HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-19-2007-6f1Item 6.b. Attachment 4
ELEMENT
This document is a DRAFT and is subject to change prior to final approval.
`s
a` ` ,r1
COMPREHENSIVE PLI
ORANGE COUNTY, NC
7-or September 19,, 2007 BOCC Meeting,
9/7/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table or Chart number identified in ( )
B I. Geographic Context
B 1 a Table: Orange County Township Population Profile, 2000
Blb) Table: Orange County Township Housing and Income Profile, 2000
B2. Population
B2a Chart: Orange County Population Growth, 1940- 2005
B2b) Orange County Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000
B2c Table: Orange County Municipal' and Unincorporated Population, 1980 -2005
BI d) Chart: Orange County Municipal and Unincorporated Population, 1980 -2005
B3ej Table: Comparative Population Growth Trends, Townships, 1980 -2000
DM Table: Comparative Population Growth Trends, Cities, 1980 -2005
B2 Table: Comparative Population Growth Trends, by County 1980 -2005
B2h) Chart: Comparative Population Growth Trends, by County, 1990 -2000
B2i Table: Municipal Densit and Population Percentages, Regional Comparisons, 2005
B2D Chart: Municipal Density and Population Percentages, Regional Comparisons, 2005
B2k) Table: Metropolitan Statistical Area 5 Year Growth Comparisons, 2000 to 2005
B211 Table: Orange County Population by Age, 1980 -2005
B2m Chart: Orange County Percent Population by Age GTOUp, 2005
B2n Chart: Orange County Age and Gender Breakouts, 2005
B2o Chart: Age Cohort Regional Comparisons, 2005
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table or Chart number identified in ( )
113. HOUSING
B3aj Table: Orange County Housing Profile, 2000
B3bj Table: Orange Co un Family Household Size by Township, 2000
B3c� Table: Housing Profile, County Comparisons, 2000
B3d -_Chart: Orange:County =Median House Value (Own er -Occu ied Trends 1- 970 -2000 - - -- _-
B3e Table: Total Orange County Housing Sales Price Distribution, 2000 -2005
B3 Table: Orange County and City Housing Sales Price Distribution, 2005
B3 Chart: Orange County and City Housing Sales Price b Percent Distribution, 2005
B3h) Table: Average Regional Housing Sales Price Trends, 1995 -2005
B3i Chart: Average Regional Housing Sales Price Trends, 1995 -2005
B3jj Table: Orange Co un House Tax Values, 2005
B3k Table: Orange County Permitted Residential Construction, 2005
B311 Table: Availability of Orange County Housing by Median Income, Snapshot: August 26 2005
B3m Table: Orange County' Apartment2 Growth, Vacancy Rates and Average Rents, 1996 -2005
B3n Table: Apartment Unit Size Mix in Large Complex Developments, 2005
B3o Table: Availability of Three Bedroom Apartments by Median Income, Orange County
B3pj Table: Orange County Household Size by Township, 2000
B�c3 Table: Orange Coon Families by Township, 2000
134. Employment and Economy.,
Boa Chart: Median Family Income Comparisons, 1996 -2005
B4b), Table: Regional Income Comparisons, 1970 -2000
BAcj Table: Orange Co un Adults, Educational Attainment, 2000
. 00
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table or Chart number identified in ( )
B4d) Chart: Orange County Job Trends, Private Sector Employment, 1996 -2005
B4e Chart. Orange County Employment Sectors by Type, 2005
B4f Table: Orange County Total Coun Employment by Industry, 3rd Qtr 2006
B4 Chart. Orange County Total Annual Wages Paid, 2nd Qtr 2005
BAh Table: Average Weekly Wages, State /County Comparisons, 3rd Qtr 2006
B4i Chart: Orange County Agriculture Trends, 1959 -2002
B4� Table: Agriculture Census, State /County Comparisons, 2002
B4k� Chart. Orange County Total Agriculture Income in Millions , 1997 -2005
B41 Chart: State /County Unemployment Rate Comparisons, 1996 -2005
B4m Table: Orange County' New and Change Commercial Occupancy Permits, 2005
Bon I Chart: Orange County' Residential and Non - Residential Construction Permitted Building Value,
FY 1996 -2005
B5. ' Environment
BSa Chart: Trends in Point Source Air Pollution, 1993 -2002
B5 b) Chart: Estimated and Projected Emissions b Source, 2000 -2017
BSc Table: Number of Ozone Exceedance Dam 1995 -2003
RLdj Table: Average and Maximum Daily Water Demand Per Year, 1992 -2003
BSe Chart: Distribution of Total Water Demand Ground and Surface Water 2000
Bffi Table: Orange Co un Water Usage (mgd)', 1985 -2000
BS Table: Relation of Selected Well Characteristics to Well Use, Orange County, NC
B5h) Chart: Selected Ground -water Recharge Duration Characteristics and Mean Recharge in 12
Selected Basins and Sub - basins, Orange County, North Carolina, 1996
B5ij Table: Miles of Perennial Streams in Orange County, 2003/2006'
M.
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table or Chart number identified in ( )
B5jj Table: 303(d) Listed Streams' in Orange Count 2006
B5 k) Table: Orange County Wastewater Spills, 1998 -2003
B5 J1 Table: Pollutants Discharged from Mason Farm Waste Water Treatment Plant, 1970 and 2004
BSm Chart: Orange County Landfill Tons Managed _y Percent, FY 05/06
B5n Table: Orange_Coun _Landfill. Tons Managed,. FY 04/05 and 05/06
B5o) Table: Tonnage Recycle e by Orange County Recycling Pro rg ams, FY 04/05 and 05/06
BS Chart: Orange County Recycling Pro .grams, Tonnage by Percent, FY05 /06
136. Transportation
B a Table: Orange Co un Re 'sib Vehicles and Traffic Accidents': 1980 -2005
B6b Table: Orange County Bich Crashes, 1997 -2004
BAcj Table: Orange County Pedestrian Crashes, 1997 -2004
B dj Table: Orange Coun NC DOT Maintained Roadway 1980 -2005
B6e� Chart: Orange County NC DOT Maintained Roadways, 1980 -2005
B6 Table: Orange County Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 1990 -2015 (projected)
Bj5g) Table: Orange Co un Lane Miles: 1985 -2003
B6hj Chart: Means of Transportation to Work, Orange County and North Carolina, 1990/2000
B6i Chart: County Comparisons, Average Commute Times in Minutes, 2000
B6j) F� e: Count -to -Coon Worker Flow, Census 2000
B6k� Table: Commuting Trends Into Orange County by County of Worker's Residence, 1980 -2000
B611 Table: Commuting Trends Out of Orange County by County of Worker's Employment, 1980-
2000
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table or Chart number identified in ( )
Cla Chart: Comparisons of Population Projection Techniques for Orange County
C U Chart. Orange County Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Exponential Projections
C1c�
Table: Orange County
Average 10 Year Exponential Projections (1980 -2000)
by Township
Cld
Chart. Orange County
Average 10 Year Exponential Projections (1980 -2000)
by Municipality
C1e� Table: Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Exponential Projections by County
Cl Chart: Orange County Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Exponential Growth Rates by County
C1 Chart. Orange Count Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Linear Projections
CUTable: Orange Count Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Linear Projections by Township
Cli Chart. Orange Count Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Linear Projections by Municipality
Cljj Table: Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Linear Projections by Coun
Clk� Chart: Orange County Average 10 Year Linear (1980 -2000) Growth Rates by County
Chart. Orange County Population Projections, Adjusted Mi agr tion Model
Clm Table: Adjusted Migration tion Model Projections by Count
C1n Chart: Orange County Adjusted Mi arg_tion Model, Growth Rates by Coun
Clo Table: Orange Co un Population Trends and Projections by Age Cohorts
Clp) Chart: Orange County Population Trends and Projections by Age Cohorts
Q) Table: Orange County Children 18 and Under as a Percent of Total Population
Clr Chart: Orange County Population Projections for Children 18 and Under
CUs Table: Orange Co unty Persons 65 and Older as a Percent of Total Population
Clt) Chart: Orange County Population Projections for Persons 65 and Older
TOC.5
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table or Chart number identified in ( )
D1. Orange County Map
D2. Orange County Population Change, 1990- 2000
-.._- range ountjP atlori Dense ";tom
D4. Population Density Trends, NC Shaded by County
D5. Population Density Trends, NC Shaded by County
D6. Orange County Per Capita Income, 2000
D7.
Orange
County
Median Income, 2000
D8.
Orange
County
Population >65 Years Old, 2000
D9. Orange County Watersheds and River Basins
D10. Orange County Geology
D11.
Orange
County
Developmental Constraints
D12.
Orange
County
Vegetation
D 13. Orange County Wetlands
D14.
Orange
County
Bio -solid Application Sites
D15.
Orange
County
Cultural Resources
D16.
Orange
County
Natural Areas
D17.
Orange
County
Conservation Areas
D18.
Orange
County
Parks
D19.
Orange
County
Bicycle Paths
00
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
The County Profile (Data) Element (hereafter referred to as the County Profile) serves as the
primary reference point for basic information common to each of the Elements contained within
the Comprehensive Plan. As such, it is intended to provide a convenient location for population
statistics as well as key social, environmental, and economic conditions that exist within Orange
County. Although the scope of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide the development
and growth in unincorporated areas of Orange County, many data variables are available for the
county as a whole. Unless otherwise indicated, tables and charts for county -level data will
pertain to both the incorporated and unincorporated areas; further, population values for the
extra- territorial jurisdictions will not be included within city or town totals but rather within the
unincorporated county totals. .
The County Profile Element contains three sections: Historic and Current Conditions, Population
Projections and General Maps. The Historic and Current Conditions section contains the most
recent data available, which in most instances is either the 2000 Census or the 2005 State
certified estimates. Population projections are included in the County Profile to be used as a
resource for future planning. Maps depicting locations, trends, and geographic features are
incorporated to provide a visual reference for data and information contained within this and
other Elements. Please note these maps are general in nature and do not have extensive
explanatory notations contained within the County Profile, although they may be referenced by
other Elements.
Policy - makers, community organizations, and advocates need a consistent source for information
and data to guide decision- making and to provide benchmarks for assessing progress toward
meeting objectives. Conditions contained within the County Profile are dynamic and therefore
will need to undergo periodic updates as recommended in Section "TBD" of the Comprehensive
Plan. During these updates, data will be revised to reflect the most current information
available and to account for other changing community conditions.
The County Profile has not been designed as an exhaustive resource for all demographics. The
publications and agencies cited as sources at the end of each table or chart usually contain
additional statistical detail and present a more comprehensive range of information than can
reasonably be presented here. Users are encouraged to consult these sources for more specific
information. Additional data, detailed information, and future conditions for specific topics may
be contained within the subsequent seven (7) Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, prepared by
departments and organizations with expertise in the respective areas.
This document is a DRAFT and is subject to change prior to final approval.
9/6/2007 A.1
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
11
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
,B1.' Geographic Context
Orange County Location
Orange County is centrally located in the
Piedmont region of North Carolina. The
County offers scenic farms and small town
living as well as first -rate educational
opportunities and vibrant urban areas.
The County is located within the fast growing
Triangle area, with a regional population of
over 1.2 million. The Triangle includes the
state capital, Raleigh, and twenty -three other
municipalities. At the heart of this area is the
Research Triangle Park, bordered by three
major universities: UNC Chapel Hill, Duke
University and NC State University, and home
to research and development related industries
that attract people from around the globe.
Links to surrounding Triangle communities can
be observed by the significant number of
commuters heading across county lines to their
jobs on Interstates 85 and 40. These interstates
link the County to other major North Carolina
cities. I -85 serves to link Orange County to the
Triad cities of Greensboro, High Point, and
Winston -Salem as well as to Charlotte to the
south and Durham to the southeast. I -40 is the
only east -west interstate highway in North
Carolina, and runs from Wilmington in the east
to the Great Smoky Mountains in the west.
Orange County is also linked to the
surrounding regions by natural resources, such
as watersheds, which overlap county and
municipal boundaries.
Orange County Size Description
As an integral part of the Triangle, Orange
County has experienced dramatic increases in
population during the past few decades,
increasing nearly 58% fifty percent since 1980,
to its estimated population of 121,991 in 2005.
The unincorporated areas of OFange Count
represent approximately fi3Ay pereent (46,964
per-sons) of the County's popu4ation and o
per -eeRt of the land area. a total land area
of 254,720 acres or 399 square miles, Orange
County has an overall population density of
305 persons per square mile in 2005, although
population is not evenly distributed throughout
the county. Density is focused in the southern
section of the County with fifty-seven percent
of the population residing within the towns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
9/6/2007 B1 A
The County is divided into seven townships of
BinL-ham. Cedar Grove, Chapel Hill, Cheeks,
Eno, Hillsborough, Little River. Five of the
seven were once used as voting districts in the
nineteenth century: however, none have legal
standing today. Orange County that contains
the following incorporated towns: Chapel Hill,
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
Carrboro, Hillsborough, and portions of
Mebane. Outside of the municipal boundaries,
urban growth areas or extra - territorial
jurisdictions (ETJ) have been identified. The
respective municipalities exercise planning
authority over these areas into which they
expect to grow. Additionally, Transition Areas
have been identified around towns as areas in
the process of changing from rural to urban.
Beyond the Transition Areas, a Rural Buffer
surrounds the towns of Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. The Rural Buffer contains
approximately 38,000 acres and is expected to
remain rural in character, with annexation by
municipalities prohibited. This concept is
somewhat unique to Orange Counter and
underscores the importance of retaining the
rural residential and agricultural character in
the unincorporated areas of the County.
9/6/2007 131.2
Section V. Draft County Profile. (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan .
@j a Table: Orange Co un Township Population Profile, 2000
Notes and Sources:
' Land Area excludes Water Areas.
2 Values represent the corrected numbers for the 2000 census, updated January 9, 2004.
Source: US Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
5j b) Table: Orange Co un Township Housing and Income Profile, 2000
Geographic Area
an
Number
of Hhlds
Avg
Hhld 2
Size'
Po elation .
Per
Capita
Income
Bingham
-
Geographic Area .
.Area In
2,639
2.3
$50,506
$28,106
Cedar Grove
DensityPer
26.7
Square
2.6
$52,088
$22,199
Chapel Hill
31,085
= square mile
28,902
Miles
Total2
`Rural
Urban
Male
Female
of land area
Bingham
73.3
6,181
6,181
-
3,084
3,097
84.3
Cedar Grove
78.0
4,930
4,930
-
2,451
2,479
63.2
Chapel Hill
90.9
76,578
9,620
69,654
36,897
42,377
842.2
Cheeks
50.8
7,064
5,850
1,214
3,450
3,614
138.9
Eno
36.6
6,092
4,284
1,808
3,040
3,052
166.4
Hillsborough
26.3
11,639
4,205
7,434
5,613
6,026
443.2
Little River
43.8
3,047
3,047
-
1,503
1,544
69.5
Orange County
399.8
115,531
38,117
80,110
56,038
62,189
288.9
Notes and Sources:
' Land Area excludes Water Areas.
2 Values represent the corrected numbers for the 2000 census, updated January 9, 2004.
Source: US Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
5j b) Table: Orange Co un Township Housing and Income Profile, 2000
Geographic Area
Housing Units
Number Density Per
square mile
of Units of land area
Number
of Hhlds
Avg
Hhld 2
Size'
Mediarn
Household
�� Income
Per
Capita
Income
Bingham
2,830
38.6
2,639
2.3
$50,506
$28,106
Cedar Grove
2,082
26.7
1,870
2.6
$52,088
$22,199
Chapel Hill
31,085
359.3
28,902
2.3
$40,852
$25,660
Cheeks
2,930
57.6
2,742
2.6
$39,904
$17,665
Eno
2,609
71.3
2,449
2.5
$49,767
$26,568
Hillsborough
4,909
186.9
4,514
2.6
$41,237
$22,384
Little River
1,261
28.8
1,166
2.6
$56,176
$25,872
Orange County
47,706
123.3
44,282
2.6
$42,372
$24,873
Notes and Sources:
'Hhld = Household(s)
2 Avg Hhld Size = Population /Number of Hhlds
Source: US Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
9/6/2007 1131.3
Section V. Draft County Profile f Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B2 Population
Highlights
Population change is arguably the most fundamental factor affecting the pattern of development
and provision of services throughout the County. Population refers both to the absolute number
of persons, to their race /ethnicity, age groups, and physical distribution across the county.
Changes in the county's age distribution may be the most influential demographic change facing
the County. Orange County's median age has historically been younger, reflecting the influence
of Chapel Hill's college population. However, recent trends have shown a gradual aging of the
Orange County population and the United States population as a whole.
Because population changes at a local and regional level will likely have ramifications
countywide, this section contains municipal (cities and towns) and regional comparisons. Unless
otherwise indicated, population tables for county -level data pertain to the entire county,
including municipal areas and their extra - territorial jurisdictions (ETJ).
Historic population values were obtained primarily from the US Census Bureau. In 2003, the
US Census Bureau issued an amended 2000 Census count for the Town of Chapel Hill. The
Town's population was amended from 48,175 to 46,019; likewise the County's population was
amended from 118,227 to 115, 531. Most data tables will reflect the amended values and will be
so noted.
State - certified population estimates for the municipalities and counties for 2005 were provided
by the NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Section. It is important
to note that the 2005 population estimates from the NC Office of Budget, Planning and
Management (OBPM) are provided as the most recent estimates available for municipalities.
However, use caution when making any comparisons between US Census Data (1980 1990 and
2000) and NC OBPM estimates (2005) For Orange County, it is si ificant that the NC OBPM
does not project pppulations for unincorporated areas. Rather, unincorporated populations are
yielded from the resulting balance after municipal and countywide population estimates are
made The Orange Count Planning Department believes that the 2005 estimate provided for
unincorporated Orange County (46,964 ) may be low and the data provided in Table Clc on Page
C4 should be consulted for comparison See the Land Use Element (to be completed) for a
summary of building permits issued in Orange County since the 2000 US Census.
Historic and current demographic conditions in this section lay a foundation for further analysis,
such as population projections covered in Section C. Maps depicting Orange County population
distributions by age and North Carolina population growth by county can be found in Section D.
9/6/2007 B2.1
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Orange County's total population for
2005 is estimated to be 121,991. During
the 30 -year time period from 1970 to
2000, Orange County more than doubled
its population.
IX Orange County's population grew at
what is considered a moderate rate of
23% during the decade of 1990 -2000.
Over 1.2 million people live in the
Triangle areas including the Durham and
Raleigh Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
t Population change is not distributed
evenly throughout Orange County. In
absolute terms, Chapel Hill Township
accounted for over two- thirds of the
County's growth with 82% of this
growth in the urbanized areas of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro.
Little River Township has shown the
largest percent increase in population
(104 %) since 1980, growing from 1,493
to 3,047 persons in 2000.
N Although 8% of Orange County's
land area is within municipal borders
(incorporated cities and towns), 61.5%
of the population resides in the County's
cities and towns.
The majority of Orange County's
growth (75 %) was attributed to the in-
migration of new residents. Between
1990 and 2000, 19,000 new residents
relocated to Orange County.
9/6/2007 132.2
Z The remaining 25% growth was due
to natural increases, which is the number
of births that exceeded the number of
deaths.
Although Orange County's
population is still predominantly White,
the Hispanic /Latino community is the
fastest growing segment with 4.5% of
the population in 2000 from under I% in
1980. It should be noted that minority
populations are often undercounted
during Census periods. If this was true
for the 2000 Census, there may be even
more Hispanics /Latinos that now call
Orange County home.
The median age for Orange County
has increased from 25.7 in 1980 to 30.4
in 2000.
Z In absolute terms, population growth
for the 65( +) age group has doubled
since 1980 from 5,783 to 10,639.
t The school age population (5 -18) has
grown by 8,000 since 1980.
Orange County's population is
slightly younger when compared to the
State, with age spikes in the 15 -19 and
20 -24 age groups, due to the presence of
UNC- Chapel Hill and other universities
in the area.
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
132a) Chart. Orange County Population Growth, 1940-2005
140000
Population :
121,991
American
slander,.
Races.
Ethnicity
Orange County
115,531
120000,:,
13.8%
4.1%
4.1%
4.5%
Carrboro
16,782
72.7%
13.5%
5.2%
8.7%
12.3%
Chapel Hill 1
46,019
82.5%
12.1%
7.6%
3.6%
93,851
Hillsborough
5,446
60.3%
34.8%
0.6%
4.3%
2.8%
100006'
7,284
77.4%
17.5%
0.6%
4.5%
5.2%
North Carolina
8,049,313
72.1%
21.6%
1.4%
4.8%
4.7%
WOW,
CL
,O 60000,
IL
40000
4
,435
Tf
20000,
0,-
'1950: 1960 �jq 1980 �1990
1940, 710
2000
1005 est.
,-C.6' h wkii- rate
Orange experienced ynty asqxp &ol
i,of '2.7%f1940-2000)
Source: US Cbnsus bur&au"(2000,'dorrbdtbd)
52b) Table: Orange County Population by Race an thnicity, 2000
Place
Population :
White
American
slander,.
Races.
Ethnicity
Orange County
115,531
78.0%
13.8%
4.1%
4.1%
4.5%
Carrboro
16,782
72.7%
13.5%
5.2%
8.7%
12.3%
Chapel Hill 1
46,019
82.5%
12.1%
7.6%
3.6%
3.4%
Hillsborough
5,446
60.3%
34.8%
0.6%
4.3%
2.8%
Mebane 1
7,284
77.4%
17.5%
0.6%
4.5%
5.2%
North Carolina
8,049,313
72.1%
21.6%
1.4%
4.8%
4.7%
Notes and Sources:
'Total population for multi-county towns.
Source: U.S.Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
9/6/2007 B2.3
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Oranqe Countv Comprehensive Plan
B_ 20 Table: Orange County Municipal' and Unincorporated emulation, 1980 -2000 and 2005
Town of Carrboro
7,517 12,134 16,782
123.3%
17,797
Town of Chapel Hill 4
32,038 37,596 44,102
37.7%
50,262
City of Durham 4
17 39
n/a
47
City of Mebane4
379 485 675
78.1%
759
Town of Hillsborough-- 31019 4;263 _ ---5;446 80.4 %` 61162
Unincorporated, Count y5 34,102 39,356 48,487 42.2% 46,964
ORANGE COUNTY 77,055 93,851 115,531 49.9% ( 121,991
Notes and Sources:
' Municipal refers to incorporated cities and towns. rep I Se.C�
2 The Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census.
3 2005 Estimated population is from the NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management
4 Only the portions within Orange County are included.
5 ETJs are included in unincorporated totals.
Note: 2005 population estimates from the NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management (OBPM) are
provided as the most recent estimates available for municipalities. However, use caution when making any
comparisons between US Census Data (1980, 1990, and 2000) and NC OBPM estimates (2005). For Orange
County, it is significant that the NC OBPM does not project populations for unincorporated areas. Rather,
o unincorporated populations are yielded from the resulting balance after municipal and countywide population
estimates are made. The Orange County Planning Department believes that the 2005 estimate provided for
unincorporated Orange County (46,964) may below and the data provided in Table C1 c on Page C4 should be
consulted for comparison. See the Land Use Element (to be completed) for a summary of building permits
issued in Orange County since the 2000 US Census.
2d� Chart: Orange County Municipal and Uninco orp rated Population, 1980 -2000 6—V V i 5 E-d
50,000
45,000
40,000
c
35,000
30,000
25,000
CL 20,000
a
15,000
10,000
5,000
1980
1990
9/6/2007 B2.4
2000
Town of Carrboro
Town of Chapel Hill
Town of Hillsborough
Unincorporated County
Source: US Census Bureau
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
B2e. Table: Comparative Population Growth Trends, Townships, 1980 -2000
Township
Population Totals;,
Year "�
1980. 1990 2000
1980-
1990
:Population Change
/�►AGR < <�- `.% In`crease
1990 1980- , 1980- 1990- 1980= "
20.00 2000; 1990 2000 2000
Little River
1,493
2,183
3,047
3.9%
3.4%
3.6%
46.2%
39.6%
104.1 %
Cedar Grove
3,166
3,691
4,930
1.5%
2.9%
2.2%
16.6%
33.6%
55.7%
Cheeks
4,821
5,422
7,064
1.2%
2.7%
1.9%
12.5%
30.3%
46.5%
Hillsborough
8,599
10,136
11,639
1.7%
1.4%
1.5%
17.9%
14.8%
35.4%
Eno
4,450
5,262
6,092
1.7%
1.5%
1.6%
18.2%
. 15.8%
36.9%
Bingham
3,954
5,184
6,181
2.7%
1.8%
2.3%
31.1%
19.2%
56.3%
.Chapel Hill
1 50,572
61,973
76,578
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
22.5%
23.6%
51.406
Oran e County
77,055
93,851
115,531
2.0%
2.1%
2.0%
21.8%
23.1%
49.9%
Notes and Sources:
AAGR= Average Annual Growth Rate
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
B2f Table: Comparative Population Growth Trends, Cities, 1980 -2005
City
1980 ,
Population Totals
Year
:: 1990. ` 2000
2005
1980 -1990-
1990
PopWatiorrChange
AAGR 2 % Increase
2000- 1980 - 1990-
2000 = 2005 - - 1990 , ' 2000
2000-
2005
Carrboro
7,336
12,134
16,782
17,797
5.2%
3.3%
1.2%
65.4%
38.3%
6.0%
Chapel Hill
32,421
38,711
46,019
52,397
1.8%
1.7%
2.6%
19.4%
18.9%
13.9%
Hillsborough
3,019
4,263
5,446
6,162
3.5%
2.5%
2.5 %
41.2%
27.8%
13.1%
Durham 3
101,149
136,612
187,035
209,123
3.1%
3.2%
2.3%
35.1%
36.9%
11.8%
Mebane 3
2,782
4,754
7,367
8,100
5.5%
4.5%
1.9%
. 70.9%
55.0%
9.9%
Burlington
37,266
39,498
44,917
47,295
0.6%
1.3%
1.0%
6.0%
13.7%
5.3%
Raleigh
150,255
212,092
276,094
338,357
3.5%
2.7%
4.2%
41.2%
30.2%
22.6%
Cary
1 21,763
44,397
94,536
1151967
7.4%
7.9%
4.2%
104.0%
112.9%
22.7%
Notes and Sources:
1 2005 estimates from NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
2 AAGR = Average Annual Growth Rate
3Includes total multi -county population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
916/2007 82,5
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
B _cj) Table: Comparative Po ulp ation Growth Trends by County, 1980 -2005
Orange
77,055
93,851
115,531
Alamance
99,319
108,213
130,794
Caswell
20,705
20,963
23,501
Chatham
33,415
38,979
49,329
Durham _
-.-101;149
-136,6-1-2--
187,035
Johnston
70,599
81,306
121,965
Lee
36,718
41,370
49,040
Person
29,164
30,180
35,623
Wake
301,429
426,301
627,846
121,991
138,578
23,857
56,090
146,319
53,786
37,125
2.0%
2.1%
1.1
0.9%
1.9%
1.2
0.1%
1.1%
0.3
1.6%
2.4%
2.6
1.4%
4.1%
3.
1.2%
1.7%
1.
0.3%
1.7%
0.
3.5 %
3.9%
3.
North
Carolina 1 5,874,429 6,628,637 8,049,313 8,682,066 1 1.2% 2.0% 1.54
Notes and Sources:
12005 estimates from NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
2 AAGR= Average Annual Growth Rate
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
21.8%,
23.1%
5.
9.0%
20.9%
6.
1.2%
12.1%
1.
16.7%
26.6%
13.
35.1%
36.9%
29.
15.2%
50.0%
20.
12.7%
18.5%
9.
3.5%
18.0%
4.
41.4%
47.3%
20.
12.8%
21.4%
7.
B2h Chart: Comparative Po ulp ation Growth Trends, by County, 1990 -2000
50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Oia��e oe .4 k a�ra� �`ra4` �y�oo wee e`yoo �a�e
Pia G Gr p for Q
Source: US Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
9/6/2007 1132.6
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Oranqe County Comprehensive Plan
B2i Table: Municipal Densi and Population Percentages, Regional Comparisons, 2005
Notes and Sources:
' Municipal Density--Persons per Square Mile in Municipal Areas Only
2 "Municipal" refers to the population living in active municipalities (cities) and excluding ETJ areas.
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
B2' Chart: Municipal Density and Population Percentages, Regional Comparisons, 2005
Population,
Land Area
Municipal `
% °Non-
%
Total Area
%:Non
County
06 0. :2005
Density'
Municipal
'-Muhicipal2
(SgMile) .
:Municipal
Municpal!
Orange
121,991
2,360
38.5%
61.5%
399.8 `
92.0%
8.0%
Alamance
138,578
1,709
39.2%
60.8%
430.0
88.5%
11.5%
Chatham
56,090
945
80.9%
19.1%
682.9
98.3%
1.7%
Durham
242,210
2,019
12.6%
87.4%
290.3
63.9%
36.1%
Caswell
23,759
431
90.4%
9.6%
424.7
98.8%
1.2%
Person
37,125
1,402
76.2%
23.8%
392.1
98.4%
1.6%
Wake
755,034
2,201
23.0%
77.0%
831.9
68.2%
31.8%
North
Carolina
8,682,066
1,286
46.9%
53.1%
48,711
92.6%
7.4%
Notes and Sources:
' Municipal Density--Persons per Square Mile in Municipal Areas Only
2 "Municipal" refers to the population living in active municipalities (cities) and excluding ETJ areas.
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
B2' Chart: Municipal Density and Population Percentages, Regional Comparisons, 2005
9/6/2007 13
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Section
2.7
MM
,..
9/6/2007 13
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Section
2.7
//
/
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Section
2.7
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
B2k Table: Metropolitan Statistical Area 5 Year Growth Comparisons, 2000 to 2005
Charlotte- Gastonia - Concord
1,327,650
161,854
13.9
58,293
103,561
8.9
Anson
25,766
491
1.9
218
273
1.1
48
Cabarrus
150,434
19,371
14.8
5,520
13,851
10.6
413
Gaston
193,886
3,570
1.9
3,297
273
0.1
544
Mecklenburg
796,232
100,862
14.5
41,458
59,404
8.5
1,513
Union _
161;332
37,560 '
30.3
7,800
291760
24.0
253
Durham
457,416
33,613
7.9
16,220
17,393
4.1
Chatham
56,090
6,761
13.7
1,057
5,704
11.6
82
Durham
242,210
18,896
8.5
11,507
7,389
3.3
834
Orange
121,991
6,454
5.6
3,272
3,182
2.8
305
Person
37,125
1,502
4.2
384
1,118
3.1
95
Greensboro -High Point
670,528
27,081
4.2
16,658
10,423
1.6
Guilford
441,428
20,380
4.8
12,631
7,749
1.8
680
Randolph
137,283
6,812
5.2
3,571
3,241
2.5
174
Rockingham
91,817
-111
-0.1
456
-567
-0.6
162
Raleigh -Cary
955,452
158,426
19.9
47,795
110,631
13.9
Franklin
54,106
6,846
14.5
1,216
5,630
11.9
110
Johnston
146,312
24,412
20.0
6,135
18,277
15.0
185
Wake
755,034
127,168
20.3
40,444
86,724
13.8
908
0
Total McSA
6,008,294
525 436
9.6
209,690
315,746
5.8
NORTH CAROLINA
8,682,066
635,253
7.9
246,258
388,995
4.8
178
Notes and Sources:
McSA = Metropolitan Statistical Area
2 Growth = (Natural Increase+ Net Migration)
3 Migration- Persons moving into Orange County from another county or state.
4 Natural Increase = (Births - Deaths)
5 Persons per Sq Mile = (Population /Land Area)
Source: NC State Demographics
9/6/2007 B2.8
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B21) Table: Orange County Population by Age, 1980 -2005
Notes and Sources:
Population totals for age cohorts may differ from County totals elsewhere due to rounding.
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
B2m Chart: Orange County Percent Population by Age Grou p, 2005
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
23%
24%
0 -18 Total ®19 -44 045 -64 Total 065+ Total
9/6/2007 132.9
=1980, % :
1990 %`
20,00 % '
2005
of he
of the
of the
2005
of: :the
Age
1980
Pop.
1990
Pop.
2000
Pop.
est.
Pop.
0 -4
3,994
5.2%
5,440
5.8%
5,854
5.1%
6,418
5.2%
5 -14
8,891
11.5%
9,707
10.3%
14,200
12.3%
13,796
11.3%
15 -18
5,702
7.4%
5,300
5.6%
6,641
5.7%
7,645
6.2%
0 -18
181587
24.1%
20,447
21.8%
26,695
23.1%
27,859
22.7%
Total
19 -24
18,596
24.1%
18,948
20.2%
19,468
16.9%
21,435
17.5%
25 -34
15,537
20.2%
18,059
19.2%
17,887
15.5%
16,420
13.4%
35 -44
7,751
10.1%
14,299
15.2%
17,448
15.1%
17,187
14.0%
45 -54
5,709
7.4%
8,146
8.7%
15,923
13.8%
17,476
14.3%
55 -64
5,092
6.6%
5,869
6.3%
80181
7.1%
11,458
9.4%
19 -64
5.52,685
68.4%
65,321
69.6%
78,907
68.3%
83,976
68.6%
Total
65 -74
3,553
4.6%
4,755
5.1%
5,275
4.6%
5,631
4.6%
75 -84
1,752
2.3%
2,517
2.7%
3,482
3.0%
3,613
3.0%
85 and
478
0.6%
811
0.9%
1,174
1.0%
1,395
1.1%
Over
65+
51783
7.5%
8,083
8.6%
9,931.
8.6%
10,639
8.7%
Total
Grand
77,055
100:00/6
93,851..100:09
11 5,533
100.0%
122;474
100.0 %.
Total
Notes and Sources:
Population totals for age cohorts may differ from County totals elsewhere due to rounding.
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
B2m Chart: Orange County Percent Population by Age Grou p, 2005
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
23%
24%
0 -18 Total ®19 -44 045 -64 Total 065+ Total
9/6/2007 132.9
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B3 Housing
Highlights
This section examines Orange County's existing housing conditions including housing sales,
prices, and trends. When possible, data for the municipalities (cities) have been listed separately.
However, much of the information is available only for the county as a whole. Data for Orange
County excluding the cities will be labeled as Unincorporated Orange County.
In -depth information and analysis of the housing market, and more specifically affordable
housing, can be found within the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Information
contained in this section has been obtained primarily from the US Census Bureau, the Orange
County Department of Housing and Community Development and the Triangle MLS.
JX According to the 2000 Census
(corrected), there were 47,706 housing
units in Orange County with an average
household size of 2.6 people.
i Median house values for owner
occupied housing in all of Orange
County has increased by over $160,000
(a nine -fold increase) since 1970.
X Orange County's re -sale and new
housing sales prices (for homes on the
real estate market) have increased 87%
from 1995 -2005 to an average price of
$320,489 for homes sold in 2005.
Only 18% of homes on the market in
2005 were considered affordable for
families of four making median income
or less.
Of the Triangle counties, Orange
County has the highest housing sales
price. The sales price gap continues to
widen among these counties, with
housing prices increasing nearly twice as
fast in Orange as Durham and Wake
counties since 1995.
i Availability of homes with sales
prices in the $120,000 and less range has
dropped over 40% while the number of
homes available in the $250,000+ range
has increased 32% since 2000.
Within Orange County, housing
prices vary significantly. Hillsborough
homes sell on average for $100,000 less
B3.1
than homes sold in the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro area in 2005.
Similarly, existing housing tax
values are polarized within the county.
In the unincorporated areas of Orange
County, 50% of the houses are valued
under $120,000 whereas in Chapel Hill
45% of the homes are valued at
$250,000 or more.
Renters occupy over 50% of
available housing units in Chapel Hill.
Likewise, the majority of large complex
rental apartments are in Chapel Hill,
accounting for 56.7% of all large
complex apartments in Orange County
for 2005.
1Z Based on information by the Orange
County Department of Housing &
Community Development, in 2005, there
were a significant number of three
bedroom apartment units available at all
income levels except for those at the
incomes less than 30% of median.
Unincorporated Orange County only
contains 1.8% of available apartment
housing.
Average rents in Orange County
were $708 in 2005.
Median contract rent prices have
nearly tripled since 1980.
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
133a Table: Orange Co un Housing profile, 2000
People Per Hshld
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.6
# Housing Units
8,207
18,976
2,329
47,706
Vacant House Units
8%
6%
10%
7%
Renter Occ Units
63%
54%
36%
39%
Owner Occ Units
29%
40%
55%
54%
Mobile_ Homes „_ -
P1.07:m .. _
_ .234 ___ -
��.__170 -
5124
Med2 Contract Rent
$607
$607
$485
$591
Med2 Value Owner Unit
$172,800
$229,100
$117,100
$179,000
Occ Units >10yr old
68.8%
77.9%
74.1%
70.3%
Occ Units >20yr old
42..9%
58.0%
57.0%
49.2%
Occ Units >30yr old
22.4%
37.2%
41.7%
29.3%
Notes and Sources:
1 Occ= Occupied. Indicates whether the owner lives in the unit or if it is rental property.
2 Med= Median. See Appendix for further explanation.
Source: US Census Bureau (2000, corrected)
Bib) Table: Orange County Family Household Size by Township, 2000
INUMM una auurces:
Family Households includes all of the related people who occupy a housing unit.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
133.2
9/6/2007
Number,,
2= person
° ' 3 person
4 person
5-per sobn
6- person
7 -or -more, .
person
Family
household
householdhousehold
household'
household;'
.household
Townshi p
ouseholds',
% of Total
% of Total
% l Total `
% of t otal
% of Total'
% of Total
Bingham
1,737
46.5%
27.6%
17.6%
6.3%
1.3%
0.6%
Cedar Grove
1,425
41.0%
26.7%
21.3%
7.9%
2.0%
1.2%
Chapel Hill
2,050
43.8%
26.1%
19.4%
7.0%
2.2%
1.5%
Cheeks
3,126
43.1%
25.9%
20.4%
6.9%
2.7%
1.1%
Eno
15,080
44.0%
24.2%
21.3%
7.3%
2.0%
1.1%
Hillsborough
1,786
44.6%
27.3%
20.1%
5.7%
1.7%
0.7%
Little River
922
45.1%
25.1%
21.6%
5.9%
1.5%
0.9%
Orange
County
26,126
44.0%
25.2%
20.7%
7.0%
2.0%
1.1%
INUMM una auurces:
Family Households includes all of the related people who occupy a housing unit.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
133.2
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
53c Table: Housing Profile, County Comparisons, 2000
Housing,,, tribute,'
Orange
Count 3
Y
Durham
County
. < Wake :
County
North
Carolina
# Housing Units
47,706
95,452
258,953
3,523,944
Vacant Units
7%
7%
7%
11%
Renter Occl Units
39%
43%
32%
27%
Owner Occl Units
54%
51%
62%
62%
Mobile Homes
5,124
1,547
14,210
577,323
Med2 Contract Rent
$591
$561
$631
$431
Med2 Value Owner Unit
$179,000
$129,000
$162,900
$108,300
Occ Units >10yr old
72.6%
70.9%
58.8%
65.0%
Occ Units >20yr old
50.8%
51.5%
35.2%
47.7%
Occ Units >30yr old
30.3%
34.3%
20.4%
31.5%
Notes and Sources:
1 Occ= Occupied. Indicates whether the owner lives in the unit or if it is rental property.
2 Med= Median. See Appendix for further explanation.
3Corrected totals for Orange County. Figures include municipalities + unincorporated areas.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
83.3
9/6/2007
I
Section V. DRAFT Coun Profile Data Element -Orange Count y Cornerehensive Plan
Bid) Chart: Orange County Median House Value (Owner OcMied) Trends 1970-2000
11 $172,800
LINC Report
US Census Bureau, 2000
$229,100
M 1970 ®1980 011990 M 2000
$179,000
$117,100
"Fj j j % j
03e
) Table: Total Orange Countv Housing Sales Price Distribution. 2000-2005
For new and re-sale residences.
Data compiled by Chapel Hill Planning Department
Source: Triangle IVILS
03.4
9/6/2007
IGY%JYV
Avu I
LuyL
ZUU
ZU U4
2005
2005,
< $79,000
5.2%
4.0%
3.3%
2.3%
4.6%
2.9%
-44%
$80,000-
$119,999
13.1%
12.4%
11.6%
10.9%
8.9%
7.5%
-43%
$120,000-
$159,000
15.1%
16.0%
15.3%
14.3%
12.6%
14.0%
-7%
$160,000-
$199,000
14.2%
13.9%
14.7%
13.1%
11.4%
11.5%
-19%
$200,000-
$249,999
13.7%
12.1%
12.1%
14.4%
14.8%
14.0%
2%
$250,000+
38.6%
41.6%
43.7%
45.2%
47.8%
51.0%
32%
Avg ',:'Price
:$286,,633
$249,226
$261,895
$286,592
�0X
$298,883
'
$320,489
36
Notes and Sources:
For new and re-sale residences.
Data compiled by Chapel Hill Planning Department
Source: Triangle IVILS
03.4
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
53f Table: Orange County and City Housing Sales Price Distribution, 2005
Price
Total Orange
.Chapel HiIU
Distribution
County 2
Carrboro
Hillsborough'
< $79,000
55
20
21
$80,000-
141
100
21
$119,999
$120,000-
235
127
46
$159,000
$160,000-
218
140
54
$199,000
$200,000-
268
189
55
$249,999
$250,000+
967
792
108
Avg,Price
$320,489
$349,667
$242,533
Notes and Sources:
For new and re -sale residences.
2 Numbers include homes within cities and unincorporated areas.
Source: Brian Decker, Triangle MLS
< $79,000 M$80,000 - $119,999 [3$120,000 - $159,000
®$160,000 - $199,000 EI $200,000 $249,999 0$250,000+
Notes and Sources: Numbers include homes within cities and unincorporatea areas.
Source: Triangle MLS
133.5
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT'County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B3h) Table: Average Regional Housing Sales Price Trends, 1995 -2005
1995
$171,038
$123,266
$158,431
$150,912
1996
$192,144
$130,749
$162,474
$161,789
1997
$197,071
$138,876
$170,170
$168,706
1998
$209,208
$143,529
$175,039
$175,925
1999
$218,875
$146,795
$187,217
$184,296
2000
$235, 633
$156,568, _
$199,362 ;
__ _ $197,188
2001
$249,226
$162,913
$204,374
$205,504
2002
$261,895
$163,462
$212,567
$212,641
2003
$280,592
$173,844
$212,382
$222,273
2004
$298,883
$171,071
$221,903
$230,619
2005
$320,489
$181,162
$235,615
$24056
1995 -2005 87.4% 47.0% 48.7% 62.8%
ivotes ana sources:
Source: Triangle MLS
Data compiled by Chapel Hill Planning Department
63i) Chart: Average Regional Housing Sales Price Trends, 1995 -2005
Source: Triangle MLS
83.6
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
B31) Orange County House Tax Values, 2005
House Ualue 2
Total County
Chapel `Hilh -/
Carrboro
(Ci #y +ETJ)
Hillsborough
(City +ETJ)
Mebane
(City +ETJ)
Unincorp
orated °.
10,000- 79,999
22.2%
9.9%
39.9%
35.4%
30.7%
80,000- 119999
20.0%
18.5%
20.6%
33.2%
20.8%
120,000- 159,999
14.6%
14.7%
14.3%
15.1%
14.5%
160,000 - 199,999
10.8%
12.2%
11.3%
5.0%
9.6%
200,000- 249,999
10.2%
13.5%
5.1%
4.2%
8.1%
250,000+
22.2%
31.2%
8.8%
7.1%
16.2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Notes and Sources:
1 Includes portions of Cities in Orange County only. Unincorporated is Total County minus all Cities and ETJ.
2 Housing values based on current tax value.
Source: Orange County Department of Planning and Inspections, GIS Section
53k Table: Orange County Permitted Residential Construction, 2005
Housing Type
Quantity
Square Feet
Value
Single Family Dwellings (Detached)
313
1,175,041
$96,988,130
Residential Townhouse (Attached)
15
37,115
$243,862
Doublewide Mobile Home New
11
21,176
$668,376
Doublewide Mobile Home Replacement
6
9,581
$150,000
Singlewide Mobile Home New
9
8,764
$165,000
Sin lewide Mobile Home Replacement
29
29,652
$310,090
Total
383
1,281,329
$98,525,458
Notes and Sources:
Construction Value as reported by Permit Applicant
For areas within Orange County Inspection's jurisdiction.
Source: Orange County Department of Planning and Inspections
B3.7
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT _County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B31Z Table: Availability of Orange Co un Housing by Median Income, Snapshot: Au ist 26
2005
Median Incomes'
$ 38,520
$ 42,672 $ 51,360
$ 56,896
$ 64,200
$ 71,120
Single Family Houses on the Market (190 Total Units Available) 3
2002
2003
2004
Affordable Housing4
$124,737
$138,182 $199,579
$210,036
$249,473
$262,546
Homes Available 5
2
2 9
11
21
23
Affordable as a %'of the
6,893
7,479
7,628
7,815
Available Housing Market
1.1%
1.1 % 4.7%
5.8%
11.1%
12.1
Notes and Sources:
' Median Incomes: US Census Bureau, 2000
2 Denotes number of persons in household.
3 Homes available in Unincorporated Orange County on August 26th, 2005.
4 Housing price necessary to be affordabable for the family size shown. '
e One newly constructed home was available that was affordable at or below 110% of median income.
Source: Comprehensive Housino Strategy'Draft" April 2006, Orange County Dept. of Housing and Community Devt
Market data provided by Triangle MLS
03m) Table: Orange County' Apartmene Growth, Vacancy Rates and Average Rents, 1996-
2005
Description
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000 '
2001' `
2002
2003
2004
2005
Total Units in
Market Segment
6,136
6,893
7,479
7,628
7,815
8,705
8,822
8,671
8,617
9,249
Percent
Increase /Decrease
0.0%
12.3%
8.5%
-2.8%
7.5%
11.4%
1.3%
-1.7%
-6.0%
7.3%
Vacancy Rate
1.8%
4.3%
5.5%
6.4%
8.0%
8.5%
8.5%
9.7%
9.4%
9.3%
Average Rent
$627
$647
$685
$749
$756
$764
$782
$783
$758
$708
Percent
Increase /Decrease
0.0%
3.2%
5.9%
9.3%
0.9%
1.1%
2.4%
0.1%
-3.2%
-6.6%
Nnfac anA Cnurr,na-
' For all of Orange County
2 Developments with over 50 units only.
Source: Comprehensive Housing Strategy 'Draft" April 2006, Orange County Dept. of Housing and Community Devt
Data provided by Chapel Hill Sub Market Summary, Real Data Apartment Market Research
83.8
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
53n ) Table: Orange Co un Aparhnent Unit Size Mix in Large Complex Developments, 2005
Notes and Sources:
1 Denotes number of bedrooms
Source: Comprehensive Housing Strategy "Draft", April 2006
Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development
53o Table: Orange County Availability of Three Bedroom Apartments by Median Income
Median Incomes $19,260 $32,100
3 Bedroom Apartment Units at Market 2
Number of Units Available 24 172
(July 2005)
Number of Vacant Units 1 15
acancy Rate
60% of
80% of 1
100% of
=of 'Apt
Median
Median
Income'?
Income
Income
Housing
Location
Studio
-One
Two ;
Three
Four, .
;Tonal
Availability
Chapel Hill
5
2061
2842.
535
138
5581
56.7%
Carrboro
16
1075
2194
177
0
3462
35.2%
Hillsborough
0
151
350
128
0
629
6.4%
Orange Co Uninc
0
92
76
8
0
176
1.8%
Total
21
3379
5462
848
138
9848
100.0%
Notes and Sources:
1 Denotes number of bedrooms
Source: Comprehensive Housing Strategy "Draft", April 2006
Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development
53o Table: Orange County Availability of Three Bedroom Apartments by Median Income
Median Incomes $19,260 $32,100
3 Bedroom Apartment Units at Market 2
Number of Units Available 24 172
(July 2005)
Number of Vacant Units 1 15
acancy Rate
$38,520 $51,360 $64,200
511 703 862
99 130 140
4.2% 8.7% 19.4% 18.5% 16.2%
Median Incomes for 3 Person Families
2Large complexes only.
Source: Comprehensive Housing Strategy "Draft", April 2006, pg 29
Orange County Dept. of Housing and Community Development
Data provided by Real Data, Apartment Index by Average Rent, pg 545
133.9
9/6/2007
60% of
80% of 1
100% of
Median
Median
Median
Income'?
Income
Income
$38,520 $51,360 $64,200
511 703 862
99 130 140
4.2% 8.7% 19.4% 18.5% 16.2%
Median Incomes for 3 Person Families
2Large complexes only.
Source: Comprehensive Housing Strategy "Draft", April 2006, pg 29
Orange County Dept. of Housing and Community Development
Data provided by Real Data, Apartment Index by Average Rent, pg 545
133.9
9/6/2007
Section V. _DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
M Table: Orange County Household Size by Township, 2000
Family Households includes all of the related people who occupy a housing unit.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
Ba(j) Table: Orange County Families by Township, 2000
Number of
2- person
3- person:
4, person
5= person
6= person ',
7 -or =more ,
person.
Male
Family ,
household
household , . household;
household.
household
,
household
Township
households;%
of Total
,% of Total
%;of Total
%.of Tot al
% ofTotal _.%
of Total `
Bingham
1,737
46.5%
27.6%
17.6%
6.3%
1.3%
0.6%
Cedar Grove
1,425
41.0%
26.7%
21.3%
7.9%
2.0%
1.2%
Chapel Hill
2,050
43.8%
26.1%
19.4%
7.0%
2.2%
1.5%
Cheeks
3,126
43.1%
25.9%
20.4%
6.9%
2.7%
1.1%
Eno
15;080
44.0%
24.2%
21.3%
7.3%
2.0%
1.1%
Hillsborough
1,786
44.6%
27.3%
20.1%
5.7%
1.7%
0.7%
Little River-
922
- -45.1 /o
- 25:1 /0
21.6 %
5.0- /0
A'.'5__0_%____
0 9 0
Orange
Orange County
77,124
22,187
17,018
5,169
960
4,209
Count
26,126
44.0%
25.2%
20.7%
7.0%
2.0%
1.1%
F11 6 .. ...1 C..
Family Households includes all of the related people who occupy a housing unit.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
Ba(j) Table: Orange County Families by Township, 2000
83.10
9/6/2007
'Familie`s with own Children Under 18 Years of A ge
.� .
P,o ulat�on m
P
All Families
Wth,own
'
In �niarned
Male
Female
Towns hi p.
Families (With
Children
couple:
In.other
householder,
householder,
or Without
'
Or 18
families ;
families:
no wife
no hta 'band'
Children
.
Years of.A a
present:
present:.
Bingham
4,969
1,254
1,002
252
67
185
Cedar Grove
4,288
1,098
878
220
58
162
Cheeks
6,089
1,572
1,205
367
89
278
Hillsborough
9,258
2,604
1,680
924
168
756
Chapel Hill
44,645
13,598
10,613
2,985
460
2,525
Eno
5,165
1,367
1,048
319.
84
235
Little River
2,710
694
592
102
34
68
Orange County
77,124
22,187
17,018
5,169
960
4,209
Total
Source: US Census Bureau. 2000
83.10
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B4. Employment and Economy
Highlights
Orange County is fortunate to be located within an economically vibrant region that includes the
Research Triangle Park. Economic conditions and employment opportunities are often the
catalyst for changes in population trends, land use, and resource consumption. Further
discussion of the economy will be covered in the Economic Development Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Statistics and data cited in this section have been obtained primarily from the US Census Bureau
and Orange County's Economic Development Commission.
Median family incomes at $59,874 in
2000 for Orange County are 23% higher
than the US and 35% higher than the
North Carolina average.
Incomes have been steadily rising
over the past 10 years.
In the year 2000, 14.1 % of Orange
County residents were considered to be
in poverty compared to 12.3% of the
State of North Carolina.
Orange County has two -times the
percent of college graduates as the state
of North Carolina and the United States.
Private Industry employs slightly
over one -half of the Orange County
population.
Within the private sector, retail trade
has the greatest number of employees, at
slightly over 6,000; however, its growth
has leveled off since the late 1990's.
Ot Manufacturing jobs have decreased
nearly 40% since 2002 in part due to
factory closings and relocations.
The State government generates
nearly half of annual wages paid in
Orange County, owing to the number of
people employed by the County's largest
9/6/2007 04.1
employer, UNC — Chapel Hill, with
approximately 11,000 employees.
Weekly average wages for Orange
County were $781 as of September
2006, 12% higher than the state's
average wages of $696.
In 2005, fifty -five (55) commercial
occupancy permits with a total value of
over $40 million dollars were issued by
the Orange County Planning and
Inspections Department for
establishments located within their
jurisdiction.
In the Triangle Area, Orange County
has the lowest unemployment.
Z According to the 2002 Census of
Agriculture, Orange County contains
19,405 acres in harvested cropland, with
the average farm size of 113 acres.
( Agriculture generated $42 million
dollars in income in 2005, which is
comparable to the average income
generated during the time period of
1997 -2005.
Section V. Draft County _Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Boa) Chart: Median Family Income Comparisons 1996 -2005
Bob) Table: Regional Income Comparisons, 1970 -2000
Source: - Bureau
Compiled • Database
9/6/2007 04.2
Per
Mean
.Median
Median
% in
Location
Year ,
Capita
Family,
;Family
Hshld ,
Roverty
income
Income
Income
Income
2000.
$30,885
$81,427
$59,874
$42,372
14.1
Orange County
1990
$21,090
$50,393
$40,685
$29,968
13.9
1980.
$8,898
$23,321
$19,305
$14,939
15.1
1970
$3,601
$10,714
$8,700
No data
16.8
2000
$30,675
$67,013
$53,223
$43,337
13.4
Durham County
1990
$20,000
$43,892
$38,578
$30,526
11.9
1980
$9,464
$21,719
$19,286
$15,395
14.1
1970
$3,794
$10,064
$8,713
No data
18
2000
$35,959 �
$80,845
$67,149
$54,988
7.8
Wake County
1990
$22,329
$51,211
$44,302
$36,222
8.4
1980
$10,361
$24,603
$21,977
$18,643
10
1970
$3,996
$10,873
$9,557
No data
15.3
2000
$27,071
$58,789
$46,335
$39,184
12.3
North Carolina
1990
$17,246
$38,064
$31,548
$26,647
13
1980
$8,195
$19,513
$16,792
$14,481
14.8
1970
$3,267
$8,872
$7,774
6976
203
Source: - Bureau
Compiled • Database
9/6/2007 04.2
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
134c Table: Orange Co un Adults, Educational Attainment, 2000
Notes and Sources:
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
As compiled by the Orange County Economic Development Commission
B4d Chart: Orange County Job Trends, Private Sector Employment, 1996 -2005
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Construction Manufacturing
- A -Retail Trade FIRE
Professional and Technical Services ® Health Care and Social Assistance
Accommodation and Food Services Other Services
Notes and Sources:
Employment Security Commission of NC,
Compiled by the Orange County Economic Development Commission
State of the Local Economy, March 14, 2006
9/6/2007 B4.3
High School
.College .
Location
Graduates
Graduates
Orange County
(Total)
87.6%
56.9%
- Chapel Hill
94.3%
77.0%
- Carrboro
90.2%
66.1%
- Hillsborough
70.9%
31.8%
MSA
85.3%
45.9.%
North Carolina
78.1%
22.5%
United States
84.0%
26.0%
Notes and Sources:
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
As compiled by the Orange County Economic Development Commission
B4d Chart: Orange County Job Trends, Private Sector Employment, 1996 -2005
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Construction Manufacturing
- A -Retail Trade FIRE
Professional and Technical Services ® Health Care and Social Assistance
Accommodation and Food Services Other Services
Notes and Sources:
Employment Security Commission of NC,
Compiled by the Orange County Economic Development Commission
State of the Local Economy, March 14, 2006
9/6/2007 B4.3
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
9-4.2) Chart Orange County Employment Sectors by Type.,. 2005
Notes a
Employment Security Commission of NC 1 %
Compiled by the Orange County Economic Development Commission
State of the Local Economy, March 14, 2006
0 PRIVATE INDUSTRY M FEDERAL GOVT
ED STATE GOVT 0 LOCAL GOVT
10%
D4f
. ) Table: Orange Coun Total County) Employment by Industry, P _Qtr 2006
Sector,
Total, All Industries
3,467
59,871
Natural Resources and Mining
24
186
Construction
357
2,140
Manufacturing
74
1,496
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
558
8,062
Information
63
578
Financial Activities
310
1,950
Professional and Business Services
740
4,921
Education and Health Services
393
30,241
Leisure and Hospitality
314
5,850
Other Services
399
1,650
Public Administration
39
2,558
Unclassified
196
239
Source: NAICS Employment and Wages, Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages (QCEW) Unit, ESC/LMl Division
9/6/2007 84.4
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B4M Chart: Orange County Total Annual Wages Paid, fd Qtr 2005
Notes and Sources
1 FIRE = Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Source: Employment Security Commission of NC
Compiled by the Orange County Economic Development Commission
State of the Local Ecomony, March 14, 2006
B4h) Table: Average Weekly Wages, State /County Comparisons, 3rd Qtr 2006
Location
Average
% of NC
Wkly Wage
Wages
Orange County
$781.00
112.2
Alamance County
$599.00
86.1
Chatham County
$555.00
79.7
Durham County
$1,039.00
149.3
Wake County
$781.00
112.2
North Carolina
$696.00
--
Notes and Sources:
NAICS Employment and Wages, ESC/1-Ml Division
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) Unit
9/6/2007 B4.5
Section V. Draft-Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B-4@ Chart Orange Countv Agriculture Trends, 1959-2002
160,000-
627
71,010
27.8%
--1,600
19,405
140,000 -
831
97,793
35.5%
118
23,423
Chatham
1,128
118,752
1,400
120,000--
24,590
Durham
238
26,074
14.0%
110
4,510
.......... ......
............ Wake .................... 846 ..............
1,200
100,000 -
1.1.0
27,30.5
North Carolina
53,930
.... ..... .. ............
9,079,001
. .. ..... ...............
29.1%
.............
168
--
1,000
80,000--
--800
60,000--
--600
40,000--
--400
20,000--
--200
0-
1959
—
1964
1969
1974
1978
1982
987
992
1997
2002
0
Oland In Farms
—
145,968
—1,418
131,555
—�-115
110,741
87,812
87,344
90,575
—81,108
—67,491
_72—
673
71,010
L-_*—# of Farms
--
895
631
599
433
577
627
Source: 1959-2002 Census of Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture
134i) Table: Agriculture Census, State/County Comparisons, 2002
Orange
627
71,010
27.8%
113
19,405
Alamance
831
97,793
35.5%
118
23,423
Chatham
1,128
118,752
27.2%
105
24,590
Durham
238
26,074
14.0%
110
4,510
.......... ......
............ Wake .................... 846 ..............
92 803
1.7...4%
1.1.0
27,30.5
North Carolina
53,930
.... ..... .. ............
9,079,001
. .. ..... ...............
29.1%
.............
168
........... .. .....
4,308,209j
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture,
US Department of Agriculture
9/6/2007 B4.6
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
BAkj Chart Orange County Total Agriculture Income in Millions $,1997 -2005 ,
$52 $53
$43 $41 $42
$39 t -4. q ram ---1 111 I N FEW I I
.-
ATAN�11%q
5411 Chart: State /County Unemployment Rate Comparisons, 1996-2005
9/6/2007 B4.7
Section V. Draft County
Profile
(Data) Element
Orange County Comprehensive
Plan
PAM) Table: Orange
Copgtyl
New and Change
Commercial Occupancy Permits,
2005
TOTAL' — 55 - 430,934 $ 41,070,9111
Notes and Sources:
1 For areas within Orange County's Inspection jurisdiction.
2 Construction Value as reported by Permit Applicant
Source: Orange County Department of Planning and Inspections
B4n) Chart: Orange County' Residential and Non-Residential Construction Permitted Building
Value, FY 1996-2005
1 -4- Residential -0-- Non-Residential I
9/6/2007 B4.8
Assembly
7
7,433
$
592,971
Business
27
43,202
$
2,000,303
Educational
3
128,425
$
18,702,788
Factory/industrial
2
6,401
$
61,000
Mercantile
11
157,872
$
14,489,490
r- an n A 13 C rV=.
TOTAL' — 55 - 430,934 $ 41,070,9111
Notes and Sources:
1 For areas within Orange County's Inspection jurisdiction.
2 Construction Value as reported by Permit Applicant
Source: Orange County Department of Planning and Inspections
B4n) Chart: Orange County' Residential and Non-Residential Construction Permitted Building
Value, FY 1996-2005
1 -4- Residential -0-- Non-Residential I
9/6/2007 B4.8
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B5. Environment
M n. iTtC'1 iii
Good air and water quality are essential to promoting a high quality of life and a sustainable
community. Because pollutants do not respect arbitrary county lines, Orange County's
environmental quality is integrally linked to the larger Triangle area. Understanding the sources
and impacts of pollution and protecting and maintaining a high quality environment will be key
to future sustainable development.
This section contains a brief overview of environmental conditions within Orange County. More
detailed analysis is located within the Natural and Cultural Systems Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Much of the information contained within this section has been abstracted
from the "State of the Environment, 2004" compiled by the Orange County Commission for the
Environment.
In Orange County, the point sources of
air emissions are relatively small compared
to other emission sources (i.e. non -point
sources).
The variation in year -to -year Ground
Level Ozone exceedances is largely related
to hot weather extremes, as seen in the
fluctuations in the number of exceedances
from 1995 to 2003.
Orange County was declared a `non-
attainment' area in 2004 by the
Environmental Protection Agency for
violating federal ozone standards.
IZ Protecting finite water resources is
vital to insuring a thriving and sustainable
community. Because Orange County
contains the upper reaches of three of the
State's major river basins — the Neuse, the
Cape Fear and Roanoke, many rivers begin
here but few flow into the County.
Z Overall, about one -third of Orange
County residents rely on ground water
resources; however, rural areas outside of
public water service areas rely almost
exclusively on groundwater.
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
is the largest public authority that provides
9/6/2007 B5.1
water and wastewater treatment services to
Orange County's residents.
In 2005, OWASA provided services
to 19,400 accounts or 75,000 people.
OWASA's average day wastewater
flows increased 250 percent from 2.2
million gallons per day (mgd) to 7.7 mgd
from 1970 — 2004. OWASA
Sustainability Report: October 2005.
During this same time period (1970-
2004), major reductions in pollutant
loadings took place.
i Per person water demand decreased
from 121 gallons per day in FY 2004 to
108 gallons per day in FY 2005,
representing a 10 %decrease.
OWASA recycled 92% of
wastewater biosolids in FY 2005.
The Orange County landfill managed
100,097 tons of waste in FY 05/06. The
percent of recycled materials has
increased by 11 % since FY 04/05.
Urban curbside recycling accounts
for 26% of all recycling in Orange
County, an increase of 13% from fiscal
year 04/05.
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B5a Chart: Trends in Point Source Air Pollution, 1993 -2002
1400
'
1000
c
t°- 800
c
c
E 600
400
M
a
CO Hazardous NOx PM(TSP) PM10 PM2.5 S02 VOC
Pollutants (Not available
Notes and Sources: until 1999)
Terms and abbreviations defined in the Appendix.
NC Department of Air Quality, (NCDAQ), as compiled by the Orange County Commission for the
Environment, "State of the Environment, 2004"
B5b Chart: Estimated and Projected Emissions b Source, 2000 -2017
100
90
80
70
60
Tons /Day 50
40
30
20
10
0
Rl Area
d Biogenics
❑ Non -road
M Mobile
Point
Notes and Sources: Pollutant by Year
Terms and abbreviations defined in the Appendix.
NC Department of Air Quality, (NCDAQ), as compiled by the Orange County Commission
for the Environment, "State of the Environment, 2004"
9/6/2007 B5.2
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
05c Table: Number of Ozone Exceedance Days, 1995 -2003
Site
Number of Exceedance Days
1997
1995
1996
1997
1 1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Duke Street, Durham County
2
4
3
16
0
7
3
17
3
_
St. Augustine's, Wake County
6
0
15
18
25
6
4
19
3
WRAL Tower, Wake County
6
5
12
19
22
3
0
11
3
Pittsboro, Chatham County
4
3
8
8
5
0
0
13
1
Cherry Grove, Caswell County
4
7
17
19
0
9
6
15
3
McLeansville, Guilford County
5
3 :=1
Public Water Supply Safe Yield mgd
0.12
0
8
4
20
2
Triangle - Based on nine monitors
16
19
1 26
1 40
29
13
9
29
8
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency and the NC Department of Air Quality (NCDAQ) as
compiled by the Orange County Commission for the Environment, "State of the Environment, 2004"
135d Average and Maximum Daily Water Demand Per Year, 1992 -2003
Water Provider.
1992
1997
2001
2003
OWASA
Average Daily Demand (mgd)2
7.14
8.98
10.17
8.22
Maximum Daily Demand (mgd)
12
14.34
13.75
12.81
Public Water Supply Safe Yield (mgd)
13.5
13.5
15.1
12.5 s
Hillsborough
Average Daily Demand (mgd)
1.46
1.8
1.23
1.2
Maximum Daily Demand (mgd)
2.04
2.65
1.87
1.83
Public Water Supply Safe Yield (mgd)
0.68
0.68
2.58
2.58
Orange - Alamance
(Orange County Portion)
Average Daily Demand (mgd)
0.24
0.36
0.29
0.3
Maximum Daily Demand (mgd)
0.34
0.44
0.39
0.4
Public Water Supply Safe Yield mgd
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Notes and Sources:
'Supplemental water supply sources (i.e. purchases) are not factored into safe yields.
2mgd = millions gallons per day
3Decrease due to change in OWASA's modeling.
4Equals 1.9 for W. Fork of Eno plus .68 for Lake Ben Johnson.
Sources: Triangle J Council of Government (TJCOG) and North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NCDWR) as compiled by the Orange County Commission for the
Environment, "State of the Environment, 2004"
9/6/2007 135.3
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
9�n\ of Total Water and 2000
AoricUKUn3|
|Migati(]O
DVFOG8tc use
for individual
VUeU8
|
/ 11%
Livestock :Use
=====~======—~~
Other
Source: NC Division of Water Resources (NCDVVF) and UB Geologic Survey, aucomnpik
by the Orange County Commission for the Environment, "State of the Environment, 2004
55f\ (mgd)', 1985-2000
Notes and Sources:
'nngd=m0iononf gallons per day
Source: NC Division of Water Resources /NCDVVRA and UG Geologic Survey, as compiled
by the Orange County Commission for the Environment, "State of the Environment, 2004"
9/8/2007 135.4
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
) Table: Relation of Selected Well Characteristics to Well Use, Orange CountL kK
Notes and Sources:
'Based on countywide inventory mf64Q wells in Orange County.
2 Abbreviations: [gal/min, gallons per minute; (gal/min)/ft, gallons per minute per foot; ft, feet]
Source: William L. Cunningham and Charles C. Daniel, Ill. "Investigation of '
Ground-Water Availability and Cluo|ib/ in Orange County, North Carolina." U@ Geological Gun*ay
(2001): 1G. Table 5.
A�h� and Mean Recharge in
12 Selected Basins and North Carolina, 1996
Source: William L. Cunningham and Charles C. Daniel, Ill. "Investigation of
Ground-Water Availability and Quality in Orange County, North Carolina." US Geological
Survey (2001): 20, Figure 8.
9/6/200 135.5
-A
Average'
er
Domestic
16.4
0.1153
206.2 53.5
26.4
590
Public
30
0.1614
242.1 55.5
30
14
Commercial
34.4
0.1441
258 47.9
28.2
20
Notes and Sources:
'Based on countywide inventory mf64Q wells in Orange County.
2 Abbreviations: [gal/min, gallons per minute; (gal/min)/ft, gallons per minute per foot; ft, feet]
Source: William L. Cunningham and Charles C. Daniel, Ill. "Investigation of '
Ground-Water Availability and Cluo|ib/ in Orange County, North Carolina." U@ Geological Gun*ay
(2001): 1G. Table 5.
A�h� and Mean Recharge in
12 Selected Basins and North Carolina, 1996
Source: William L. Cunningham and Charles C. Daniel, Ill. "Investigation of
Ground-Water Availability and Quality in Orange County, North Carolina." US Geological
Survey (2001): 20, Figure 8.
9/6/200 135.5
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
950 Table: Miles of Perennial Streams in Orange CopM, 2003/20061
t,ape rear -i ,-w,Sou duf,189 239,761 21.1%
Neuse 1,044,126 978,656 65,469 6.3%
Total 2,181,676 1,876,445 305,230 14.0%
Notes and Sources:' Cape Fear as of 3/03; Neuse as of 9/06. Roanoke Basin n/a
2 Stream miles considered "Disturbed" if the presence of a house or fields was
within 100' buffer of the stream. This distance was subtracted out of total length.
Source: Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department
— See Map # in Section_D.
B51) Table: 303(d) Listed Streams' in Orange Count 2006
Stream Name
AU NUMBER "
Bolin Creek (Hogan Lake)
16- 41- 1- 15- 140.5)b
Booker Creek (Eastwood Lake)
16-41- 1- 15 -241)
Booker Creek
16- 41 -1 -15 -244)
Booker Creek
16.41- 1- 15 -245)
Meeting of the Waters
16-41-2-7
Notes and Sources:
1303(d) Listed Streams are water bodies that do not meet water quality standards required under the
federal Clean Water Act.
2Orange County's 303(d) Listed Streams are within Chapel Hill's municipal jurisdiction.
These streams are located within the Cape Fear Basin and drain into Jordan Lake.
Source: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
05k) Table: Orange County Wastewater S ills 1998 -2003
numger ors ms 62 55 1 26 1 10 1 31 1 33 1 - 46.80%
Total volume of spills 1,592,970 467,035 2,224,9801 19,220 1 920,680 1 107,321 1 - 93.30%
Total volume reaching surface waters 1,539,495 461,739 12.204,3271 18,110 1 217,460 1 94,212 1 - 93.90%
9/6/2007 B5.6
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B511 Pollutants Discharged from Mason Farm Waste Water Treatment Plant, 1970 and 2004
300,000
m
200,000
150,000
100,000
0
CL
[II
TSS (Total TKN (Total Kjeldahl NH3N (Ammonia -
Suspended Solids) Nitrogen) Nitrogen)
Source: OWASA Sustainability Report: October
55m Chart: Orange County Landfill Tons Managed b Percent, FY 05/06
Clean
Wood Recycled by
Scrap 2% Tires OCR
Metal 1% 1% 15%
Vegetative r
Brush
8%
Construction &
Demolition M icipal
Solid Waste
16% 57%
Source: Orange County Solid Waste Management Department
9/6/2007 85.7
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
05n) Table: Orange Co un Landfill Tons Managed, FY 04/05 and 05/06
916/2007 B5.8
2%
-1%
-16%
0%
12%
5%
9%
11%
1%
MSW2
56,308
57,568
Construction & Demolition
Waste
16,084
15,874
Vegetative (brush)
9,106
7,655
White Goods. (appliances)
430
429
Scrap Metal
746
836
Clean Wood
1,586
1,663
Tires
1,231
1,339
Recycled by Orange
Community Recycling OCR
13,326
14,733
Total Mana ed
98,817
100,097
Notes and Sources:
' Disposed and Managed in Orange County
2Municipal Solid Waste
3 In County includes mobile homes
Source: Orange County Solid Waste Management Department
916/2007 B5.8
2%
-1%
-16%
0%
12%
5%
9%
11%
1%
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B5o Chart: Orange County Recycling Programs, Tonnage Percent, FY05 /06
Gov Bldgs
TRIP*
Commercial
Multifamily
Rural Curbside
Food /Animal Bedding
Urban Curbside
Drop Off
06%
4,643
4,983
7.3%
Urban Curbside
3,362
3,810
..��1 a 1%
* TRIP: TDxic
S Reduction
Improvement
22.6%
rogram
1,140
41%
3.9%
Multifamily
1,026
1,033
0.7%
Commercial
7.1%
604
(6.5 %)
TRIP
487
595
22.1%
Gov Bids
104
16.0%
17.6%
26.0%
3
.o%
9.9%
5 r # tss a 1r
c{ 7 r k*
0.0% 5.0% 10.0%
15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
% of Tonnage
Source: Orange County Solid Waste Management Department
65 Table: Tonnage Recycled by Orange County Recycling Programs, FY 04/05 and 05/06
Program Totals ' FY 04 -05 FY 05 -06 %o Change
Drop Off
4,643
4,983
7.3%
Urban Curbside
3,362
3,810
13.3%
Food /Animal Bedding
1,917
2,350
22.6%
Rural Curbside
1,140
1,184
3.9%
Multifamily
1,026
1,033
0.7%
Commercial
646
604
(6.5 %)
TRIP
487
595
22.1%
Gov Bids
104
86
17.6%
Subtotal:
13,325
14,645
9.9%
Source: Orange County Solid Waste Management Department
* TRIP: Toxics Reduction Improvement Program
9/6/2007 135.9
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9/6/2007 135.110
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
B6. Transportation
Highlights
Transportation in Orange County and the Triangle area is a major issue, as traffic.congestion
often increases disproportionately to the county's population growth. The single- occupancy
automobile remains the primary mode of travel to and from work for Orange County residents.
For this and other reasons, there are more cars on the road now than ever. Increased traffic and
congestion is closely linked to the location of housing and employment centers and results in a
negative effect on air quality and the quality of life in general.
Orange County is a member of two regional transportation planning organizations working to
improve transportation infrastructure, to promote alternative modes of transportation, and to
increase mobility between communities. Within Orange County, local and regional transit
services, such as the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) and Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) shuttle
commuters to work and to appointments within and between urban areas and universities.
Orange County Public Transportation's "Orange Bus," addresses transit needs outside of the
municipalities in rural areas.
Unless otherwise noted, data provided in tables and charts is for all of Orange County. Details
on local and regional transportation initiatives may be found in the Transportation Element.
Information on the effects of transportation on the environment and air quality may be found in
the Natural and Cultural Systems Element.
X There were 84,983 cars and trucks
registered in Orange County in 2005,
representing a 33% increase in vehicle
registrations since 1990.
Traffic accidents have increased
nearly 43% since 1990.
According to the NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), 75% of state -
maintained roads in Orange County are
in the unincorporated (rural) areas.
In 2005, unpaved roads represent
less than 5% of total roadway miles
maintained by NCDOT in Orange
County compared to 29% of roads in
1980. (This figure does not include
privately maintained roadways.)
Based on a 2000 report, Orange
County had 215 miles of unpaved, non-
NCDOT maintained roads, one of the
highest number of miles in the state.
The projections for future years
show the number of daily vehicle miles
86.1
9/6/2007
traveled (DMVT) for Orange County is
predicted to increase by 8.3% from 2000
to 2015 (projected).
There is no AMTRAK stop in
Orange County.
The percentage of workers who bike
or walk to work is higher than the state,
owing largely to the presence of the
UNC campus in Chapel Hill.
Z The average drive time to work for
Orange County residents is twenty -two
minutes, representing a 19% increase
since 1980.
Sixty percent of the labor force lives
and works in Orange County. The
remaining 40% commute to other
counties for employment. Likewise,
40% of Orange County's labor force
commutes in from other counties.
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B6a Table: Orange County Re 'stered Vehicles and Traffic Accidents 1 :1980-2005
1980 45,046
1,695
1990 63,711
2,018
2000 78,177
2,715
2001 80,101
2,927
2003
82,093
3,034
2004
83,886
2,799
2005
84,983
2,875
Notes and Sources:
1 NC Department of Transportation
2 Actual registrations for automobiles and trucks for the calendar
year in which the vehicles were registered.
s. A reportable accident is one that involves a motor vehicle
resulting in injury, death, or total property damage of $1,000 or more.
B6bl Table: Orange County Bicycle Crashes, 1997 -2004
Carrboro
5
6
5
.5
5
7
7
2
42
Chapel Hill
22
25
26
24
31
18
21
32
199
Hillsborough
0
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
11
Non -City (Rural)
6
3
4
1
0
5
7
5
31
,Totals
33
35
36
32
37
31 _
38
38
283
Notes and Sources:
Counts of crashes are based on police reports where at least one (1) person was a pedestrian.
Source: NC Dept of Transportation, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
B6c Table! Orange County Pedestrian Crashes, 1997 -2004
City Name ; ,1997
1998
1999.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
'Totals
Carrboro
8
6
7
7
9
.4
4
1
46
Chapel Hill
16
15
20
21
16
9
11
11
119
Hillsborough
0
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
6
Non -City (Rural)
3
4
6
3
0
2
3
4
25
Totals
27
27
34
33
25
15
19
16
196
Notes and Sources:
1 Counts of crashes are based on police reports where at least one (1) unit was a bicycle.
Source: NC Dept of Transportation, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
66.2
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
Bkdj Table: Orange Co un NC DOT Maintained Roadway 1980 -2005
Notes and Sources:
1 Primary Highway Miles: Total mileage for primary roads, including both paved and unpaved
mileage. The state primary highway system is composed of all interstate, US, and NC
numbered highways.
2 Secondary Highway Miles: Total mileage for secondary roads including both paved and
unpaved mileage. The state secondary road system is composed of all state - maintained roads
other than primary ones.
3 Total paved mileage of primary and secondary roads, excluding unnumbered roads, such as
school driveways, state university campus roads, rural fire department drives, etc.
4 Total unpaved mileage of primary and secondary roads , excluding unnumbered roads, such
as school driveways, state university campus roads, and rural fire department drives.
Source: NC Department of Transportation
B6e Table: Orange Coun NC DOT Maintained Roadways, 1980 -2005
1980 1990 2000 2005
Paved Hwy Mileage ® Unpaved Hwy Mileage.
B6.3
9/6/2007
Prim Hwy .
Sec�.Hwy
yd Hwy
UpW Hwy
Yeare
Mileagez
Mileage:
Mileage4
1980
117.8
641.3
535.8
223.3
1990
127.5
668.4
622.6
173.3
2000
126.6
687.7
754.9
59.4
2001
126.6
690.1
762.6
54.1
2002
126.5
692.9
762.6
46.1
2003
126.5
698.8
780.5
44.8
2004
126.5
700.8
827.3
42.0
2005
126.5
704.3
791.9
38.9
Notes and Sources:
1 Primary Highway Miles: Total mileage for primary roads, including both paved and unpaved
mileage. The state primary highway system is composed of all interstate, US, and NC
numbered highways.
2 Secondary Highway Miles: Total mileage for secondary roads including both paved and
unpaved mileage. The state secondary road system is composed of all state - maintained roads
other than primary ones.
3 Total paved mileage of primary and secondary roads, excluding unnumbered roads, such as
school driveways, state university campus roads, rural fire department drives, etc.
4 Total unpaved mileage of primary and secondary roads , excluding unnumbered roads, such
as school driveways, state university campus roads, and rural fire department drives.
Source: NC Department of Transportation
B6e Table: Orange Coun NC DOT Maintained Roadways, 1980 -2005
1980 1990 2000 2005
Paved Hwy Mileage ® Unpaved Hwy Mileage.
B6.3
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
XMMMMMM�
B66 Table: Orange County Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT), 1990 -2015 (projected)
Urban and small urban,
Measured
1990 2000
2003
Projected
2007
2015
Increas
2000-
2015
.ural'
21,070
114,320
109,200
132,904
172,555
51%
Interstate
745,550
1,417,590
1,414,490
1,673,667
2,155,278
52%
Arterial
75,700
196,100
192,150
217,288
261,398
33%
Collector
569,300
647,630
678,090
757,525
947,433
46%
Local
111,300
148,980
167,670
175,512
238,130
60%
Urban and small urban,
Lane.Miles�
Percent Change
1985
1602
1985 -1990
Interstate
21,070
114,320
109,200
132,904
172,555
51%
Freeway
53,660
57,420
61,600
63,559
79,569
39%
Arterial
558,040
754,080
445,200
867,498
1,083,826
44%
Collector
35,890
41,500
388,590
46,245
57,894
40%
Local
57,620
34,080
107,980
37,138
148,104
335%
Total.
726,280
1,001,400
1,112,570
1,147,344
1,541,948
54%
(Per Capita DVMT 1 23.7 28.9 1 30.2 29.9 31.3 1 8.3%
Notes and Sources:'
1 Road classifications are defined in the appendix.
Note: Daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) represent vehicle use on public roads in Orange County by both
residents and non - Orange County residents.
Source: NCDOT, as compiled by the Orange County Commission for the Environment,
"State of the Environment, 2004"
B! go Table: Orange County Lane Miles: 1985 -2003
Year
Lane.Miles�
Percent Change
1985
1602
1985 -1990
4.7
1990
1678
1990 -1995
1.9
1995
1710
1995 -2000
2.3
2000
1750
2000 -2003
2.2
2003
1788
1985 -2003
11.6
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
BAh
) Chart: Means of Transportation to Work, Orange County and North Carolina, 1990/2000
VUI/0 -
80%-
70%-
60%-
50%-
40%-
30%-
20%-
10%-
-/0
V
Drove Car- Transit Bikd' Motor- Worked
Alone pooled /Taxi /walk cycle at home
Notes and Sources: /other
US Census Bureau as compiled by the Orange County commission for the Environment,
"State of the Environment, 2004"
B6i) Chart: County Comparisons, Average Commute Times in Minutes, 2000
M NC Overall -1990
0 NC Overall - 2000
E3 Orange Co. -199
9 Orange Co. - 2000
VMI/
Mir
-/0
V
Drove Car- Transit Bikd' Motor- Worked
Alone pooled /Taxi /walk cycle at home
Notes and Sources: /other
US Census Bureau as compiled by the Orange County commission for the Environment,
"State of the Environment, 2004"
B6i) Chart: County Comparisons, Average Commute Times in Minutes, 2000
M NC Overall -1990
0 NC Overall - 2000
E3 Orange Co. -199
9 Orange Co. - 2000
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
136.5
9/6/2007
Mir
A
/Pol
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
136.5
9/6/2007
Section V. _DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
B6kj Figure: Coon -to -Coon Worker Flow, Census 2000
Notes and Sources:
The width of the line indicates the volume of commuters between counties: Values are provided within the
yellow boxes.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
B61 Table: Commuting Trends Into Orange County by County of Worker's Residence, 1980-
2000
Workers
From:
1980
1990
2000.
% Change
!4990 -2000
Alamance
1,919
2,722
3,589
31.9%
Chatham
2,758
3,671
4,206
14.6%
Durham
4,082
6,715
9,262
37.9%
Franklin
111
54
(51.4 %)
Granville
169
249
47.3%
Harnett
63
84
33.3%
Johnston
46
246
434.8%
Lee
180
236
31.1%
Person'
325
671
106.5%
Wake
479
1,462
3,552
143.0%
Total
Incoming
9,238
15,464
.22,149
140%
Notes and Sources:
1980: Triangle Transit Authority
1.990, 2000: US Census
35,053 people live and work in Orange County. (60% of labor force.)
B6m Table: Commuting Trends Out of Orange Co un b_y Count of Worker's Employment,
1980 -2000
Working _
In:
1980
1.�990�. �`
.
2000
% Change:'
1990. -2000,
Alamance
1,532
2,299
2,038
(11.4 %)
Chatham
358
792
121.2%
Durham
7,603
12,185
16,470
35.2%
Franklin
14
83
492.9 %
Granville
92
196
113.0%
Harnett
8
9
12.5%
Johnston
0
105
100.0%
Lee
75
91
21.3%
Person
163
142
(12.9 %)
Wake
1,184
2,085
4,212
102.0%
Total
Outgoing
10,319
17,279
24,138
134%
Notes and Sources:
1980: Triangle Transit Authority
1990, 2000: US Census
35,053 people live and work in Orange County. (60% of labor force.)
B6.7
9/6/2007
Section V. DRAFT County Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
a . 00
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
C Projections
C1?. Population Projections
Background
• Population Projections are educated guesses or estimates for future population based on
sets of assumptions about potential growth. Projections provide an important framework
for estimating the extent of future impacts on human, economic and environmental
conditions resulting from the increased demand for the use of land and resources. To
maintain objectivity and provide different scenarios for future growth trends, alternative
methods have been used for the County Profile Element, yielding a low, medium, and
high projection of future population growth.
• Population projections maybe provided in {} to reflect the range of values yielded
through different projection methodologies.
Methodology
• Adjusted Migration Model: a sophisticated methodology based on a series of
assumptions and controls as prepared by the NC Office of Budget, Planning and
Management, Demographic Section. This model takes into account factors such as
migration rates, births; deaths, age - cohorts, institutional effects (such as university
enrollments), growth trends and growth estimates.
• Exponential extrapolation - uses the average annual growth rates between the decades of
(1980 -1990) and (1990 - 2000). While more sophisticated methods exist, the relatively
simple extrapolation formulas have been found to be accurate in predicting future
population size, particularly in fast - growing areas with sub -areas of less than 100,000
persons. A more detailed explanation can be found in the Appendix.
• Linear extrapolation: assumes population will change by identical increments in each
interval of future time and is calculated based on the average population change in the
decades (1980- 2000). This method is considered to be an accurate method for
moderately growing areas, at a rate of up to 25 %. A more detailed explanation can be
found in the Appendix
• The Exponential and Linear population projections contained herein are based strictly on
previous mathematical growth rates, and do not include adjustments for amount of
developable land; economic trends or conditions; current land use policies; and/or other
similar factors. The constraints of land and policy on projected populations will be
factored in as coordinated land use conditions and policies unfold. An average of the
Exponential and Linear population projections is provided as an example in the
comparative chart.
9/6/2007 cl
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
'Highlights
• The range of projected population
growth for Orange County through
2030 is between 161,118 and
n
L
215,649, a difference of 54,431
people.
Of the three population projection .
methods used to calculate Orange
County's potential growth, the
Exponential model yields the highest
population estimates of 215,649 for
the_.y_ear..2030. This would
correspond to an increase of 100,000
people and a growth rate of 87
percent over 20 years.
The Linear model yields a moderate
picture of growth with the county's
population increasing to 173,248 by
2030. This represents a growth rate
of 50 percent over 20 years.
The Adjusted Migration model
prepared by the state provides the
most conservative estimate for
growth in Orange County, with the
population increasing to 161,118 by
2030, representing an increase of
45,587 people and a growth rate of
39.5 percent over 20 years.
On average, Orange County can
expect to add between 127 -279
people per month over the next
several decades until 2030.
Orange County's growth rate is
ranked in the top 25% for the state
and it is the 3`a fastest growing
county in the region at 2.1 %.
Growth rates for neighboring
counties such as Durham and
Chatham are slightly lower than
9/6/2007 C2
Orange County when compared
using Exponential and Linear
methodologies, 150 and 87 %) for
Orange, Durham {48 and 78 %} and
Chatham 148 and 80 %}.
• According to the Adjusted Migration
Model, Orange County's growth rate
of 39.5 percent is moderate
compared to the projected growth in
Chatham County of 74.1 percent and
Durhamrn County's growth rate at 48.3
percent.
• The nearby counties of Wake and
Johnston are expected to experience
triple digit growth over the next 20
years based on Exponential and
Adjusted Migration projections.
• The Town of Chapel Hill will grow
by 50,000 people from 2010 -2030
and unincorporated Orange will
grow by greater than 55,000.
• Based on the Exponential model the
population in the unincorporated
portions of the county is projected to
decrease from 42 percent of the
population in 2000 to 36 percent in
2030. For the Linear model, this
decrease is from 42 percent to 40.5
percent.
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
Cla
Chart: Comparisons of Population Projection Techniques for Orange Coun
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000-
100,000
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Age Adjusted Migration
115,531
121,992
130,375
138,272
146,458
153,626
161,118
-*-Linear
115,531
125,150
134,770
144,389
154,009
163,628
173,248
-40-Avg of Linear/Exponential
115,531
126,635
138,425
150,976
164,470
178,700
194,449
-4* -- Exponential
115,531
128,120
142,079
157,563
174,931
193,771
215,649
9/6/2007 C3
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Clb Chart: Orange County Average 10 Year (1980 -20001 Exponential Projections
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000 6 Hr
LINE
�00 111 NO
I Na
50,000
All
0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Source: Orange County Planning Department Average 10 -Year (1980 -2000) Exponential Projections
From 2000 to 2030, Orange County's population is
136 ULATIONI
'AVG 10 -YEAR
GROWTH
RATE2'
215649
projected to grow by 100,000
people, an increase
2000
2010
2020
2030
BINGHAM
CEDAR GROVE
CHAPEL HILL
3,954
3,166
50,572
5,184
3,691
61,973
6,181
4,930
76,578
0.250
0.255
0.235
of 87 %.
9,658
7,765
116,799
12,073
9,745
144,247
Town of Carrboro
7,517
12,134
16,782
0.499
23,210
34,783
174,931
Town of Chapel Hi114
32,038
37,596
44,102
0.173
51,743
��
71,226
Unincor orated
CHEEKS
11,017
4,821
142,079
15,694
7,064
0.197
0.210
19,620
8,547
21,307
10,342
20,893
12,514
City of Mebane4
379
485
675
0.336
115,531
�
1,607
Unincor orated
ENO
HILLSBOROUGH
4,442
4,450
8,599
4,937
5,262
10,136
6,389
6,092
11,639
0.203
0.170
0.165
.7,646
7,128
13,559
�`
10,907
9,758
18,402
93 662
3,019
4,263
5,446
0.345
77 055
9,848
13,243
Unincor orated
LITTLE RIVER
5,580
1,493
5,873
2,183
6,193
3,047
0.053
0.430
6,236
4,357
5,948
6,231
5,159
8,910
TOTAL COUNTY
77,055
93,851
115,531
N/A
142,079
174,931
215,649
Total Incorporated
�
54,478
67,005
�`
83,179
3'��
138,205
Total Unincorporated
34,102
7
48,526
N/A
58,900
68,387
77,445
Mc Table: Orange County Average 10 Year Exponential Projections (1980 -2000) by
Township
TOWNSHIP
Municipality
136 ULATIONI
'AVG 10 -YEAR
GROWTH
RATE2'
0 pULATION PROJECTIONS3
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
BINGHAM
CEDAR GROVE
CHAPEL HILL
3,954
3,166
50,572
5,184
3,691
61,973
6,181
4,930
76,578
0.250
0.255
0.235
7,726
6,187
94,574
9,658
7,765
116,799
12,073
9,745
144,247
Town of Carrboro
7,517
12,134
16,782
0.499
23,210
34,783
52,127
Town of Chapel Hi114
32,038
37,596
44,102
0.173
51,743
60,708
71,226
Unincor orated
CHEEKS
11,017
4,821
12,243
5,422
15,694
7,064
0.197
0.210
19,620
8,547
21,307
10,342
20,893
12,514
City of Mebane4
379
485
675
0.336
902
1,204
1,607
Unincor orated
ENO
HILLSBOROUGH
4,442
4,450
8,599
4,937
5,262
10,136
6,389
6,092
11,639
0.203
0.170
0.165
.7,646
7,128
13,559
9,139
8,340
15,796
10,907
9,758
18,402
Town of Hillsborough
3,019
4,263
5,446
0.345
7,324
9,848
13,243
Unincor orated
LITTLE RIVER
5,580
1,493
5,873
2,183
6,193
3,047
0.053
0.430
6,236
4,357
5,948
6,231
5,159
8,910
TOTAL COUNTY
77,055
93,851
115,531
N/A
142,079
174,931
215,649
Total Incorporated
42,953
54,478
67,005
N/A
83,179
106,544
138,205
Total Unincorporated
34,102
39,373
48,526
N/A
58,900
68,387
77,445
Notes and Sources:
1 The Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census Bureau.
2 The Average 10 -Year Growth Rate is the average between the 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 growth rates:
3 The Township and Municipality Population Projections for 2010 to 2030 are based upon the population figure for the previous timeframe
multipled by the Average 10 -Year Growth Rate, which is the growth figure. The growth figure is then added to the previous timeframe figure
to get the projected population (i.e. for Bingham Township from 2000 to 2010: 6181 x.250 = 1545; 1545 + 6181 = 7726). The Population
Projections for the Unincorporated areas in Townships with Municipalities was determined by subtracting the Municipal populations from
the total population for the Township. The Population Projections for the County from 2010 to 2030 are based upon the sum of the
population figures for each of the Townships.
4 For the municipalities, only the portions within Orange County are included. The Town of Chapel Hill's population figures do not include
portions in Durham County, and the City Mebane's population figures do not include the portions in Alamance County.
9/6/2007 C4
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
C 1 d Chart: Orange Count Average 10 Year Exponential Projections ( 1980 -2000) by
Municipality
250,000
Carrboro
-0- Chapel Hill
Mebane
200,000 Hillsborough
-o-Total County
Unincorporated
150,000
50,000 '
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Source: Orange County Planning Department Average 10 -Year (1980 -2000) Exponential Projections
C l e Table: Average 10 Year (1980 -20001 Exponential Projections by County
Notes and Sources:
1 The Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census Bureau.
2 The Average 10 -Year Growth Rate is the average between the 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 growth rates.
3 The Population Projections for 2010 to 2030 are based upon the population figure for the previous timeframe multipled by the Average 10 -Year
Growth Rate, which is the growth figure. The growth figure is then added to the previous timeframe figure to get the projected population. The
Population Projections for Orange County from 2010 to 2030 are based upon the sum of the population figures for each of the Townships.
9/6/2007 C5
POPULATION
AVG 10-
'POPULATION PROJECTIONS
YEAR '_
County : ,
"1980,1
1990.
2000
GROWTH
2010
2020
2030
RATE2
ORANGE
77,055
93,662
115,531
2.1%
142,079
174,931
215,649
ALAMANCE
99,319
108,213
130,794
1.4%
150,297
172,708
198,460
CHATHAM
33,415
38,979
49,329
2.0%
59,985
72,943
88,700
DURHAM
152,235
181,844
223,314
1.9%
270,494
327,643
396,865
JOHNSTON
70,599
81,306
121,900
2.9%
161,574
214,162
283,864
LEE
36,718
41,370
49,208
1.5%
56,987
65,995
76,427
PERSON
29,164
30,180
35,623
1.0%
39,456
43,701
48,403
WAKE
301,429
426,311
627,866
3.7%
906,352
1,308,360
1,888,675
NORTH
CAROLINA
5,880,095
6,632,448
8,046,491
1.6%
9,419,021
11,025,670
12,906,373
Notes and Sources:
1 The Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census Bureau.
2 The Average 10 -Year Growth Rate is the average between the 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 growth rates.
3 The Population Projections for 2010 to 2030 are based upon the population figure for the previous timeframe multipled by the Average 10 -Year
Growth Rate, which is the growth figure. The growth figure is then added to the previous timeframe figure to get the projected population. The
Population Projections for Orange County from 2010 to 2030 are based upon the sum of the population figures for each of the Townships.
9/6/2007 C5
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
C 1 Chart: Orange County Average 10 Year (1980 - 20001 Exponential Growth Rates by
County
250%
Note: The values on the bar represent the
population growth in absolute numbers. The
values above the graph represent the % of
200% grow th from 2000 -2030. 201%
150%
100% 1 °
87 /0 80% 78%
52%
50%
133%
55% 60%
200,000
From 2000 to 2030, Orange 173,248
180,000 County's population is projected to
160,000 grow by 57,000 people, an increase 154,009 MIN
of 50%. 1 MI
134,770 :a
140,000
115,531
MINE
120,000
93,851
100,000 1 PRMM o
77,055 ate"
80,000
W :
;S .. r, ..
60,000 ,r e "'' '+
_ +
mg
40,000''
20,000 �
u
�s
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Source: Orange County Planning Department Average 10- Year.(1980- 2000) Linear Projections
9/6/2007 C6
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
C1h Table: Orange County Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Linear Projections by
Township
TOWNSHIP
Munici alit
POPULATION'
1980 1990 2000
Average
Increment 2
POPULATION PROJECTIONS;
2010 2020 . 2030
BINGHAM
3,954
5,184
6,181
1,114
7,295
8,409
9,523
CEDAR GROVE
3,166
3,691
4,930
882
5,812
6,694
7,576
CHAPEL HILLS
50,572
61,973
76,578
13,003
89,581
102,584
115,587
Town of Carrboro
7,517
12,134
16,782
4,633
21,415
26,048
30,681
Town of Chapel Hi114
32,038
37,596
44,102
6,032
50,134
56,166
62,198
Unincorporated
CHEEKS
11,017
4,821
12,243
5,422
1 15,694
7,064
2,339
1,122
18,033
8,186
20,372
9,308
22,711
10,430
City of Mebane4
379
485
675
148
823
971
1,119
Unincorporated
ENO
HILLSBOROUGH
4,442
4,450
8,599
4,937
5,262
10,136
6,389
6,092
11,639
974
821
1,520
7,363
6,913
13,159
8,337
7,734
14,679
9,311
8,555
16,199
Town of Hillsborough
3,019
4,263
5,446
1,214
6,660
7,874
9,088
Unincorporated
LITTLE RIVER
5,580
1 1,493
5,873
2,183
6,193
3,047
307
777
6,500
3,824
6,807
4,601
7,114
5,378
TOTAL COUNTY
1 77,0551
93,851
1 115,531
1 19,239
1 134,770
1 154,009
173,248
Total Incorporated 42,953 54,478 67,005 12,027 79,032 91,059 103,086
Total Unincorporated 34,102 39,373 48,526 7,214 55,740 62,954 70,168
Notes and Sources:
'The Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census Bureau.
2 The average increments were obtained by subtracting 1980 from 1990 and 1990 from 2000 and dividing the
sum by 2. Example: ((1990 -1980) + (2000- 1990))/2. The projections were done by adding the average
increment to the 2000 data and multiplying the result by the difference in the projection year and the most
recent year of data, then dividing that result by 10 (10 year projection increments). Example Little River: (3047
+ 777) * ((2010- 2000)/10)
Methodology taken from URBAN LAND USE PLANNING, Fourth Edition (p.125) County Planning library.
3Durham City comprises two small areas of Orange County, one each in Eno and Chapel Hill Townships. The
total.population of both areas is 39 people. These people were included in their respective township totals.
4 For the municipalities, only the portions within Orange County are included. The Town of Chapel Hill's
population figures do not include portions in Durham County, and the City Mebane's population figures do not
include the portions in Alamance County.
9/6/2007 C7
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Cli Chart: Orange County Average 10 Year (1980 -2000) Linear Projections by
Municipality
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
0,0
Total County
Carrboro
Chapel Hill
Mebane
Hillsborough
Unincorporated
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Source: Orange County Planning Department Average 10 -Year (1980 -2000) Linear Projections
Clj) Table: Average 10 Year X1980 -2000) Linear Projections by County
Notes and Sources:
'The Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census Bureau.
2 The average increments were obtained by subtracting 1980 from 1990 and 1990 from 2000 and dividing the sum by 2. Example:
((1990-1980)+(2000-1990))/2. The projections were done by adding the average increment to the 2000 data and multiplying the
result by the difference in the projection year and the most recent year of data, then dividing that result by 10 (10 year projection
increments). Example Little River: (3047 + 777) * ((2010- 2000)/10)
Methodology taken from URBAN LAND USE PLANNING, Fourth Edition (p.125) County Planning library.
9/6/2007 C8
POPULATION
.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Avg 10`Year
County
1980
1- 990
" 2000
.Increment
2010
X2020
2030
ORANGE
77,055
93,662
115,531
19,239
134,770
154,009
173,248
ALAMANCE
99,319
108,213
130,794
15,738
146,532
162,269
178,007
CHATHAM
33,415
38,979
49,329
7,957
57,286
65,243
73,200
DURHAM
152,235
181,844
223,314
35,540
258,854
294,393
329,933
JOHNSTON
70,599
81,306
121,900
25,651
147,551
173,201
198,852
LEE
36,718
41,370
49,208
6,245
55,453
61,698
67,943
PERSON
29,164
30,180
35,623
3,230
38,853
42,082
45,312
WAKE
301,429
426,311
627,866
163,219
791,085
954,303
1,117,522
NORTH
CAROLINA
5,880,095
6,632,448
8,046,491
1,083,198
9,129,689
10,212,887
11,296,085
Notes and Sources:
'The Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census Bureau.
2 The average increments were obtained by subtracting 1980 from 1990 and 1990 from 2000 and dividing the sum by 2. Example:
((1990-1980)+(2000-1990))/2. The projections were done by adding the average increment to the 2000 data and multiplying the
result by the difference in the projection year and the most recent year of data, then dividing that result by 10 (10 year projection
increments). Example Little River: (3047 + 777) * ((2010- 2000)/10)
Methodology taken from URBAN LAND USE PLANNING, Fourth Edition (p.125) County Planning library.
9/6/2007 C8
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
C lk Chart: Orange County Average 10 Year Linear (1980 -2000) Growth Rates by
Coun
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Note: The values on the bar represent the
population growth in absolute numbers. The
values above the graph represent the % of
growth from 2000 -2030.
50%
48% 48%
63%
38%
27%
78%
O+
+
�O
Source: Orange County Planning Department Average 10 -Year (1980 -2000) Linear
C 11 Chart: Orange County Population Projections, Ad'u) sted Migration Model
/ 111
.1 111
1 111
1 111
11 111
:1 111
• 1 111
1 111
1 111
1
From 2000 to 2030, Orange County's
population is projected to grow by just
over 45,000 people, an increase of nearly
40 %.
77,055
93,851
115,531
40%
161,118
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Unit. Adjusted Migration
9/6/2007 C9
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
Clm Table: Adjusted Mi ark tion Model Projections _ Countv
ORANGE
115,531
121,992
130,375
138,272
146,458
153,626
161,118
ALAMANCE
130,794
138,578
147,988
157,896
168,839
179,573
191,145
CHATHAM
49,329
56,090
61,635
67,678
73,617
79,850
85,877
DURHAM
223,314
242,207
258,398
276,980
294,240
313,428
331,275
JOHNSTON
121,900
146,319
169,143
193,694
218,868
245,702
272,744
LEE
49,208
53,786
58,196
62,501
67,180
71,693
76,573
PERSON -
35,623
=37J31
"zz 38;990
=W 40 9a
42;970
=44,791
46,683
WAKE
627,866
755,053
876,643
1.,004,055
1,133,110
1,269,111
1,404,751
(CAROLINA 8,046,813 8,682,066 9,349,175 10,022,722 10,709,704 11,398,300 1
Notes and Sources:
NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Unit
Adjusted Migration Model, March 2007
140.0%
120.0%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Mn Chart: Orange Countv Adjusted Migration Model, Growth Rates by Coun
Note: The values on the bar represent
the population growth in absolute 123.7% 123.7%
numbers. The values above the graph
represent the % of growth from 2000-
2030.
39.5%
46.1%
48.3%
50.2%
ORANGE ALAMANCE CHATHAM DURHAM JOHNSTON LEE' PERSON WAKE NORTH
CAROLINA
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Unit, Adjusted
9/6/2007 C10
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
C2. Age Cohort !Projections
Highlights
• During the three decades (2000 -
2030), the effect of population
growth on educational enrollment
will be nominal. The school age
population of students ages 5 -18
years old will remain steady around
15% of the total population between
these decades.
• Children 18 and under represent 20%
of the total county's population.
• Growth rates in teens 15 -18 will
decline by almost two- thirds between
2010 and 2030. Likewise, growth
rates for the very young 0 -4 will
drop by half.
• The population of young and middle
age adults in Orange County has
begun to decline, reversing previous
decade's trends.
• The overall elderly population (ages
65 and over) increased by 1,848 (23
percent) during the decade (1990-
2000), going from 8,083 in 1990 to
9,931 by the year 2000.
• During the decades (2000 -2030) the
elderly population will be growing
9/6/2007 C11
both in absolute numbers as well as a
percent of total population. In 2000,
the 65 and over age group
represented 8.6 percent of the total
population, but is expected to
increase its share to 16.8 percent by
the year 2030.
• The elderly population (65 and over)
will nearly triple during these three
decades (2000 - 2030), increasing
from 9,931 in 2000 to 26,499 by the
year 2030. The very old population
(85 and over) will more than double
during this time period, increasing
from 1,174 in 2000 to 2,909 in the
year 2030.
• Orange County's Median Age has
been steadily increasing from 25.7 in
1980 to 30.4 in 2000. This trend is
expected to continue in the future
with the "graying" of America.
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Orange Countv Comprehensive Plan
C2a) Table: 014nl7e Countv Population Trends and Projections by Cohorts
Artual2 I M--! -.3 1
'Age cohorts based on 2000 Population.
2Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census Bureau
3Adjusted Migration Projections from the NC Office of Budget, Planning and
Management, Demographics Unit, as of March 2007
4The County's total population may differ from the sum of age cohorts due to rounding
of estimates or projections.
65+
45 -64
25-44
19 -24
<18
C2b) Chart: Orange County Population Trends and Projections Age Cohorts as a
Percent of the Population
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% - 35.0% 40.0%
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Unit, Adjusted Migration Model
9/6/2007 C12
• -- .��•��
-ro rvpwation %,nange
Age 1980
1990
2000
2010`
2020
2030
(2000- 2010)
(2010 -2020)
`'2020 72030
0 -4
3,994
5,440
5,854
6,608
7,098
7,541
12.9%
7.4%
6.2%
5 -14
8,891
9,707
.14,200
14,824
16,197
17,190
4.4%
9.3%
6.1%
15 -18
5,702
5,300
6,641
7,597
8,305
8,640
1 14.4%
9.3%
4.0%
19 -24
18,596
18,948
19,468
21,532
22,021
23,061
10.6%
2.3%
4.7%
25 -34
15,537
18,059
17,887
18,569
21,461
22,636
3.8%
15.6%
5.5%
35 -44
7,751
14,299
17,448
16,472
17,329
20,038
-5.6%
5.2%
15.6%
45 -54
5,709
8,146
15,923
17,884
17,317
18,201
12.3%
-3.2%
5.1%
55 -64
5,092
5,869
8,181
14,634
16,818
16,408
78.9%
14.9%
-2.4%
65 =74_7u
3;553.
- -4;755
- =5,275 `
"°` 6947
12 ",799 - "
- 14.,'814
31.7%
84.2%
15.7%
75 -84
1,752
2,517
3,482
3,694
5,178
9,680
6.1%
40.2%
86.9%
85+
478
811
1,174
1614
1935
2,909
37.5%
19.9%
50.3%
Total
77,055
93,851
115,533
130,375
146,458
161,118
12.8%
12.3%
10.0%
'Age cohorts based on 2000 Population.
2Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census Bureau
3Adjusted Migration Projections from the NC Office of Budget, Planning and
Management, Demographics Unit, as of March 2007
4The County's total population may differ from the sum of age cohorts due to rounding
of estimates or projections.
65+
45 -64
25-44
19 -24
<18
C2b) Chart: Orange County Population Trends and Projections Age Cohorts as a
Percent of the Population
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% - 35.0% 40.0%
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Unit, Adjusted Migration Model
9/6/2007 C12
Section V. Draft Countx Profile (Data) Element,,, — Orange CountX Comprehensive Plan
��r
��°/ Table: Orange CoplLty Children 18 and Under as a Percent of Total Population
Actual'
C7d) Chart: Orange County Population Projection for Children 18 and Under
Notes and Sources:
'Population figures for 1S8U'18S0. and 20OO are from the UGCensus
z Adjusted Migration Projections hnmntheNCC}ffineofBudgot'P|annin0
and Management, Demographic Section
C7d) Chart: Orange County Population Projection for Children 18 and Under
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Unit, Adjusted Migration Model
9/6/2007 C13
0-
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
3,994
5,440
5,854
6,608
7,098
7,541
8,891
9,707
14,200
14,824
16,197
17,190
5,702
5,300
6,641
7,597
8,305
8,640
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning, and Management, Demographics Unit, Adjusted Migration Model
9/6/2007 C13
Section V. Draft County _Profile (Data) Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
C2e) Table: Orange County persons 65 and Older as a Percent of Total Population
Actual'
Projected
C2f) Chart: Orange County Population Projections for Persons 65 and Older
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
65 -74 4.61% 5.07% 4.57%
5.33% 8.74%
9.19%
2010
2020
75 -84 2.27% 3.27% 4.52%
.
4.79% 6.72%
12.56%
5,275
6,947
85+ 0.62% 1.05% 1.52%
2.09% 2.51 %
3.78%
2,517
3,482
65+ 7.51% 8.61 % 8-60%t
9.40% 13.60%
17.01 %
'85+ 478
Notes and Sources:
_
'Population figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from the US Census
1935
Adjusted Migration Projections from the NC Office of Budget, Planning
Source: NC Office of Budget,
and Management, Demographic Section
C2f) Chart: Orange County Population Projections for Persons 65 and Older
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
65 -74 3,553
4,755
5,275
6,947
12,799
14,814
75 -84 1,752
2,517
3,482
3,694
5,178
9,680
'85+ 478
811
1,174
1614
1935
2,909
Source: NC Office of Budget,
Planning, and Management, Demographics Unit, Adjusted Migration Model
9/6/2007 C14
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Maps Orancie Countv Comprehensive Plan
Draft ,County "' . . ...... .
Ak
Orange
D1.
Orange County Map
D7.
Orange
County
D2.
Orange County Population
Change, 1990-2000
County
Population >65 Years Old, 2000
D3.
Orange County Population
Densi1y, 2000
Watersheds and River Basins
D10.
Orange
County
Geology
D4.
Population Density
Trends, NQ Shaded by QoII!LtL 2000-2010
Developmental Constraints
D12.
D5.
Population Density
Trends, NQ Shaded by QoLmty, 2020-2030
D6.
Orange
County
Per Capita Income, 2000
D7.
Orange
County
Median Income, 2000
D8.
Orange
County
Population >65 Years Old, 2000
D9.
Orange
County
Watersheds and River Basins
D10.
Orange
County
Geology
D11.
Orange
County
Developmental Constraints
D12.
Orange
County
Vegetation
D13.
Orange
Qqpqty
Wetlands
D14.
Orange
County
Bio-solid Application. Sites
D15.
Orange
County
Cultural Resources
D16.
Orange
County
Natural Areas
D17.
Orange
County
Conservation Areas
D18.
Orange
County
Parks
D19.
Orange
County
Bicycle Paths
This document is a DRAFT and is subject to change prior to final approval.
Note: Maps have been resized from their original projection and are therefore not to
scale.
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
DI County, NC
Urange
9/6/2007
o' N
1 inch equals 18,000 feet
0 9,000 18,000
Feet
•�1 C����J
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
GIS Map Prepared by Miriam Coleman, Mardi 05, 2007
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D4
Population Density (Persons per square mile)
Projections by County, 2000-2010
APRIL 2000 POPULATION DENSITY Orange County
APRIL 2010 POPULATION DENSITY /Orange County
mm
0. 76
75 - 150
160 - 250
250 - 375
375 - 525
526 - 700
700 - 1000
1000 - 2000
2000 - 6000
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orancie Countv Comprehensive Plan
D5
Population Density (Persons per square mile)
Projections by County, 2020 -2030
APRIL 2020 POPULATION DENSITY Orange County
Source: NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographics Section
.. -
9/6/2007
?
Data Source: US Census Bureau
6
,:'�d�� �aO :FOP ) ��
b"
r ptInC ome (1999) e21,059 .28224.
"e`
10,700
Miles ,
010 701 ° 21 058' 3$ X47 57 666.
h
i4�vea c oun�Y $�annlnB aid Ins ectlons Depar{me�j
Map PreparecLby Btian ynly 11�2b46
I,
�dtsp�t
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D7
Orange County Median Housing Value-
for Owner Occupied Housing Units (Census 2400)
Caswell Co.
MN
4`
a
'`r
Chatham Co - Data Source: US Census Bureau
Median Hous�n ValueR o = '$ 199'6 99
$160 00
9 � Township Boundary
30 479,999 $200,000 = :$249,999 a ° 3Mi1e8
$80000 $119,999 $250,000
$120,000, 99 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
3;- >.,
QS Map Prepared by Brian Carson March 26, 2007.
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D8
Orange County, NC Census 2000 Blocks
•CedarGroveTownship[ •Little River Township•
695 Persons 60 or Oider 1� 363 Persons 60 or Oider' `•
t
,r.
Distribution of Persons 60 Years of Age and Older
�r
9/6/2007
Triangle J Council of Governments
Geographic Information System
November 21, 2006
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D9
Orange CounlEyWatersheds
r CiyCO RoanolcE` southtNy l , r r
r { Ri�er Basin ;reek ,i 5 f
,,, ,• 1' 1 � ``• t' f FlatRiver ,
y c y
kFttle River ,
ti
f \
Beck >/ \
rdreek Neuse
River Basin lam; '
t
Upper
r
�_ V 1 ono
'\
'A 1
Y
rif i � •, � ,a�'�t �� ��� � r I 'Eno ; �
� t
t �
G elpfeftF��''
Ca a Fee ^ar f r Jordan Lake ,
p
River. B. asirn
j t .• / F � •,C- ���,�...ivhL"' � 3i�'��'4��'y(yi'r '�k��
a`.
,;t 4 HaW giver 4 ; fp r 601
: t�mvu�s fy
r:', ✓ �rY .-� , '� .Lake
• r , . t, � � l` .G fi. If a�F F 16 .. a ',�'.�` . ;; =-fi :
�Legentl N
,
1 inch equals 18,000 Feet
Watershed Boundary ° 9'0 00 18,000
. Feet
River Basiri'BpUnd+arY
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
QS Map Prepared by Miriam Coleman, March 05, 2007
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D10
G
GIS map prepared by Miriam Coleman, Orange County Planning Department, October 19, 2004
9/6/2007
�N'M-
and Schist
Iletavolcanlc Rock
diate Metavolvanic Rock
xphosed Granitic Rock
sdstone and Mete - Argillite
letavolcanic Rock
xphosed Gabbro and Diorite
icanic- Epiclastic Rock
m Group, Undivided
�4
76 lsisti�s
GIS map prepared by Mlrlam Coleman, Orange County Planning Department November 11, 2004
• . 11
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D13
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D14
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D15
Cultural Resources
(unincorporated portions of Orange County)
e /
a p '9dN "Catantal Heritage Byway
a
,`gym A } A
t'Pp (/1
Cedar Grove Rr I sroad� ° pe »� Ro (R - Kertron =,at Register /
National Register i rlc District si /Study Llat Historla Distriat A GUESS SRO
Y,IG
Mary'y" n/Sad Natiol 1 Regleter
S�tdy List Nlatoric �Iatrict
LE�a,1NON RD \ V
M VILLS
US 70 m 4t a"
k
g.
„— ps } "Colonial Hatitaga Byway"
i
'
AM
1 i BART UR MINNI RD } �.. ✓
FSI \
o EUOANKS
w o �
The Oeka NSBOnaI Reglst, rSfudy Lis -
�` Histodc Disirt t
OLD REENSBOi O RD
1
"Football Road,*,,
Legend Orange County
Environment & Resource
—North Carollna Scenic Byways G Local Landmark & National Register Conservation Department
Municipal ETJs * National Register
Glues' ` National Register Historic District
— Main toads National Register Study List Ndec 'rnls map clot s not Include arcnueduml resources In the
munldpall ofHlils6arauah, Chapel HID, Camhcm cr Mebane,
Lakes National Register Study List Historic District orin the rexbatam d tudsacums.
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Maps Oranqe County Comprehensive Plan
D16
Natural Areas
Orange County
Esv(ronment & Resource
Conservation Department
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D17
Conservation Easements
Tr N U HO
Tv,�
� o
z z
pb
SAWFdIL RD
- C(SiR`'iOQ'6
GUESS R•b
c /
0
9Rp ib
41 fir
A �
. ROOT ?n � q X90 ���r b gt tAARVS ViD
�2
o r+
LEBANON RQ"
I' z
C
F ` US 70
i'.t yr
EST•
tv TEN RD
,s
aotti °� e�SY� \NGR° �•, � aI ru.A`s�,�,oe
N!S �.4 �tuy�UG O�Oy �rks
IBS
�G ,.�+" Oro }
6�
o o < <isRo
Inv
o aoQtio �, M StNA N
A THU
O R MtN )g RD c_
7 Al YLANDR) 00 MITFIEL
O
EUSANKS RD sk
z
�h. o o r }*
m - a m �`� k
IV
OLD GREENSBORO RD
:
O.
Legend N R
Conservation easements __ Cities _
Reservoirs Municipal ETJs orange county
Environment & Resource '
Main roads Conservation Department -
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft Countv Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D18
Parks
Its
2U �n
H F
P
G�UE5RD
KIGER RD
SC�<
� l F
o
LEBANON RD Z \
NE s�
US 70
0
r�
IAN u "�GRO affil RHA
OLD 10
c 1 .
U
h1T SINA
U
6
z N
o
m ,
HWY 54 W
s
OLD GREENSBORO RDi�t.:k���
Legend
Existing Parks ° q
1. Northam Park -- Main roads °
2' River Regional Park 0 Future Parks ° +.
3. Fairview Park 7. Twin Creeks Park Towns
6. Milihouse Road Park
4. Efland- Cheeks Park Municipal ETJs
5. West Ten Soccer Park 9. New Hope Park at Blackwood orange County
6. River Park Lakes Coonservation Department
Note: Does not include town - operated parks (some of which are county- funded.)
9/6/2007
Section V. Draft County Profile (Data) Element Maps Orange County Comprehensive Plan
D19
9/6/2007
ORANGE COUNTY
Priority Bicycle Transportation Routes
J./
t
%, ' 'r '_lil. � J � � � ._s � - • r =fir
_
� �_
a
2 ga 4
1� - -f }tea � t �'v �P `•,:, � ,a fi` '�._
6
T lI . ' f -�f'
�r� k. r• � t" t- 41 E'r ,��._
r ..�
��
1• /--_I 1 /' lV. 111J ��'tt' { l4 �•N �1,y4't�•I �, !
Legend ( ( ~t( (7 �. �.t,�
Orange County Primary
Priority
Bicycle Routes s
Orange County Secondary
V Priority Bicycle Routes
Hillsborough Bicycle Routes
9/6/2007
DRAFT COUNTY PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPEIVDIX
The information contained within this
appendix is only a portion of the final
version. It will be updated with
relevant formulas, definitions and
methodologies when the other seven
Elements are prepared during Phase H.
Includes formulas, methodologies, and definitions relevant to information found in the
County Profile (Data) Element.
SECTION - r c o
ETJ — Extra territorial _jurisdiction
The legal ability of a municipal government to exercise land use planning authority beyond its
normal incorporated boundaries.
Township
A subdivision of a county that may be used for voting districts or service provision. In Orange
County, five of the seven current townships served as voting districts in the nineteenth century, „
but none have legal standing today.
Municipality
A city, town or community incorporated for local self - government.
MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area)
An MSA is a metropolitan area made up of central counties that include central cities and
outlying counties and meet specific population, residency and employment statistics.
The Metropolitan Statistical Area standards were revised for use with Census 2000 data.
Source: US Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce
• �e
Population figures are obtained primarily from the following two sources:
1. NC State Certified July 1, 2005 County Population Estimates
NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographic Section
8/16/2007
DRAFT :. APPENDIX
2. US Census Bureau
NC State Certified July 1, 2005 County Population Estimates
NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographic Section
Methodology - -- Cogpty Totals
The county estimates are averages of two sets of estimates, a set of modified Census Bureau
estimates, and a set of Ratio /Correlation estimates produced by this office.
Modified Census Bureau Estimates
In March of 2006, the Population Division of the United States Bureau of Census released
their 2005 state and county population estimates for North Carolina. They used an administrative
records technique similar to the 1990's technique of the same name. In making their 2005
estimates, the Census Bureau assumed that the July 2005 institutional population of each county
would be the same as that of July 2004. By April of 2006, I was able to obtain the July 2005 data
for all of our military bases and for the institutions possessing the majority of the other
institutional population in North Carolina. As a result, I adjusted the Census Bureau's 2005
county and state estimates for the differences between the July 2004 and July 2005 populations
for these institutions. A second approximation used by the Census Bureau was to assume that
July 1, 2000 institutional populations were identical to the corresponding April 1, 2000 values. I
made further corrections where this assumption was false.
Ratio /Correlation Estimates
Two basic procedures were used to build these estimates. First, I used changes in the numbers of
MEDICARE enrollees to estimate the population 65 years of age and older for each county.
MEDICARE enrollee counts from July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2000 were used to estimate the value
for April 1, 2000. The change in the number of MEDICARE enrollees from July 1, 2003 to July
2004 was assumed to equal the change in the number of MEDICARE enrollees from July 1,
2004 to July 2005. Then, the 5.25 year change in the number of MEDICARE enrollees from
April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 was multiplied by the ratio of the April 1, 2000 population count
for persons 65 years of age and older to the estimated number of MEDICARE enrollee counts for
April 1, 2000. The resulting value was assumed to approximate the change in the numbers of
persons aged 65 and older between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2005. This change was added to the
April 1, 2000 population count for persons 65 years of age and older to create the final
population estimate for this age group.
Second, I used a standard ratio /correlation method to estimate the population aged 0 -64. The data
series used were automobile and truck registrations (Xl), school enrollment in grades 1 through
8 (X2), and a three -year sum of births (X3). For 2005, the three -year sum of births was the sum
of final calendar year values for 2003, 2004, and 2005; for 2000, the sum of final calendar year
values for 1998, 1999, .and 2000. The prediction equation for each North Carolina county is
given by
y =. 0.00061057 + 0.51853 * X1 + 0.27341 * X2 + 0.20135 * X3,
where y represents the estimated ratio of percentage shares of nongroup quarters population and
each of the series indicators (Xl, X2, and X3) represents the ratio of percentage shares of the
2
8/16/20(
DRAFT COUNTY PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPENDIX
associated variable. The equation coefficients were derived by least squares regression, using
series indicator and population values for 1990 and 2000. The results of this equation were
adjusted for the extra 1/4 year of the estimate period by linearly expanding the change in y from
the assumed 2000 value of 1.0. The nongroup quarters 0 -64 population estimate derived from
this equation was combined with independent estimates of the population of military barracks,
college dormitories, and other institutions to yield the estimate of the total 0 -64 population.
The state estimate for 2005 was the adjusted one mentioned above. Subtraction of the sum of the
county populations 65 and older from this estimate produced a control for the 0 -64 population
estimates. There was no state control for the population 65 and older.
Methodology --- Age, Race, and Sex Detail
To calculate the populations for the different age, race, and sex groups, I used a relatively simple
process. First, projections were made for each county by 384 age, race, and sex cells (96 age
values: 0,1,2,...,94, and 95 +; white /other; male /female) to April 1, 2010. Then, these values were
interpolated (age cohort interpolation for non - institutional populations; age group interpolation
for institutional populations) to July 1, 2005 using the April 1, 2000 Census values as a base.
Next, the 384 cells for each county were proportionately adjusted to sum to the county total
population. Finally, the appropriate age cells were summed to form each group. ,
Last Update • September S 2006 NC Office of Budget Management and Planning,
Demographics Section .
SECTION 133: Housing
Median Contract Rent:
Contract rent is the monthly rent agreed to, or contracted for, regardless of any furnishings,
utilities, or services that may be included. Contract rent is tabulated for "specified renter -
occupied" units, which exclude one - family houses on 10 acres or more. Median is the middle
value, so that half of all renter - occupied units paid more monthly rent and half paid less.
SECTION 84: Employment And Economy
Definitions from the US Census Bureau as prepared by the NC ZINC Database
Per Capita Income by Place of Residence
The total personal income of residents of an area divided by the resident population of the area.
Median Family Income
Family income consists of total money income received in the calendar year by all family
members 15 years old and over (14 in 1970), tabulated for all families.
Mean Family Income
Average income of all families, including those with no income or loss, in the prior calendar
year. Regional totals and other geographic aggregations are not available for this variable.
Median Household Income
3
8/16/2007
DRAFT COUNTY PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPENDIX
Household income consists of total money income received in the prior calendar year by all
household members 15 years old and over (14 in 1970), tabulated for all households.
Percent of Persons in Poverty:
Percent of persons in poverty in the calendar year prior to the census. Based on persons for
whom poverty status is determined.
:SECTION 135o Environment
Sources, unless otherwise noted, are from Commission for the Environment's State of the
Environment. 2004
Area Sources
Small stationary sources such as gas stations, dry cleaners, and repair shops.
BiojZenics
Emission sources that are living organisms such as trees, plants and cattle.
CO — Carbon Monoxide
A colorless, odorless gas that forms when carbon in fuel does not burn completely; can
contribute to ground -level ozone
Mobile sources
Pollution sources that are not stationary, including automobiles and trucks.
NOx —Nitrogen Oxide
A gas formed when fuel is burned at hight temperatures in vehicles and industry; contributes to
ground -level ozone
Non -road Mobile Sources
Equipment such as lawn mowers, outboard engines, agricultural equipment, and construction
machines.
PM— Particulate Matter
A term for particles such as dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets. PM is defined by the size
of its diameter in micrometers. (TSP) refers to the total amount of suspended particulate matter.
Point Source
Large stationary sources like factories and electric power plants.
ROG — Reactive Organic Gases
See VOC; also contributes to ground -level ozone
S02 — Sulfur Dioxide
A gas that is released when fuels such as coal and oil are burned.
4
8/16/2007
DRAFT COUNTY PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPENDIX
VOC — Volatile Organic Compounds
Hydrocarbon compounds such as volatile fuels and solvents that contribute to ground -level
ozone production. VOCs include many of the same compounds as ROGs, but ROGs are only
those compounds active in atmospheric photochemical reactions.
SECTION B6: Transportation
NCDOT - North Carolina Department of Transportation
The state department responsible for construction and maintenance of primary and secondary
roads across the state.
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
Per capita daily vehicle miles . traveled are .calculated by dividing the total miles driven by the
population during that year.
Principal Arterials: The primary traffic carrying facilities in the County; trip length and travel
density characteristics of substantial inter- county travel or of serving urban -type development;
typically would include rural freeways.
Minor Arterials : Major traffic - carrying facilities -which combine with the principal arterials to
form a network serving all cities and larger towns in the County, major traffic generators and
significant inter- county travel, Trip length and travel densities generally less than principal
arterials.
Collectors: Facilities that generally service infra- county travel. Provides the network connection
between local roads and the arterial system. Shorter lengths, lower volumes, and more land
access than the arterial system.
Local Road: Primarily serves as access to adjacent land use. Any traffic is local in nature;
therefore volumes and length are relatively low. The major and minor local roads comprise all
remaining public roads not classified as a higher function.
Major Local Roads - Relatively short lengths of road that provide a connection of primarily
residential areas to the collector and arterial systems.
8/16/2007
Di4qFT C C-11"ITT PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPENDIX
Linear And Exponential Population Projections: Explanation Of Methodology
As prepared by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
Two extrapolative population projection methods were used: LINAVE or linear extrapolation
and EXAVE or exponential extrapolation.
The LINAVE method assumes that population will change by identical increments in each
interval -of future time and is -calculated :based on the average; population change in decades.
This method is considered to be the most accurate method for moderately growing townships,
at a rate of up to 25 %.
The EXAVE method assumes that population will occur at constant percentage rates over time
and is calculated based on the average rate of population change in previous decades. This
method is considered to be the most accurate method for rapidly growing townships, at a rate of
more than 25 %, and townships with less than 5000 inhabitants.)
The equations used in the EXAVE and LINAVE methods are described below:
Linear Extrapolation (LINAVE)
Pt + n = Pt +[Pt- Pi/(t -i)]n
Exponential Extrapolation (EXAVE)
Pt + n = Pt [Pt/Pt -i] n/(t -i)
Where: P= population
t = terminal year of base period
i = initial year of base period
n = number of years to projected year
SOURCE: Andrew M. Issenman . "The Accuracy of Population Projections for Subcounty
Areas" Journal of the American Institute of Planners. July 1977. vol 43, No. 3. Pps.
247 -259.
6
8/16/2007
DRAFT COUNTY PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPENDIX
Adjusted Migration Model: Explanation Of Methodology
As prepared by the NC Office of Budget, Planning and Management, Demographic Section
Population Projections Desgdption
The North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management in June of 2006 released the current
set of population projections for the state and its counties. The greatest difference between these
projections and the previous ones (released in 2005) is the difference in assumed growth trends
for the three decades from 2000 to 2030.
The basic assumption is almost the same for both series. For the previous set of projections, the
assumption was that migration (and, hence, growth) for July 1, 2004 through April 1, 2030 was a
function of two sets of growth. The first set was the "trend" growth based on the 1990-2000 base
decade, The.second was the average annual growth from April 1, 2000 through July 1, 2004
derived from the set of July 2004 Provisional County Estimates which was released by the State
Demographer in April of 2005. For the current set of projections, the assumption is that
migration (and, hence, growth) for July 1, 2005 through April 1, 2030 is also a function of two
sets of growth. The first set is the "trend" growth based on the 1990-2000 base decade, The
second is the average annual non-institutional growth from April 1, 2000 through July 1, 2005
derived from the set of July 2005 Provisional County Estimates which was released by the State
Demographer in May of 2006.
The basic growth functions were slightly different. For both sets of projections, the first two
years after the estimate date, 2004-2006 for the previous set of estimates, 2005-2007 for the
current set of estimates, were considered "transition" years between the proVisional estimates and
the long range projections. For subsequent years, until April 1, 2010, the growth was assumed to
approximate a weighted average of the "trend" growth and the "estimate" growth. For the
previous set of projections, the "trend" growth was weighted at 60% (and, hence, the "estimate"
growth was weighted at 40%). For the current set of projections, the "trend" growth was
weighted at 50% (and, hence, the "estimate" growth was also weighted at 50%). The county
totals for April 1, 2020 were adjusted for both sets of projections to try to maintain migration for
April 2010 to April 2020 at close to the same levels as those of the last years of the 2000s.
The "transition" years were treated somewhat differently. For the previous set of estimates, the
same "estimate" growth was used during the "transition" years as was used for-the following
years. For 2004-05, the "estimate" growth was weighted, however, at 80%, and, for 2005-06, at
60%, instead of at the normal 40%. For the current set of projections, the "estimate"
growth was always weighted at 50%, but the growth used was different for the transition years..
For 2005706, the "estimate" growth was that of July 1, 2004 to July 1, 2005. For 2006-07, the
"estimate" was the one half of the July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2005 growth.
7
8/16/2007
DRAFT COUNTY PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPENDIX
BASIC DATA....
The most fundamental basis for these projections are population values for North Carolina and
its counties from the Census Bureau's 2000 Census of Population. Since the last projection
series, there have been a few minor corrections based on Census Bureau boundary changes.
These projections use single year of age totals (0 -94) and one composite age group (95 +) by
male and female from the 2000 Census for the data for the 2nd year of the base decade. An
estimate of the "White" fraction of each age group for each gender was made to create the
detailed population for April 2000. An estimate of "White" is necessary because the 2000 Census
data does not define races in the same way as the 1990 Census data does. It does not define a
single racial value for "White ". The-goal-oft he estimation procedure was to create a _
"White'T'Other" split which would match that of the 1990 Census. The "White" and "Other"
values used for projected years are based on these estimates for April 2000 and corresponding
values from the 1990 Census. For more details about the estimation procedure, click here.
The "aging forward" of this 2000 population base strongly affects these age, race, and sex
specific projections. This effect causes projected births to rise more slowly than projected
population, in spite of fertility rates which are assumed to remain constant. It causes projected
deaths to increase more rapidly, in spite of improving mortality.
Population values for North Carolina and its counties from the Census Bureau's 1990 Census of
Population are very important as well. The actual data came from the Census Bureau's MARS
(Modified Age, Race, and Sex) file. The original 1990 Census files included errors nationwide in
the. age tabulations which made as many as 20 percent of the population in a given age group one
year older on April 1, 1990 than they really were. The age error correction technique used in the
preparation of the MARS file incorporated national birth data by quarter of the year from 1920
through 1990. For the MARS file, the unclassified "other" race group in the original 1990
Census data was distributed to the four basic race groups ( "white ", "black ", "Indian ", and
"Asian "). The most critical use of these values is in the determination of detailed migration
trends for the 1990 -2000 time period. The values in the 1990 population base include
adjustments to the original MARS file values based on postcensus corrections received from the
Census Bureau.
BIRTH ASSUMPTIONS....
Since the early 1990s, North Carolina's fertility rates have changed significantly. North Carolina
fertility rates for white mothers leveled out during the first half of the 1990s, increased rapidly
during the second half of the 1990s, and are currently leveling out or increasing slightly. The
fertility rate for nonwhite mothers dropped in the first half of the 1990s, rose somewhat in the
second half of the 1990s, and has recently dropped again. Currently (2002, 2003, and 2004), it is
below that of white mothers for the first time in decades. It was assumed that fertility rates for all
age and race groups would be constant from 2005 through 2030. To obtain a more stable set of
future rates, the fertility rates for 2002 -2003, the fertility rates for 2003 -2004, and the fertility
rates for 2004 -2005 were averaged.
The distribution of births into male and female for each race group was also assumed to be
constant from 2005 through the year 2030. The fraction of the projected births for each age
8
8/16/2007
DRAFT COUNTY PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPENDIX
.............. .. ... ......
group which was male (or female) was assumed to be the average of the corresponding fractions
for the calendar years 1995 through 2004.
DEATH ASSUNIPTIONS....
As in the previous set of estimates, unabridged life tables for 1990 from the National Center for
Health Statistics were available for these estimates. North Carolina's death rates based on these
tables were fairly close to those of the nation as a whole, with rates for some age groups within
each race/sex group higher for the state and rates for some groups lower. Over the next several
decades, North Carolina's death rates are expected to converge toward national rates, reaching
fall equality by the year 2050. This assumption was used to develop projected survival rates for
North Carolina for 2000, 2010, 2010, and 2030 from 1990 North Carolina survival rates and
projected United States survival rates (Population Projections Branch, Population Division, U. S.
Bureau of the Census). Since the North Carolina nonwhite population is overwhelmingly black
(91.6 % in 1990) and the national nonwhite population is much less so (76.2 %), North Carolina
nonwhite rates were converged to national black rates.
In calculating the deaths for each race-sex group for the 1990s, the survival rates for 2000 were
adjusted to yield the actual number of state deaths, assuming that the average survival rate for the
decade was the simple geometric average of the rate for 1990 and the adjusted rate for 2000.
Then, the adjusted rates were converged toward national rates. For the 2000s, the 2010s and the
2020s, the average survival rate for the decade was assumed to be the simple geometric average
of the rate at the beginning of the decade and the corresponding rate at the end of the decade.
METHODOLOGY....
BASIC TREND PROJECTIONS BY COUNTY
The basic technique used to develop county trend projections by age, race, and sex for this series
is the Adjusted Migration technique. The first step in this procedure is to obtain survived net
migration for the base decade. First, county/state survival rate factors for each county for each
race are developed using actual county deaths by race for the 1990-2000 decade. These factors
are assumed to be reasonably valid throughout the projection period. Then, one obtains a "Cohort
Survived" population (assumes no net migration during the base decade) for the end of the base
decade by applying these factors and state survival rates to the population at the beginning of the
base decade. Finally, one subtracts this "Cohort Survived" population from the population at the
end of the base decade to get the desired survived net migration.-
The next step is to adjust this survived net migration for the base decade to yield a survived net
migration for the projection decade. The adjustment procedure has two branches. If the survived
net migration for a given age, race, and sex group is in-migration, then it is adjusted only for
differences in mortality between decades. If it is out-migration, then it is adjusted both for
mortality differences and for the change in population between the beginning and end of the base
decade.
There are two final steps. First, a "Cohort Survived" population is calculated for the projection
date in a manner similar to that used to calculate the "Cohort Survived" population for the end of
the base decade. Then, the survived net migration for the projection decade is added to this
"Cohort Survived" population to yield the final projected population.
8/16/2007
DRAFT (DATA) APPENDIX
A slightly different technique is used to project the populations of the youngest 10 age groups (0,
1, 2,..., 9). First, births by race for each year of the decade are obtained by applying projected age
and race specific birth rates for each year to previously projected numbers of women of child -
bearing ages. Deviations in individual county birth rates from the corresponding state birth rates
are set for future years based on averages over several (usually 5, occasionally 4 or 3) prior years
for which actual birth counts are available. Second, sex -at -birth and survival rates are applied to
the projected births to obtain projection date populations for those who were born within the
county. Third, a special survived migration is added to these populations to account for children
who moved to or from the county since they were born. This survived migration is calculated in
a similar manner to that for the older age groups, except that the time period varies from 0.5 to
9.5 years, depending on the age group being projected, always beg nnmg_at birth and ending at
the end of the decade.
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTS
The basic county trend projections produced for this series were modified for the growth of
certain institutions. Institutions such as colleges, universities, military installations, and, to a
lesser extent, prisons and some state hospitals, house persons of particular age groups. These
populations will substantially grow or decline only by administrative action. There are thirteen
counties in North Carolina the age structure of which is significantly affected by institutions.
These counties (with major institution type) are Avery (prisons and college), Craven (military),
Cumberland (military), Durham (university), Jackson (university), Madison (university), New
Hanover (university), Onslow (military), Orange (university), Pasquotank (university and
prisons), Pitt (university), Wake (university and prisons), and Watauga (university).
Many counties, as well as the state as a whole, experienced some growth in institutional
populations between 2000 and 2005. Roughly 2/3 of the increase was in Onslow County, one of
the two counties with large military bases. The other county with a large military base;
Cumberland, showed a large increase from 2000 to 2003, follwed by a much larger decrease
from 2003 to 2005. It was assumed that all institutional populations would remain constant after
2005.
PROJECTION CONTROLS
Three types of Projection controls were used. The first set was based totally on county estimates.
Projected values for July 2000, July 2001, July 2002, July 2003, and July 2004 were controlled
to revised county estimates for the corresponding dates. Projected values for 2005 were
controlled to the set of July 2005 Provisional County Estimates released in May of 2006 by the
State Demographer.
The second set were county population controls for July 1st of each year from 2006 through
2009 and for April 1, 2010. They were calculated in several steps. First, the "trend" growth from
one projection date to the next was calculated by making a projection for the first projection
decade without using any population controls. Second, the average annual non institutional
population growth for 2000 -05, for 2004 -05, and for 2003 -05 were calculated from the Jules
Provisional County Estimates, the July 2004 Revised County Estimates, the July 2003 Revised
County Estimates, and the 2000 Census counts. Third, the "trend" growth and the "estimate"
growth for each period (for July 2005 -July 2006, the non - institutional July 2004 -July 2005
10
8/16/2007
DRAFT COUNTY PROFILE (DATA) ELEMENT APPENDIX
growth; for July 2006 -July 2007, the average annual non - institutional July 2003 -July 2005
growth; for 2007 -08 and 2008 -09, the average annual non - institutional April 2000 -July 2005
growth; for July 2009 -April 2010, 75% of the 2008 -09 growth) were averaged using equal
weights (50 0/o/50 0/o). Finally, the population at each date was created by adding the growth for
the period ending with that date to the population at the beginning of the period (begin by adding
the 2005 -06 growth to the 2005 county estimate to produce the July 1, 2006 control, then add the
2006 -07 growth to the 2006 control to produce the 2007 control,...).
The third set was a set of county population controls applied to the projection date values for the
second projection decade (2010 -2020) to roughly approximate using 50% of the "trend" growth
and 50% of the "estimate" growth for the entire decade. Several steps were required. First, the
2000 -05 "estimate" growth was linearly extrapolated to April 2010. Then, these values were
averaged with values for April 2010 projected using no population controls. These. averages used
weights of 50% for the extrapolated (or "estimate ") values and 50% for the uncontrolled (or
"trend ") values. The difference between each of these "50 %150 %" averages and the
corresponding county population control for April 2010 was used to adjust the projected value
for that county for April 2020. The adjustment was added to the population projected from April
2010 (using the controlled value) to April 2020 without any population controls to yield a
controlled value for April 2020. Since the growth for the 3rd projection decade is based on the
projected 2nd decade growth, this adjustment changed the growth for that decade as well.
11
8/16/2007