Go to: OVERVIEW
(SaveOurCounty) DETAILS
(listener)
PLANNING SCHOOLS ENVIRONMENT EROSION
Report corrections & broken links to Webmaster Get updates on local issues
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
Jefferson County Planning Commission 1994
[[Jefferson County, WV.
This plan & the ordinances to carry it out are at http://www.listeners.homestead.com/. The Zoning map is there
too. The only official copies of the plan & ordinances are in the
files of the County Clerk. Neither Jefferson County nor P Burke assumes responsibility
for errors. Please report all problems to listener‑owner@yahoogroups.com
so improvements can be made. Editor's notes are in double brackets; these are
not part of the adopted plan.]]
JEFFERSON COUNTY
COMMISSION
Edgar Ridgeway,
Middleway District
R. Gregory Lance,
Charles Town District
James G. Knode,
Shepherdstown District
Herbert S. Snyder,
Harpers Ferry District
Gary M. Kable, Kabletown
District
Leslie D. Smith, County
Administrator
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Scott Coyle, Pres.
H. Richard Flaherty,
Past Pres.
Betty Roper, Vice Pres.
Ernest R. Benner,
Sec/Treas.
Samuel J. Donley, Jr.
Paul W. Griger
Carolyn Hoffman
Rosella Kern
*James G. Knode
Lyle Campbell Tabb, III
Gilbert Page Wright, Jr.
*Representative from the
County Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF
Paul J. Raco, Director
of Planning & Zoning
Rebecca F. Burns,
Executive Secretary
Paula Coomler Markstrom,
Permit Officer/Assistant
John C. Laughland, P.E.,
County Engineer
Natalie G. Parks,
Consultant
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Jefferson County
Planning Commission and Staff would like to thank all of the Jefferson County
Boards and Commissions for their involvement in the writing of this Plan. The
Commission would also like to thank Region 9 Planning and Development Council
Staff for their data and Craig Yohn for his work on the Waste Water and Water
Resources chapters. Finally the Commission would like to thank all of the
public who participated in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
PART II
PART III
Law
Enforcement and Emergency Services
Parks, Recreation,
Culture and the Arts
Industrial
and Commercial Land Use
LIST OF TABLES
PART II
1 Place of Birth and Residence Five Years Before the Census for
190, 1980 and 1990
2 Population Change from 1960 to 1990 by Jurisdiction
3 Population Changes by Age and Sex
4 Marital Status for 1970, 1980 and 1990
5 Years of School Completed by Residents 25 Years and Older for
1970, 1980 and 1990
6 Income of Families for 1970, 1980 and 1990
7 Population Projections
8 Population ‑ Households
9 Periodic change in Households
10 Housing Profile ‑ 1990
11 Incorporated and Unincorporated Housing Growth
12 Trends in Housing Occupancy
13 Housing Structure
14 Building Permits
15 Median Value, All Housing Sales Panhandle and
Surrounding Counties January 1, 1991 ‑ December 31, 1991
16 Estimated Values of Single Family Residential
Structures ‑ Jefferson County
17 Median Value, Owner‑Occupied Units, 1990
18 Contract Rents (Monthly)
19 Substandard Housing 1980 to 1990
20 Housing Needs for Jefferson County Based on
Assessment of Substandard Housing
21 Age of Year Round Housing Units
22 Profile of Household ‑ 1980 versus 1990
23 Source of Sewer and Water ‑ 1980 versus
1990
24 Future Housing Needs Forecasts
25 Farm Statistics
26 Farm Tenure
27 Sex by Labor Force Status, Persons 16 Years
and Older
28 Work Force Mobility
29 Average Annual Wage in Jefferson County Industries
30 Persons Employed Age 16 and Over by Occupation
for 1970, 1980 and 1990
31 Employment by Industry for 1970, 1980 and 1990
32 Retail Trade, Establishments and Sales for
1977, 1982 and 1987
33 Wholesale Trade Establishments and Sales for
1977, 1982 and 1987
34 Service Establishments and Sales for 1977,
1982 and 1987
35 Manufacturing Industries‑Establishments
and Sales for 1977, 1982 and 1987
36 Major Employers in Jefferson County
37 Industrial Site with Infrastructure
38 Undeveloped Industrial Properties
39 Industrial/Commercial Zones
PART III
40 Road Mileage by Class‑‑State
System
41 Average Daily Traffic at Selected Locations
42 Summary of Traffic Problems in Jefferson
County
43 Groundwater Use in 1988
44 Jefferson County Water Systems
45 Wastewater Treatment Plants
46 State, County and Local Police Protection
47 Police Calls in Jefferson County for 1983‑1985
and 1987‑1991
48 Emergency Operations 1987 to 1991
49 Public School Facilities in Jefferson County
50 Average Number of Pupils Per Household
51 Parks in Jefferson County
52 Rare and Endangered Species From either the
Federal List or Rangewide Status
LIST OF MAPS [[not yet
available electronically]]
PART II
1 Tax Districts
PART III
2 Highway Classification System
3 Highway Problem Areas
4 Water Systems
5 Sewer Systems
6 Fire Stations and Districts
7 Elementary School Districts
8 Junior and Senior High School Districts
9 Parks and Recreational Areas
10 Natural Resources
LIST OF FIGURES [[not
yet available electronically]]
PART II
1 Population Growth Past and Projected in Jefferson County
PART III
2 Relationship of Production to Use Jefferson County Ground‑Water
3 Ground‑Water Use ‑ Jefferson County 1988
PART I
INTRODUCTION
TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
About 250 years ago, settlers
began arriving in what is now Jefferson County from Pennsylvania, Maryland,
and Virginia. They found it rich in natural resources and scenic beauty, and
they shaped it into an area with a proud cultural heritage, growing industry,
and respect for rural values. Many things in the County have changed over the
years, but most of the old values still remain, passed on from one generation
to the next and from oldtimer to newcomer.
Now we are facing a new
wave of arrivals. They are people who want to escape from the pressures and
problems of the city and, sometimes, from excessive rules and regulations.
Arriving in small numbers, they add new ideas and vitality to the community.
When they arrive in masses, they bring with them the threat that Jefferson
County will become just like the place they left. We cannot turn away people
who want to become part of our way of life. And we cannot, like many of our
ancestors, move further westward when we see the smoke from our neighbor's
chimney. We need to make decisions now that will let us grow and change while
we preserve our values and quality of life. We need a plan.
Past Planning Efforts in
Jefferson County
During the 1950's and
early 1960's, citizens in the County saw the Federal Government acquire Harpers
Ferry and express interest in using the banks of the Shenandoah and Potomac
Rivers for a national parkway. Fifty miles to the east, the Washington metropolitan
area was growing rapidly, as were most major urban areas on the eastern
seaboard, and projections showed that eventually growth would move into
Jefferson County. Citizens saw Dulles Airport as a particular nearby magnet for
some of that growth.
In response to these
events, two groups of concerned citizens began meeting informally. These
citizens felt that it was important for Jefferson County to plan its future
with an emphasis on solving problems at the local level, particularly in light
of the Federal presence in the county. In early 1967, these groups petitioned
the Jefferson County Commission to appoint a planning commission and in March
1967 the first planning commission was selected. It was composed of 11 members,
including two from each magisterial district and one county commissioner.
With the assistant of
Federal funds, the Planning Commission hired a consultant, Michael Baker, Jr.,
Inc. to prepare a Comprehensive Plan in 1968. The plan was to serve as a guide
to future growth in the County. After a series of public hearings, the plan was
submitted to the County Commission. The Comprehensive Plan was formally
adopted in June 1972, along with the County's first Subdivision Ordinance,
which regulated how land was divided into lots. This Ordinance has since been
substantially revised, first in 1973 and again in 1979.
In 1973, the Planning
Commission began preparing a Zoning Plan for the County, following the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. This Zoning Plan was presented to
the citizens through a series of public hearings around the County. In May 1976,
the zoning plan was placed on the ballot for public referendum. The public
decisively defeated the zoning plan by a three‑to‑one majority.
Understanding the
reasons for the defeat of zoning in 1976 is important in initiating a program to
prepare an updated Comprehensive Plan and County planning program. To this
day, the specific reasons are debated. However, there are a few reasons that
are generally accepted.
o The zoning plan document was too complex and was misunderstood,
producing a great deal of misinformation about its potential effects on
property owners.
o Not enough time was taken to educate the public on the zoning
proposal. Meetings that were held were called "hearings," giving
citizens the impression that the zoning ordinance was virtually finalized. This
lack of public understanding caused a great deal of opposition.
o Many residents, newcomers and oldtimers alike, hold dearly to
their right to use their land as they see fit. Zoning was viewed as an
unacceptable infringement of this right.
Despite the defeat of
zoning, the 1972 Comprehensive Plan has proved to be a useful tool over the
years.
In July 1985, the
Jefferson County Planning Commission appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee
to help develop the Comprehensive Plan. The seventeen Committee members were
selected to represent not only the concerns of specific areas in the county but
also broader concerns such as business, agriculture, education, transportation,
public health and safety, land conservation, and historic preservation. Working
independently, with the help of State and County staff, the Committee completed
that task at the end of 1986.
In December of 1986, the
Planning Commission and subsequently the County Commission approved the
Comprehensive Plan which was prepared by this cross section of Jefferson County
citizens. This plan led to the adoption of the Zoning and Development Review
Ordinance adopted in 1988.
THE
BASIS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Why Should We Plan?
Planning is a process we
all undertake. It consists of finding out where you are, where you want to go,
and how to get there. Just as the farmer or businessman must plan activities
that affect him, so should a community plan the activities that affect it. Community
planning gives elected and appointed officials a rational basis for making
their decisions based on what results are desired, what future conditions are
likely to occur, and how various independent actions can relate to each other
and be mutually beneficial.
There are many reasons
for undertaking a planning program in Jefferson County. the most prominent of
these include the following.
Advanced and
comprehensive planning will save money. Careful consideration of the many interrelated
factors of the total community will assure, as much as possible, that every new
development in the county is properly located and properly designed so that it
will not have to be torn up and replaced or moved before it is worn out. Timely
planning can also prevent costly mistakes as to the location of county
facilities and the provision of county services.
A well‑planned and
developed community is more attractive to potential investors and employers. Investors consider it
sound business to plan for their future development, and they look with favor
on communities that use such sound business measures. Employers seek
communities that are pleasant and convenient places for their personnel to
live‑‑communities that have good schools, hospitals, churches,
recreational facilities, etc. Planning efforts can aid in the realization of
these goals.
Farsighted and
innovative planning will preserve natural amenities and enhance property
values.
Good planning, coupled with equitable enforcement of control measures, will
provide a property location for all required uses of land in the county. It
will also prevent undesirable intermingling of conflicting uses of land.
A sound plan that recognizes
current land use and anticipated needs is essential to a smooth‑flowing
transportation system of roads and highways. Transportation may be considered the
link to overall development of the county. Industry, education, health,
recreation, and housing depend on an efficient transportation system for
development and survival.
Planning affords much‑needed
protection of unincorporated portions of the county surrounding existing communities. Much of the new
residential growth in the county is taking place outside the municipal
boundaries. An all‑embracing plan can prevent undesirable and costly
scattered development that becomes a heavy burden to the taxpayers. Such an
effort can prevent the cluttering of the countryside with improperly located
automobile junkyards and other property‑devaluating developments.
How Should We Plan?
Although the specific
process will vary from community to community, there are several basic steps
to the planning process. These are outlined below.
1. Assess community values and identify problems
and opportunities.
2. Determine overall goals and objectives.
3. Collect, update, and analyze information.
4. Compare and choose an alternative plan.
5. Adopt comprehensive plan.
6. Develop alternate implementation tools.
7. Adopt tools.
8. Monitor results and changing conditions.
Comprehensive Plan
Recommendations
It is very important to
note at the beginning of this plan that although there are many
recommendations included, most can only be implemented with the proper
funding mechanisms in place. Without funding these recommendations can only
be prioritized for such time when funding becomes available.
STATEMENT
OF GOALS
The following list of general
goals was prepared to serve as guidelines for the preparation of the Comprehensive
Plan. The following goals are listed randomly, with no particular purpose as
to their order:
o Encourage growth and development in areas where sewer, water,
schools, and other public facilities are available or can be provided without
excessive cost to the community.
o Insure that growth and development are both economically and
environmentally sound.
o Promote the maintenance of an agricultural base in the County at
a level sufficient to insure the continued viability of farming.
o Encourage and support commercial, industrial, and agricultural
activities to provide a healthy, diversified, and sound local economy.
o Promote the conservation of the natural, cultural, and historical
resources and preserve the County's scenic beauty.
o Advocate the maintenance and improvement of the transportation
system so that people and goods can move safely and efficiently throughout the
County.
o Provide safe, sound, decent housing for all residents of the County.
o Give citizens a chance to affect the course of planning activities,
land development, and public investment in Jefferson County.
o Establish a planning framework within which the various conflicting
activities and objectives can coexist, while providing logical, continuing, and
farsighted guidance for the future of the community.
o Support and defend private property rights while insuring overall
public health, safety, and general welfare.
ORGANIZATION
OF THE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan
has been organized in three parts. Part A consists of the introduction which
describes the reasons and basis for planning. Part B contains three sections on
demographics, housing and economic development, and includes an analysis of
data, primarily from the U.S. Bureau of Census, in each of these areas. These
sections provide much of the basic information upon which the second part was
prepared.
Part III is comprised of
background information, analysis, and recommendations to address the major
trends and problems affecting the County. This part is broken into ten
sections based on topic and includes; Transportation, Education, Water
Resources, Wastewater Treatment, Solid Waste Disposal, Emergency Services,
Parks, Recreation, Culture and Arts, Historic Preservation, Natural Resources
and land use sections on Agriculture, Industrial and Commercial, and
Residential Development. Additional background information on each of these
areas is available for viewing in the Jefferson County Planning Commission
office.
PART II
Introduction
This element of the
Comprehensive Plan analyzes trends and characteristics of past and current populations
and presents projections of future population growth.
POPULATION
GROWTH
U. S. Census population
statistics for Jefferson County from 1900 to 1990 are plotted on Figure 1.
During the first half of
this century, the population of Jefferson County ranged between 16,000 and
17,000 people. Beginning in the 1950's the population of the county began to
grow. Between 1960 and 1970 the County's population increased from 18,665 to
21,280 residents, an increase of only 14.5%. Between 1970 and 1980 population
went to 30,302, an increase of 42.3%, and between 1980 and 1990 an increase of
18.6% brought the figure up to 35,926.
Jefferson County is part
of the Washington Metropolitan Fringe as defined by the Greater Washington
Research Center. Growth in the County is influenced by what is happening in the
Washington Metropolitan Region as a whole. The Greater Washington Research
Center has pointed out the following things about growth in the region:
1. "Jurisdictions on the fringe (such as Jefferson
County, that still are not officially part of the metropolitan area had seemed
to be taking off in the 1970's; yet their growth in the 1980's was surprisingly
modest."
2. "Future growth is likely to go primarily
where the housing is most affordable."
3. During the 1970's "'Sewer moratoria'
were imposed in both the Maryland and Virginia suburbs to allow infrastructure
development to catch up with the needs created by the rapid growth of the
1960's." "The growth occurred anyway, but it took place in
jurisdictions one or two tiers farther from the center." "The 1990's
could see that history repeated."
4. "Growth patterns turned inside‑out
in the 1980's. The inner suburban jurisdictions gained far more than in the
previous decade, while growth in the suburbs farther out either slowed or
increased only moderately. And population increase in most of the fringe
jurisdictions was, surprisingly, slower in percentage terms‑‑and
in a couple of cases in numbers as well‑than during the preceding decade."
5. A significant part of the 1980's growth in
the Metropolitan Washington area "was accommodated through in‑filling‑‑building
homes and apartments, most often townhouses and low‑rise structures, on
relatively small undeveloped plots of land in heavily‑developed areas.
Many of these were inside the Beltway, in parts of Northwest Washington,
Bethesda, Silver Spring, Arlington, and Alexandria. High‑priced homes
were usually built on these lots for sale to an affluent market, and the demand
for them clearly existed, for a time at least. Many were occupied as soon as
they were completed. But this market was decidedly limited, and by the end of
the decade it was clear that it was becoming saturated."
6. "During the 1990's, the growth seems
likely to go where the housing is most affordable. For the near term, that
seems likely to include Prince George's. Both immediately and over the longer
run, it means that growth will also tend to favor the outlying counties where
it was less vigorous than expected during the 1980's. The probably result? A
return to the pattern of the 1970's, with growth occurring mainly on the
fringes, and the area becoming even more sprawling than before."
Population increases are
a result of two major factors: natural increase and migration. Natural increase
is due to a greater number of births versus the number of deaths. In Jefferson
County, between 1980 and 1990, there were 5,028 births and 2,933 deaths,
providing a natural increase of 2,095 people. This natural increase accounted
for 37.3% of the overall population growth in the county during the 1980's.
During the 1970's natural increase only accounted for 13.6% of overall growth.
The second factor which has
contributed to the county's growth has been the migration of people into the
County. To calculate the migration over the 1980 ‑ 1990 period, the
natural increase is subtracted from the difference in population for the
period. Although this does not consider annual shifts or migration out of the
County between census years, it does provide the general magnitude of net
migration to the County. Using this method, migration accounted for 3,529
persons in the County between 1980 and 1990, or approximately 353 people
annually. Compared with the decade of the 1970's, immigration has declined
from 86.4% to 62.7% of total growth and total growth as a percentage of the
1970 population figure has declined from 42.4% in the 70's to 26.4% in the
80's.
The Internal Revenue
Service maintains migration data based on exemptions claimed and changes of
address. Between 1980 and 1990 an analysis by the Planning Commission Staff
showed an estimated net migration was about 3524). The IRS data for the period
between 1981 and 1982 showed a negative net migration of approximately 480
persons. Building permits hit a low for the decade at approximately the same
time. However, in all other years during the 1980's the net migration reflected
an inflow. And in the later half of the decade the average annual net migration
was approximately 630 persons per year.
Table 1 shows the
increase in the number of individuals residing outside the county and state
five years prior to the 1970, 1980 and 1990 Census. Also shown in this table is
the birth place of County residents.
Table 1 PLACE OF BIRTH
AND RESIDENTS FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE CENSUS FOR 1970, 1980 AND 1990
% of %
of % of
Place of Birth 1970 Total 1980 Total 1990 Total
West Virginia 14812 69.6 16593 54.8 16992 47.3
Other State 5444 25.6 13099 43.2 18337 51.1
Foreign Born 54 0.3 480 1.6 597 1.6
Other 818 3.8 130 0.4
Total 21128 99.3 30302 100.0 35926 100.0
Residence 5 Years Before
Census
Same House 10921 51.3 15470 51.1 18124 50.45
Same County 4062 19.1 5343 17.6 6907 19.22
OtherWV County 978 4.6 1014 3.3 1648 4.58
Other State 2517 11.8 5794 19.1 6549 18.22
Abroad 33 0.2 393 1.3 179 .4
Total 18511 87.0 28014 92.4 33407 92.9
Total population 21280 30302 35926
Source: 1970, 1980 and
1990 U. S. Bureau of the Census [[apparent typos or preliminary data: 1990
Census now shows born in WV 16699 46.5%, other state 18454 51.4%, other (born
abroad of US parents) 176 0.5%; 1970 total population 21280, of which
foreign born 152, other 54, not reported 818]]
The only clear trend
shown on Table 1 is that the percentage of County residents that are native
West Virginians has declined from a substantial majority (69.9%) to a minority
(47.3%). In actual numbers West Virginia‑born residents have gone from
14,812 to 16,992, whereas the number of persons born elsewhere has gone from
6,316 to 18,934. This probably reflects growth and expansion coming from the
metropolitan areas and from the counties in Maryland and Virginia.
One of the most
significant changes created by the increased growth has been its distribution
in the County. Unlike the period from 1900 to 1950 when the incorporated areas
(with the exception of Harpers Ferry) grew more rapidly than the
unincorporated areas, most of the growth since 1960 occurred outside the
incorporated areas. These areas grew 110% while the incorporated areas as a
whole only increased by 4.3% during the 70's and 80's. As of 1990, 76% of the
total county population lived in unincorporated areas, as opposed to 57% in
1960. The specific population counts as well as the percentage increase for the
period from 1960 to 1990 are shown in Table 2. From this table one can get a
sense of the general distribution of growth among the magisterial districts in
the county through 1980. Unfortunately, the U. S. Bureau of the Census used
different district boundaries in 1990. Map 1 shows the Tax District boundaries
which remained constant during the study period.
Table 2 POPULATION
CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1990 BY JURISDICTION
Incorporated %Change
Areas 1960 1970 1980 1990 80‑90 60‑90
Bolivar 754 943 672 1013 50.7 34.3
Charles Town 3329 3023 2857 3122 9.3 ‑6.2
Harpers Ferry 572 423 361 308 ‑14.7 ‑46.2
Ranson 1974 2189 2471 2890 17.0 46.4
Shepherdstown 1328 1688 1791 1287 ‑28.1 ‑3.1
Total 5957 8266 8152 8620 +5.7 8.3
% Incorporated
Areas 43 39 27 24
Unincorporated Areas by
Census District
Charles Town 3426 4782 7287 6101* ** **
Harpers Ferry 2087 2206 3904 8676* ** **
Kabletown 1609 1739 2657 7115* ** **
Middleway 1894 2264 4941 6649* ** **
Shepherdstown 1692 2023 3361 7385* ** **
Total 10708 13014 22150 35926
% Unincorporated
Areas 57 61 73 76
*Boundaries of districts have changed from
1980.
**Due to boundary
changes, comparisons between census years would be meaningless.
Age
and Sex Distribution
The median age of the
County's population has increased from 27.1 in 1970 to 29.1 in 1980 and thence
to 32.7 in 1990. This trend can be attributed to the following three factors:
1. Aging of the "baby Boom" generation
(those born between 1945 and 1960).
2. Increased average length of life.
3. Lower fertility rates.
The median age is not as
high as the State average or the national average. This probably is due to one
characteristic of the Washington Region; that is, that this region attracts
enough young people to keep the median average somewhat lower. Unemployment in
the Region has remained low relative to national averages, thus creating an
attraction for young people from areas with less economic vitality.
Table 3 shows the
changes in population groupings by sex between 1970 and 1990.
Table 3 POPULATION
CHANGES BY AGE AND SEX 1970‑1990
% Change
Age 1970 1980 1990 70‑80 80‑90 70‑90
0‑17 Male 3599 4625 4784 28.5 3.4 32.9
Female 3501 4290 4411 22.5 2.8 26.0
Total 7100 8915 9195 25.6 3.1 29.5
18‑44 Male 3792 6290 7754 65.9 23.3 104.5
Female 3975 6296 8067 58.4 28.1 102.9
Total 7767 12586 15821 62.0 25.7 103.7
45‑64 Male 2223 2760 3441 24.2 24.7 54.8
Female 2265 2971 3366 31.2 14.0 48.6
Total 4488 5731 6807 27.7 18.8 51.7
65+ Male 827 1364 1710 64.9 25.4 106.8
Female 1098 1706 2393 55.4 40.3 117.9
Total 1925 3070 4103 59.5 33.6 113.1
Total Male 10441 15039 17689 44.0 17.6 69.4
Female 10839 15263 18237 40.8 19.5 68.3
Total 21280 30302 35926 42.4 18.6 68.8
These data indicate a
low fertility rate during the 1980's relative to the number of females in the
18‑44 group. In 1970 the proportion of persons between ages 0‑17 to
female 18‑44 was 1.786. By 1990 this had dropped to 1.140. School
enrollment during the 1980's also reflects this situation. Total enrollment in
Jefferson County public schools was 6239. In 1990 it was 6343, and increase of
1.7%, or essentially unchanged. In 1993 enrollment had only risen another 53
students to 6396.
From the figures above, it
can also be seen that the percentage of residents aged 65 and over has also
increased. This group increased more than any other between 1970 and 1990.
From 1970 to 1980 the increase was 59.5%. Between 1980 and 1990 the increase
was 33.6%. From 1970 to 1990 it was 113.3%.
The 1986 Comprehensive
Plan contained the opinion that "the migration of the baby boom
generation" would result in a "demand for smaller, affordable
housing" and an increase in the number of pre‑school and school aged
children. On the other hand the 1986 Plan suggested that "with more women
and couples remaining childless, and fewer children per family, this trend
should be monitored carefully over the next few years to confirm this
trend." The Plan also suggested that "the migration of retired
citizens can be expected to place greater demand on health care systems in the
County as well as senior citizen housing facilities and nursing home
facilities."
Current data suggests
that other than a minor boomlet the baby boom generation is not replacing
itself at rates that will place much pressure on schools. The minor 3.1%
increase between 1980 and 1990 suggests that the people who caused the 25.7%
increase in the 18 to 44 year old group didn't bring many children with them
and haven't had many since they arrived. An in another five to ten years the
reproductive capacity of the baby boom generation will have passed and been
replaced by a smaller group which, if it continues low fertility rates, could
result in a leveling or decrease in school age population.
The increases in the 65+
year old group expressed in numbers of people have been 1145 and 1033 for the
1970‑80 and 1980‑90 periods, respectively. These numbers indicate a
relatively steady increase in retirement age County residents. This is a
reasonable supposition because retirees generally are not as affected by economic
swings. Their decisions to move to Jefferson County probably are based on low
taxes, natural features such as the rivers and the mountain, and the generally
rural nature of the County. Hence, it would be reasonable to assume that during
the 90's the same steady population increase in this age group would continue.
Households, Families and
Marital Status
Changes in households,
families and marital status provide an indication of the social structure in
the County. Family household and householder are defined by the Bureau of the
Census as follows:
1. Family ‑‑ "a householder and
one or more persons living in the same household who are related to the householder
by birth, marriage, or adoption. The Census Bureau counts only one family per
household, however, not all households contain families since a household may
be made up of a group of unrelated persons or one person living alone."
2. Household ‑‑ "all the people
who occupy a housing unit. A household may consist of one person or many
people, as long as they occupy the same housing unit."
3. Householder ‑‑ "Usually this
indicates the person or one of the people in whose name the home is owned,
being bought, or rented. Classification of a person as the householder was
based upon responses given on the census form, therefore, the householder may
not be the "head" of the household. If there were no responses to
this question any household member 15 years of age or older could have been
designated as householder by the Census Bureau. Other persons in the household
are classified according to their relationship to the householder."
The total number of
households in the County increased 57% between 1970 and 1980 from 6374 to 9980.
Between 1980 and 1990 the number increased to 12,914. The number of families
for 1970, 1980 and 1990 was 5304, 7883 and 9487, respectively. These numbers as
a percentage of all households were 83%, 78% and 73% for the years, 1970, 1980
and 1990, thus showing a declining trend. Table 45 presents marital status
trends from 1970 to 1990.
Table 4 MARITAL STATUS
FOR 1970, 1980 AND 1990 PERSONS 15 YEARS AND OVER
% of %
of % of
Status 1970 Total 1980 Total 1990 Total
Single 4146 26.0 5981 25.9 7126 25.1
Married 9892 62.1 13679 59.3 16328 57.7
Separated 212 1.3 350 1.5 501 1.8
Widowed 1247 7.8 1685 7.3 2001 7.1
Divorced 428 2.7 1379 6.0 2351 8.3
Total 15925 100.0 23074 100.0 28307 100.0
Source: 1970, 1980 &
1990 U. S. Bureau of the Census
Another area affected by
these trends in households, families and marital status is the number of people
residing in family and non‑family households. The average number of
people per household has declined from 3.2 (1970) to 2.9 (1980) to 2.68
(1990). Family household size has also decreased over the same census periods
from 3.6 to 3.4 to 3.13 persons per household, due to the decline in the number
of children per family. This decline in overall household size has and is
expected to continue to have a major impact on the demand for additional
housing units. Simply put, a greater number of housing units will be required
to accommodate the same number of people. However, this logic also suggests
that future housing units need not be as large as when households were larger.
Education
The educational
achievement of Jefferson County residents followed national trends during the
1970's and 1980's, with more people completing their high school education. The
percentage of high school graduates, as shown in Table 56 below, increased from
42% to 57% to 68.2% of all persons 25 years and older between 1970, 1980 and
1990. This generally reflects a higher level of educational achievement of
residents within the county as well as higher levels of education of those
individuals who have migrated into the county.
Educational levels of a
population influence the decisions of industries that are looking at Jefferson
County as a candidate for locating a new facility. Obviously high technology
industry seeks a population that either is educated or shows evidence of
technical aptitude. On the other hand, low technology industry seeks a population
that is generally under employed, has a good work ethic and would be
appreciative of a modest wage. Such populations often correlate with being
under‑educated also. These factors in turn affect the demand for various
types of residential growth‑‑for example, high‑end versus
affordable or high versus low density. The County's land use policy can either
be flexible enough to accommodate the demands of these market decisions or be
rigid in order to attempt to control these decisions and hence either meet the
needs of the existing populations or force shifts in the character of the
population.
Table 5 YEARS OF SCHOOL
COMPLETED BY RESIDENTS 25 AND OLDER FOR 1970, 1980 AND 1990
Years of School % of % of %
of
Completed 1970 Total 1980 Total 1990 Total
Elementary:
1‑4 Yrs. 953 8.6 876 5.1)
5‑7 Yrs. 1766 15.8 2086 12.1) 2861 12.8
8 Yrs. 1654 14.8 1710 9.9)
High School:
1‑3 Yrs. 2123 19.1 2776 16.1 4234 19.0
4 Yrs. 2630 23.6 5211 30.3 7522 33.7
College:
1‑3 Yrs. 855 7.7 1757 10.2 3391 15.2
4+ Yrs. 1163 10.4 2801 16.3 4299 19.3
Total 11144 100.0 17217 100.0 22307 100.0
% High School Grads 41.7 56.7 68.2
Source: 1970, 1980, 1990
U. S. Bureau of the Census
Income and Poverty
The median income of
families in the County, as shown in Table 6, increased from $7,721 to $17,577
to $34,887 between 1970, 1980 and 1990. After adjusting for inflation using the
Consumer Price Index, the actual median family income increased 9.5% between
1970 and 1980. Between 1980 and 1990 the adjusted percent change was 25.1%.
These figures are better
than the State median but slightly less than the national figure of $35,225.
Table 6 provides a breakdown by income group from the last three Census
reports.
Table 6 INCOME OF
FAMILIES FOR 1970, 1980 AND 1990
% of % of %
of
Income 1970 Total 1980 Total 1990 Total
Less than $5,000 1470 27.7 551 7.0 210 2.2
$5,000‑$7,499 1093 20.6 530 6.7)
$7,500‑$9,999 1060 20.0 733 9.3) 563 6.0
$10,000‑$14,999 1074 20.2 1335 16.9 761 8.0
$15,000‑$24,999 473 8.9 2568 32.6 1476 15.6
$25,000‑$49,000 121 2.3 1950 24.7 4002 42.3
$50,000 or more 13 0.2 216 2.7 2445 25.9
Total 5304 7883 9457
Median Income ($) 7721 17577 34887
Mean Income ($) 8710 19906 39990+
Per Capita Income ($) 2400 6139 13249
Source: 1970, 1980 and
1990 U. S. Bureau of the Census
Changes in the median
income of families could be the result of the following factors:
1. Increase in percentage of persons employed in
white‑collar occupations from 39.3% in 1970 to 49.1% in 1990.
2. Increase in the number of families with two
or more earners.
Another measure of the overall
economic well being is the extent of poverty in the community. Poverty for a
non‑farm family of four was $3,745 in 1969, $7,412 in 1979 and $16,850 in
1992. In Jefferson County, the number of people with incomes below the poverty
level rose from 3582 residents in 1969 to 3881 in 1979, then declined to 3670
in 1989. This is a decrease of 5.5% from 1979 to 1989.
POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
Population projections
have been prepared by the Regional Research Institute of West Virginia
University (RRI/WVU) and the Jefferson County Planning Commission staff. The
WVU projections contain two scenarios. Series M is based on current rates of
birth, survival and migration whereas Series A is based on long term averages
which portend more growth than current averages.
The Jefferson County
Planning Commission staff projections are predicated on assumptions that (1)
long‑term trends in dwelling unit construction will continue, (2) persons
per dwelling unit will continue to decline and (3) fluctuations will occur due
to economic cycles. Appendix A contains the development of these assumptions.
The three projections
plus an average of the three are presented below in Table 7. They are also
plotted on Figure 1.
Table 7 POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
Projections Series 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Regional Research
Institute
Series M 38,806 41,457 43,844 45,904 47,612 48,968
Series A 39,163 42,137 44,831 47,178 49,120 50,671
JCPC 39,994 44,121 48,391 52,874 57,770 63,101
Average 39,321 42,571 45,688 48,652 51,500 54,247
Source: Regional
Research Institute, "West Virginia Population Projections by County, Age
and Sex, 1990‑2020", West Virginia University, July, 1992.
In the original
Comprehensive Plan a population projection of 50,000 was used for the year
2000. This number exceeds all of the above projections. In 1991 and 1992,
permits were obtained for 411 and 406 dwelling units, respectively. During the
first six months of 1993 permits for 194 new dwelling units were issued. These
numbers suggest that the Planning Commission projection, although higher than
those of the RRI/WVU, may not be far from the actual trend. However, the
average of the three projection series is used throughout the rest of this
document as the basis for computing population related needs.
The growth of the 1980's
was not reflected in school enrollments, which remained essentially unchanged.
This suggests that this growth came from immigration of households with no
school‑age children‑‑perhaps primarily retirees. Unless the
County experiences an increase in middle‑class salary jobs, the type of
growth probably will continue to be the same. On the other hand, if employers
of middle‑class workers move to the County, a greater influx of households
with children could be expected. In the 1970's and early 1980's property values
were substantially less than the Washington Metropolitan area. During the late
1980's this gap closed significantly although not completely. Land costs in
Jefferson County still are less than in the Washington Metropolitan area but
not to the extent as in the previous decade.
Increased employment
opportunities for current County residents in adjoining Berkeley and
Washington Counties are taking up some of the slack created by the loss of
major Jefferson County employers such as Dixie‑Narco. But these
employment opportunities may not result in many new County residences because
the natural tendency of new workers is to locate either near the job or in a
direction away from the metropolitan area. On the other hand, employment
growth in Frederick County, Maryland, could generate some residential growth
in Jefferson County if the differentials in home purchase prices and taxes
remain significant. However, future employment growth in Frederick County and
other parts of Maryland may not be at the level experienced during the 1980's
due to a perceived negative business environment created by new tax increased
on top of existing high tax levels.
The conclusion can be
drawn that the impact of external employment opportunities does not appear to
be changing and is not likely to change significantly. the most likely source
of new employment will be new industry in the County. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is constructing a training center north of Shepherdstown. This
is an example of one type of employment growth, that is, decentralization of
Federal offices. Another type is the employment that the Burr Industrial Park
would attract. In both cases, though, there is no basis for projecting trends.
With regard to Federal agency moves, these are unpredictable and are subject to
the political breezes. The Industrial Park is in its infancy. However, it
appears that the new industries have begun to be attracted here due to
availability of an inexpensive and hard working existing labor force and ready‑to‑use,
competitively priced industrial lots. This may mean minimal immigration as the
work force for these industries currently reside in the County. On the other
hand, the question remains as to how much industry will be attracted due to a
desire to relocate a technically sophisticated, well‑paid staff to an
area with country aesthetics and lower taxes. This could result in substantial
immigration. Until these patterns have been established, the projections presented
will suffice. Perhaps by the next Comprehensive Plan update these trends can be
considered.
Population growth is not
forecast to be as vigorous as was projected in the 1986 Comprehensive Plan,
but could reach between 43,500 and 48,500 by 2005. The value, 46,000, will be
used for analysis purposes.
Introduction
This chapter is based on
the "Housing Analysis, Eastern Panhandle Counties of Berkeley, Jefferson
and Morgan" published in January, 1992 by the West Virginia Housing Development
Fund and information from the U. S. Bureau of the Census and data analyses by
Jefferson County personnel. The data presented includes characteristics of
households, characteristics of housing and an assessment of the specific
issues of substandard housing and affordable housing.
Table 8 POPULATION ‑
HOUSEHOLDS
Residing in Persons
Group House- Per House‑
Total Quarters hold Household holds
Actual 1970 21,280 800 20,480 3.21 6,374
Actual 1980 30,302 1,487 28,815 2.89 9,980
Actual 1990 35,926 1,362 34,564 2.68 12,914
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census
Table 9 PERIODIC CHANGE
IN HOUSEHOLDS
Year Total Annual
Average
1970‑1980 3,606 361
1980‑1990 2,934 293
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census
Existing Housing Profile
In 1990, according to
the U.S. Bureau of the Census, there were 14,606 housing units in the County.
This number breaks down as shown in Table 10.
Table 10 HOUSING PROFILE
‑ 1990
Category Number Rate %of
Total Units
Occupied housing units 12,914 88.4
Owner occupied 9,286 71.9
Renter occupied 3,628 24.8
Vacant housing units 1,692 11.6
For seasonal, recreation
orr occasional use
628 4.3
Home owner Vacancy Rate 2.7
Rental Vacancy Rate 6.2
Persons per owner‑occupied
unit 2.75
Persons per renter‑occupied
unit 2.48
Units with over 1 person
per room
330 2.3
By Voting District
Charles Town 2,654 18.2
Harpers Ferry 3,726 25.5
Kabletown 3,051 20.9
Middleway 2,411 16.5
Shepherdstown 2,764 18.9
Total 14,606
Source: U. S. Bureau of
the Census, 1990
Changes in the Housing
Profile
The number of housing
units according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census has grown as follows:
Total Number in 1970 7,411
Increase during the
1970's 4,131
Total Number in 1980 11,542
% increase from 1970 to
1980 55.7%
Increase during the
1980's 3,064
Total Number in 1990 14,606
% increase from 1980 to
1990 26.5%
During the 1980's
population increased by 18.5%. During the 1970's the increase in the number of
housing units outpaced population growth by 55.7% to 42.4%. During the 1980's
this continued to be true (26.5% versus 18.6%) although both percentages were
less than those of the 1970's. This trend is consistent with regional and
national trends and is related to a declining number of persons per household.
Of the total housing units 10,997 were located outside of the incorporated
areas of the County. These areas experienced substantial growth during the
1970's and 1980's.
Table 11 INCORPORATED
AND UNINCORPORATED HOUSING GROWTH
1970 Per- 1980 Per- 1990 Per-
Units rcent Units cent Units cent
Incorporated 2,640 35.7 2,962 25.7 3,609 24.7
Unincorporated 4,762 64.3 8,580 74.3 10,997 75.3
County Total 7,411 11,542 14,606
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1970, 1980 and
1990
Trends in housing
occupancy rates from 1970 to 1980 to 1990 are as shown below.
Table 12 TRENDS IN
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
1970 1980 1990
Total Occupancy Rate 90.4% 88.4%
Owner Occupied
Rate(1976) 64.0% 74.1% 71.9%
Home Owner Vacancy Rate 1.8% 2.7%
Renter Vacancy Rate 3.8% 6.2%
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census
The next three tables
provide profiles of the type of housing structure. Table 13 compares total
inventories in 1970, 1980 and 1990. And Table 14 shows the building permit
(Improvement Location Permit) activity from 1980 through 1990.
Table 13 HOUSING
STRUCTURE
1970 Per- 1980 Per- 1990 Per-
Units cent Units cent Units cent
Single Family 5749 79.4 8493 76.5 10566 72.3
Multi‑Family 695 9.6 1344 12.1 1781 12.2
Mobile Homes 799 11.0 1261 11.4 2077 14.2
Other ‑
‑ ‑ ‑ 182 1.3
Total 7243 11098 14606
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
These figures indicate
that the housing unit mix is changing in the direction of the lower cost
housing. This may be related to increases in costs of single family houses.
Table 14 provides actual numbers of permits for the various types of housing
going back to the year 1980.
Table 14 BUILDING
PERMITS
Single Family Apart- Total
De- At- Mobile ment Dwelling
Year tached tached Homes Units Units
1980 143 0 39 2 184
1981 155 0 48 5 208
1982 112 0 30 17 159
1983 103 0 29 82 214
1984 124 31 26 88 269
1985 136 24 40 64 264
1986 189 16 37 16 258
1987 256 12 38 80 386
1988 270 22 42 20 354
1989 370 25 68 4 467
1990 367 21 103 0 491
1991 284 18 66 24 392
1992 331 12 63 0 406
Total 4052
Plus Estimated Municipal
Permits 1000
Total residential
permits ‑‑ 1980‑1992 5052
Source: Jefferson County Planning Commission
Housing Costs
The West Virginia
Housing Development Fund has evaluated housing costs in the Panhandle. Tables
15, 16, and 17 are taken from their study.
Table 15 MEDIAN VALUE,
ALL HOUSING SALES PANHANDLE & SURROUNDING COUNTIES January 1, 1991 ‑
December 31, 1991
Mean Mean Median
Total Average Average Average
Units Sale
Per Days on Sales
County Sold Month Market Price
Berkeley 309 26 165 $ 89,853
Jefferson 218 18 180 $112,435
Morgan 43 4 233 $ 64,584
Frederick, Va. 450 39 N/A $107,112
Washington,Md. 901 76 144 $ 94,662
Frederick, Md. 1347 112 N/A $134,918
Sources: Eastern
Panhandle Board of Realtors, Greater Hagerstown Association of Realtors, Blue
Ridge Board of Realtors, Frederick Co., Md. Board of Realtors
Other Median Housing
Prices, 1990
Montgomery Co., Md. (All
Housing, 1990) $167,620
Fairfax Co., Va. (4th
Quarter, 1990)
Single Family Detached $342,460
Town Houses $177,460
Loudoun Co., Va. (All
Housing, 1st Quarter, 1991) $147,333
"Median house
prices and number of units sold were derived from the Board of Realtors
Multiple List Service. The Board of Realtors in the Eastern Panhandle indicates
that many realtors do not report the units sold. Further, builders do not
always use realtors in selling new homes. Consequently, the numbers of units
presented above are not absolute, but should be regarded as a representative
sampling of real estate sales in this area."
The Jefferson County
Planning Commission when receiving Improvement Location Permit (ILP)
applications requests applicants to provide an estimate of the value of the
structure to be built. Table 16 shows the mean average of these estimated
values for each year from 1980 to 1992.
Table 16 ESTIMATED
VALUES OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES JEFFERSON COUNTY
Estimated Value
Year S.F.Detached S.F.Attached Mobile Homes
1980 $50,770 No. Data $
8,840
1981 49,110 " " 6,920
1982 39,750 " " 8,690
1983 45,300 " " 9,300
1984 45,960 $34,730 8,240
1985 54,040 36,880 10,100
1986 65,130 52,500 12,280
1987 66,510 54,830 12,350
1988 74,290 52,860 16,840
1989 91,200 56,620 14,070
1990 91,980 54,450 15,700
1991 82,825 81,111 13,795
1992 82,843 97,667 14,713
Source: Jefferson County Planning Commission
These figures do not
include land costs, and are self‑reported by applicants. However, over
the period 1980 to 1990 the estimated values increased by 81%, 57% (1984‑1990),
and 78% for single family detached, single family attached and mobile homes,
respectively. In 1991 and 1992 the trends changed. The possible reasons for
these changes are as follows:
1. Recessionary pressure lowed construction
costs.
2. Decreased demand for single family detached
houses forced rices down.
3. High‑end single family attached units
outpaced more moderately priced items.
4. The number of permits for single family
attached housing was too small for statistical significance.
5. The variation in mobile home values is within
an acceptable variation and does not have significance as a trend.
Table 17 MEDIAN VALUE,
OWNER‑OCCUPIED UNITS, 1990
1980 1990 Change
State of WV 38,500 47,900 +24.4%
Berkeley County 43,200 70,600 +63.4%
Jefferson County 44,600 84,100 +88.6%
Morgan County 35,000 61,900 +76.9%
Source: The West
Virginia Housing Development Fund, "Housing Analysis, Eastern Panhandle
Counties of Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan", January 1992
Table 17 is consistent
with the estimates on Table 16; that is, that housing unit values in the
Panhandle in general and in Jefferson County, specifically, have increased
significantly. Higher values mean higher purchase prices which, in turn, have
made it less possible for some local residents to afford home ownership. This
pressure has caused more demand for rental properties with an even higher
percentage change in contract rents as shown in Table 18.
Table 18 CONTRACT RENTS
(Monthly)
1980 1990
Median Median Change
West Virginia $136 $221 +$ 85 + 62.5%
Berkeley County $130 $284 +$154 +118.5%
Jefferson County $135 $294 +$159 +117.8%
Morgan County $107 $217 +$110 +102.8%
Source: Ibid.
Rents tended to increase
most in 1989 and 1990 due to a very limited supply. Emphasis on the single family
houses dominated the market during the 1980's. However, during the early 1990's
there has been an appearance of increased interest among some developers in
providing rental apartment units.
Substandard Housing
Substandard housing has
traditionally been defined as housing which lacks complete plumbing and is overcrowded.
Complete plumbing facilities means that a housing unit has a flush toilet, bathtub
or shower, and a wash basin with piped hot and cold water for the exclusive use
of the occupants of the housing units. Overcrowding is defined as having more
than 1.01 persons per room in a household, excluding kitchens and bathrooms.
Table 19 shows that
Jefferson County has a higher rate of housing units lacking complete plumbing,
and a higher rate of overcrowded housing units than the averages for the
State. In both areas, rental substandard housing is higher than owner occupied
substandard housing. the highest concentrations of housing lacking plumbing
facilities occurs in the Kabletown and Harpers Ferry Districts, while
overcrowding is highest in the Charles Town and Middleway Districts. The
Shepherdstown District had the lowest percentages of substandard housing in the
County, and lower figures than the State average.
Substandard housing units
having both overcrowding and lack of complete plumbing make up only 0.2% of the
total occupied housing units. All of these were renter occupied units.
Table 19 SUBSTANDARD
HOUSING 1980 to 1990
1980 Percent
of 1990 Percent of
Category Number Category Number Category
Occupied Housing Units
Lacking Complete Plumbing
Renter 374 14.5 132 3.6
Owner 282 3.8 87 0.9
Total 656 6.6 219 1.7
Occupied Housing Units
with 1.01+ Persons Per Room
Renter 211 8.2 167 4.6
Owner 272 3.7 163 1.8
Total 483 4.8 330 2.6
Total Occupied
Substandard Units
102 10.2 443 3.4
Sources: U. S. Bureau of
the Census
The substandard housing
breakdown is presented in Table 19 above. the figures indicate that 443 of the
housing units overall are substandard, down from 1020 in 1980. Of these units
106 were both overcrowded and lacked complete plumbing.
Comparing 1990 with 1980
it is apparent that the proportion of crowded units to total units is
declining.
The State determination
of substandard housing includes an added element not included in the HUD
determination. Besides the standards for plumbing and overcrowdedness, the
State standards include central heating. These standards are applied to low
income families and to elderly people, those that are forced by financial
constraints to reside in substandard housing, to determine the number of
standard housing units required to fulfill the area's need. Those with the
financial means to afford good housing, but that are living in substandard
housing, are assumed to be there by choice, and are therefore not considered in
the housing need category. In Table 20 below is information on the county's
housing needs as determined by the Eastern Panhandle Regional Planning and
Development Council based on the State's standards for substandardness.
Table 20 HOUSING NEEDS
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY BASED ON ASSESSMENT OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Elderly Small Family Large Family
Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Total
1980 154 277 189 1155 68 188 2031
1990 * * * * * * *
*Not available at time
of publication
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census
Age of Housing Units
In regard to the age of
the housing units in Jefferson County, 11,707, or 80.2 percent of the total
housing units have been built since 1940. Table 21 shows that 4,237, or 29.0
percent, of the County's housing units were built between 1980 and 1990.
Table 21 AGE OF YEAR
ROUND HOUSING UNITS
Per- Cumulative
Year Units Built Units cent Units Percent
1989‑1990 628 4.3 627 4.3
1985‑1988 1959 13.4 2598 17.7
1980‑1984 1650 11.3 4237 29.0
1970‑1979 3982 27.3 8219 56.3
1960‑1969 1813 12.4 10032 68.7
1950‑1959 1045 7.2 11077 75.9
1940‑1949 630 4.3 11707 80.2
1939 and earlier 2899 19.8 14606 100.0
Total 14606 100.0
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Rooms and Persons per
Room
The mean number of rooms
per housing unit in the County is 5.8, with 2.46 persons per unit, and a mean
household size of 2.68. Shepherdstown has a mean household size, 2.27, below
the mean size for the County. This is, in part, due to the non‑family
college student population in that district. A profile of persons per household
is shown in Table 22.
Table 22 PROFILE OF
HOUSEHOLD 1980 versus 1990
1980 Per- 1990 Per-
Number cent Number cent
One Person Households 1861 18.6 2776 20.5
Two Person + Households 7760 77.8 10138 74.7
Non‑Family
Households 359 3.6 651 4.8
Total 9980 100.0 13565 100.0
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census
In addition to the
information on Table 22, married couples make up 60.0 percent of the total
households. Male householders (with no wife present) make up 3.7% of the
households while female householders (no husband present) make up 9.5% of the
households. A large part of the discrepancy in the number of female householders
over male householders may be due to the longer life expectancy of women. Many
of the female householders may be elderly widows.
Facilities and Services
Table 23 shows the
number of housing units in Jefferson County by water and sewer sources. Just
over 50 percent of the total units are on public or private centralized water
systems, and 40 percent are on public sewer systems. In contrast, 44% of the
units rely on private wells and 58% of the County's housing units rely on
septic tank sewer systems.
Table 23 SOURCE OF SEWER
AND WATER 1980 versus 1990
1980 Per- 1990 Per-
Source of Water Number cent Number cent
Central System 5649 50.9 7384 50.6
Drilled Well 4444 40.0 6390 43.7
Dug Well 271 2.4 408 2.8
Other 734 6.5 424 2.9
Total 11098 100.0 14606 100.0
Source of Sewer
Central Sewer 3670 33.1 5906 40.4
Septic Tank 6743 60.8 8486 58.1
Other 685 6.2 214 1.5
Total 11098 100.0 14606 100.0
Source: Ibid
Housing Assistance
Public involvement in
providing housing opportunities for individuals of low and moderate income has
been limited in Jefferson County. Rental assistance and subsidies have been
provided for 85 units in the county, which are administered by the Martinsburg
Housing Authority. In addition, since 1980 over 230 rental units for moderate
income individuals and families have been constructed around the county,
including 34 units in Bolivar. These units have been built with the assistance
of long term low interest loan guarantees from Farmer's Home Administration
and do not involve any direct rent subsidies.
The municipalities have
also undertaken programs to improve existing housing stock in the incorporated
areas using funds from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Through grants and low interest loans for housing rehabilitation, approximately
150 units have been improved during the past five years. Although the greatest
need for housing rehabilitation is most visible in the densely settled
incorporated areas, similar needs exist in the County on a scattered site
basis.
Future Housing Needs
The West Virginia
Housing Development Fund has projected housing needs for each county in the
Panhandle. The Fund expressed the following opinions about estimating future
growth.
"Household growth
based on census data/population growth does not take into consideration needs
for additional housing units which may be created by the existing population
including:
* Renter households purchasing homes
* Households formed from existing families through marriage, divorce, children moving away from parents,
etc.
* Households living in substandard housing
* Mobile home owners moving into single family units."
The Fund used a method
for determining needed housing units that was adapted from G. Vincent Barnett
and John P. Blair's How to Conduct and Analyze Real Estate Market and
Feasibility Studies, 1982. Table 24 contains two projections using this
method, one based on the Fund's population projection and one based on a
projection by the Office of the County Engineer. This table looks at needed new
construction based on projected population and household size; however, it
also includes shortfalls/surpluses in existing housing when looking at future
needs.
Table 24 FUTURE HOUSING
NEEDS FORECASTS
Based
On
Fund1 JCPC2
(a) Projected 1995 Population 39,017 39,321
(b) Estimated Required Housing (a/2.68) 14,559 14,672
(c) Plus 10% (vacancy rate/loss rate) 1,455 1,467
(d) Total Estimated Housing Required by
1995 16,014 16,139
(e) *Minus units present in 1990 13,535 13,535
(f) Additional Units Required by 1995
est. 2,479 2,604
(g) Required per year to 1995 (f/5) 496 521
(h) Current Population, 1990 35,926 35,926
(i) Present Housing Requirements
(35926/2.68) 13,405 13,405
(j) Plus 10% (vacancy/loss rate) 1,340 1,340
(k) Present Housing Requirement est. 14,745 14,745
(l) Minus existing, 1990 13,535 13,535
(m) Shortage/surplus of housing ‑1,210 ‑1,210
(n) Estimated time to fill shortage (m/g) 2.4yrs 2.3yrs
*Exclusive of seasonal
use units and substandard units
1The West Virginia
Housing Development Fund
2Jefferson County
Planning Commission
By this method a housing
shortfall is shown. However, "it is important to also consider that the
shortages are based on total housing units available. No deductions or
consideration is given for units which may be substandard and in need of
rehabilitation or replacement, not to the economic mix of unit costs versus
the buyers ability to pay." Hence, these forecasts of need may be underestimated.
Economic History
What is now Jefferson
County was first settled by German, Dutch and Scottish pioneers in the early
1700's. These early settlers were farmers and craftsmen. One special asset of
the Shenandoah Valley is that historically it has been a crossroads of the
north‑south traffic through the Valley and the east‑west traffic
for Western travelers. These factors influenced the decisions of railroad and
canal companies to establish lines in or near Jefferson County in the early
1800's providing employment and market access for local residents and
businesses. Another significant factor during the early development of the
County was the availability of native iron ore, which, together with the availability
of good transportation led to the selection of Harpers Ferry as the site for
the U. S. Armory. This industry, the first indication of the prominent
position manufacturing would have in the local economy, brought jobs,
prosperity and prestige to the County.
The destruction of this
industrial base during the Civil War and the county's status of being either
part of Virginia or West Virginia, seriously hampered economic growth. The
second economic period can be said to have begun in 1880. Agricultural and
livestock production became far more specialized and commercially oriented.
Lime and stone quarry mining along with their supporting processing industries
became major employers. Textile mills and durable goods manufacturing also
flourished during this period. The resulting diverse opportunities for
employment and economic stability allowed the County to prosper.
In the modern era after
WWII, manufacturing and agriculture have remained major industries, although
since the 1986 Comprehensive Plan some decline in these sectors has occurred.
Sectors such as mining and transportation (railroad) have lost some of their
prominence being replaced by tourism, warehousing and opportunities with the
federal government in the County and region.
AGRICULTURE
In 1987 approximately
83,000 of the total 135,040 acres of land in Jefferson County were actively
farmed. This acreage produced some $19 million worth of farm products
annually, which represents a decrease of $3 million from 1982.
Table 25 is a summary of
farm statistics for Jefferson County for the years 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987.
These data are taken from the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. Since 1969 the amount of land in farms and the number of farms have
declined by 13.0 and 8.1%, respectively.
Table 25 FARM STATISTICS
1974 1978 1982 1987
Number of Farms 381 370 398 363
Land in Farms (acres) 86642 84985 87648 83079
Percentage in Farms 64 63 65 62
Average Size (acres) 227 230 220 229
Avg. Value Per Farm ($) 191369 294270 312631 385413
Avg. Value Per Acre ($) 842 1285 1442 1684
Inventory
Cattle & Cows (All) 22233 20896 20213 17925
Dairy Cows 5325 5948 5780 4692
Poultry 76203 37831 N/A 2278
Crops, All Acres 36310 41790 48024 39190
Fruit (All Acres) 3443 4009 4466 3354
Apple 2718 3584 3813 2871
Peach 573 379 526 365
Corn 16514 21884 10953
Sale of Farm Products (in $1,000 of dollars)
Total Value ($) 12794 17222 22166 18813
Average Per Farm ($) 34 47 56 52
All Crops 4312 6432 9619 7164
Fruit 2391 3964 4839 4584
Grains 1627 2117 4260 1876
All Livestock &
Poultry Products
8452 10790 12547 11652
Cattle & Calves 2663 2818 2571 3161
Dairy 4752 7027 8980 7592
Poultry 444 365 N/A 169
Source: Census of Agriculture 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987.
Agriculture in the
County is diverse. There is significant production in three different areas;
dairy products, fruits (primarily apples) and grains (principally corn).
Generally, dairying continues to be the leading source of farm income in the
County, followed by fruit production and cattle and calf sales, which now both
exceed farm income from grain production. Other uses such as fish farming and
Christmas tree growing exist in the County.
A review of the
information on farm operators shows that most farms are family operated.
Although most farmers also lived on their farms for five or more years the
percentage has decreased from 88% in 1982 to 85% in 1987. There are other
changes in the characteristics of farms that may suggest changes in the future.
An increasing number of farmers have listed their principal occupation as non‑farming.
Between 1974 and 1987, this figure increased from 33.8% to 43.8%, although in
1982 the percentage was 45.5%. This large proportion of farms being operated as
a second occupation suggests that some farms are no longer economically viable
and may be vulnerable to conversion to non‑farm use. Another factor that
may have a negative implication for farming is aging of the farm operators. In 1987
31% of the farm operators were over 65 years old, an increase from 25% in 1982.
However, these and other related issues are more fully discussed in the
Agriculture‑Land Use section of this plan.
Table 26 FARM TENURE
Farmers Farmers Farmers
1978 1982 1987
Type of Organization
Family Farms 300 328 293
Partnerships 45 42 40
Corporations
Family held 20 23 27
Non‑Family 4 2 1
Operator Residence
On Farm 262 292 282
Off Farm 84 85 61
Operator's Principal
Occupation
Farming 213 217 204
Other 157 181 159
Years on Farm
Four or Less ‑ 41 48
Five or More ‑ 289 271
Age
Less than 44 137 129 88
45 to 64 172 156 161
65 and over 77 97 114
Source: Census of Agriculture, 1978, 1982 and 1987
EMPLOYMENT AND THE LOCAL
ECONOMY
A very important
component of the population profile is the local economy. The welfare and
prosperity of the local residents depends on the local and regional economy.
This part of the report is broken down into three segments: 1) Labor Force; 2)
Business and Industry; and, 3) Tourism.
Labor Force
As with other facets of
the County, there have been some significant changes in employment
characteristics, due to the overall growth in population. The total available
labor force (persons between the age of 16 and 65) in Jefferson County
increased 58% between 1970 and 1980 from 8,428 to 13,311 and increased another
39% to 18,540 between 1980 and 1990. Participation in the labor force,
increased somewhat between 1980 and 1990 from 49.7% to 51.6%. This reflects
the large in‑migration of persons of young working age discussed
earlier. The labor force status by sex for 1980 and 1990 is shown on Table 27.
Particularly noteworthy is the increase in the percentage of women in the
civilian labor force. In 1970 only 35% of all females 16 years and older were
employed or seeking employment. By 1982 this figure had risen to 39.6% and by
1990 it had reached 57.0%. The male participation rate was 77.0% in 1990.
Table 27 SEX BY LABOR
FORCE STATUS ‑ PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OLDER
Armed Forces Employed Unemployed Not in L.F.
Year Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
1980 12 0 7,410 4,887 489 513 3,093 6,082
1990 20 0 9,864 7,767 514 375 3,081 6,130
Source: 1980 and 1990 Census
Jefferson County has one
of the lowest unemployment rates in the state and its rate is generally below
that of the nation. Over the last two decades the rate has only gone above 8%
in four years and has been as low as 2.9%. Currently the rate is near 5.5%.
This indicates that the employment picture is fairly positive.
Many of Jefferson
County's residents are also employed outside the County which is shown in Table
28 below. These data are over a decade old. However, there is little to
indicate any substantial change in the conclusions drawn from these data.
Table 28 WORK FORCE MOBILITY
Number of Percentage of
Workers Workers
1980 1990 1980 1990
Residents Working in
Jefferson County 7012 9000 58.8 51.0
Berkeley County (Another
WV County*)
1056 1326 8.9 7.5
D.C. Metro Area (Another
State*)
1495 12.5
Other Areas 1434 7058 12.0 40.0
Not Reported 935 247 7.8 1.5
Subtotal 4912 17631 41.2 49.0
Total 11932
*1990 Census Categories
Non‑residents
Working in Jefferson County From
Berkeley County 1006
Other 170
Subtotal 1176
Source: 1980 and 1990 Census
As the above figures
show, the percentage of Jefferson County's residents employed in the County has
dropped from 59% in 1980 to 51% in 1990. This is an indication that the County
is becoming a bedroom community. In 1980 four times as many workers left the
county to find work as those that came into the county to find work
(4,912/1,176). This indicates some weakness in the economic base of the County.
The County, by not having the basic employment for its residents, is losing
some of the financial gain in terms of tax revenues, that could be reaped from
businesses located in the County and their hiring of local residents.
Wages
In contrast to the
average income of $39,990 discussed in the demographic section, wages in
Jefferson County industries are below the average state wages as shown in Table
29. These lower wages may be due to the limited opportunities available locally
for semi‑skilled, skilled and professional employment. In contrast, the
overall average income, as stated before, is primarily due to higher incomes
earned outside the County.
Table 29 AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY
INDUSTRIES
Jeff.
(1992) WV (1992)
Overall $27,343 $22,179
Manufacturing 23,344 29,758
Retail Trade 10,212 11,459
Services 13,721 19,098
Government 22,201 22,541
Transportation and Public Utilities 22,809 29,932
Source: W. Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs,
WV Employment and Wages 1992, Statistical Abstract of the United States
Employment by Occupation
and Industry
Between 1970 and 1980
there were significant shifts in the occupations and industries of residents in
the County. Overall, white collar workers increased from 39% to 46% of all
people employed, while blue collar workers declined from 38% to 33%. This shift
from blue collar occupations to white collar jobs generally coincided with
national trends. Between 1980 and 1990 this trend as shown in Table 30
continued but not at as steep a rate as in the previous decade. White collar
workers in 1990 accounted for 49% of the employed persons, age 16 and over. The
only dramatic change during the 1980's was an almost 200% increase in the
number of sales workers.
Table 30 PERSONS
EMPLOYED AGE 16 AND OVER BY OCCUPATION FOR 1970, 1980 AND 1990
1970 1980 1990
Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per-
Occupation ber cent ber cent ber cent
Professional&Tech. 1227 15.0 2179 17.7 2675 15.2
Health Practitioners 46 0.6 87 0.7 ** **
Health Workers 73 0.9 224 1.8 ** **
Teachers 352 4.3 947 7.7 ** **
Technicians,non‑health 99 1.2 205 1.7 533 3.0
Other Professional 657 8.1 716 5.8 ** **
Managers&Admin. 618 7.6 969 7.9 1731 9.8
Sales Workers 401 4.9 539 4.4 1549 8.8
Clerical & Kindred 960 11.8 1943 15.8 2708 15.4
Craftsman&Kindred 1181 14.5 1742 14.2 2676 15.2
Mechanics&Repairs 231 2.8 485 3.9 ** **
Construction Trades 486 6.0 831 6.8 ** **
Other Craftsman 464 5.7 426 3.5 ** **
Operatives,excTrans 1051 12.9 1059 8.6 1124 6.4
Transport Equip.
Operators
348 4.3 627 5.1 838 4.8
Laborers, exc.farm 498 6.1 618 5.0 962 5.5
Construction Laborer 183 2.2 128 1.0 ** **
Material Handlers 94 1.2 116 0.9 ** **
Other
Laborers 221 2.7 374 3.0 ** **
Farmers&Farm
Managers
283 3.5 320 2.6) 954 5.4
Farm
Laborers&Foreman
396 4.9 447 3.6)
Service Workers 978 12.0 1733 14.1 2280 12.9
Cleaning Services 253 3.1 415 3.4 ** **
Food Services 321 3.9 590 4.8 ** **
Protective Services 72 0.9 204 1.7 217 1.2
Other Service Workers 332 4.1 524 4.3 2063 11.7
Private Household
Workers
214 2.6 121 1.0 134 0.7
Total 8155 12297 17631 100.0%
Source: 1970, 1980 and 1990 U. S. Bureau of Census
*Table 30 and 31 and the
accompanying analysis are based on Census place of residence data. Therefore,
although Jefferson County residents may be working in a particular field, some
of those jobs are based outside the County.
**Category title for the
1990 Census differ from those of the 1970 and 1980 Census.
In terms of the eleven
major industries employing residents in the county, only one, mining, showed
any decline. In the remaining industrial categories, growth varied considerably.
The greatest growth occurred in the areas of finance, insurance and real estate
(142%), construction (109%), retail trade (73%) and transportation, communication
and utilities (56%). The service industry, however, remained the largest
sector by industry with 30% of the total work force followed by retail trade
with 15% (up from 13% in 1980). Table 31 shows the number of people employed in
each of the 11 major industries as well as the percent change between 1980 and
1990.
Table 31 EMPLOYMENT BY
INDUSTRY FOR 1970, 1980 AND 1990
%
of Change
Industry 1970 1980 1990 80‑90
Agriculture 830 756) 983 28.5
Forestry & Fishing 13 9)
Mining 206 127 116 ‑8.7
Construction 789 1139 2378 108.8
Manufacturing 1636 2038 2399 17.7
Nondurable Goods 644 716 818 14.2
Durable Goods 992 1322 1581 19.6
Trans., Comm., &
Utilities 390 707 1101 55.7
Wholesale Trade 145 333 384 15.3
Retail Trade 1083 1576 2730 73.2
Finance, Ins. &
Realty 196 373 904 142.4
Services 2516 4182 5330 27.5
Public Administration 351 1057 1306 23.6
Total 8155 12297 17631
Source: 1970, 1980 & 1990 U. S. Bureau of Census
A study of the West
Virginia Private Industry Council of Eastern Panhandle Employment concludes
that the most rapid gains in employment will be in Service Workers;
Professional, Technical and Kindred Workers; and Sales Workers. The slowest
growth occupation will be Laborers (Non‑Farm) and Craft and Kindred
Workers. Service workers are and have been the largest employment sector.
An evaluation of the
labor force indicates that there are both strengths and weaknesses. On the one
hand, there is an ample supply of potential workers. Low unemployment rates
during the late 1980's indicated that potential workers were not actively seeking
employment. Incentives in terms of occupations and pay needed to attract or
to provide these potential workers a place in the work force was a matter of
speculation. The recession of 1990‑92 resulted in layoffs locally which
created more competition for jobs.
Another factor in the
labor market is the overall level of education of County residents. In 1990
16% of the County population had a bachelor's degree or higher and 68% had a
high school degree or higher. These improving education levels, as they
translate into wages, may have a positive influence in attracting businesses.
However, an improvement in the skills and education of the labor force is
needed to attract other than high paying, high skill, technology related
businesses. Vocational training programs designed in cooperation with company
executives should be oriented towards improving the skills of local
residents in high skill areas if it is the objective of the County to attract
high wage firms to the County. In the meantime, training for semi‑skilled
jobs may be more compatible with the type of industries which currently are
being attracted to the County. Either way the programs at James Rumsey
Vocational Technical Center have been effective in using private and public
sector cooperation in designing their training programs. Opportunities for
expansion in this area should be explored.
Business and Industry
Historically, small
business development in the region has taken place in close proximity to
housing and population growth. The combination of limited mobility and
inadequate transportation routes fostered early small business development
within the incorporated areas. Hence, the older, more established small
business firms are located in Charles Town and the other small towns.
In recent years,
population growth and transportation improvements have generated new markets
for small businesses. Multi‑purpose shopping centers have been built on
the outskirts of several communities, thereby creating competition for downtown
businesses. In some instances, shopping centers have attracted downtown
merchants to suburban locations. In addition, relatively easy access to
Maryland and Virginia fosters shopping in Hagerstown, Frederick and Winchester,
thereby detracting from small business development in the county.
While recent small
business development on the fringe areas has helped increase the variety of
goods and services available to area residents, it has also heightened the
competitive disadvantage of the traditional central business district (CBD).
Even so, the outlook for
small business development in the region is promising. Trends in those sectors
of the economy traditionally associated with the small business community,
namely retail trade, wholesale trade, and services, during the mid 1980's,
indicated continued growth in the number of firms, sales and employment. In
addition, Private Industrial Council projections forecasted an additional
2,587 jobs in the regions trade, finance, and service sectors by the year 1990.
At this time only 1987 data are available. Hence, it is not possible to
determine whether or not these projections were correct. In light of the
recession and the sluggish recovery it would not be unreasonable to estimate
that the projections fell short.
However, the region is
competitive in attracting industry. The challenge to the region's communities
is to balance small business development between new and existing facilities
and assist the small business community in remaining competitive with adjacent
states.
Table 25 shows data about
retail trade for the years 1977, 1982 and 1987. However, the lack of 1992 data
makes it difficult to assess the current post‑recession condition.
Table 32 RETAIL TRADE
ESTABLISHMENTS AND SALES 1977, 1982 AND 1987
Percent
Change
1977 1982
1977 1982 1987 ‑82 ‑87
Jefferson County
Establishments 134 145 184 8.2 26.9
Sales (in Millions) 53.3 69.9 118.4 31.1 69.4
West Virginia
Establishments 10,175 9,853 10,737 ‑3.2 9.0
Sales (in Millions) 5463.3 7276.8 9030.0 33.2 24.1
Source: Bureau of the Census, Census of Retail
Trade, 1972, 1977 and 1982.
In specific categories,
the census shows that between 1982 and 1987 the County experienced increases in
all categories of retail sales.
Principally this
underscores the potential for major expansion in the area of retail trade.
Retail trade does not appear to have grown at the same rate as the population
leading to the conclusion that local incomes are being spent outside the
county. A simple comparison illustrates the point. While Jefferson County has
1.55% of the state population and per capita incomes higher than the state average,
it has less than 1% of the state's sales in retail trade.
Table 33 shows that the
wholesale market between 1977 and 1987 has been unsteady.
Table 33 WHOLESALE TRADE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SALES
1977, 1982 and 1987
Percent
Change
1977 1982
1977 1982 1987 ‑82 ‑87
Jefferson County
Establishments 21 16 18 ‑33.8 +12.5
Sales (in Millions) 19.1 26.8 18.1 40.3 ‑52.0
West Virginia
Establishments 2372 2380 2444 0.3 2.7
Sales (in Millions) 4492.6 6101.2 5935.4 35.8 ‑2.3
Source: Bureau of the Census, Census of Wholesale
Trade, 1972, 1977 and 1982.
The service industry
continued to be the largest component of the County's economy in 1987.
Table 34 SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SALES 1977, 1982
AND 1987
Percent
Change
1977 1982
1977 1982 1987 ‑83 ‑87
Jefferson County
Establishments 63 95 137 50.8 44.2
Sales (in Millions) 27.2 33.2 44.9 22.1 35.2
West Virginia
Establishments 4702 7424 8909 57.9 20.0
Sales (in Millions) 749.2 1759.3 2917.0 34.8 65.8
Source: Bureau of the Census, Census of Selected
Service and Service Industries, 1972, 1977 and 1982.
The percentage growth in
services, as indicated in Table 34, has been well below the rate of growth of
West Virginia. However, more recently growth in the service industry has been
substantial. This may be related to a trend toward a bedroom community
economy.
Manufacturing is a
sector of the national economy that is not growing as fast as other sectors of
the economy such as Services and Retail Sales. Between 1970 and 1980 Jefferson
County significantly improved its state rank in terms of value added in
manufacturing, as can be seen in Table 35.
Table 35 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES-ESTABLISHMENTS AND
SALES 1972, 1982 and 1987
1972 1982 1987
Jefferson County
Establishments 26 21 N/A
Sales (in Millions) 18.3 130.7 N/A
West Virginia
Establishments 1733 1662 N/A
Sales (in Millions) 2644.3 4049.2 N/A
Source: Bureau of Census, Census of Manufacturing.
Table 36 is a list of
major employers in Jefferson County and the number of people employed by these
firms in 1986 and 1993.
Table 36 MAJOR EMPLOYERS
IN JEFFERSON COUNTY
Number
of Employees
Company Product
or Service 1986* 1993**
AB&C, Inc. Order
fulfillment N.R. 296
Activ Industries, Inc. Shotgun shells 40 22
American Tele/Response Telemarketing N.R. 200
Americast Concrete
Products N.R. 45
Badger‑Powhatan Fire
protection Products 285 230
Bavarian Inn Inn
and Restaurant N.R. 95
Burch Manufacturing Industrial Crating 59 45
Charles Town Races Horse
Racing 450 400
Cliffside Inn Hotel N.R. 85
DALB, Inc. Silk
screened signs 23 29
Downes Fiberglass, Inc. Construction forms N.R. 10
Dixie‑Narco, Inc. Cold
Drink Dispensers 900 ***
Furniture Corp. of Am. Furniture 50 N.R.
Glen E. Woods Int. Communications 15 9
Halltown Paperboard Co. Paper Box Board 165 180
Jefferson Asphalt
Products Co., Inc. Asphalt Products N.R. 25
Jefferson Machine Co. Tool & Die Making 36 N.R.
Jefferson Co Bd of
Education Public Education N.R. 750
Jefferson Memorial
Hospital Hospital N.R. 256
Mid‑Atlantic
Retreading, Inc. Off‑road
Tire Retreading N.R. 18
Millville Quarry, Inc. Agricultural
and Crushed Limestone 60 80
3M Printing
Products 290 290
Peoples Supply, Inc. Grain
Mill 34 45
Perkins Enterprises Cosmetic
Lotions 38 N.R.
Ranson Fruit Company Fruit Processing 120 N.R.
Royal Vendors, Inc. Cold
Drink Dispensers N.R. 400
Shenandoah Quarry, Inc. Limestone 45 N.R.
Summit Point Raceway Automobile Racing N.R. 35
TST Impresso Computer
Business Forms 27 45
Universal Wood Products Wood Products N.R. 51
U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture Fruit
Research 101 85
U.S. Dept. of Interior Training
Center N.R. 275
Valley Block Company Concrete Pipes 35 6
Jefferson County Govt. Government N.R. 84
National Fisheries Research N.R. 53
Shepherd College Education N.R. 365
*Source: 1986 Comprehensive Plan
**Source: Jefferson County Development Authority
***Company relocated out
of the county
N.R. = Not Reported
TOURISM
History, culture, and
rural beauty combine to make Jefferson County an attractive area for travel
and tourism. the area's close proximity to major population centers (Baltimore
and Washington D.C. metropolitan areas) enhances this potential. Many people
from these areas come to Jefferson County to escape the urban environment and
to enjoy the scenic rural nature of the County. In most cases, though, the
visits are one day trips to Harpers Ferry, the racetrack or to the Mountain
Heritage Arts and Crafts Festival. The tourist industry in the County could be
greatly improved by developing facilities for weekend long or week long
visitors. Resort and pleasure hotels would provide accommodations for visitors
and keep tourists here for longer periods of time. In this way more tourist
dollars would be spent in the county and with facilities such as indoor pools
or hot tubs, the tourist attraction could be year round. The large investments
in vacation homes by city dwellers illustrates this get‑away attitude.
Tourist facilities in
the area offer a variety of recreational activities, including the following
major attractions:
CHARLES TOWN RACES ‑
Thoroughbred horse racing is conducted at the Charles Town Race Track. This is
one of the most modern tracks in the country featuring fully weatherized grandstands
and an advanced pari‑mutuel betting system. It employs approximately
400 people, and its presence promotes the development of thoroughbred horse
breeding and related equipment and supply businesses locally.
HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK ‑ This picturesque town, established as a National
Historic Park in 1944, is located at the confluence of the Potomac and
Shenandoah Rivers. It attracts approximately 500,000 per year who come to
relive history and enjoy the scenic beauty of the location. The town grew to
prominence in the 19th century with the establishment of the national armory
and the construction of the C & O Canal and B & O Railroad. John
Brown's raid in 1859 foreshadowed the prominence of the town during the civil
war. With the destruction of the town during the civil war followed by repeated
flooding, the town declined until it became a park.
MOUNTAIN HERITAGE ARTS
& CRAFTS FESTIVAL ‑ Twice a year, the Jefferson County Chamber of
Commerce sponsors the Mountain Heritage Arts and Crafts Festival. For three
days in June and September, over 160 craftsmen, selected for the high quality
of their products, gather to demonstrate their skills and sell their goods.
The Festival has grown through the years to become one of the most prestigious
festivals of its kind on the east coast.
NATIONAL FISHERIES
CENTER ‑ The U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
operates the National Fisheries Center, a fish hatchery, research laboratory
and training center, on Route 1 at Leetown. It receives about 13,800 visitors
per year.
SUMMIT POINT RACEWAY ‑
The Summit Point Raceway located on Route 13 south of summit Point, features
motorcycle road racing, motorcross, and Sports Car Club of America auto road
racing. The track has a seasonal daily average attendance of 2,000.
WHITE WATER RAFTING ‑
White water rafting trips on the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers are provided by
several West Virginia licensed white water river outfitters.
THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL ‑
This trail, which runs from Maine to Georgia, enters the county at Harpers
Ferry and runs southward along the crest of the Blue Ridge Mountain until it
enters Virginia.
In addition to these
major attractions, Jefferson County is rich in history with many sites of
interest to tourists. For example, the Jefferson County Court House, erected
in 1803, is best known as the building in which John Brown and members of his
band were tried and sentenced for treason in 1859. The county also contains
seven "Washington Homes" which were built between 1770 and 1820 by
descendents of George Washington and his brother Charles Washington. Another
attraction is the James Rumsey Monument, memorializing the first successful
operation of a steamboat in 1787. Finally, Shepherdstown, the oldest town in
West Virginia, and Middleway are registered districts listed on the National
Register of Historic Places along with 38 other buildings and sites in the
county.
The outlook for the
County's travel industry is very good. Employment, sales, and tax revenues
generated by travel and tourism have increased to the point where they make a
significant contribution to the economy. In 1982, sales resulting from travel
and tourism in Jefferson County amounted to 34.5 million. The expectation is
that the travel industry market will continue to expand.
FUTURE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
The County has several
major advantages for economic growth and development. The principal one of these
is its location. A major segment of the U. S. population is within one day's
driving distance and within 300 miles are a number of major metropolitan areas
including Washington‑Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Pittsburgh,
Cleveland and, to the south, Richmond, VA. and Raleigh, NC. However, this
same advantage is shared by neighboring locations such as Hagerstown and
Frederick, MD, Loudoun County, VA. and even Berkeley County, WV, but with the
additional advantage of having interstate or 4‑lane highways for better
access. In fact, industrial expansion along Interstate 81 and 70 and along
Route 7 has been quite rapid in recent years. Major projects such as Citicorp
and Xerox may provide jobs to Jefferson County residents but do not provide
direct revenue to the County since they are located out of state.
Lack of road
improvements has been cited previously as a restraint on growth of business in
the County. However, the Charles Town Bypass is complete and major improvements
to Route 9 and the Shenandoah River Bridge (Route 340) are all programmed. Completion
of these projects is expected during the late 1990's. The completions can be
viewed as being positive factors for economic growth.
Rail access to the
county is very good with a CSX line running from Harpers Ferry west through the
county and with the Norfolk and Southern line running north‑south through
the county connecting Hagerstown, MD. with Front Royal, VA. These are both
main lines. There is also a CSX branch line running from Harpers Ferry to
Winchester, VA.
Air transportation of
cargo is available through the Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport located
in Martinsburg. Access to the airport will be enhanced by the improvements of
WV Route 9.
Another advantage for
economic growth is the availability of industrial sites. These break down into
two groups, (1) industrial sites with basic infrastructure and (2) lands zoned
for industrial, light industrial and commercial uses. The County, unlike much
of West Virginia, has gently sloped land suitable for industrial development.
Table 37 contains a list
of industrial sites for lease or sale that currently have public water and
sewer and access to a major highway.
Table 37 INDUSTRIAL
SITES WITH INFRASTRUCTURE
Overall Number
of Lots Infra-
Parcel Pre- Ulti- structure*
Name of Property Size (acres) sent mate Completed
Bardane Industrial Park 80 2** SoldOut 1,
2, 3
Burr Industrial Park 300 40 67 1, 2, 3
James Burr Technology
Ctr 72 13 39 1, 2, 3
*Infrastructure Codes ‑‑
1 = Public or Private
Water
2 = Public or Private
Sewer
3 = Access to Primary
Highway
4 = Railroad
Table 38 is a list of
selected property that are zoned for industrial or light industrial uses but
which have not been developed.
Table 38 UNDEVELOPED
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES
Adjoining
or
Frontage Parcel Confronting
Name of Property Road Size Infrastructure
Hunt Field U.S.rt340 500ac. Sewer&Water within one mile,4
Old J & L Quarry U.S.rt340 300ac 3
Martin Marietta Quarry U.S.rt340 400ac 3,
4
J. P. Burns U.S.rt340 500ac 3
Huyett Property U.S.rt340 100ac 3, 4
Capriotti U.S.rt340 90ac 3
Capriotti W.V.rt9 40ac 1, 2, 3
The total acreage of
property zoned for industrial and commercial uses is shown in Table 39.
Table 39
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL ZONES
%
of
Zoning Acres Total
District in
District Land
"Heavy"
Industrial and Commercial 3,000 2.2
Mixed‑‑Residential,
Light Industrial, Commercial 3,200 2.3
The Jefferson County Zoning
System, the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system, provides for the
issuance of Conditional Use Permits for industrial uses to properties outside
of these zoning districts if the LESA process shows that the property meets
the criteria of the system. The number of acres of property which could meet
the LESA criteria has not been determined. However, as a general rule, sites
in the Rural/Agricultural District with public water and sewer and which are
located near primary highways probably are going to qualify for
industrial/commercial use, assuming that other factors such as buffering, etc.
can be met.
There are two
organizations in the county promoting economic growth. They are the Jefferson
County Development Authority and the Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce.
The Development
Authority was created in 1979 for the purposes of the promotion, development
and advancement of prosperity and economic welfare and to encourage and assist
new businesses and industry. To this end, they can furnish money through
grants, loans and bonds, and assist in arranging for credit and land, as well
as other kinds of technical assistance.
The Development
Authority has been effective in preparing brochures and advertisements in
national trade magazines to promote industrial location in the county. It has
become the window through which industries can learn about the benefits of
establishing themselves in Jefferson County and receive assistance toward
that end. The Development Authority, located near the Burr Industrial Park,
has also been instrumental in developing and promoting the industrial park.
The Jefferson County
Chamber of Commerce is a private organization of businesses funded through its
members. Its objectives are to stimulate the expansion of business and
employment opportunities, to promote economic activity and local prosperity.
It also serves as a clearing house for information on the County.
SUMMARY
The existing economic
base of Jefferson County consists of many diverse activities: industry,
commercial and service, tourism and agriculture. From a tax revenue
standpoint, it is necessary that these industries grow and develop to offset
the tax shortfalls resulting from years of residential construction without
corresponding growth in the commercial and industrial sectors. As the
population of the County continues to rise, more jobs will be needed to
support the labor force, and more businesses providing services will be expected.
In order to meet these increasing demands, the County's economy must grow.
The business climate is
determined by many factors: transportation, access to markets, labor force
(education, wage rate and productivity), quality of life (crime rate, school
quality and cultural amenities), planned environment, taxes, infrastructure,
etc. Improvements are required in the areas that are lacking to make
Jefferson County more competitive.