � O •0 M O_ N_ M 10 kn n O 0% '� •�• v'� N" ar gyp" %p .fl N ~ O ON 00 [� N 00 Q N �O N M vhf N O V1 N M v'1 .•: �p �O C� V'f N CL O ~ O a N ri O" 'n vi o c o U ~ •o O •'� a to �� o a c 00 v M cr � O a _ a 00 000 y O 40 T"3. POPULATION PROWnON BY AGE GROUP - SELECTED COUNTIES IES COUNTY <3 YRS(NO&%) 3`17 YRS(NO %) 1864 YRS (NO!%) 66+YRS(NO&%) Tidal CHATHAM 1990 Populuim 2,736 7.1% 61009 15.3% 24,450 63.1% 5,364 14.4% 38,759 1995 ftim m 2,847 6.7% 6,678 13.8% 26,322 623% 6,422 13.2% 42.269 2000 Prajad m 2,720 6.1% 7,306 1 16.4% 27,312 61.4% 1 7,144 16.1% 44,482 2003 Pr*cdm 2,638 5.7% 7,301 15.7% 29,023 62.3% 7,613 163% 46,395 2010 Projacdw 2,726 5.6% 7,263 15.0% 29,933 61.8% 8,317 17.6% 48,441 DURHAM 1990 Pop ddion 13„275 7.3% 28,,420 13.6% 120,807 66.4% 19,352 10.6% 181,854 1993 Projocdm 15.213 7.7% 32.292 163% 130,702 63.8% 20.439 103% 198,648 2000 Prvjad m 15,139 7.1% 37,416 17.4% 141,191 65.8% 20,753 9.7% 214,501 2003 Projacd n 15,235 6.6% 40,928 17.8% 152,.081 66.2% 21,434 9.3% 229,698 2010 Ptajrcdm 16,104 6.6% 42,2018 17.2% 163,457 66.6% 23,487 9.6% 245.256 JOHNgroN 1990 popi"= 5,740 7.1% 14,493 17.8% 50.836 62.5% 10,237 12.6% 81,306 1993 Projao m 607 7.8% 15,304 17.0% 56,473 62.7% 11,364 12.6% 90,128 2000 Pr*dim 6,821 7.1% 17,482 183% 59,184 62.0% 11.994 12.6% 95.481 2005 ProjoWm 6,723 6.7% 18.379 183% 62.594 623% 12,800 12.7% 100,496 2020 Pr*dim 6,861 6.3% 19,208 18.2% 65,121 61.8% 14,333 13.3% 105,423 L83 1990 Popaladm 3,037 73% 7,780 18.8% 23,179 60.9% 5,374 13.0% 41,370 1993 Pr*dim 3,304 7.4% 8,133 183% 26,839 603% 6.258 14.0% 44,333 2000 Aoja6m 3,159 6.8% 8,733 18.8% 27.604 59.4% 6,962 15.0% 46,438 2003 Projoodm 3,196 6.6% 8,586 17.9% 28,867 60.0% 7,436 15.5% 48.083 2010 hojadim 3,274 6.6% 8,867 17.8% 29,353 39.1% 2.187 16.5% 49,681 WAKE 1990 Popuk im 30,644 7.2% 67,616 13.9% 294,985 69.2% 33,036 7.8% 426.301 1993 Prajacdm 37,192 7.3% 83,390 16.7% 328.255 67.9% 39,473 7.9% 498,310 2000 PrajoWm 38,164 6.8% 99,368 17.8% 3764506 67.4% 44,431 8.0% 358,976 2003 Projadim 39,994 0% 110,605 1 17.8% 417,013 673% 52,088 8.4% 619,700 2010 At*c im 43,244 6.4% 116,925 17.2% 457,493 67.2% 63.x78 93% 680,942 ORANG9 1990 Population 5,440 3.8% 12,439 13.3% 67,889 723% 8,083 8.6% 93,851 1995 Ptvjocdm 3,953 5.714 14,726 14.0% 75,306 71.5% 9,363 8.9% 103,350 2000 h*c im 5,988 33% 16,284 14.3% 81,050 72.0% 9.179 8.2% 112.501 2003 6,102 5.0% 16,961 13.9% 87,343 71.6% 11,637 9.5% 122,063 2010 Pr*dicn 6,307E 4.9% 17,579 13.3% 92,311 71.0% 13,836 10.6% 130,034 Svuroe t1S Ce=m NC Ste*Data Caatate 41 Table 4. GENDER BY RACE•SELECTED COUNTIES(1980 1990) 1980 Census WHITE BLACK OTHER COUNTY Total% Male Female Total% Male Female Total% Male Female Chatham 69.8 11,986 12,342 25.8 4,392 4,595 4.5 728 825 TOTAL Durham 63.2 46,884 49,979 38.7 25,150 30,419 0,1 40 34,868 60 151,332 Johnston 79.9 27,382 29,087 19.7 6,538 7,382 0.3 133 109 70,599 Lee 77.5 13,666 14,778 22.1 3,867 4,252 0.4 63 92 36,718 Wake 77.0 114,172 117,889 21.8 31,316 34,265 1.2 1,936 1,740 301,318 Orange 81.3 30,050 32,628 17.3 6,205 7,121 1.4 501 550 77,055 1990 Census WHITE BLACK OTHER COUNTY Total% Male Female Total% Male Female Total % Male Female TOTAL Chatham 75.9 14,317 15,108 22.8 4,208 4,637 1.3 282 209 38,759 Durham 60.4 52,891 58,995 37.2 30,873 37,081 2.4 2,301 1,994 181,835 Johnston 80.9 31,998 33,775 17.7 6,558 7,831 1.4 700 444 81,306 Lee 75.4 15,131 16,085 22.7 . 4,406 4,995 1.8 411 346 41,374 Wake 76.5 159,781 164,230 ,20.8 41,452 46,605 2.7 51981 5,331 423,380 Orange 80.8 36,022 39,849 16.0 81997 8,006 3.2 1,452 1,525 93,851 Source: US Census Data(I goo&1990) a 42 Table S. Job Skills and Occupations Orange County, 1980 and 1990 1980 1990 OCCUPATIONS Labor Force Percent Labor Force Percent Total-AN Occupations 37,483 100 50,671 100 Manage"and professional specialty occulmi Eons 12,659 33.77 18,811 37.12 Executive,administrative,and managerial occupations 3,381 9.02 5,859 11.56 Officials and administrators,public administration 101 0.27 224 0.44 Management and related occupations 640 1.71 1,306 2.58 Professional specialty occupations 9,278 24.75 12,952 25.56 Engineers and natural sciamm 888 2.37 1,782 3.52 Engineers 222 0.59 323 0.64 Health diagnosing occupations 819 2.18 1,305 2.58 Health assessment and treating occupations 1,438 3.83 2,015 3.98 Teachers,librarians,and counselors 4,459 11.90 5,324 10.51 Teachers.elementary and secondary schools 1,528 4.08 1,724 3.40 Technical•aisles and adudnistrafte support ocapatlons 11,811 31.51 16,219 32.01 Health t•cixnlogieta and technician < 871 2.32 937 1.85 Technologist and technicians,except hestin 1,826 4.87 2,788 5.46 Salsa Occupation 2,835 7.56 5,019 9.91 Supervisors and proprietors,sales occupations 312 0.83 1,268 2.50 Sake rspssritatives.aommodidn and finnnee 880 1.78 1,039 2.05 Other ssles occupations 1,863 4.97 2,714 5.36 Cashiers 893 1.85 1,061 2.09 Adry*iWtrwdw support occupations,inekrdinp cieric* 6,279 16.75 7,497 14.80 computer equ4x w operators 137 0.37 144 0.28 Saeratrise,stenographers,and typists 1,878 5.01 2,179 4.30 Financial records processing occupations 483 1.29 557 1.10 Mail and message distributing occupations 186 0.50 225 0.44 Service occupedone 4,681 12.48 5,867 11.58 Private household occupations 333 0.89 371 0.73 Protective swvke occupations 446 1.19 655 1.29 PON=and fh fights 221 0.59 219 0.43 Service Occupations,except protcdw and househoid 3,902 10.41 4,841 9.55 Food Service ocewedons 1,714 4.57 2,500 4.93 Cleriirq and building service oeerped" 780 2.03 742 1.48 Pan mh foraaby,and flehin8 ocerrpetieria 791 2.11 971 1.92 Form operators aid mangers 343 0.92 384 0.72 ` Farm workers and related occupations 417 1.11 552 1.09 III ad" pro k odon,WWL and reps►o0owww lrs 3.336 8.90 4,53! 8.98 Mechanics and repairers 1,158 3.09 1,317 2.60 Construction trades 1,381 3.88 2,167 4.28 Precisions production occupedom 790 2.11 1,034 2.04 Operators.fabricatov s.and kibarars 4,206 11.22 4,264 8.42 Machine opal to and sanders.except pnteWort 1,884 4.44 1,332 2.63 Fabricators,asssnnblart.kis0 Irm sI and earrnplsrs 642 1.71 701 1.38 Transportation occpedrn 676 1.80 915 1.81 Motor vehicle apsralots 878 1.80 897 1.77 Material nNovi n8 equiluvw it oparatom 144 0.38 158 0.31 Hailers,equipnrtt cleaners,I 'P 1.NMI h. 1,079 2.88 1,180 2.29 Construction lsborara 255 0.68 350 0.69 Freight,stock.and matuis hairs 1 344 0.92 408 0.81 43 Table 6. EDUCATION LEVEL BY RACE ORANGE COUNTY 1980 and 1990 BLACK WHITE OTHER 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 Persons 25 Years Old &Over 6,775 8,542 32,524 44,510 837 1,920 Percent High School Graduates 48.4 62.5 78.7 87.5 80.9 85.9 Median Years School Completed 11.7 15,2 17.25 Percent Bachelor's Degree or Higher 14.4 51.4 64.3 Graduate or Professional Male 496 11,726 757 Female 258 5,044 259 Comparitiva data unavailable due to change in Census reeording format. Source: US CENSUS,1980 a 1990 ` 44 Tables 7 and 8. High School Graduate Intentions, 1991-92 1991-92 High School Graduate Intentions (includes 1991 Summer School Graduates) ORANGE COUNTY MALE FEMALE GRAND TOTAL INDIAN BLACK. WHITE OTHER' TOTAL INDIAN SLACK WHITE OTHER' TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT PUBLIC SR INSTIT NC 1 6 38 1 46 0 is 23 0 41 87 32.2 PUBLIC SR OUT-STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0.4 TOTAL 1 6 38 1 46 0 19 23 0 42 as 32.6 PRIVATE SR INSTIT NC 0 1 7 0 a 0 1 9 0 10 is 6.7 PRIVATE SR OUT-STATE 0 0 4 0 4 0 3 2 0 s 9 3.3 TOTAL 0 1 11 0 12 0 4 11 0 15 27 10.0 00101 COLLEGE. TECH NC 0 16 21 0 37 0 14 37 0 51 ss 32.6 C.C.. TECH OUT-mix 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL 0 If 21 0 37 0 14 37 0 51 as 32.6 PRIVATE JR COLLEGE 30C 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 1.1 PRIVATE JR OUT-STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 1.1 TRADE:. BUSINESS NC 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 S 1.9 TRADE. BUS OUT-STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 S 1.9 MILITARY 0 2 s 0 7 0 2 3 0 s 22 4.4 EMPL07lOM 0 s 26 0 31 0 3 13 0 16 47 17.4 OTHERS '• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 GRAND TOTAL 1 32 103 1 137 0 43 90 0 133 270 100.0 • INCLUDES HISPANICS AND ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDERS. '•INCLUDES INPORFATIOM NOT AVAILABLE. MARRIED, ETC. 1991-92 High School Graduate Intentions (Includes 1991 Summer School Graduates) CHAPEL HILL-CARRICRO NILE FZKALE' GRAND TOTAL INDIAN WA= WRITE orsW TOTAL IXDLAN BLACK WNITX OTHnt• TOTAL NUIOER PERCENT PUBLIC SR 13=XT NC 0 10 sf a 74 0 12 ss a 77 1sT 4S.8 PUBLIC SR OUT-STATE 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 22 2 14 26 7.9 SAL 0 10 64 a of 0 11 70 10 91 177 53.6 PRIVATE SR INSTIT NC 0 •1 20 1 12 0 1 9 1 11 23 7.0 PRIVATE SR OUT-STATZ 0 1 20 2 23 0 1 26 4 33 56 17.0 TOTAL 0 2 30 3 35 0 2 37 5 44 79 23.9 COMOt COLLETE. TECH NC 0 0 10 3 13 0 1 9 0 10 23 7.0 C.C.. TECH OUT-STA7Z 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 3 0.9 TOTAL 0 0 11 3 14 0 1 10 1 12 26 7.9 PRIVATE JR COLLEGE NC 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 6 1.6 PRIVATE JR OUT-STATZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 6 1.9 TRADE. BUSDNEls NC 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 4 1.2 TRADE. Bus COT-STATE 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 TOM 0 3 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 I S I.s MILITARY 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 0.9 EMPLOYMENT 0 3 is 1 19 0 5 9 1 is 34 10.3 OTHERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 GRAND TOTAL 0 19 129 is 163 0 19 131 17 167 330 100-0 • INCLUDES HISPANICS AND ASIAN CK PACIFIC ISLANDERS. "INCLUDES INFODRMATIOM NOT AVAILABLE. MARRIED, ETC. C._..wwe. Ur M skl i r- G+fM4 a 400-2. UP n--A. -.F 45 1 1 • I 1 1 1 1 1 t 0 o0000000000e O0000000ve, coo Aoolno 000 �o i 1 Y I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OtI�O O O A c O w 0 0 o c i o i I ZZ t 1 1 1 � t � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N C 1 1 WF• I �DOr`OIOOOA0000 000n0000000 OOIn OOOInO 000 t ! 1 t W 1 NOS N0001"0000 O1n 0!0000000 0001 000 0. 1 1 1 V I � N0! O 00 t r• 1 t 1 1 1 t N t t 1 1 W I 1 t 1 = 1 1 1 I Z I recce A000�0000 9 OO19 A00770 r'OIn 00000 000 1 0 1 1 H 1 1 of NOOOOf00010000 OOOINNOO��ww�O —a-" 00000 000 I � me 1 O t r 1 1 Q47 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W t OInOOIAOl00�0000 OOOMl00000 000 00000 000 101 t t tC 1 C of 0 N 0 N MAP 0 o/0 0 0 a O O O A M O 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 **a O t t •r1 1 1 1 1 Cm ( 1 1 1 V 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 10009 A0011019 00 OOOOOO O�OIn coo 00C nr 000 i 0I i 1 < 1 NO000fO0A0000 0000000tO1nOI C;C; O c O 4Y9 000 11 i 1 � < 1 t 1 I 1 f 49 7 i <i 1 1 Z t t i OH i 0000►OOeA0000 coca—cocoa 00" OOOIne 000 1 Ot i N > tiWi OOONOOOAOOOIn 0000000000 O;Oln 0000 OOOt � I o a 1 1 t 1 4-3 Ci I Iff. 1o19 1-r19.!19 nooco 9 1919 lne00006e 1o9 rn Aooeo noe i N i J all NO^=0 jr0::000o 00000000! b%04^ A0000 once i r I 1 Z I OI t t OC7 1 t 7 1 1•• 1 1 1 1 y l 1 1 1 p:461, 1 1 1 1 1 _ �� ; O�OO10t10t001n1000 19 eA1nOO7O11itO InIA OOA77 0100 1 CI 1 r•1 W 1 O0 t AO 0INITO O�,O O O IA OO O1 A000►ONO A.-O► OOOn OIA -00 1 0! t �r'N N AN�In v"1 O 1 1 1 t O N 1 1 C W t V 1 1 t L ! �OIn4!�ot01ON0!000 OO IV!InOOrCO►101 A! �OOAO►A 0100 ! ; V O t Z I �AlAO►Na*00l000 OlnwlNOlOr'OtnA tOA01 lOt011n A00 I N t W t 1 OOar In MlrO r OAln to OAAlAtnO0ln In r-at In OO�OOO 0lOIn I A I O J 1 C? 1 1 1 m V z I •1"1 W 1 IDZ 1 00 Ch In 1A A N W 00 N of If%rine A Nr'C►M;; C►NA M0"'40 ONN 1 r• 1 31 1 Z t y AN N.01� !0n •' �N OAIn Sol 1 N 1 I J 16 1 I A I 1 Z to 1 1 1 1 W t 1 1 I C 1 1 t � t 1 • 1 1 00 1 1 1 1 O CO= 1 1 1 1 w i.l f t) 1 1 t t y w y OYY 1 1 .r4 t 1 W C M C y N f 1 1 1 1 [� N • M • = = M— O I 1 t 1 ?. M • N— w O S • C 3 1 1 C C Y � — • N O-7 1 t ' t 1 C—COIA f O • f H w J C W 1 t 1 1 V 092C < e 1 1 1 1 y N — 2 • L O e < Y O Y Z y W 0 W—<ar I 1 1 I • • YMy— 0 — w fyy N0— W — 1~S O 1 1 1 t w a f y w Y Y C ar O N+—J O O O w W A 1. 1 1 t t C f Cy3 • • 7WC1�< Cole Z 2 O 1 1 1 I NH 0 3 e— f w !► C CZ—<= 46 — -- ls— t 1 1 1fi o- — O 00, 04 3 O w 7f— lL1C •a yCJaw > 1 1 1 1 —t�, w C C— feN7 N N�>>yS+ f C<O«— f 1 1 1 1 I N f — OLwVOW !►+ NJ,40099. , JSJC—L1 1 t IIb N J f— e— — — ITO l�OMO W-2—.JA C=I►• ea01 1 1 1 W W L L w +Y ■Y .Y— a OL .0 L N IC= O 1■160 1 t 1 1 <O 3%dip a—t CI1b AL e< af aaaw— O 49 Lb alas I"W f—IbWWC t 1 I t O►NM �.N Ot>1LMC Ewiww— Ow —t alcc&&=— wY000 CAM I 1 C I U W O— 7 0-- O O N L C 0 X O--M Z—L O w L C < f-- L M M I t 1 01 -c�- ■ tse- •-.� 2e—t •ZMM+ w-s- amJ+JJJ o« aLJ JJJ 1 '71ZW OOf OOtLO N7M«M�►Y ��— �p> werO NOO=WC—a1000 ! • f l t U 1 1 WJ+ZOO COO— CCON fri.l. O /►OM� O da+0700h�— •— OOOOC • • tJ 1 1 I OJtaHi�WWIbeS--Ji i`NN�NCyNO'SmSSJJOGiSSSSWSS I < 1 F•1 1 t <O U V V<-1 4C U U ti 1 o- 1 1 I U N yy=< yNy t l (�11Q77 46 Table 11. PER CAPITA INCOME 1980-1992 Per Capita Income - Current Dollars 1980 1985 1990 1992 % Change United States 9,948 14,170 18,660 19,802 99.1 North Carolina 8,000 11,870 16,284 17,863 123.3 Triangle 9,222 14,351 19,544 21,243 130.4 Orange County 8,660 13,659 19,430 20,856 140.8 Per Capita Income - CONSTANT 1992 Dollars 1980 1985 1990 1992 % Change United States 17,032 18;878 20,117 19,802 16.3 North Carolina 13,697 15,814 17,555 17,863 30.4 Triangle 15,789 19,119 21,070 21,243 34.5 Orange County 14,827 18,197 20,947 20,856 40.7 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis data from LINC 17/94) and 1993 Statistical abstract 47 Table 12. ANNUAL RETAIL SALES PER CAPITA, SELECTED COUNTIES, 1984 and 1994 ANNUAL RETAIL SALES PER CAPITA, 1984& 1994 Orange Co. Alamance Co. Durham Co. NC 1984 1994•• 1984 19940' 1984 1994•' 1984 1994•• Population 1993 102,422 112,352 190,112 6,952,424 Apparel 200 215 500 567 200 351 200 338 Automotive 500 981 1,200 1599 900 2053 1,300 1735 Food 1,900 2617 1,800 2502 1,800 2903 1,800 2579 Furniture 200 273 300 360 400 625 300 538 General Merchandise 700 1370 1,300 2058 1,300 2082 1,300 2375 Lumber/Building Materials 400 645 500 1194 500 838 700 1131 Unclassified 700 1385 1,200` 1820 900 2112 1,200 2115 1% & 2% Sales* (motor vehichles & other items for which the county recieves _ no sales tax). 300 41 1,000 259 900 150 900 394 TOTAL SALES 4,900 7528 7,800 10358 7,000 11113 7,700 11223 PER CAPITA • 1994 includes 1,2, and 3 percent salsa. •• Amounts shown are total taxable&nontaxable sales reported on sales and use tax report forms. Data reflect sales during the period June 1 through May 31 for merchants filing monthly reports, and sales during the period June 1 e, 1993,through June 15, 1994, for merchants filing semi-monthly reports. t Sources: Retail Sales for 1994, NC Dept.of Revenue, Stab Sales and Use Tax Statistics for Fiscal Year 93-94. 1993 Populations from Sales and Marketing Management, 1994 Survey of Buying Power. 49 14 TABLE 14. EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS TO 2005, REGION J COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT M-0Jf CT 1 CWS FOR rwt R i 171 J rt kCFNT OF Ttt 1 tv. r nm 31YM1:N r FARM AS SERV PWO CONST TPANS TRADF FIN SFRV row 1 fT!!!!!!T!i!7!=!!�!!1!!!R!!!!!!!!s!t!!!R!4!wl•l l..R N!!'�!t!!!7!!R!!*ftfl!!!!!1f!■1.l.fl1lflf 7l Ti f��1! 1993 - Chatham � 12.9% 1.3X 460.5% 3.4X 4.Q% 12.8% t.3X 13.5% 9.4% Durham V.Z% 0.3% 23.0% 4.4% 3.8% 14.R% 4.6% 31.8% 34.7% Johnston 19.1% P.0% 26.5% ti.5% 1 .3% 17.8% 2.2% 11.3% 13.3% t.we 3.8% q.11% 37.7% 6.7% 3.P% t 4.9% 4.5% 12.9'% 11 .3% Orange 3.0% (0,4% 9.9% 3.4% 1 .9% 15.9% 5.R% 151rJ% 4�.8% wat•e 1.6% 0.0% 1P.5% 7.3% 5.4:L 21.R% 6.P% P.3.2% 22.x% Total Region 3.2% 0.3% 09.0% 6.0% 4.2% 1tt.R% 5.2% 23.3% 21).9% 1990 - + _.. Chatham 12.6% 1.1% 41.6% 3.71L 4.0% 13.3% 1.3% 13.S% 8.8% Dsorham 0.4% 0.3% P.5.0% 4.37 3.3% 14.4% 4.4% 34.0% 13.7% Johnston 17.9% 2.4%' 20.9% 7.0% 1 .4% 19.0% 2.3% 1 to.9% 12.3% L roe 3.2% O.A% 39.2% :6.61 3.P% P0.3% 4.9% 12."% 10.3% Orange 2.6% 0.4% 10.7%' 3.6% ?.?% 16.7% 5.9% 16.5% 41.2% Wake 1 .3% 11.5% 1:%.3% ?.9x 3.8% 22.1% 5.9% 24.7% 18.Z% Total Region 2.7% 0.6% 16.8% 6.4% 4.4% 19.1% 5.1% 24.4% 113.4% 1445 • Chatham 12.2% 1.2% 41.2% 3.7%. 4.2% 13.8% 1.3% 13.8% 8.5% Durham 0.4% . 0.3% 25.4% 4.0% 3.4% 14.3% 4.3% 34.8% 13.0% Johnston 11.1% 2.6% 116.671 7.0% 1.4% 2!}.1% 2.4% 11.0% 11.8% Lee 2.9% 0.6% 37.7% 6.P% 3.r% 111.1% 5.3% 13.1% 9.8% Orange 2.3% 004% 11.46% 3.6% 2.5% 17.7% 6.0% 17.7% 38.Sx Wale 1 .ft 0.6% 13.4%, 7.9% 6.1% 22.4% 5.7% 26.0% 16.A% Total Region 2.5% 07.6% 19.9% 6.2% 4.6% 19.5% 5.0% 25.6% 17.1% 2�1g0 Chatham 11.8% 1.2% 40.9% 3.9% 4.3% 14.3% 1.3% 34.1% 8.4% Durham 0.4% 0.3% 85.1% 3.9% 3.4% I5.0% 4.2% 35.3% 12.5% Johnston 16.3% 2.8% 26.82 7.0% 1.5% ?1.1% 2.5% 31.2% 11.6% Lee 2.7% 006% 37.1% 6.0% 3.3% 21.9% 5.5'% 13.4% 9.5% Orange 2.1% 0.4% 11.6% 3.6% 2.6% le.:M 6.0% 38.5% 36.8% Wale 1.1% fi.6% 13.7% 9.1% 3.5% 23.3% S.R% 27.7% 16.2% Total Region 2.3% 016% 39.9% 6.3% 3.3% 20.4% 3.016 041.9% 16.4% 2905 a Chatham .._ 11.4% 1.3% 40.2% 3.9% 4.511 14.8% 1.3% t4.4% 9.3% Durham 0.3% 0:3% 83.(M 3.9% 3.4% 14.b% 4.1% 36.tl% 1P.4% Johnston 15.6% 8.9% 255.7% 7.*% 1.6% 22.0% ?.5% 11.3% 31 .Z% Lee 2.5% 0.6% 34.4% 5.9% 3.4% a2.6% S.-% 13.4% 4.4% Or.%nqe 3.9% 0.471. 11.7% ?1.A% 2.0% MOM 5.9% 19.1% 25.7 1 Na i e 1 14,10%. 0.6% 1:%.On 7.R% 40.411% r 3.271 +105'% 11'7.370 Is;.t% Total Ruq 1 on a,sit 0.611 l 0."M 6.2% i.n% 1:0.J% 4.9% $14.9% 13.7'% opus ce: [+ureau of Ct oriomit Analysts Table 1 presents employment projections by industry. The percent of persons employed in government is expected to decline slightlyxduring the next twenty years while the trade and service sectors will experience slight but steady increases in their'percent of the employment force, The percent of persons employed in manufacturing will remain about the same. The distribution of these four major sectors of the region's employment is depicted graphically in Figure 2, showing projections for 1990. 48 § ■m k � 09 _ P, 8* �_ 2� kk GN ) )R $ � to U) v $ 2 � C" § © eNWOONN - « N A C4 C4 � � a © rl e K N � � � �■ © K © K K 2 - N � I § G - § - § kk � k � ) JJ ) in 0 m ■ mcoa / � - � _ . § � ` _ § g 8 Cl r § _ e - - � _ o § ® § R022 ■ _ ■ § ■ VGq$ m 8 � 8K @G2P- G oi / 2 k ®ci u B _ - § 8 � A� r� Pt a _ _ _ § _ < j $ - o ] _■ _ C4 _ _ gSg2 _ 8izz $ � 2 � f » 2 ■ ■ 4C14 Ica'2 2 > � _ ' s z a] § - ■ 0 e _ ems _ _ _ _ _ _ e _ N _ _ e � i 7 2 § § N cc (a mm - ® ® - ® - _ _ � % e - _ - _ _ - - ® © - - 9 _ / } § � ■ � � � $ 2 . ■ 2 § � e ; 22 L E @ •' c 8 . § 2 a - � ■ MMM § \ - � § 2 ° $ - ■ & 0 ® . 2 ■ 8888 a 2 ■ oo _ « z g40 ■ I ! I! U, § § § f ® ■ a . � 3 <,j � 9 � k� � U.� § ■ ■ ■ ■ � § � t2 � � ■ � �a2 a 222a � ■ j � $ LU J.Lou 2 ■ § 2 % a a 7 2 c d & J§ 50 Table 15. EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR, ORANGE COUNTY, 1975 - 1993 EMPLOYMENT % Change 1975 1985 1993 From 75-93 Agriculture 1,080 500 332 -69.3 Construction 770 1,320 1,163 51.0 Manufacturing 2,060 2,830 3,099 50.4 Transportation, Communication, Public Utilities 410 750 1,024 149.8 Trade 3,540 7,420 8,862 150.3 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 1,430 1,990 3,091 116.2 Services 1,960 4,430 7,253 270.1 Government 12,620 20,170 20,910 65.7 (includes UNC & NCMH) TOTAL 22,790 39,410 45,778 100.9 Source: NC Employment Security Commission, Civilian Labor Force Estimates, 1985 Orange County EDC Statistical Abstract, Jan. 1995 51 Table 16. CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES, SELECTED COUNTIES, 1982 and 1992 Civilian Labor Force Estimates, 1982 Chatham Durham Johnston Lee WAkt Orange CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE 15,690 91,230 33,350 19,660 179,720 45,660 Unemployment, Total 1,240 4,280 3,600 2,280 8,240 1,810 Rate of Unemployment 7.9 4.7 10.8 11.6 4.6 4 EMPLOYMENT TOTAL 14,450 86,950 29,750 17,380 171,480 43,850 Nonag. Wage & Salary 10,070 83,650 18,780 17,230 158,750 34,840 Goods Producing 5,830 22,880 8,400 8,550 32,850 4,130 Construction & Mining 240 3,310 930 1,130 10,080 760 Manufacturing 5,590 19,570 7,470 7,420 22,770 3,370 Service Producing 4,240 66,770 10,380 8,680 125,900 30,710 Source: NC Employment Security Commision, Civilian Labor Force Estimates Civilian Labor Force Estimates, 1992 Chatham Durham Johnston Laa Wake Orange CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE 22,620 104,490 46,660 23,260 270,000 55,510 Unemployment, Total 920 4,410 2,540 1,520 9,840 1,610 Rate of Unemployment 4.1 4.2 5.4 6.5 3.6 2.9 EMPLOYMENT TOTAL 21,700 100,080 44,120 21,740 260,160 53,900 Nonag. Wage & Salary 12,460 134,060 25,830 23,060 266,070 45,410 Goods Producing 6,670 36,800 9,050 11,480 42,020 3,910 Construction & Mining 590 4,170 1,900 1,280 14,170 1,210 Manufacturing 6,080 32,630 7,150 10,200 27,850 2,700 Service Producing 5,780 97,260 16,780 11,580 224,050 41,500 Source: NC Employment Security Commision, Civilian Labor Force Estimates 52 Table 17: Employment B y Place of Work, Selected Counties 1993 MANFACTURING CHATHAM DURHAM JOHNSTON LEE WAKE ORANGE Food/Kindred Products 1,614 404 290 1,789 2,074 139 Tobacco Products 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Textile Mill Products 1,965 296 580 1,376 1,499 236 Apparel N/A 649 1,694 372 1,148 N/A Lumber/Wood Products 814 34 433 278 619 96 Furniture/Fbaures 230 N/A 112 497 356 59 Paper/Allied Products 0 155 N/A N/A 507 N/A PrintingTubfishing 46 886 149 108 3,440 648 ChemicaLs/Allied Prod. 820 6,509 960 1,527 2,698 N/A Petroleum/Related Ind 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 Rubber/Misc.Plastics N/A 218 97 185 1,154 81 Leadw/Leather Prod 0 0 0 N/A 57 0 Stowiclay/Glass/ 154 140 83 533 1,149 35 Concrete Products Primary Metal Indust. N/A N/A N/A 141 277 0 Fabricated Metal Prod. 25 165 163 921 2,139 N/A Indus.Machh=y/Eq. 72 12,199 710 904 2,445 28 Electron./Electrical Eq. N/A 8,437 1,357 811 6,866 1,056 Transportation Eq. 0 22 N/A N/A 356 N/A Instrument/Rdtd. Prod 0 967 N/A N/A 1,304 83 Misc.Menufacdaing N/A 76 0 N/A 159 162 TOTAL MFG. 6,259 32,564 7,501 10,989 28,265 3,126 NON-MFG. CHATHAM DURHAM JOHNSTON LEE WAKE ORANGE Construction 672 4,122 1,925 1,205 15,311 1,168 Transp/Comm/Utilid" 362 4,002 760 502 17,776 1,015 Wholesak/Retad Trade 2,357 20,237 6,803 4,847 64,797 8,979 Finance/Insur/R.E. 178 4,636 669 535 15,645 3,087 Services 1,489 50,532 3,660 3,070 75,809 7,348 Aug 214 691 1,024 228 2,692 360 Government 1,714 17,363 4,761 2,479 56,488 20,970 TOTAL NON-MFG. 6,986 t 101,583 19,602 12,866 248,518 427927 Source: "Employment&Wages in NC, 1993",Employment Security Commission,Labor Market Information Division, 2/95 "N/A"-Indicates Disclosure Suppression(less thaw three employers in that class) 53 WN en fn do IV qr . •r 0 W O O cc .� q � $0%ZS Q Q• • C• N oo v1 00 cD v1 O� Cr N Q e-� vl ND r-00 0o cow •• Q R -' W11 v en — -' v1�'en a — « 12 CD r- QC - .Cp 0 Q 0 1 W1 f"? — fn Y N — U o� �„ o v1 oC o $00000+ + o 000�oo 4J l�e"1NNQ• • C (y a e "N-� N O R Nenoee+fNM1 N�faa�0-n+ O rl O •� a "" ° en en N ..o W1 N •G Q (i C] 3 a n N u N W.-W. m8$: s B�oMCOO w L C s — O Z O �+ f3. v U Q 00 e� S e� Q�vOio00000tovi s Ov aQ00cV01r-cN C —oo,,% �o v1 Z G7 c:t •m z 41 u e w Z Co pp o CZ < b �f N e0.1 O O N �0v0o_O_vvOia s N �e0i�O1S�0 u 0 O Lti q N N O eV J �D �+vy�O N-+�O e e O% LL 7 m 4 � � QQ �OROOoo Os r e0-INSOOOOq P-4 —en— �O �O v1OnG �O O iVr ; 1 N w1 O U v C.7 U. Z o O H i Q S$0000+ s OOoO$S �C •3 a NvC� • N51009 q O h 00 N�O— �O v� rt Ck y O CM d h h — ~N cr. 00 C4 L y� Z IV a $ e°; 3°8vo�oc� �0000$ aye q "— �o v a►►oe Am ;�;a� y CD ..� .� e^ NI -. M—N •-• O 00 N 10— a ,P4 h h qr N > q o e E w a G7 N I4 O:NSe�f�0DV5� 4���� <O W 1 h h — t col C4 — 00 lV h N C Q O fA LL° � u c. — >E. C6 u =� C � PC cz ._.. 54 Table 19. MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK BY RACE ORANGE COUNTY - 1990 WHITEM) BLACK 1%) OTHER I%) TOTAL Private vehicle 34,414 83.5 6,063 83.4 1,046 63.5 41,523 Drive Alone 29,491 71.5 4,474 61.9 826 50.1 34,791 Carpool 4,923 12 1,589 21.5 220 13.4 6,732 Public Transportation 1,376 3.3 314 4.3 193 11.7 1,883 Walked Only 2,879 7 601 8.3 284 17.2 3,764 Other Means 1,097 2.7 156 2.8 88 94.6 1,341 Worked at Home 1,429 3.5 89 1.2 37 2.2 1.555 TOTAL 41,195 7,223 1,648 50,066 Source: US Census 1990 ORANGE COUNTY - 1980 WHITE(%) BLACK M OTHER 1%) TOTAL Private vehicle 24,724 80 4,790 85 446 66 30,192 Drive Alone 18,273 59 3,049 54 265 39 21,587 Carpool 6,461 21 1,741 31 181 27 8,373 Public Transportation 1,553 5 363 6 82 12 1,998 Walked Only 2,725 9 335 7 109 16 3,169 Other Means 1,091 4 44 0.8 22 3 1,157 Worked at Home 702 2 73 1 19 3 794 TOTAL 30,795 5,605 678 37,078 Source: U.S. Census 1980 55 Table 20. COMMUTING PATTERNS For ORANGE COUNTY, 1960 - 1990 1960 1970 1980 1990 COUNTY OUT " IN"" OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN Alamance 1,349 187 1,964 482 1,532 1,919 2,299 2,722 Caswell 13 9 28 53 51 39 6 170 Chatham 58 547 88 1,307 116 2,758 358 3,671 Cumberland 5 42 19 33 105 Durham 1,698 781 5,660 2,043 7,603 4,082 12,185 6,715 Forsyth 4 36 82 24 11 29 Franklin 6 33 14 1 1 1 Granville 35 24 120 43 92 169 Guilford 96 129 30 175 85 181 181 Harnett i 18 34 8 63 Lee 14 39 33 43 75 180 Person 42 43 30 103 149 91 163 325 Randolph 14 25 14 10 17 36 Rockingham 12 10 40 30 Wake 124 282 277 1,184 479 2,085 1,462 Warren 25 9 23 " Out refers to Orange county residents commuting to the county indicated in left column. "" IN refers to residents of other counties commuting into Orange County. Sources: Employment Security Commission of NC, Bureau of Employment Security Research, North Carolina Commuting Patterns 1980 and 1970. 1980 Census-- BLS Special Tabulation For Labor Market Areas. 1990 Census of Population and Housing 56 Table 24 PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE RANKING (PPE) SELECTED COUNTIES AND CITIES Includes School Food Service Expenditure 1992-93 LEA State Federal Local Total Name PPE Rank PPE Rank PPE Rank PPE Rank S S S S Orange County 3,144.30 44 254.4 115 1,567.02 8 4,965.72 11 Chapel Hill /Carr 2,865.96 119 156.95 133 2,229.09 1 5,252.00 5 Chatham County 3,009.73 82 260.45 113 1,146.33 19 4,416.51 51 Durham County 2,845.56 123 160.71 132 1,459.21 10 4,465.48 47 Durham City 3,070.44 63 558.95 19 1,596.39 7 5,225.78 6 Johnston County 2,851.38 122 319.19 85 759.68 80 3,930.25 122 Lee County 2,912.33- 111 323.23 83 846.65 60 4,082.21 105 Wake County 2,758.23 132 190.61 129 1,366.64 13 4,315.48 68 1986-87 LEA State Federal Local Total Name PPE Rank PPE Rank PPE Rank PPE Rank s s s s Orange County 2,283.21 30 178.00 120 930.84 17 3,392.05 23 Chapel Hill/Carr 2,106.60 107 111.26 140 1,427.31 2 3,645.17 11 Chatham County 2,177.38 64 191.07 111 785.80 33 3,154.25 63 Durham County 2,002.70 136 121.75 138 1,140.81 8 3,285.26 38 Durham City 2,080.18 118 346.29 35 1,325.66 3 3,752.13 5 Johnston County 2,052.28 125 239.66 81 526.48 104 2,818.41 132 Lee County 2,140.37 78 199.04 107 706.35 48 3,045.76 84 Wake County 2,038.20 130 135.61 137 1,047.03 14 3,220.84 46 Source:Selected FkwwW Dow. 198647 NC aoud of Bdooadon,end NC R"c School,Statistical ftft 1993, NC Dept.of PUEYe Nrtruetion. 57 Table 25. ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYERS WITH 50+ EMPLOYEES SICPLOYER # SiPLOYEE3 501t EmnloYee-Q University of NC at Chapel Hill 8190 U.N.C. Hospitals 4235 Blue Cross / Blue Shield of NC 1700 General Electric Co. , Inc. 1200 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools 1054 Orange County Board of Education 865 Orange County Government 550 Town of Chapel Hill 550 300-500 �iYeea Marriott Educational Services 445 Home Health Agency of Chapel Hill 415 Harris Teeter, Inc. 414 Mebane Packaging Corp. 350 Eurosport 330 village Companies of Chapel Hill 318 100-300 �loyeea Allen and O'Hara, Inc. 280 PHE, Inc. 275 Royal Home Fashions 250 Carol Woods Retirement Center 232 U.S. Postal Service 225 Orange-Person-Chatham Ment. Health 216 FGI 200 A Southern Season 150 Flynt Fabrics 150 Food Lion 150 Town of Carrboro 150 Wellspring Grocery 150 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., #1191 145 Hillhaven Convalescent Center 135 Performance Chevrolet 135 orange Water & Sewer Authority 133 Britthaven of Chapel Hill 130 W.H. Brady 130 Hotel Europa 120 Parker Hannifin 115 Piedmont Health Services, Inc. 115 Pizza Huts, Inc. 115 Dillard's Department Stores 110 Piedmont Electric Corp. 110 58 MCPLOYER # MCPLOYSES • 50-100 Employees Brookshire Nursing Center 100 Pyewacket Resturant 100 Residential Services, Inc. 100 Sav-A-Center Foodstore 100 Smither & Associates, Inc. 100 The May Apparel Group, Inc. 100 SPanky's 95 Kerr Drugs 93 Belk-Hudson-Leggett Co. 90 C.H. Country Club/Marriott Inc. 90 NationsBank 90 Squid's 90 Chapel Hill-Carrboro YMCA, Inc., 85 Central Carolina Bank 83 K & W Cafeterias, Inc. 80 Siena Partnership 80 State Employees Credit Union 80 The Daily Tar Heel So The Right Staff, Inc. 80 Elmo's Diner 75 Intimate Bookshop 75 Triem, Inc. 75 Major Business Forms, Inc. 74 Byrd's of Hillsborough 73 United Parcel Service 72 Duke Power Company 70 Georgia Pacific Corporation 67 Research & Evaluation Associates 65 Town of Hillsborough 62 McDonald's of Hillsborough 61 Harris, Inc. 60 Kenan Transport Company 58 Amer. Board of Peds. , Inc. 56 Lowe's of Chapel Hill, Inc. 56 Chapel Hill News 55 Hancor, Inc. 55 Weaver Street Market, Inc. 55 Efland Hosiery Mill 54 Ask the Pharmicist S0 Brendles Stores, Inc. 50 Four Eleven West 50 Hillsborough Family Practice So Photo Specialties 50 Resolute Building Co. 50 Revco Discount Drug Center 50 59 STRATEGIC PLAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Fletcher Barber Joyce Brown Merrilie Brown O.C.Ag.Extension 306 Ransom St. P.O.Box 9154 P.O.Box 8181 Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Chapel Hill,NC 27515 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Jan Brown Dan Brummitt Employment Security Comm. NationsBank Hilliard Caldwell 110 W.Main Street 113 N. Churton Rt. 11,Box 315 Carrboro,NC 27510 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Keith Cook Pat Davis Guido DeMaere 419 Calvary Court 121 Oldham Place P.O.Box 3591 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Chapel Hill,NC 27515 r Shirley Drechsel Lindsay Efland Betty Eidenier 87 Maxwell P.O.Box 296 127 E. Union St. Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Efland,NC 27243 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Sharon Freeland Pat Evans Scott Gardner 208 Laurel Hill Rd. OCIM P.O.Box 16909 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 P.O.Box 866 Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Jim Gibson William Harrison Jean Holcomb 103 Oakstone Dr. 200 E.King Street Viking Travel Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Hillsborough,NC 27278 103 So.Elliott Rd. Chapel Hill,NC 27514 George Horton Roger Jennings Horace Johnson Telesis Builders Jennings and Co. P.O.Box 429 109 E.King St. 1801 E.Franklin,#202E Hillsborough,NC 27278 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Onie Lea-Cameron Sherri Ont es Lee Lea Enterprises Unitd HOWL NC Crafts Gallery P.O.Box 572 109 Glenview Place 3 his Lane Hillsborough,NC 27278 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Neil Pederson Karen Raleigh 517 North Street CH-Carr City Schools Nom' �Oe et First Union National Bank Lincoln Ctr.,Merritt Mill Rd. Chapel Hill,NC 27514 100 E.Franklin St. Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Tom Roberts Jim Russell Inn at Teardrop Sarah Rubin Major Business Systems 175 West King Street 5518 Turkey Farm Rd P.O.Box 1299 Hillsborough,NC 27278 .NC 27705 Hillsborough,NC 27278 60 Ed Siebert Ted Vaden Richard Williams 76 Cedar Hills Circle Chapel Hill Newspaper Duke Power Company Chapel Hill,NC 27514 P.O.Box 870 P.O. 1011 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 Durham,NC 27702 Steve Yuhasz P.O.Box 1261 Hillsborough,NC 27278 61 SMALL BUSINESS SUB-CONIlM=E INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS ► Expand financial options by developing an Orange County loan pool for small business. ► Support existing micro-enterprise programs and fund outreach to citizens not normally reached. ► EDC should act as a clearinghouse for small business information. ► EDC should develop a marketing plan to distribute small business information with a goal of reaching all Orange County businesses. ► Eliminate barriers that hinder small business's use of training. ► Continue funding existing programs like SBTDC and Women Business Owners' Roundtable. ► Expand total land available for non-residential use in both County and municipal jurisdictions. ► Encourage commercial zoning as part of new University tract planning. Encourage job generation and fees in lieu of taxes. ► In conjunction with Cooperative Extension, EDC should develop an outreach program to insure farmers are aware of financial and training options. ► Continue to seek ways to streamline regulatory processes with goals of (1) insuring public input, (2) reducing uncertainty, (3) Shortening time from application to answer. 62 INFRASTRUCTURE NOTES Overall Goals 1. Adequate infrastructure should be available to all non-residential development areas. 2. All infrastructure planning should be county-wide and should be coordinated with other counties in the region. 3. Infrastructure provision should be done in a manner that insures services are competitive and economical. Water and Sewer 1. A water and sewer plan should be developed to extend services to the economic development districts. , 2. Quality of our watersheds should be maintained through land use planning. 3. The assimilative capacity of receiving water should be studied to ensure adequate sewer capacity. 4. A program of"gray water" re-use should be developed to increase capacity. 5. Service area boundary planning and current recommendation should be supported. 6. A system of inter-connections between all water suppliers should be completed. 7. The Utility Extension Fund should be supported by re-investment of repayments from current projects and should be increased to $1 million. Telephone System Goals 1. All companies should be encouraged to keep up with technology. 2. Region-wide extended area calling is the goal. Road Goals 1. A by-pass around Ifillsborough is a high priority. 2. TIP should include planned expansion of support roads to economic development districts. t 63 RaiVrransit Goals 1. Mass transit should only be done in conjunction with changes in the Land Use Plan. 2. Without major up-zoning to greatly increase mixed use density, mass transit should not be a local goal. Solid Waste Goal 1. Regional solid waste options should be part of our long-term strategy. 2. Non-residential uses should be planned and encouraged adjacent to the landfill. 3. Recycling goals, when justified, should be established and implemented Planned Map Inclusions • Water/Sewer --Boundaries with major inter-connectors and surface improvements • Telephone -- Service boundaries with fiber optic overlays • Power -- Service boundaries • Gas -- Service areas • Roads -- STIP with surrounding county inter-connectors • Transit -- TTA options • Parks/Rec -- Map of current facilities Y 64 EDUCATION/TRAINING SUB-COMMITTEE NOTES GOAL: TRAIN EVERYONE IN ORANGE COUNTY TO BE PRODUCTIVE WHAT ARE GAPS/PROBLEMS? ♦ WHAT HAPPENS TO HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES ♦ DIFFICULTY RE-ENTERING WORKFORCE FOR WOMEN ♦ EMPLOYERS VOICE INADEQUACY OF BASIC SKILLS AND WORK ETHIC IN ENTRY LEVEL CANDIDATES ♦ MISMATCH BETWEEN SKILLS & JOB OPPORTUNITIES ♦ RACE/GENDER/HANDICAP DISCRIMINATION ♦ LACK OF SPACE/TRANSPORTATION/FINANCIAL AIDE FOR TRAINING ♦ LACK OF HIGHLY SKILLED OPPORTUNITIES ♦ INABILITY OF UNC-TV TO BROADCAST OVERNIGHT ♦ LACK OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL ♦ RELUCTANCE OF DROP-OUTS TO RETURN TO ACADEMIC SITE ♦ LACK OF TEACHER UNDERSTANDING OF WORK PLACE NEEDS ♦ NO RURAL EDUCATION CENTER TARGETED PEOPLE/POPULATIONS ♦ HIGH SCHOOLERS ♦ MATURE WOMEN ♦ WELFARE RECIPIENTS ♦ FARMERS ♦ THOSE WHO MISSED SMART START ♦ HANDICAPPED RESOURCES ♦ SMART START ♦ DURHAM TECH ♦ WOMENS CENTER ♦ PARENTS ♦ COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOL ♦ UNITED WAY ♦ UNC-TV ♦ UNC TV OUTREACH TO DAYCARES ♦ UNC TV LEARNING LINK ♦ KENAN CENTER ♦ TWIG ♦ EMPLOYERS ♦ TECHNOLOGY ♦ CLUB NOVA ♦ CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT TRAINING f 65 POSSIBLE SUB-CONLM=E DIRECTIONS ♦ SUPPORT FOR THE CREATION OF TRAINING SPACE IN ORANGE COUNTY ♦ SUPPORT FOR RURAL EDUCATION CENTER DEVELOPMENT ♦ SUPPORT FOR A STRUCTURED CLEARING HOUSE AND NETWORK OF TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROVIDERS AND PROGRAMS COORDINATED BY THE EDC ♦ SUPPORT FOR USE OF MODERN CON 4UNICATION TECHNOLOGY TO EXPAND EXISTING OPPORTUNITIES AND TO ADDRESS CURRENT LOCAL GAPS (I.E. TO TEACH WORK ETHIC AND MARKETING OF PERSONAL SKILLS) ♦ SUPPORT FOR REGULAR NEEDS ASSESSMENT TO MONITOR A RAPIDLY CHANGING ECONOMY AND JOB MARKET ♦ SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN ON-GOING PROGRAM TO EDUCATE EMPLOYERS ABOUT EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES ♦ SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LONG-TERM STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THE MISMATCH BETWEEN EMERGING JOBS AND EXISTING WORKFORCE ♦ SUPPORT STOPPING TO APPLAUD SUCCESSES SUCH AS SMART START, COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS, THE SKILL DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THE SBTDC i 66 TARGET ADVISORY GROUP SUB-COMMITTEE NOTES September 12, 1995 Location of New Non-Residential Development ♦ Should be encouraged within new County economic development districts ♦ Should be encouraged within municipal boundaries at designated locations ♦ Should be located near unemployment and underemployment concentrations ♦ Orange County, the EDC, the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill should seek inclusion in the University's master pli#nning process for the Horace Williams tract. ♦ Limited expansion of rural nodes should be explored if supported by the local Township Advisory council and if uses support the local community Types of New Non-Residential Development ♦ Generally a wide variety of uses should be encouraged at appropriate areas. ♦ EDC should develop plans to encourage agro-businesses, recycling industries, and local artists. ♦ Home-based businesses should be encouraged and supported. ♦ Emphasis should be on businesses that serve and employ the local populous. Planning ♦ The Chapel Hill Northwest Area Plan, the Canboro Plan, and the UNC Horace Williams Plan should be encouraged to reflect the goals of the Strategic Plan. Corporate Citizenship ♦ The Sub-committee believes that the businesses that are encouraged should also be good "corporate citizens". The Sub-committee will develop a list of desired attributes. s