Document Columbiacountyga_doc_a552defb43

VISION 2035 Columbia County Comprehensive Plan December 1, 2015 Draft ---PAGE BREAK--- i VISION 2035 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Ron C. Cross Chairman Doug Duncan District 1 Trey Allen District 2 District 3 William D. Morris District 4 STEERING COMMITTEE Tim Beatty Columbia County. Board of Education Tim Cole Columbia County Chamber of Commerce Al Harris District 4 Representative John Ramey Fort Gordon Thom Tuckey CSRA Alliance District 1 Representative Robbie Bennett Development Authority of Columbia County Bill Corder Chair, Columbia County Greenspace Advisory Board Philip Howard Georgia Regents University Ken Richards Pierwood Construction Pat Buchholz Fort Gordon Jim Cox Planning Commission Mark Ivey Ivey Residential Gary Richardson Planning Commission David Butler Columbia Co. Historical Property Advisory Committee Marva Dixon Fort Gordon Chris McLaughlin Georgia Bank & Trust Ken Shah District 3 Representative William Butler Harlem City Planner Jean Garniewicz Vice-Chair, Development Authority of Columbia County Frank Neal Grovetown City Planner Charles Sharpe District 2 Representative PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM Andrew Strickland, AICP Planning Director Paige Hatley, AICP AMEC Foster Wheeler Nayna Mistry Planning Manager Tela Dunagan AMEC Foster Wheeler Danielle Bolte Planner I Demi Patch AMEC Foster Wheeler Lee Walton, AICP AMEC Foster Wheeler Inga Kennedy Planners for Environmental Equality Ron Huffman, AICP, ASLA AMEC Foster Wheeler Bill Ross Ross + Associates ---PAGE BREAK--- ii VISION 2035 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Plan Highlights 1 Putting the Plan into Action 5 2. INTRODUCTION 8 Purpose 8 Scope 9 Why We Plan 9 Community Participation and Plan Development 9 3. COMMUNITY VISION 13 4. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE 21 Future Development Map 21 Character Area Based Planning 22 Character Area Policy 24 5. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 32 Community Work Program 32 Supplemental Plans 38 Long Term Project List 38 Plan Maintenance 39 APPENDIX A: Report of Accomplishments APPENDIX B: Commuity Assessment APPENDIX C: Community Participation Program ---PAGE BREAK--- iii VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 VISION 2035 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary of the Columbia County Comprehensive Plan: Highlights and Putting the Plan into Action Columbia County’s comprehensive plan, Vision 2035, is a policy document that presents the community’s primary goals for achieving its vision for growth and development over the next 20 years. This executive summary presents Plan Highlights and Putting the Plan into Action. Plan Highlights provides a brief overview of the ‘Community Vision,’ including key goals organized by ‘Vision Theme.’ Putting the Plan into Action provides a synopsis of the steps and players involved in implementation of this comprehensive plan. PLAN HIGHLIGHTS Recognizing the County will continue to be the fastest growing county in the region, this plan balances the need for residential and economic growth with the desire to maintain rural character. This plan also acknowledges the need to plan in more specific detail for activity centers and major corridors as well as for green space, parks, economic development, and public infrastructure (water, sewer and transportation). The ‘Community Vision’, as presented by the Future Development Guide in Chapter 4 and the summarized goals that are categorized by ‘Vision Themes’ on the following pages, describes the community’s desired future state of the County (see Chapter 3 for the more detailed version of the goals and strategies). This vision was formed from stakeholder input gathered during an extensive public involvement process and from an assessment of existing conditions in the County (see Community Assessment portion of the plan). The four Vision Themes are Development Patterns, Resource Conservation, Social and Economic Development, and Intergovernmental Coordination. They are intended to organize and represent citizens’ ideas and concerns related to the topics of land use, population, housing, economic development, natural resources, historic resources, community facilities and services, transportation, and intergovernmental coordination. DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK This plan is based on the community’s VISION for growth and development over the next 20 years The vision is expressed by a set of goals that address specific needs and opportunities (see Chapter 3) and a Future Development Guide with a map and narrative (see Chapter GOALS define the desired future state of the community and generally relate to big picture ideas. STRATEGIES are specific action steps that when completed should implement the community vision. Strategies are represented in Chapters 3 and 5 of this plan. Overall, the Comprehensive Plan is used by elected officials to make decisions that guide growth in Columbia County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 VISION 2035 Development Patterns DP Goal 1: Preserve rural development patterns in the Clarks Hill Lake and Appling Areas  Guide future planning for sewer infrastructure expansion projects, directing growth to areas not designated as Rural Communities  Create an Agriculture/ Forestry/Rural-Residential zoning district with a 5-acre lot minimum  Evaluate new tools for conserving land DP Goal 2: Protect and enhance established neighborhoods  Implement sidewalk and bicycle facility projects  Prevent encroachment of commercial uses in residential areas with updated zoning standards  Identify opportunities for greenspace preservation  Implement stormwater management projects  Maintain residential use as the primary land use along major roadways in neighborhood areas (e.g. Riverwatch Parkway) DP Goal 3: Promote high quality new construction  Ensure a high quality of residential development with updated standards (e.g. enhanced open space and pedestrian connectivity standards)  Develop design standards for apartment and townhome projects  Develop design standards for non-residential development DP Goal 4: Create vibrant activity centers  Prepare a new master plan for Evans Town Center  Update the Central Martinez Area Study  Prepare master plans for the proposed Gateway Activity Center and Appling-Harlem Employment Center along I-20 DP Goal 5: Improve corridors and connectivity  Prepare studies for major corridors to improve functionality and land use/transportation relationships  Update the 2004 Columbia County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)  Study the feasibility of I-20 frontage road corridor  Evaluate the potential for corridor-based Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) for funding transportation and aesthetic improvements  Incorporate streetscape enhancements along major corridors  Incorporate bicycle/pedestrian projects in future road widenings ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 VISION 2035 Resource Conservation (RC) RC Goal 1: Protect water resources and improve water quality  Adopt groundwater recharge areas, water supply watersheds and wetland protection ordinances in accordance with state models  Evaluate potential for increasing the County’s rating in the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System  Monitor impaired streams  Prepare master plans for water and wastewater  Support Columbia County Health Department efforts to undertake performance evaluations of septic systems RC Goal 2: Permanently Protect 20% of the County’s land as greenspace consistent with the Columbia County Greenspace Program  Create a Greenway Master Plan to interconnect recreation areas and protected floodplain areas  Update the 2006 Greenspace Master Plan  Monitor the effectiveness of the open space and tree protection standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and consider changes as necessary  Amend regulations to incorporate minimum open space standards for all new development  Adopt a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance to encourage design of residential developments with a high percentage of open space RC Goal 3: Identify and protect historic resources  Prepare a historic resource survey to identify buildings/sites of historical significance and those that have been lost to development  Adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance to meet the eligibility requirements of the federal Certified Local Government (CLG) Program, which provides financial and technical assistance for historic preservation activities  Pursue CLG status to become eligible for federal historic preservation funding (requires adoption of a Historic Preservation Ordinance)  Consult with the state’s Historic Preservation Division for technical and financial assistance  Update the list of buildings and sites that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places Social and Economic Development (SED) SED Goal 1: Enhance recreation opportunities for residents  Expand the Euchee Creek Greenway and provide parks to meet needs in underserved areas of the county  Update the 2002 Recreation Master Plan  Coordinate with organizations to fund and implement the expansion of a coordinated trail network throughout the county ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 VISION 2035 SED Goal 2: Capitalize on natural resources as an economic development tool  Address eco-tourism as part of a county-wide Economic Development Strategy  Identify and implement appropriate Wildwood Park site enhancements/revenue generators  Develop a county-wide Gateways and Wayfinding Program to guide visitors to major county sites/facilities SED Goal 3: Create employment opportunities by recruiting new employers and expanding business diversity  Prepare a Economic Development Strategy for Columbia County  Assist with the update to the 2011-2015 regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)  Study the potential for an I-20 “Technology Corridor” SED Goal 4: Provide infrastructure to accommodate desired development, including ‘target industries’ identified by the Columbia County Development Authority  Prepare Water and Wastewater Master Plans  Incorporate applicable 2040 Augusta Regional Transportation Study recommendations into the update to the county Long Range Transportation Plan SED Goal 5: Maintain high quality community services for the citizens of Columbia County  Implement SPLOST projects to maintain and/or improve public facilities and services  Prepare a county-wide Solid Waste Management Plan update  Identify Capital Improvement Projects needed to expand cultural and civic facilities/ services and to maintain a high standard of emergency response Intergovernmental Coordination (IC) IC Goal 1: Collaborate with other local governments and entities to address land use and development issues  Participate in Fort Gordon Joint Land Use Study  Notify Fort Gordon of nearby zoning proposals in accordance with state law requirements  Invite Grovetown and Harlem planners to comment on rezoning/development proposals in the vicinity of the cities’ boundaries  Coordinate with the School Board regarding school siting decisions IC Goal 2: Foster a collaborative of local, regional and state leaders to set regional priorities that affect the County  Participate in regional planning efforts undertaken by the Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission, Augusta Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (transportation planning), and the Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Council (water planning) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 VISION 2035 PUTTING THE PLAN INTO ACTION Adopting a comprehensive plan may seem like the end of the process, but actually it represents the beginning of a new phase – implementation. Implementing the plan requires an understanding of the plan recommendations and tools available for putting the plan to work for Columbia County. In short, the plan is a tool that provides a policy basis for:  Budgeting  Local land use regulation  Coordination among local governments, state and federal agencies, utilities, regional agencies  Detailed plans for special areas, circumstances and functions  Promotion and economic development Budgeting The Implementation Program (see Chapter 5) outlines the overall strategy for achieving the Community Vision for future development and for implementing the Future Development Guide. A 5-year Community Work Program (CWP) prioritizes the recommended strategies and assigns responsible parties to each. As presented, it provides elected officials and staff with a prioritized “to-do” list in addition to providing a policy guide. The Board of Commissioners and administrative staff should consult the CWP each year when developing their annual budget. The CWP prioritizes each strategy and can guide future investment. Items listed in the CWP include programs, ordinances, administrative systems, community improvements or investments, and financing arrangements or other programs/initiatives. Land Use Regulation The policy basis for land use regulation occurs in two specific ways. First, the Future Development Guide provides a tool for evaluating land development requests. Second, local zoning and subdivision regulations sometimes require amendments based on the comprehensive plan recommendations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 VISION 2035 Future Development Map The Future Development Guide (see Chapter 4) consists of the Future Development Map and Character Area Policy. The Future Development Map assigns a unique Character Area to each parcel in Columbia County. The Character Area Policy describes with text and illustrations the vision for growth and development for each Character Area shown on the map. The Future Development Map is used to guide future rezonings; proposed zone change requests are reviewed for consistency with the Character Area Policy associated with the Future Development Map. Development Regulations and Guidelines Evaluation and adoption of changes to development regulations is a common follow-up after adoption of a comprehensive plan. The purpose of zoning and subdivision regulation updates is to ensure that local regulatory tools support the implementation of the Future Development Map and specified goals in this plan. Intergovernmental Coordination The policy basis for coordination occurs in two major components. First, the County’s departments should coordinate their plans with that of the Comprehensive Plan. Second, coordination should occur between Columbia County government and other entities, whether at the local (public or private), regional, or state level. Service Delivery The County should review or develop service plans to ensure that they support the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This includes ensuring that future facilities are planned to meet the service demand promoted by the plan. For example, future planning to offer suburban-scale water and sewer services should be consistent with areas shown on the Future Development Map (and described in the Future Development Guide) as supporting residential and employment growth. Coordination This plan provides the opportunity for the County, adjacent local governments and other entities to view future needs from a common policy playbook. For example, private developers, GDOT, and economic development agencies can each see that the community has designated specific areas for future growth and specific areas for rural preservation. As a result, these entities should be able to work together to ensure that their projects and policies support the Community Vision. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 VISION 2035 Detailed Plans for Special Areas or Functions ‘Functional plans’ address specific government services such as parks, recreation, and transportation. This plan recommends preparation of several stand-alone plans that are coordinated with and supplement the Comprehensive Plan. These individual plans can address issues and concerns raised by stakeholders during the public planning process in greater detail than a comprehensive plan. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (update) An update to the 2002 Columbia County Recreation Master Plan would translate the community’s parks needs into recommendations that can be implemented within a planning period, typically 10 years. An updated plan would identify current trends and resident demands for specific types or programs and also recommend additional park and recreation needs based on updated population projections. Greenspace Master Plan (update) The County first prepared a Greenspace Master Plan after creating the Columbia County Greenspace Program in 2000. A plan update can help the County identify potential opportunities for permanently protecting additional greenspace toward its goal of 20%. In addition, the plan can incorporate possible greenway connections (i.e. trails) based on recent research and evaluation by the County Planning Department. Long Range Transportation Plan (update) A countywide multi-modal transportation plan would update the County’s existing Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP; adopted 2004) and further define long-term needs that support the recently updated Augusta Regional Transportation Study (adopted September 2015). Economic Development Strategy (new) Although a regional strategy is in place (2011-2015 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, prepared by the Central Savannah Regional Area Regional Commission), a county- specific effort can better position Columbia County to identify and recruit appropriate types of businesses (commercial, office, and/or industrial uses) based on local factors and market conditions. Master Planning: Activity Centers and Corridors (new) This plan recommends area-specific planning for existing and proposed activity centers (commercial, mixed-use, and employment) and major corridors to refine land use, design and infrastructure needs and recommendations. WHAT’S YOUR ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? Elected Officials (Board of Commissioners) adopt the plan, use the plan as resource for preparation of annual budget/CIP, allocate funding for plan-recommended implementation projects/ studies/additional planning, approve code amendments, etc. Planning Commission members review the plan as it relates to specific zoning, subdivision or other land development requests. They may also recommend updated or new land use/development codes to the elected officials. Private landowners/developers use the plan to identify areas where new development (by type and intensity) may occur. In addition, they help implement goals of the plan through provision of roads, sidewalks, parks, open space, etc. required by local regulations. Planning Department Staff reviews development proposals; updates or prepares new land use/development codes to present to the elected officials for consideration and adoption. Other County Staff review service plans, etc. to ensure that they support the goals and policies in this plan and make changes accordingly. Utility providers (including Columbia County Water Utility) use the plan to determine areas where expansion or improvements to specific utilities are warranted. General public are the watchdogs of the plan and standby to participate when other planning initiatives are underway. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 VISION 2035 INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan for Columbia County Located along the Savannah River with direct interstate access, Columbia County has historically been the fastest growing county in the Augusta-Richmond Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The County is projected to experience continued growth and investment over the next 20 years. In an effort to meet the community’s future needs, Columbia County coordinated the efforts of its citizens to create a community vision for the future that will be guided by the County’s Comprehensive Plan: Vision 2035. PURPOSE Vision 2035 represents the County’s growth and development policy, as expressed by a Future Development Map and supporting goals and implementation strategies. This plan also serves the purpose of meeting the intent and requirements of the Georgia Department of Community Affairs’ (DCA) “Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning,” as established on March 1, 2014. Preparation of a plan in accordance with these standards is an essential requirement in maintaining status as a Qualified Local Government (QLG). QLG status allows communities to be eligible for state assistance programs. State law requires adoption of a comprehensive plan update for Columbia County and the Cities of Grovetown and Harlem by February 28, 2016. Although this plan has been prepared with participation by the cities, it is distinct from the comprehensive plan updates undertaken by each city. COMMUNITY SNAPSHOT POPULATION TRENDS Year Columbia County Grovetown Harlem 2000 92,537 6,137 2,010 2010 124,934 11,311 2,687 2015 139,883 13,712 3,176 POPULATION PROJECTIONS Year Columbia County 2020 155,809 2025 172,936 2030 191,103 2035 210,259 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS Year Columbia County 2015 51,392 2020 57,119 2025 63,359 2030 70,151 2035 77,511 Source: See Appendix B - Community Assessment ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 VISION 2035 SCOPE This plan addresses the following topics: population growth, economic development, housing, natural and historic resources, land use and development patterns, community facilities, transportation, and intergovernmental coordination. These ‘planning elements’ are organized into four Vision Themes (see Chapter 3) for the purpose of expressing community goals and implementing strategies. They are addressed as individual components in the Community Assessment (see Appendix which provides a summary of existing local conditions and trends and was used in the identification of community needs and opportunities. It is important to note that the topic of transportation is addressed in much greater detail in the Augusta Regional Transportation Study (adopted 2015); the study is the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s transportation strategy for the region and is incorporated by reference in this plan to satisfy DCA’s “Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning” related to transportation. WHY WE PLAN Comprehensive planning is an important management tool for promoting a strong, healthy community. A comprehensive plan is a significant policy document that guides the physical development of a community; it can be used to promote orderly and rational development so the County can remain physically attractive and economically viable while preserving important natural and historic resources. The comprehensive plan allows the community to become more certain about where development will occur, what it will be like, when it will happen, and how the costs of development will be met. It helps the County invest its money wisely in infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer service, parks and green space, and other facilities to maintain and improve residents’ quality of life as well as economic development prospects. Vision 2035 represents these and additional ideas discussed during the public participation process. It lists county-specific needs and opportunities, supporting goals and strategies, desired development patterns and land uses, and 5-year prioritized work program to implement the plan. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT Creating a functional comprehensive plan begins with defining a common vision for the future development of the community. A community vision is the overall image of what the community wants to be and how it wants to look at some point in the future. It is the starting point for creating a plan and actions to implement the plan. A successful visioning process requires meaningful participation from a wide range of community stakeholders. Visioning Process The Visioning Process, or citizen participation process, for Vision 2035 included multiple layers of participation from residents and stakeholders. A countywide Kick-Off Meeting, Visioning Workshops, a countywide Land Use Charrette, a countywide Open House, a telephone survey, an online survey, and “Meeting to Go” materials for community groups to complete at an off-site venue at their convenience provided opportunities for input. In addition, a Steering Committee added considerable input into the ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 VISION 2035 planning process. The Community Participation Program (Appendix C) details the public outreach and participation activities. Countywide Kickoff Meeting The countywide Kick-Off Meeting took place March 18, 2015 at the Evans Government Center Auditorium. The planning process, schedule, and future public involvement opportunities (community meetings and email link/hard copy locations of surveys) were presented to the public, who were invited to provide comment and also share their contact information for inclusion on a project e-mail list that was used throughout the development of the plan to distribute meeting and plan status information. Visioning Workshops Participants provided their input on the future of Columbia County during the four workshops held in April 2015 at locations throughout the county via prioritization exercises, facilitated discussion and one-on-one conversations with the planning team. The four locations were:  Patriot’s Park (April 20)  Appling Courthouse (April 23)  County Exhibition Center (April 27)  Savannah Rapids Pavilion (April 30) Visioning Workshop participants prioritized and contributed to a list of community Assets, Issues and Dreams that were compiled from on online survey responses and discussions with the Steering Committee. Participants also provided input during a mapping exercise intended to generate discussion on desired community character (e.g. appropriate land uses, amount of open space, transportation options, etc.), including which areas of the county are likely to support change or should remain relatively unchanged. Land Use Charrette The countywide Land Use Charrette was held May 14, 2015 at the Columbia County Library. Attendees participated in small group map exercises and conversed with the planning team to develop scenarios for preferred land use types and intensities across the county. The maps depicted six areas of the county to allow more fine-grain review and detail: The Lake, Evans, Martinez, Grovetown, Harlem and Appling. The planning team also conducted stakeholder interviews with county department heads to inform the planning process. VISION 2035 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 VISION 2035 Open House The public was invited to comment on the “preliminary draft” of the plan recommendations at an Open House held on August 17, 2015 at the Evans Government Center Auditorium. The format allowed participants to drop in at their convenience and stay as little or as long as they desired. Participants spoke individually with planning team members and filled out comment forms to present questions or concerns. Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee In addition to meetings designed to solicit input from the general public, a Steering Committee appointed by the Board of Commissioners provided important input and feedback into the planning process. The committee included local business and community representatives as well as staff members from Harlem, Grovetown and Ft. Gordon. The committee met six times. CHAPTER SUMMARIES The sequence of chapters in this plan is structured to follow the planning process, which can be thought of as answering the question “Where do we want to be in 20 years?” followed by “How do we get there?” The plan is organized into the following chapters:  Chapter 1: Executive Summary  Chapter 2: Introduction  Chapter 3: Community Vision  Chapter 4: Future Development Guide  Chapter 5: Implementation Program  Appendix A: Report of Accomplishments  Appendix B: Community Assessment  Appendix C: Community Participation Program The chapters that follow this introductory chapter are summarized below: Chapter 3: Community Vision The Community Vision reflects the community’s vision for growth and development for the next 20 years. This vision, which was developed with an extensive public visioning process, is defined by Vision Themes. The Vision Themes organize primary needs and opportunities and corresponding goals and strategies under the following headings: Development Patterns, Resource Conservation, Social and Economic Development and Intergovernmental Coordination. These themes address the planning topics of land use, transportation and housing (Development Patterns), natural and historic resources (Resource Conservation), economic development and community facilities (Social and Economic Development) and Intergovernmental Coordination (same). The listed strategies are used to create the Implementation Program chapter. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 VISION 2035 Chapter 4: Future Development Guide The Future Development Guide defines the community’s desired development patterns and guides future decision-making related to the physical development of the community. It is comprised of a Future Development Map and supporting Character Area Policy. The Future Development Map section presents the recommended character areas for the entire county. The Character Area Policy section describes the intent, general characteristics, application, primary land uses, and design principles for each Character Area, which are areas with unique quality worth preserving or areas that have been identified with the potential to develop into something new or different. Chapter 5: Implementation Program The Implementation Program identifies specific actions necessary to achieve the community’s vision. This chapter incorporates the strategies presented within the Community Vision and Future Development Guide chapters into a plan of action. The Implementation Program includes ordinances, programs, community improvements or investments, additional plans or studies, administrative systems and financing arrangements or other initiatives to be put in place to implement the comprehensive plan. The Community Work Program prioritizes strategies to be implemented over the next five years and assigns responsible parties, identifies potential funding sources, and provides a timeline for completion of each. Chapter 5 also details the specifics of maintaining the comprehensive plan in accordance with state requirements. Appendices The appendices supplement the information presented in Chapters 1-5 of the comprehensive plan as described below:  Appendix A – Report of Accomplishments (2011-2015 Short Term Work Program)  Appendix B – Community Assessment  Appendix C – Community Participation Program ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 VISION 2035 COMMUNITY VISION Presenting the Community Vision Themes for Columbia County Columbia County is a growing community with unique needs and opportunities related to its development patterns and projected future growth. The Community Vision chapter uses a series of Vision Themes to describe a shared ‘community vision’ – what the community envisions for its future – in terms of identified needs and opportunities that are addressed by recommended goals and strategies. VISION THEMES The Vision Themes organize primary needs/opportunities identified during the planning process as needing to be addressed, followed by goals and strategies that in turn address these needs and opportunities. Vision Themes represent the ideas and concerns of participants in the planning process and narrow the big picture vision to specific strategies that aim to make the Community Vision a reality. Recommended strategies are presented in the Implementation Program chapter as specific action items to be undertaken by the County. The themes presented are:  Development Patterns  Resource Conservation  Social and Economic Development  Intergovernmental Coordination These themes generally address the planning topics of land use, transportation and housing (Development Patterns), natural and historic resources (Resource Conservation), economic development and community facilities (Social and Economic Development) and Intergovernmental Coordination (same). ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 VISION 2035 Development Patterns (DP) Primary Needs and Opportunities Balanced future development that preserves rural areas – As Columbia County grows, there will be pressures on rural areas to transition to neighborhood development at suburban densities. The current pace of growth was cited as an issue during the Visioning Process, with residents expressing concerns that too many new housing developments detract from the rural character of the county and result in an irreplaceable loss of open space and agricultural land. Land use policy (as illustrated by the Future Development Map), sewer infrastructure planning, and continued application of proactive greenspace preservation measures can be used to preserve rural areas. Protection of existing single-family neighborhoods – Encroachment of commercial uses, high traffic volumes, lack of sidewalks, stormwater management issues, and loss of open space and tree cover are viewed by the community as having the potential to impair the quality of life that attracted many people to Columbia County. The County has addressed several of these issues in past plans and regulations, which can be used or modified to protect and enhance local neighborhoods. Enhanced design standards for all development types – The quality of higher density residential development, including apartments and townhomes, has been an issue of concern. Current zoning regulations address building and site design along some corridors (Washington, Furys Ferry, Columbia and Belair Roads) and inside ‘nodes’ (Evans Town Center, Evans to Locks/Furys Ferry intersection and Belair/Columbia intersection), as well as the Planned Development zoning districts. These standards, as well as commonly approved conditions of zoning relating to design, should be evaluated to determine which provisions should be integrated into other zoning regulations to ensure higher-quality, consistent design standards are applied county-wide. Creation of activity centers (in addition to Evans) – The Evans Town Center generally functions as the civic and cultural center of Columbia County, with the potential for a greater mix of uses and improved accessibility. Similar multi-faceted centers of activity elsewhere in the county can serve existing residents, provide new employment opportunities and accommodate a variety of higher density housing types (apartments, townhomes, lofts, senior living) needed to meet the needs of a growing population while maintaining the surrounding suburban and rural character that is desired by many residents. Mitigation of traffic congestion and enhancement of mobility – Transportation-related issues, including traffic congestion, the lack of transportation alternatives and needs for connectivity (such as a sidewalk system) were frequently cited by residents during the Visioning Process. Increased traffic congestion is a result of population growth and recent development patterns and requires an approach that includes transportation projects as well as appropriate land use planning. Transportation infrastructure projects should include walking and biking facilities, which are also beneficial recreational amenities for residents. The ‘nodal’ land use pattern (shown as Activity Centers and Community Crossroads on the Future Development Map) is intended to concentrate more dense development in centers (such as major intersections) rather than distributing it along the roadways and thereby increasing congestion. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 VISION 2035 Goals and Strategies DP Goal 1: Preserve rural development patterns in the Clarks Hill Lake and Appling areas  DP Strategy 1.1: Prepare county-wide Water and Wastewater Master Plans, using the Future Development Map to guide planning for future sewer infrastructure expansion projects, and directing growth to areas not designated as Rural Communities  DP Strategy 1.2: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create an Agriculture/ Forestry/Rural-Residential zoning district with a 5-acre lot minimum  DP Strategy 1.3: Evaluate new tools for conserving land (e.g. Transfer of Development Rights Program) and promote existing methods already in place (e.g. reduced taxes for agricultural property via Conservation Use Assessment; Columbia County Greenspace Program); use the Georgia Land Conservation Program as an information resource DP Goal 2: Protect and enhance established neighborhoods  DP Strategy 2.1: Use the 2012 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan to identify and implement sidewalk and bicycle facility projects that can connect neighborhoods with activity centers, parks and schools  DP Strategy 2.2: Amend Corridor Protection Overlay District standards to prevent encroachment of commercial uses in residential areas (e.g. specify allowable and prohibited uses along corridors and strengthen buffer standards between frontage commercial properties and adjacent neighborhoods)  DP Strategy 2.3: Update the 2006 Greenspace Master Plan to identify opportunities for neighborhood enhancement through greenspace preservation  DP Strategy 2.4: Implement stormwater management projects with dedicated funding provided by the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) and the Columbia County Stormwater Utility  DP Strategy 2.5: Maintain residential use as the primary land use along major roadways in Neighborhood Areas shown on the Future Development Map (e.g. Riverwatch Parkway) DP Goal 3: Promote high quality new construction  DP Strategy 3.1: Amend regulations to incorporate common conditions of zoning that can ensure a high quality of residential development (e.g. enhanced open space and pedestrian connectivity standards)  DP Strategy 3.2: Develop design standards for apartment and townhome projects (e.g. identify allowable exterior building materials, require construction of apartments to condominium standards)  DP Strategy 3.3: Develop design standards for non-residential development to ensure quality standards are consistently applied throughout the County DP Goal 4: Create vibrant activity centers  DP Strategy 4.1: Prepare a new master plan for Evans Town Center that emphasizes connectivity, walkability, infill development, and urban design  DP Strategy 4.2: Update the Central Martinez Area Study, with focus on economic/market analysis, traffic circulation, connectivity, infrastructure improvements, and public space enhancement  DP Strategy 4.3: Prepare a master plan for the Gateway Activity Center at I-20 and Lewiston Road and the Appling-Harlem Employment Center at I-20 and Appling-Harlem Road, with emphasis on connectivity and new uses that can benefit from interstate access and provide local employment opportunities and residential uses ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 VISION 2035 DP Goal 5: Improve corridors and connectivity  DP Strategy 5.1: Prepare focused studies for major road corridors to address access management, inter-parcel connectivity and land use/transportation relationships  DP Strategy 5.2: Update the 2004 Columbia County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to address corridors, multi-modal transportation options, the need for an improved county-wide distributed transportation network with a higher level of connectivity, and the 2040 Augusta Regional Transportation Study (ARTS) as it applies to Columbia County  DP Strategy 5.3: Study the feasibility of I-20 frontage road corridor implementation as part of the LRTP update  DP Strategy 5.4: Coordinate with the Columbia County Development Authority and Chamber of Commerce to evaluate the potential for corridor-based Community Improvement Districts (CIDs); a CID is voluntary self-taxing district and mechanism for funding coordinated transportation and community character improvements  DP Strategy 5.5: Identify opportunities to incorporate streetscape enhancements (e.g. landscaping and decorative lighting) as part of bicycle/pedestrian projects recommended for major corridors in the 2012 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan  DP Strategy 5.6: Incorporate bicycle/pedestrian projects in future road widenings, where feasible Resource Conservation (RC) Primary Needs and Opportunities Protection of water resources as county grows – Although the County has development standards in place for protecting water quality (e.g. Savannah River Corridor Buffer ordinance; soil erosion control measures; floodplain protection requirements, etc.) and there is sufficient water withdrawal and treatment capacity, future residential and employment growth may impact water quality and capacity. In addition, state planning standards require the County to consider the Regional Water Plan (Savannah- Upper Ogeechee Regional Water Plan) and the state’s Environmental Planning Criteria (established and administered by the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to O.C.G.A. 12- 2-8) to determine if there is need for additional water resource protections. Protection of open space in rural and developing areas – The loss of open space and tree cover with new development was cited as an important issue in the Visioning Process. Many citizens expressed an interest in permanently protecting some areas from development, which can be achieved in part by the Columbia County Greenspace Program, and requiring set-asides of open space with new development. Identification and protection of historic resources – Local historic resources are generally dispersed throughout the county and their current condition (including demolition from development or neglect) often unknown. A county-wide historic resource survey would allow the County, including the newly formed Board of Commissioner-appointed Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, to devise a local preservation strategy. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 VISION 2035 Goals and Strategies RC Goal 1: Protect water resources and improve water quality  RC Strategy 1.1: Adopt additional provisions to protect water resources based on state model ordinances for the protection of groundwater recharge areas, water supply watersheds and wetlands  RC Strategy 1.2: Evaluate the existing Floodplain Management Program for opportunities to increase the County’s rating in the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (including a review of existing floodplain regulations)  RC Strategy 1.3: Implement Savannah‐Upper Ogeechee Regional Water Plan (2011) recommendations, including monitoring of impaired streams and preparation of a Water Master Plan and a Wastewater Master Plan  RC Strategy 1.4: Support Columbia County Health Department efforts to conduct performance evaluations of on-site sewage management systems in accordance with the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Department of Public Health Manual for On-Site Sewage Management Systems (2007); prioritize performance evaluations in the Lake Area RC Goal 2: Permanently protect 20% of the county’s land as greenspace (land which is permanently protected through acquisition, donations, conservation easements or permanent restrictive covenants), consistent with the Columbia County Greenspace Program mission and goals  RC Strategy 2.1: Create a Greenway Master Plan to establish a trail network that interconnects recreation areas and protected floodplain areas  RC Strategy 2.2: Update the 2006 Greenspace Master Plan to identify opportunities for dedicated greenspace (as protected open space and linear greenways) through conservation easements, land donation, and/or purchase  RC Strategy 2.3: Monitor the effectiveness of the open space and tree protection standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and consider changes as necessary  RC Strategy 2.4: Amend regulations to incorporate minimum open space standards for all new development  RC Strategy 2.5: Adopt a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance to encourage design of residential developments (in Rural and Rural Neighborhood Areas on the Future Development Map) with a high percentage of open space, at least half of which is set aside as permanent conservation areas RC Goal 3: Identify and protect historic resources  RC Strategy 3.1: Commission a new historic resource survey by a historic preservation professional to identify buildings and sites having historical significance and to document resources that have been lost through demolition or development since the 1990 survey was undertaken  RC Strategy 3.2: Adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance to meet the eligibility requirements of the National Park Service’s Certified Local Government (CLG) Program, which provides financial and technical assistance for historic preservation activities  RC Strategy 3.3: Pursue Certified Local Government (CLG) status to become eligible for federal historic preservation funds (requires adoption of a Historic Preservation Ordinance)  RC Strategy 3.4: Consult with the Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to identify available technical resources, financial assistance and incentives for preserving historic resources ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 VISION 2035  RC Strategy 3.5: Update the list of buildings and sites that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places Social and Economic Development (SED) Primary Needs and Opportunities Maintain level of service – County facilities and services were identified during the Visioning Process as assets to the community. In particular, cultural amenities (including parks) and public safety were cited by residents as contributing to a high quality of life. In order to maintain this level of service for current and future residents, continued investment will be made in the provision of public services. Identification and prioritization of projects to receive funding, including SPLOST proceeds, can be facilitated by in part by an update to the Recreation Master Plan, which is over a decade old. The plan can identify current and projected needs for park acreage and programs, and help identify ways to expand existing trails – which are fairly limited but very popular into a comprehensive network. SPLOST expenditures and annual budgeting can also address issues such as stormwater system maintenance, in terms of repairs as well as proactive projects. Develop a tailored economic development strategy – Columbia County is forecast to increase its working age population by more than 35% over the next 20 years, more than any other county in the six-county Augusta-Richmond County Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In addition, unlike every other county in the region except Aiken, South Carolina, Columbia County is projected to increase its share of region-wide employment by 2035. Evaluating these demographic trends further in the context of a county-specific Economic Development Strategy would help provide a comprehensive overview of the economy, set policy direction for economic growth, and identify supporting strategies, programs and projects for implementation by the Columbia County Development Authority. The plan can address specific topics of concern or interest to the County, including the potential for a “Technology Corridor, how to capitalize on the area’s significant natural resources (i.e. ‘eco-tourism’), how to diversify and recruit smaller businesses to meet shopping and dining needs of local residents, and how to increase job opportunities for County residents. The findings of the plan can also help the Columbia County Water Utility prepare for water and sewer infrastructure needed to serve future employment growth. Goals and Strategies SED Goal 1: Enhance recreation opportunities for residents  SED Strategy 1.1: Prioritize Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) funds to expand the Euchee Creek Greenway and provide parks to meet needs in underserved areas of the county  SED Strategy 1.2: Update the 2002 Recreation Master Plan to identify specific needs for park acreage, facilities and programs  SED Strategy 1.3: Coordinate with organizations such as the non-profit PATH Foundation (or similar entity) to fund and implement the expansion of a coordinated trail network throughout the county SED Goal 2: Capitalize on natural resources as an economic development tool  SED Strategy 2.1: Prepare a county-wide Economic Development Strategy, with eco-tourism as a component ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 VISION 2035  SED Strategy 2.2: Identify and implement appropriate Wildwood Park site enhancements/revenue generators (e.g. food/retail sales, small conference center)  SED Strategy 2.3: Develop a county-wide Gateways and Wayfinding Program, including a directional signage system to guide visitors to the Savannah Rapids Pavilion and other major county facilities SED Goal 3: Create employment opportunities by recruiting new employers and expanding business diversity  SED Strategy 3.1: Prepare an Economic Development Strategy for the county  SED Strategy 3.2: Coordinate with the Central Savannah Regional Area Regional Commission (CSRA RC) to update the 2011-2015 regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)  SED Strategy 3.3: Study the potential for an I-20 “Technology Corridor” as part of the local Economic Development Strategy and Long Range Transportation Plan update processes SED Goal 4: Provide infrastructure to accommodate desired development, including ‘target industries’ identified by the Columbia County Development Authority  SED Strategy 4.1: Prepare Water and Wastewater Master Plans to anticipate needed water withdrawal and treatment capacity, as well as wastewater treatment capacity  SED Strategy 4.2: Incorporate 2040 Augusta Regional Transportation Study recommendations for the urbanized area (Evans and Martinez, generally) into the update to the county-wide Long Range Transportation Plan SED Goal 5: Maintain high quality community services for the citizens of Columbia County  SED Strategy 5.1: Implement SPLOST projects to maintain and/or improve public facilities and services, including public safety (fire and sheriff), stormwater, recreation, library services and roads  SED Strategy 5.2: Prepare a comprehensive county-wide Solid Waste Management Plan update that includes ‘Green Programs’ and addresses the county’s projected growth  SED Strategy 5.3: Identify ‘quality of life’ and public safety Capital Improvement Projects needed to expand cultural and civic facilities/ services and to maintain a high standard of emergency response Intergovernmental Coordination (IC) Primary Needs and Opportunities Coordination of regional agencies, local governments and other entities (e.g. Ft. Gordon) to address impacts of expected population growth – Projects for population growth suggest that all communities in the vicinity of Ft. Gordon will be impacted in the upcoming decades. Growth will be driven by continuation of the baseline trend of population increase in Columbia County, and will be enhanced by the planned expansion of Ft. Gordon. In the vicinity of the base, land development and population increase can tax local infrastructure and services, and can encroach on the military installation and impact its’ missions. Frequent collaboration among the County, Grovetown, Harlem, Columbia County School Board, Ft. Gordon, CSRA Regional Commission, Augusta Area MPO and other entities is needed to manage future growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 VISION 2035 Goals and Strategies IC Goal 1: Collaborate with other local governments and entities to address land use and development issues  IC Strategy 1.1: Participate in the Fort Gordon Joint Land Use Study update to provide input on land use related topics and recommendations, including development ‘best management practices’ in close proximity to the base  IC Strategy 1.2: Notify Fort Gordon of zoning proposals within 3,000 feet of the base in accordance with the requirements of the state Zoning Procedures Law  IC Strategy 1.3: Invite Grovetown and Harlem planners to provide comment during the review process for county rezoning and development proposals in the vicinity of the cities’ boundaries  IC Strategy 1.4: Coordinate with the Columbia County School Board to plan for appropriate development with respect to school siting decisions  IC Strategy 1.5: Coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to ensure development proposals conform to the J. Strom Thurmond Project Shoreline Management Plan; also, coordinate with USACE to educate the public about allowable shoreline development activity IC Goal 2: Foster a coordinated collaborative of local, regional and state leaders to set regional priorities that can have an impact on Columbia County; this cooperation can identify collaborative solutions and technical/financial assistance  IC Strategy 2.1: Participate in regional planning efforts undertaken by the Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission (CSRARC), the Augusta Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Council ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 VISION 2035 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Future Development Map and Character Areas for Columbia County A key component of the comprehensive planning process is the creation of the Future Development Guide. The guide includes the Future Development Map, which depicts unique Character Areas that describe the type of development and land uses desired for particular areas. This guide – in addition to the goals and strategies presented in Chapter 3 – explains and helps illustrate the ‘community vision’ for growth and development over the next 20 years. The Future Development Guide includes the three sections shown below:  Future Development Map  Character Area-Based Planning  Character Area Policy FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MAP The Future Development Map is used to identify the geographic location of the Character Areas within Columbia County. The Character Areas are described in detail later in this chapter. The Future Development Map is intended to help guide decision making related to the physical location of development and where the most appropriate scale and intensity of development should occur. While the map recommends land uses and development patterns for a 20-year planning horizon, it is important that it reviewed on a regular basis to determine if amendments are needed based on changing market and demographic trends. Relationship of Future Development Map to Zoning County zoning consists of a zoning map that assigns a zoning classification (one of the County’s residential, commercial, industrial or mixed use zoning districts) to every property. A zoning ordinance describes these classifications, including their allowable land uses and requirements for how buildings, parking, landscaping, signs and other site features may be placed on a parcel. ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 VISION 2035 The zoning map and zoning ordinance provide properties in Columbia County with certain rights to development, while the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Development Map serves as a guide to the future development of property. The Future Development Map (see page 23) and Character Area Policy (see page 25) should be used as a guide for future rezoning decisions undertaken by the County. CHARACTER AREA BASED PLANNING Character Area based planning focuses on the way an area looks and how it functions. Tailored strategies are applied to each area, with the goal of enhancing the existing character/function or promoting a desired new character for the future. Character Areas are organized by Community Elements. These elements represent the four basic types of development – the primary ‘building blocks’ of a community – and include Open Space, Neighborhoods, Centers and Corridors. The table below summarizes general characteristics of each element as well as their application on the Future Development Map as specific Character Areas. The Character Areas are further described beginning on page 25. Community Element Diagram Summary Description Character Area Open Space  Parks, floodplain, greenspace (public or privately owned)  Intended to be maintained in a natural state or for passive recreation uses  Open Space  Rural* Neighborhood  Existing neighborhoods  Areas suitable for new housing development / infill development  Located near open spaces, center, and corridors  Rural*  Rural Neighborhood  Neighborhood Center  Provides residents access to a variety of retail and civic uses/space  Includes smaller neighborhood commercial uses in rural and suburban areas  May be larger commercial (local retail / service uses) centers, single-use employment centers (e.g. business or industrial park), or mixed use centers that include a variety of commercial, residential and/or employment elements 1. Community Crossroads 2. Activity Centers:  Commercial Centers  Mixed Use Activity Centers  Employment Centers Corridor  Links activity centers and neighborhoods  Functions as a throughway or a destination, depending on the land use  Primary transportation corridors Corridors:  Washington Road  Belair Road  I-20  Gordon Highway *Includes both open space and neighborhood elements Community Elements ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 VISION 2035 COLUMBIA COUNTY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 VISION 2035 CHARACTER AREA POLICY Character Areas shown on the Future Development Map are described on the following pages. Each page presents a ‘Character Area Policy’ that represents and describes the Character Area in terms of the desired development pattern and supporting implementation strategies. Each Character Area Policy presented in the narrative incorporates the following components:  Intent describes the policy intent of each Character Area, specifically to preserve, maintain, enhance and/or create a desired character.  General Characteristics provides a general overview of desired development pattern in terms of characteristics that are more specifically addressed in the Design Principles.  Application provides a general description of areas where the Character Areas can be found or appropriately applied based on characteristics of the land and infrastructure.  Primary Future Land Uses lists appropriate land uses that support the desired mix and/or type of land uses in a Character Area.  Design Principles describes the form, function and character of physical elements of the Character Area. This includes density/intensity, green space, transportation and infrastructure (public utilities).  Strategies are the implementation measures needed to achieve the desired development patterns for the character area. They reference strategies identified in Chapter 3: Community Vision. ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 VISION 2035 Open Space Intent: PRESERVE existing undisturbed natural areas and open space not suitable for development, park land, and dedicated greenspace (open space and greenways) maintained in its natural state under the County Greenspace Program. General Characteristics: Open Space Areas are public or privately-owned land intended to remain as open space for natural area conservation and passive recreation purposes. They include properties in the Columbia County Greenspace Program. The program’s goals is to preserve 20% of the geographic area of the county as greenspace through fee simple land acquisition, donations, conservation easements or permanent restrictive covenants. Application: Open Space Areas are located throughout the community, represented primarily by floodplain areas, park land, and County Greenspace properties (including greenways). Primary Future Land Uses  Undeveloped areas in their natural state  Passive recreation, including greenways and trails  Cemeteries and burial grounds  Civic benefit uses suitable for the area such as educational or nature centers and nature preserves Implementation Strategies (see Chapter 3)  DP 1.1, DP 1.3  RC 1.1, RC 1.2, RC 1.3, RC 1.4, RC 2.1, RC 2.2  SED 1.1, SED 1.2, SED 1.3, SED 2.1, SED 2.2, SED 2.3  IC 1.5, IC 2.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES Density/Intensity Natural landscape with limited recreation buildings to provide access and education to community Building placement and exterior materials should blend with surrounding landscape and to reduce visual impacts Green Space Natural landscape Maintain and create connections between natural features Transportation Pedestrian connectivity with greenways, trails Limited vehicular access with informal roadways such as unpaved roads Infrastructure Not applicable Illustrative Photos ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 VISION 2035 Rural  Intent: PRESERVE the existing rural character, including agricultural uses and large-lot residential uses, as well as natural and historic features. General Characteristics: Rural Areas are characterized by very low-density single-family residential uses and agricultural/forestry activities. The development pattern is generally scattered with large distances between buildings and deep setbacks from two-lane roads. Typical road sections are defined by a ditch and swales and informal landscaping or farm fences lining the edges. Natural features include extensive tree cover and open space areas due to limited development, as well as historic buildings and sites. Application: Rural Areas primarily represent private agricultural/forestry, large-lot residential or undeveloped land in the western half of the County, including the Lake, Harlem and Appling areas. These areas are generally located outside of the County’s sewer service area. Extension of sewer lines into Rural Areas should be discouraged in order to limit development pressures on the area. Instead, infrastructure expansion should be directed to non-Rural Areas where suburban development patterns are appropriate. Primary Future Land Uses  Agricultural/forestry uses and accessory uses such as barns and stables  Very low-density detached single-family residential uses  Civic benefit uses such as places of workshop and parks  Greenways and trails  Undeveloped areas in their natural state Implementation Strategies (see Chapter 3)  DP 1.1, DP 1.2, DP 1.3  RC 1.1, RC 1.2, RC 1.3, RC 1.4, RC 2.1, RC 2.2, RC 2.3, RC 2.4, RC 2.5, RC 3.1, RC 3.2, RC 3.3, RC 3.4, RC 3.5  SED 1.1, SED 1.2, SED 1.3, SED 2.1, SED 2.3, SED 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4  IC 1.1, IC 1.2, IC 1.3, IC 1.4, IC 1.5, IC 2.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES Density/Intensity Very low density/intensity 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (max. net density) Deep building setbacks with green space on large lots Residential subdivision design should set aside a high percentage of open space Green Space Natural landscape Maintain and create connections between natural features Preserve agricultural/forestry land Transportation Low to moderate pedestrian connectivity with greenway and trails Rural, two-lane roads Infrastructure Limited public water and sewer Primary sewer treatment utilizes septic systems Illustrative Photos ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 VISION 2035 Rural Neighborhoods Intent: PRESERVE the established residential/rural character and CREATE a transition between Rural Areas and development Neighborhood Areas. General Characteristics: Rural Neighborhood Areas are characterized by low-density single-family residential uses with deep setbacks from the road. Future development should continue to reflect lower density detached single-family residential uses, and neighborhood design should incorporate a high percentage of open space (i.e. ‘Conservation Subdivision’ design). Application: Rural Neighborhood Areas are generally located west of Kiokee Creek (north of I-20) and west of Grovetown. Future residential development is intended to accommodate densities that are higher than are appropriate for Rural Areas but less than the more densely developed areas to the east in the Evans area. Primary Future Land Uses  Low-density detached single-family residential uses (including the option of Conservation Subdivision design that sets aside a high percentage of open space within a new neighborhood)  Civic benefit uses such as places of worship, schools, community centers, parks, county services  Greenways and trails Implementation Strategies (see Chapter 3)  DP 1.3, DP 2.1, DP 2.3, DP 2.4, DP 3.1, DP 5.2  RC 1.1, RC 1.2, RC 1.3, RC 1.4, RC 2.1, RC 2.2, RC 2.3, RC 2.4, RC 2.5, RC 3.1, RC 3.2, RC 3.3, RC 3.4, RC 3.5  SED 1.1, SED 1.2, SED 1.3, SED 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4  IC 1.1, IC 1.2, IC 1.3, IC 1.4, IC 2.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES Density/Intensity Low density 1 dwelling unit per 1 to 5 acres (max. net density) Residential subdivision design should set aside a high percentage of open space Green Space Natural landscape Maintain and create connections between natural features Informal landscaping Transportation Low to moderate pedestrian connectivity with greenways and trails Low vehicular connectivity with generous distance between intersections Infrastructure Extension of public water and sewer Illustrative Photos ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 VISION 2035 Community Crossroads Intent: MAINTAIN and CREATE access to local goods and services at major intersections throughout the community. General Characteristics: Community Crossroads are characterized by clustered commercial development around the intersection of prominent roads. The general development pattern is compact, with stand-alone or multiple businesses on a site, depending on the location. In more rural areas, a single business typically occupies a property; the building is located close to the street with parking that may be located to the front, side or year. In developed, suburban areas, buildings may be located in a small shopping center and vehicular and pedestrian access is available to multiple businesses. In areas designated as “Rural” future development of Community Crossroads should emphasize the compact, small scale development that supports the immediate surrounding rural area. In “Neighborhood” designated areas, future development of Community Crossroads should emphasize connectivity and be organized in a compact form around a major intersection. Application: Community Crossroads are located in both Rural and Neighborhood designated areas. In Rural Areas, they have traditionally developed as commercial clusters (Wynfield, Phinizy, Pollards Corner and Historic Appling). In Neighborhood Areas they have developed – or have the potential to develop – at major intersections in proximity to residential areas (indicated as William Few, Columbia and Furys Ferry on the Future Development Map). Primary Future Land Uses  Neighborhood commercial uses (smaller-scale retail and services serving nearby residents)  Civic benefit uses such as community centers, places or workshop or schools Implementation Strategies (see Chapter 3)  DP 1.1, DP 2.5, DP 3.3, DP 5.1  RC 1.1, RC 1.2, RC 1.3, RC 1.4, RC 2.3, RC 3.1, RC 3.2, RC 3.3, RC 3.4, RC 3.5  SED 3.1, SED 4.1  IC 2.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES Density/Intensity Low to moderate density (Rural Areas) Moderate density (Neighborhood Areas) Green Space Formal landscaping with built areas Transportation Internal vehicular and pedestrian connectivity (Neighborhood Areas) Infrastructure Limited public sewer (Rural Areas) Public sewer availability (Neighborhood Areas) Illustrative Photos Rural Areas Neighborhood Areas ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 VISION 2035 Neighborhoods Intent: PRESERVE established neighborhoods and CREATE quality new residential construction at suburban densities. General Characteristics: Neighborhood Areas are characterized by moderate-density residential development and neighborhoods. Street networks are defined by curvilinear streets and green space is largely provided on individual lots but neighborhood open space and/or park amenities may also be provided. Pedestrian connectivity is moderate, where sidewalks may be internal to a neighborhood but may not connect nearby parks and schools. Future development will continue to detached, single family homes and should occur at moderate densities, with emphasis placed on building materials and site design standards. Application: Neighborhood Areas are located in the Evans, Martinez and Grovetown areas, as well as the area surrounding the proposed Appling-Harlem Employment Activity Center. Primary Future Land Uses  Moderate density detached single-family uses  Greenways and trails  Civic benefit uses such as community centers, libraries, places of worship and schools Implementation Strategies  DP 1.1, DP 2.1, DP 2.2, DP 2.3, DP 2.4, DP 2.5, DP 3.1 RC 1.1, RC 1.2, RC 1.3, RC 1.4, RC 2.1, RC 2.3, RC 2.4, RC 3.1, RC 3.2, RC 3.3, RC 3.4, RC 3.5  SED 1.1, SED 1.2, SED 1.3, SED 4.1, SED 5.1, SED 5.2, SED 5.3, SED 5.4  IC 1.1, IC 1.2, IC 1.3, IC 1.4, IC 2.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES Density/Intensity Moderate density 1 to 4 dwellings per acre (max. net density) Green Space Formal landscaping with built areas Informal landscaping with passive use areas Neighborhood and Community Parks Transportation Moderate to high pedestrian connectivity with sidewalks, greenways, and pedestrian paths Moderate vehicular connectivity with curvilinear streets and generous to moderate distance between intersections Infrastructure Public water and sewer Illustrative Photos ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 VISION 2035 Corridors Intent: ENHANCE and MAINTAIN well-functioning corridors that facilitate vehicular traffic flow and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity, serve local needs, and coordinate land use patterns without encroaching on adjacent neighborhoods. Also, CREATE employment opportunities where a location benefits from direct I-20 access. General Characteristics: Corridors on the Future Development Map are generally those roadways in the Neighborhood Area that connect Activity Centers and that are intended to accommodate a variety of non-residential uses without encroaching upon adjacent residential neighborhoods. Many of the Corridors intersect with identified Activity Centers and areas that have the potential to become a center of activity, such as the I-20/Louisville interchange identified in the 2040 Augusta Regional Transportation Study. Future development will reflect current land uses (Washington Road), transitioning uses (Belair Road), or new uses as development occurs (Gordon Highway and I-20). Emphasis will be placed on connectivity and building/site design standards. Application: Identified Corridors are along I-20, Belair Road, Washington Road and Gordon Highway. Primary Future Land Uses  Washington Road: neighborhood services, office, warehousing  Belair Road: office (continuing the transition from residential to professional office use)  I-20: industrial, mid-rise office, technology-based (R&D centers, data centers)  Gordon Highway: light industrial Implementation Strategies  DP 2.1, DP 2.2, DP 2.4, DP 2.5, DP 3.3, DP 5.1, DP 5.2, DP 5.3, DP 5.4, DP 5.5, DP 5.6  RC 1.1, RC 1.2, RC 1.3, RC 1.4, RC 2.3, RC 2.4  SED 3.1, SED 3.2, SED 3.3, SED 4.1, SED 4.2, SED 5.1, SED 5.2  IC 2.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES Density/Intensity Moderate - Washington Rd., Belair, Rd., Gordon Hwy Moderate to high – I-20 Green Space Formal landscaping with built areas, including adequate screening between frontage uses and adjacent residential areas Transportation High vehicular and pedestrian connectivity Access management to facilitate traffic flow (e.g. shared drives, interparcel access, etc.) Infrastructure Public water and sewer Illustrative Photos Commercial uses with emphasis on streetscape elements (sidewalk and landscape) Light industrial (flex/warehouse space) Transitioning (residential to office) corridor with natural/planted buffer next to neighborhood Mid-rise R&D center) ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 VISION 2035 Activity Centers Intent: ENHANCE and CREATE concentrated commercial uses, employment centers and mixed use development in defined areas that are served by a network of paths and streets suitable for pedestrians as well as cars. General Characteristics Activity Centers are characterized by compact, walkable, higher density developments. These areas provide additional employment opportunities and support residential uses (e.g. townhomes, loft apartments, condominiums) that contribute to a live-work-play environment but are not consistent with the rural and suburban development patterns found in much of the county. Future development should also emphasize high quality building and site design, including dedicated open / civic space. Application: Activity Centers are classified into three categories: Commercial Centers (Greenbrier, Evans to Locks, Baston and Belair Activity Centers); Mixed Use Activity Centers (Evans, Martinez and Gateway Activity Centers); and Employment Centers (Appling- Harlem and Interstate Activity Centers). Primary Future Land Uses  Commercial Centers: neighborhood services, shops, restaurants, civic uses  Mixed Use Activity Centers: o Evans and Martinez – shops, restaurants, office, higher density residential (including apartments/condos above retail and townhomes), civic uses and open space o Gateway – retail (including hotels)/restaurants, office, large- scale recreation, higher density residential (including apartments and condos), civic uses and open space  Employment Centers: o Appling-Harlem – master planned business park or industrial park (light industrial, office/flex warehouse space), manufacturing (if I-20 frontage), mid-rise office, R&D Centers o Interstate – commercial uses serving both local and regional users (includes sales, service, distribution or storage activities), light industrial, heavy industrial (if I-20 frontage; includes manufacturing, assembling, and warehousing) Implementation Strategies  DP 2.1, DP 2.2, DP 2.4, DP 2.5, DP 3.1, DP 3.2, DP 3.3, DP 4.1, DP 4.2, DP 4.3, DP 5.1, DP 5.2, DP 5.3, DP 5.4, DP 5.5, DP 5.6  RC 1.1, RC 1.2, RC 1.3, RC 1.4, RC 2.1, RC 2.3, RC 2.4  SED 3.1, SED 3.2, SED 3.3, SED 4.1, SED 4.2, SED 5.1, SED 5.2, SED 5.3, SED 5.4,  IC 1.3, IC 1.4, IC 2.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES Density/Intensity High density/intensity in general High density residential uses in Mixed Use and Employment Centers (townhomes, apartments and condos) Mixed uses may be vertical (multi- story) or horizontal (individual uses laid out in a campus setting) Green Space Formal landscaping with built areas Open space (civic space) Neighborhood and community parks Transportation High vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity Infrastructure Public water and sewer Illustrative Photos Mixed uses with retail, residential & open space: Mix of commercial uses: Master planned business park: ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 VISION 2035 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Presents the items designed to implement the Comprehensive Plan The Implementation Program identifies the specific measures to implement Vision 2035. The Implementation Program includes the following elements:  2015-2020 Community Work Program  Description of Specific Actions  Supplemental Plans  Long Term Projects List  Plan Maintenance COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAM The Community Work Program (CWP), shown in Table 5-1, identifies specific implementation actions the County and other entities intend to take during the first five-year timeframe of the planning period. This includes programs, ordinances, administrative systems, community improvements or investments, and financing arrangements or other programs/initiatives to be put in place to implement Vision 2035. For each action the CWP outlines the following information:  Type of action/strategy  Brief description  Timeframe for undertaking the activity (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020)  Estimated cost  Responsible party for implementing the activity  Funding source  Strategy reference number (from Chapter 3: Community Vision) ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 VISION 2035 Table 5-1 Columbia County 2016-2020 Community Work Program Action/ Implementation Strategy Time Frame Cost Est. Responsible Party Funding Source Strategy Ref. Number (see Chpt. 3) 16 17 18 19 20 Regulations Create an Agriculture/ Forestry/Rural-Residential zoning district (5 ac. min. lot size)  Staff Time Planning Dept. GF DP 1.2 Amend regulations to incorporate additional design standards for single-family development (based on commonly applied conditions of zoning)  Staff Time Planning Dept. GF DP 3.1 Develop design standards for apartment and townhome projects  Staff Time Planning Dept. GF DP 3.2 Develop design standards for non-residential development  Staff Time Planning Dept. GF DP 3.3 Amend regulations to incorporate minimum open space standards for all new development  Staff Time Planning Dept. GF RC 2.4 Adopt additional standards to protect water resources based on the state model groundwater recharge area protection ordinance  Staff Time Engineering, Planning, Water Utility GF RC 1.1 Adopt additional standards to protect water resources based on the state model water supply watershed ordinance  Staff Time Engineering, Planning GF RC 1.1 Adopt additional standards to protect water resources based on the state model wetlands protection ordinance  Staff Time Engineering, Planning GF RC 1.1 Evaluate Floodplain Management Program  Staff Time Engineering GF RC 1.2 Amend Corridor Protection Overlay District standards to protect adjacent neighborhoods  Staff Time Planning Dept. GF DP 2.2 Adopt a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance  Staff Time Planning Dept. GF RC 2.5 Functional Plans Prepare county-wide Water Master Plan  TBD Water Utility GF DP 1.1, RC 1.3, SED 4.1 Prepare county-wide Wastewater Master Plan  TBD Water Utility GF DP 1.1, RC 1.3, SED 4.1 Prepare a county-wide Solid Waste Management Plan  $20,000 GF SED 5.2 Update the 2002 Recreation Master Plan   $50,000 Parks & Rec GF SED 1.2 Update the 2006 Greenspace Master Plan   $40,000 Planning Dept. GF DP 2.3, RC 2.2 Create a Greenway Master Plan   $40,000 Planning Dept. GF RC 2.2 Coordinate with CSRA RC to update the 2011-2015 regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)   Staff Time Development Authority GF SED 3.2M IC 2.1 Prepare an Economic Development Strategy for the county   $100,000 Development Authority GF SED 2.1, SED 3.1, SED 3.3 Update the 2004 Columbia County Long Range Transportation Plan  $200,000 Planning Dept., Engineering GF DP 5.2, DP 5.3 Small Area/Master Plans Prepare a new master plan for Evans Town Center  $100,000 Planning Dept. GF DP 4.1 Participate in the Fort Gordon Joint Land Use Study update   Staff Time Planning Dept. GF IC 1.1 Prepare a master plan for the Gateway Activity Center  $100,000 Planning Dept., Development Authority GF DP 4.3 Prepare a master plan for the Appling-Harlem Employment Center  $100,000 Planning Dept., Development Authority GF DP 4.3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 VISION 2035 Table 5-1 Columbia County 2016-2020 Community Work Program Action/ Implementation Strategy Time Frame Cost Est. Responsible Party Funding Source Strategy Ref. Number (see Chpt. 3) 16 17 18 19 20 Update the Central Martinez Area Study  $75,000 Planning Dept. GF DP 4.2 Prepare focused studies for existing major corridors to address access management, inter-parcel connectivity and land use/transportation relationships  TBD Planning, Engineering GF DP 5.1 Process/Program Evaluate new tools for conserving land and promote existing methods already in place  Staff Time Planning Dept. GF DP 1.3 Evaluate the potential for corridor-based Community Improvement Districts (CIDs)   TBD Planning Dept., Development Authority GF DP 5.4 Develop a county-wide Gateways and Wayfinding Program   $30,000 Planning Dept., Development Authority GF SED 2.3 Implement the Gateways and Wayfinding Program  TBD Planning Dept., Development Authority GF, Hotel- Motel Tax SED 2.3 Prioritize sidewalk / bicycle facility projects in 2012 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan  Staff Time Engineering, Planning GF DP 2.1 Consult with the Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia DNR to identify available technical/financial resources      Staff Time Historic Preservation Advisory Cmte. GF RC 3.4 Coordinate with organizations such as the non-profit PATH Foundation (or similar entity) to fund and implement the expansion of a comprehensive trail network *      TBD Parks & Rec SED 1.3 Maintain residential uses as the primary land use along major roadways in Neighborhood Areas*      Staff Time Planning Dept. GF DP 2.5 Notify Fort Gordon of zoning proposals within 3,000 feet of the base per state Zoning Procedures Law*      Staff Time Planning Dept. GF IC 1.2 Invite Grovetown and Harlem planners to provide comment during the review process for county rezoning and development proposals in the vicinity of the cities’ boundaries*      Staff Time Planning Dept. GF IC 1.3 Coordinate with the Columbia County School Board to plan for appropriate development with respect to school siting decisions*      Staff Time County Administrator, Planning Dept. GF IC 1.4 Coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to ensure development proposals conform with the J. Strom Thurmond Project Shoreline Management Plan; also, coordinate with USACE to educate the public about allowable shoreline development activity*      Staff Time Planning Dept. GF IC 1.5 Participate in regional planning efforts undertaken by the Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission (CSRARC), the Augusta Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Council*      Staff Time BOC, Multiple Departments GF IC 2.1 Inventory/Assessment Monitor impaired streams in accordance with Savannah‐ Upper Ogeechee Regional Water Plan (2011) recommendations      TBD Water Utility, Engineering GF RC 1.3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 VISION 2035 Table 5-1 Columbia County 2016-2020 Community Work Program Action/ Implementation Strategy Time Frame Cost Est. Responsible Party Funding Source Strategy Ref. Number (see Chpt. 3) 16 17 18 19 20 Monitor the effectiveness of open space and tree protection standards, and identify potential zoning amendments, as necessary      Staff Time Planning Dept. GF RC 2.3 Conduct performance evaluations of on-site sewage management systems, beginning with the Lake Area     TBD Columbia County Health Dept. RC 1.4 Commission a new historic resource survey  $15,000 BOC, Historic Preservation Advisory Cmte. GF RC 3.1 Update the list of buildings and sites that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places  Historic Preservation Advisory Cmte. GF RC 3.5 Infrastructure Projects Implement stormwater management projects identified by Engineering Dept.  TBD Engineering SPLOST, Stormwater Utility DP 2.4, SED 5.1 Incorporate bicycle/pedestrian projects in future road widenings, where feasible      TBD Engineering GF, SPLOST DP 5.6 Implement SPLOST projects to maintain and/or improve public facilities and services, including public safety (fire and sheriff), stormwater, recreation, library services and roads      TBD BOC, County Administrator SPLOST SED 5.1 Identify ‘quality of life’ and public safety CIP projects needed to expand cultural and civic facilities/ services and to maintain a high standard of emergency response      TBD BOC, County Administrator GF SED 5.3 Expand the Euchee Creek Greenway *  TBD Parks & Rec SPLOST SED 1.1 Identify and implement Wildwood Park site enhancements/revenue generators  TBD Parks & Rec GF, SPLOST SED 2.2 Prioritize SPLOST funds to provide parks in underserved areas  TBD Parks & Rec SPLOST SED 1.1 Identify opportunities to incorporate streetscape enhancements with bike/ped project implementation   TBD Engineering GF DP 5.5 Implement sidewalk / bicycle facility projects from 2012 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan   TBD Engineering, Planning GF, SPLOST DP 2.1 * Also included in Long Term Project List Description of Specific Actions This description of specific actions provides additional information related to recommended regulatory updates (i.e. zoning, subdivision regulations, environmental regulations), and new and updated plans. Each description for the regulations and plans references the specific strategies presented in Chapter 3, and the descriptions for the regulatory changes also cite the Character Areas implemented by the specific action. ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 VISION 2035 Regulatory Updates Evaluation and adoption of changes to land use and development regulations is a common follow-up after completion of a comprehensive plan. The purpose of updates to local regulations is to ensure that local governments’ development tools support and implement the goals and strategies outlined in Chapter 3: Community Vision, as well as the Character Areas and development patterns described in Chapter 4: Future Development Guide. The following amendments to the County’s development regulations are recommended:  Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create an Agriculture/ Forestry/Rural-Residential zoning district with a 5- acre lot minimum. (DP 1.2) (Rural)  Amend the Corridor Protection Overlay District standards to prevent encroachment of commercial uses in residential areas (e.g. specify allowable and prohibited uses along corridors and strengthen buffer standards between frontage commercial properties and adjacent neighborhoods) (DP 2.2) (Neighborhoods, Corridors, Activity Centers)  Amend regulations to incorporate common conditions of zoning that can ensure a high quality of residential development (e.g. enhanced open space and pedestrian connectivity standards) (DP 3.1) (Rural Neighborhoods, Neighborhoods, Activity Centers)  Develop design standards for apartment and townhome projects (e.g. identify allowable exterior building materials, require construction of apartments to condominium standards) (DP 3.2) (Activity Centers)  Develop design standards for non-residential development to ensure quality standards are consistently applied throughout the County (DP 3.3) (Community Crossroads, Corridors, Activity Centers)  Adopt additional provisions to protect water resources based on state model ordinances for the protection of groundwater recharge areas, water supply watersheds and wetlands (RC 1.1) (All Character Areas)  Strengthen floodplain standards by specifying that within a 25 foot buffer (measured from top of bank) there can be no fill or development, and that without exception, greater than 50% of a lot which intersects a floodplain must be located outside of the floodplain (RC 1.2) (All Character Areas)  Monitor the effectiveness of the open space and tree protection standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and consider changes as necessary (RC 2.3)  Amend regulations to incorporate minimum open space standards for all new development (RC 2.4)  Adopt a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance to encourage design of residential developments (in Rural and Rural Neighborhood Areas on the Future Development Map) with a high percentage of open space, at least half of which is set aside as permanent conservation areas (RC 2.5) Detailed Planning Studies Functional plans that address a community facility/service or planning topic and small area / master plans that focus on a specific geographic area may be prepared and adopted as implementing measures of the Comprehensive Plan. These are more detailed planning studies to meet certain goals described within the plan. The facility improvements recommended by these plans will conform to the overall Comprehensive Plan. The following planning studies are recommended, with the supporting strategy from Chapter 3 identified: Parks and Recreation Master Plan (update) An update to the 2002 Columbia County Recreation Master Plan would translate the community’s parks needs into recommendations that can be implemented within a planning period, typically 10 years. An updated plan would identify current trends and resident demands for specific types or programs and also recommend additional park and recreation needs based on updated population projections. ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 VISION 2035  Update the 2002 Recreation Master Plan to identify specific needs for park acreage, facilities and programs (SED 1.2) Greenspace Master Plan (update) / Greenway Master Plan (new) The County first prepared a Greenspace Master Plan after creating the Columbia County Greenspace Program in 2000. A plan update can help the County identify potential opportunities for permanently protecting additional greenspace toward its goal of 20%. In addition, the plan can incorporate possible greenway connections (i.e. trails) to create a comprehensive network that includes the Euchee Creek Greenway, based on recent research and evaluation by the County Planning Department.  Update the 2006 Greenspace Master Plan to identify opportunities for neighborhood enhancement through greenspace preservation (DP 2.3)  Create a Greenway Master Plan to establish a trail network that interconnects recreation areas and protected floodplain areas (RC 2.1)  Update the 2006 Greenspace Master Plan to identify opportunities for dedicated greenspace (as protected open space and linear greenways) through conservation easements, land donation, and/or purchase (RC 2.2) Long Range Transportation Plan (update) A countywide multi-modal transportation plan would update the County’s existing Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP; adopted 2004) and further define long-term needs that support the recently updated Augusta Regional Transportation Study (adopted September 2015).  Update the 2004 Columbia County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to address corridors, multi- modal transportation options, the need for an improved county-wide distributed transportation network with a higher level of connectivity, and the 2040 Augusta Regional Transportation Study (ARTS) as it applies to Columbia County (DP 5.2)  Study the feasibility of I-20 frontage road corridor implementation as part of the LRTP update (DP 5.3)  Study the potential for an I-20 “Technology Corridor” as part of the local Economic Development Strategy and Long Range Transportation Plan update processes (SED 3.3)  Incorporate 2040 Augusta Regional Transportation Study recommendations for the urbanized area (Evans and Martinez, generally) into the update to the county-wide Long Range Transportation Plan (SED 4.2) Economic Development Strategy (new) Although a regional strategy is in place (2011-2015 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, prepared by the Central Savannah Regional Area Regional Commission), a county-specific effort can better position Columbia County to identify and recruit appropriate types of businesses (commercial, office, and/or industrial uses) based on local factors and market conditions.  Prepare a county-wide Economic Development Strategy, with eco-tourism as a component (SED 2.1)  Prepare an Economic Development Strategy for the county (SED 3.1)  Coordinate with the Central Savannah Regional Area Regional Commission (CSRA RC) to update the 2011-2015 regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) (SED 3.2)  Study the potential for an I-20 “Technology Corridor” as part of the local Economic Development Strategy and Long Range Transportation Plan update processes (SED 3.3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 VISION 2035 Master Planning: Activity Centers and Corridors (new) Vision 2035 recommends area-specific planning for existing and proposed activity centers (commercial, mixed-use, and employment) and major corridors to refine land use, design and infrastructure needs and recommendations.  Prepare a new master plan for Evans Town Center that emphasizes connectivity, walkability, infill development, and urban design (DP 4.1)  Update the Central Martinez Area Study, with focus on economic/market analysis, traffic circulation, connectivity, infrastructure improvements, and public space enhancement (DP 4.2)  Prepare a master plan for the Gateway Activity Center at I-20 and Lewiston Road and the Appling-Harlem Employment Center at I-20 and Appling-Harlem Road, with emphasis on connectivity and new uses that can benefit from interstate access and provide local employment opportunities and residential uses (DP 4.3)MENTAL PLANS SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS Supplemental plans are planning documents that address in detail a specific topic or issue of importance to the community and that have applicable project recommendations for Columbia County. These plans support the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by addressing identified goals and strategies in Chapters 3 and 4, and their recommendations should be used by the County to identify and prioritize projects in conjunction with the Community Work Program. The supplemental plans listed below are incorporated into the Columbia County 2035 by reference.  Columbia County Hazard Mitigation Plan (most recent update)  Augusta Regional Transportation Study: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update (2012)  2040 Augusta Regional Transportation Study (2015) LONG TERM PROJECT LIST The Long Term Project List, shown in Table 5-2, identifies specific long-term implementation actions the County intend to take beyond the first five-year timeframe of the planning period, including items in the CWP that will be on-going activities. Table 5-2 Columbia County Long Term Project List Action/Implementation Strategy Strategy Ref. No. (see Chapter 3) Adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance to meet the eligibility requirements of the CLG Program RC 3.2 Pursue Certified Local Government (CLG) status to become eligible for federal historic preservation funds RC 3.3 Complete the Euchee Creek Greenway SED 1.1 Provide parks to meet needs in underserved areas of the county SED 1.1 Coordinate with organizations to fund and implement the expansion of a comprehensive trail network SED 1.3 Adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance to meet the eligibility requirements of the CLG Program RC 3.2 Maintain residential uses as the primary land use along major roadways in Neighborhood Areas DP 2.5 Notify Fort Gordon of zoning proposals within 3,000 feet of the base per state Zoning Procedures Law IC 1.2 Invite Grovetown and Harlem planners to provide comment during the review process for county rezoning and development proposals in the vicinity of the cities’ boundaries IC 1.3 Coordinate with Columbia Co. School Board to plan for appropriate development with respect to school siting decisions IC 1.4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 VISION 2035 Action/Implementation Strategy Strategy Ref. No. (see Chapter 3) Coordinate with USACE to ensure development proposals conform with the J. Strom Thurmond Project Shoreline Management Plan; also, coordinate with USACE to educate the public about allowable shoreline development activity IC 1.5 Participate in regional planning efforts undertaken by the CSRARC, the Augusta Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Council IC 2.1 PLAN MAINTENANCE The Board of Commissioners is responsible for maintaining Vision 2035 to accurately reflect current community conditions and the community’s vision and priorities for the future. Specific requirements for amendments and updates are described in the Rules of Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Chapter 110-12-1 “Minimum Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning. Annual Review County staff will provide a status of the plan implementation to the Board of Commissioners on an annual basis. Specifically, the Community Work Program will be reviewed to identify the current status of the implementation measures and an informal progress report will be prepared. If the County chooses, the annual review process can be used to undertake a formal annual update (see below). Plan Amendments According to the DCA rules, the local government determines when a plan amendment is necessary to address changing circumstances that may have detracted from the usefulness of the plan as a guide to local decision-making. Updates to the Comprehensive Plan At a minimum, a plan update must be completed every five years, in accordance with the Local Comprehensive Plan Recertification Schedule maintained by DCA. An annual update option is provided for communities wanting to update their plan on a more frequent basis. The annual update requires submittal of a new fifth year for the Community Work Program and any changes needed for the other years of the CWP. ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 VISION 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Report of Accomplishments 1 VISION 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Report of Accomplishments 2 VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Report of Accomplishments (ROA) provides a status of each work item identified in the Columbia County 2011-2015 Short Term Work Program, as indicated in the following table: Appendix A: Report of Accomplishments 1 VISION 2035 Activity Status Complete Underway Postponed Dropped Notes/Reason Postponed or Dropped Growth Management Expand existing CPOD guidelines to include all nodes and corridors  N/A for remaining corridors, which are primarily residential in use/zoning and are not expected to transition; Martinez and Evans nodes to be reassessed Develop a Unified Development Code (UDC), incorporating zoning, subdivision and site design standards that integrate the principles of the GMP  Will evaluate need for UDC after Comprehensive Plan update Offer incentives for redevelopment of existing lots within the Martinez node  On-going activity of Development Authority Amend subdivision regulations to require PUD process for all commercial developments on identified corridors between nodes  Change in priorities Amend Zoning Ordinance permitted use table to include appropriate uses within Tier I, and Tier II Corridors.  Change in priorities Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow for conditional interconnectivity requirement for new development within Tier I, and Tier II Corridors.  Interparcel access requirements apply to office, retail sales or service use Housing Revise subdivision regulations to increase interconnectivity within subdivisions, such as paved roads, connectivity between subdivisions and multiple entrances  Develop a Rural Residential Zone for large lot development for the rural and conservation character areas  Reevaluated during Comprehensive Plan update; 2018 completion (est.) Revise PUD standards to incorporate the multi-family development design guidelines and any additional design standards established by the UDC  Reevaluated during Comprehensive Plan update; 2016 completion (est.) Economic Development Coordinate the installation of public infrastructure such as water, sewer, and roads to ensure they are consistent with the GMP and enhance industrial development  On-going Offer incentives to developers to spur the redevelopment of the Martinez area identified in the Central Martinez revitalization plan  On-going activity of Development Authority Initiate the Central Martinez revitalization plan – including the improvement district for landscaping, circulation, and streetscapes  Updated Central Martinez Area Study is needed – estimated 2018 completion Implement the Evans Town Center Plan  Park-related improvements have been implemented; a new Evans Town Center Master Plan will be developed in 2016 (est.) to guide remaining development opportunities Community Facilities Establish a coordinated planning process with the Board of Education where the GMP and school facility plans are reviewed annually  To be addressed upon adoption of Comprehensive Plan update Create a capital improvement plan that is coordinated with proposed node development  On-going ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Report of Accomplishments 2 VISION 2035 Activity Status Complete Underway Postponed Dropped Notes/Reason Postponed or Dropped Continued upgrades to existing parks and recreation facilities – parking, equipment, storage, restrooms, etc.  On-going Evans Town Center Park Development (Park Facility)  Animal Control Building Expansion – Pet interaction & familiarization  Health Department Building Expansion  Transportation Explore the feasibility of developing an Access Management Plan.  Establish additional transportation safety and design standards as part of an Access Management Plan and the UDC  Lack of funding; 2019 completion (est.) Construct and re-stripe for bike lanes and multi-use paths as part of the Central Martinez (CM) revitalization  Central Martinez Area Study update needs to occur first (est. 2018) Construct Rose Lane extension as part of the CM Revitalization  Central Martinez Area Study update needs to occur first (est. 2018) Construct Settlement Road and Rose Street connector as part of the CM revitalization  Central Martinez Area Study update needs to occur first (est. 2018) Realign and construct Marsella Avenue and Settlement Road as part of CM revitalization  Central Martinez Area Study update needs to occur first (est. 2018) Streetscape projects as part of the CM revitalization  Central Martinez Area Study update needs to occur first (est. 2018) Construct William Few Connector from William Few to Hardy McManus  Widen Washington Road from 2 to 4 lanes from Gibbs Road to William Few Parkway  2017 completion (est.) Widen Fury’s Ferry Road from 2 to 4 lanes from River Watch Parkway to Evans to Locks Road  Design estimated to begin in 2016 Widen and realign Old Petersburg Road and Old Evans Road from 2 to 4 lanes and 0 to 4 lanes from River Watch Parkway to Washington Road  2017 completion (est.) Widen Flowing Wells Road from 2 to 4 lanes from Wheeler Road to Washington Road  Design estimated to begin in 2016 Widen Owens/Cox/Gibbs/Road from Washington Road to Washington Road  Cox Rd. portion is complete Widen Hereford Farm Road from Belair Road to Gibbs Road  Design estimated to begin in 2016 Widen I-20/Lewiston Road from Columbia Road to Grovetown  Late 2019 estimated start date Resurfacing road projects  Addressed every year Dirt road paving projects  Addressed every year Land Use Establish a review process with municipalities regarding re-zoning and infrastructure improvements adjacent to County/City limits  Create the Greenbrier Town Center Plan  Change in priorities Develop node guidelines for each node that address land use, design, parking, access management, and green space  Evans and Martinez nodes to be addressed in 2016 and 2018, respectively ---PAGE BREAK--- VISION 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment ii VISION 2035 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. DEMOGRAPHICS 3 Study Area 3 Summary: Columbia County Past, Present & Future 4 Population 7 Minority Population 7 Population Age 0 to 17 8 Population Age 70 and Over 8 Average Household Size 9 Number of Households 9 Average Household Total Personal Income (in 2009 dollars) 9 Lower Income Households 11 Working Age Population 18 to 69 11 Total Employment 12 Jobs by Category 12 Building Permit Data 13 “Multi-Family Housing in Columbia County” Report 17 3. DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 18 4. NATURAL RESOURCES 22 Environmental Planning Criteria 22 Regional Water Plan 25 Other Natural Resources 26 Other Protection Measures 28 5. HISTORIC RESOURCES 29 Inventory of Historic Resources 29 National Register of Historic Places 30 Historical 31 Local Historic Districts 32 Archaeological Resources 32 Regionally Important Resources 32 Historic Preservation Boards 33 Other Preservation Tools 33 6. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 34 Water and Wastewater Supply and Treatment 34 Other Facilities and Services 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment iii VISION 2035 7. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 40 Adjacent Local Governments 40 Independent Agencies, Boards and Authorities 40 School Boards 40 Regional and State 41 Consistency with Fort Gordon Joint Land Use Study 42 Consistency with Service Delivery Strategy 42 8. TRANSPORTATION 43 APPENDIX B-1: ATLAS OF TABLES & CHARTS 44 Population 44 Minority Population 44 Population Age 0 to 17 44 Population Age 65 and Over 44 Average Household Size 44 Number of Households 44 Average Household Total Personal Income (in 2009 dollars) 44 Households with Incomes Less Than $30,000 44 Working Age Population 18 to 64 44 Total Employment 44 Farm, Forestry and Mining Jobs 44 Construction Jobs 44 Commercial and Industrial Jobs 44 Federal Civilian and Military Jobs 44 State and Local Government Jobs 44 APPENDIX B-2: CITY POPULATION PROJECTION 75 City Population Projections 76 Overview of the Population Methodology 76 Population Trend Data: 1990-2013 76 Population Trend Line 78 Grovetown Projections 78 Harlem Projections 78 APPENDIX B-3: WOODS & POOLE METHODOLOGY 84 Introduction 85 Overview of the Projection Methods 85 The ‘Export-Base’ Approach 86 The Demographic Model 87 Population 88 Households 88 Employment 89 Employment by Sector 89 Personal Income 93 The Accuracy of the Projections 94 APPENDIX B-4: THE DATA REGRESSION PROCESS 95 ‘Best Fit’ Regressions 96 Trend Line Projections 98 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment iv VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 1 VISION 2035 INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Community Assessment for Columbia County The Community Assessment presents an inventory and evaluation of existing local conditions that were used, in conjunction with input from the public participation process, to identify needs and opportunities in Columbia County Vision 2035. The Community Assessment Appendix is organized into the following sections:  Demographics  Land Use  Natural Resources  Historic Resources  Community Facilities  Intergovernmental Coordination  Transportation  Appendix B-1: Atlas of Tables & Charts  Appendix B-2: City Population Projections Methodology  Appendix B-3: Woods & Poole Methodology  Appendix B-4: The Data Regression Process ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Community Assessment 2 VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 3 VISION 2035 DEMOGRAPHICS Identification of trends in the population, housing and economic characteristics of the community STUDY AREA Where does Columbia County ‘fit’ within its region? How does it compare to the other counties in the region and what characteristics are unique to Columbia County? What trends, past or future, have implications for policies to encourage beneficial growth, prosperity and a livable community? Columbia County’s ‘Region’ is comprised of those counties that are included within its Metropolitan Statistical Area, or MSA, as defined by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Augusta- Richmond County MSA includes Columbia County along with the other Georgia counties of Richmond, McDuffie and Burke, and Aiken and Edgefield Counties in South Carolina. By definition, an MSA contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and consists of the county that contains the core urban area along with any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) within the urban core. It should be noted that Lincoln County, Georgia, was added to the MSA in 2013. However, because that county’s historical data is not included in the MSA in prior years, and before 2000 Lincoln County was not considered adequately integrated with Augusta, the data for that county are not included in this analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 4 VISION 2035 SUMMARY: COLUMBIA COUNTY PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE The table and chart on the next page summarize county growth over the next 20 years. The table on the next page presents all of the socioeconomic data for Columbia County for each category that is compared in this chapter to the other counties in the region. The data fields start in 1990 and proceed to the horizon year of 2035, twenty years from now. The data in both tables are further described beginning on page 7. All of the data presented in this chapter is drawn from data and forecasts prepared by Washington DC- based Woods & Poole Economics in 20141. Woods & Poole maintains a database that contains more than 900 economic and demographic variables for every county in the United States for every year beginning with 1970. This comprehensive database includes detailed population data by age, sex, and race; employment and earnings by major industry; personal income by source of income; retail sales by kind of business; and data on the number of households, their size, and their income. All of these variables are projected for each year through 2035 in this document. In total, there are over 180 million statistics in the regional database. The fact that the proprietary Woods & Poole economic and demographic projections rely on a very detailed database makes them one of the most comprehensive county-level projections available. A complete description of the Woods & Poole model and methodology is found in Appendix A- 3. 1 Note: The 2014 Woods & Poole dataset for Columbia County shows lower population levels in the short term (relative to the recently released 2015 Woods & Poole database and 2015 US Census estimates) but yields a significantly higher population projection for the end of the forecast period (2035). For purposes of long range planning, the higher projection for year 2035 population as presented in this section is consistent with expected growth drivers, including the future influence of anticipated expansion at Fort Gordon. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 5 VISION 2035 Total Population Population 0 to 17 Population 18 to 69 Population 70 and Over Total Employment 2015 139,883 35,807 93,127 10,949 51,392 2035 210,259 49,050 127,148 34,061 77,511 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 6 VISION 2035 Summary: Columbia County Past, Present and Future Working Age Total Population Minority Population Population 0 to 17 Population 70 and Over Average HH Size Number of Households Mean HH Income Incomes Less Than $30K Population 18 to 69 Farm, Forestry & Mining Jobs Construction Jobs Commercial & Industrial US Civilian & Military Jobs State & Local Government Total Employment 1990 66,819 10,081 20,496 2,376 2.99 21,942 87,209 $ 3,914 43,947 427 2,451 13,104 444 2,285 18,711 1991 69,625 10,545 21,303 2,551 2.98 22,993 86,642 $ 4,275 45,771 403 2,430 13,864 390 2,390 19,477 1992 71,767 11,001 21,994 2,718 2.96 23,927 90,638 $ 4,555 47,055 404 2,448 14,389 416 2,570 20,227 1993 75,226 11,698 23,123 2,928 2.96 25,098 90,121 $ 4,784 49,175 443 2,462 15,363 417 2,674 21,359 1994 78,149 12,415 23,821 3,265 2.95 26,143 91,722 $ 4,948 51,063 454 2,580 16,790 376 2,804 23,004 1995 81,491 13,231 24,752 3,622 2.92 27,570 92,649 $ 4,988 53,117 474 2,765 18,173 394 2,646 24,452 1996 83,077 13,896 25,101 3,926 2.90 28,351 93,557 $ 5,120 54,050 463 2,881 19,268 384 2,769 25,765 1997 85,106 14,590 25,540 4,216 2.88 29,285 95,713 $ 5,137 55,350 506 2,977 20,268 400 2,781 26,932 1998 86,675 15,294 25,928 4,472 2.86 30,078 99,173 $ 5,038 56,275 505 3,168 22,583 411 2,840 29,507 1999 88,280 15,944 26,205 4,611 2.83 30,902 101,377 $ 5,142 57,464 461 3,492 23,572 416 2,912 30,853 2000 90,138 16,224 26,621 4,877 2.86 31,321 104,636 $ 5,158 58,640 469 3,605 24,718 403 3,031 32,226 2001 92,537 17,572 26,939 5,269 2.78 33,023 101,186 $ 5,653 60,329 457 3,644 24,565 404 3,196 32,266 2002 95,818 18,965 27,640 5,640 2.77 34,349 99,902 $ 6,087 62,538 439 3,777 26,183 442 3,329 34,170 2003 98,761 20,402 28,259 6,049 2.73 35,860 100,671 $ 6,460 64,453 471 3,917 28,116 454 3,488 36,446 2004 102,934 22,422 29,078 6,541 2.74 37,287 101,500 $ 6,847 67,315 462 4,267 30,781 428 3,772 39,710 2005 106,477 23,794 29,894 6,819 2.73 38,708 102,961 $ 6,968 69,764 482 4,794 33,717 431 3,887 43,311 2006 110,845 25,474 30,966 7,202 2.73 40,280 105,808 $ 7,102 72,677 482 4,984 34,834 454 4,500 45,254 2007 115,074 27,101 32,065 7,559 2.72 42,078 107,744 $ 7,478 75,450 493 5,093 36,287 472 4,750 47,095 2008 117,504 28,029 32,508 7,673 2.72 42,950 111,555 $ 7,814 77,323 507 4,702 37,989 537 4,990 48,725 2009 121,050 29,629 33,198 7,903 2.73 44,034 109,182 $ 7,950 79,949 522 4,063 36,990 567 5,003 47,145 2010 124,934 31,132 33,988 8,184 2.75 45,220 110,983 $ 8,823 82,762 440 3,799 37,206 593 4,888 46,926 2011 128,112 33,232 34,099 8,586 2.74 46,551 112,484 $ 9,426 85,427 449 3,582 37,718 616 4,811 47,176 2012 130,959 34,293 34,549 9,105 2.76 47,273 115,925 $ 9,242 87,305 452 3,599 38,630 625 4,897 48,203 2013 133,874 35,350 34,986 9,745 2.74 48,689 116,007 $ 9,514 89,143 455 3,616 39,558 633 4,984 49,246 2014 136,852 36,471 35,436 10,325 2.72 50,115 116,187 $ 9,709 91,091 457 3,633 40,506 642 5,072 50,310 2015 139,883 37,584 35,807 10,949 2.70 51,544 116,475 $ 9,899 93,127 460 3,649 41,473 650 5,160 51,392 2016 142,964 38,716 36,356 11,598 2.69 52,958 116,907 $ 10,082 95,010 463 3,665 42,460 660 5,250 52,498 2017 146,099 39,899 36,873 12,790 2.68 54,350 117,488 $ 10,257 96,436 465 3,681 43,464 669 5,341 53,620 2018 149,286 41,101 37,482 13,824 2.67 55,724 118,207 $ 10,424 97,980 467 3,696 44,489 679 5,432 54,763 2019 152,525 42,348 37,983 14,871 2.66 57,091 119,034 $ 10,585 99,671 470 3,711 45,534 688 5,525 55,928 2020 155,809 43,601 38,527 15,851 2.65 58,461 119,953 $ 10,646 101,431 474 3,726 46,602 699 5,618 57,119 2021 159,147 44,917 39,113 16,829 2.65 59,839 120,941 $ 10,699 103,205 476 3,741 47,685 709 5,712 58,323 2022 162,528 46,250 39,672 17,914 2.65 61,194 122,052 $ 10,739 104,942 478 3,755 48,788 720 5,807 59,548 2023 165,952 47,632 40,347 19,153 2.64 62,536 123,262 $ 10,767 106,452 481 3,769 49,911 731 5,903 60,795 2024 169,426 49,072 41,056 20,412 2.64 63,878 124,540 $ 10,788 107,958 483 3,783 51,056 743 6,000 62,065 2025 172,936 50,539 41,642 21,708 2.64 65,218 125,891 $ 10,797 109,586 486 3,796 52,225 754 6,098 63,359 2026 176,493 52,008 42,411 22,959 2.64 66,564 127,295 $ 10,802 111,123 488 3,809 53,414 766 6,197 64,674 2027 180,089 53,547 43,134 24,190 2.64 67,913 128,754 $ 10,851 112,765 491 3,822 54,620 778 6,297 66,008 2028 183,725 55,143 43,860 25,348 2.64 69,266 130,268 $ 10,894 114,517 494 3,834 55,853 791 6,397 67,369 2029 187,395 56,727 44,724 26,648 2.64 70,622 131,837 $ 10,929 116,023 495 3,846 57,105 803 6,498 68,747 2030 191,103 58,359 45,414 28,009 2.65 71,979 133,465 $ 10,960 117,680 498 3,858 58,378 817 6,600 70,151 2031 194,856 60,065 46,112 29,302 2.65 73,346 135,134 $ 10,985 119,442 501 3,870 59,674 830 6,703 71,578 2032 198,646 61,834 46,840 30,561 2.65 74,720 136,850 $ 11,004 121,245 503 3,881 60,991 844 6,807 73,026 2033 202,478 63,664 47,562 31,626 2.65 76,105 138,606 $ 11,018 123,290 505 3,892 62,332 858 6,912 74,499 2034 206,351 65,539 48,320 32,817 2.65 77,504 140,399 $ 11,026 125,214 508 3,902 63,695 874 7,017 75,996 2035 210,259 67,453 49,050 34,061 2.65 78,912 142,237 $ 11,028 127,148 510 3,912 65,078 888 7,123 77,511 73,407 30,982 13,614 23,736 (0.07) 28,797 26,050 $ 1,319 36,057 53 279 24,572 246 2,051 27,201 Jobs in Columbia County People 20-Year Change Households ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 7 VISION 2035 The information under each of the following topics (pages 6-10) is drawn from the Woods & Poole forecasts of growth and change in each of the region’s six counties. Detailed data tables and graphs are contained in the Atlas of Tables & Charts. POPULATION Columbia County has been and will continue to be the fastest growing county in the region. At an average growth rate per year of 2.5%, the county’s 2035 population of 210,259 will closely rival Augusta-Richmond County (at 213,168) and Aiken County (215,388). Columbia County’s ‘share’ of the total regional population is projected to grow from about 24% to over 29% by 2035, compared to Augusta-Richmond County’s share falling from almost 35% to 30% and Aiken County’s share increasing from almost 29% to only 30%. Together, these three counties will be home to more than 89% of the total population in the region by 2035. Over the next 20 years Columbia County is projected to grow by approximately 50%. The City of Grovetown’s population is projected to increase 74%, which is consistent with the city’s proximity to Fort Gordon and the anticipated employment growth that the Army base is expected to generate (and its need for close in ‘quick-response’ housing). Unlike Grovetown, Harlem’s growth is anticipated to take advantage of a somewhat different set of opportunities, including its access to I-20, developing commercial and workplace concentrations, and its relatively higher-priced housing market (see the Building Permits section). From its small current size of almost 3,000 people, Harlem is expected to experience the highest growth rate in the county, increasing 125% to over 7,100 people by 2035. MINORITY POPULATION The region’s minority population is projected to increase from 273,401 today to 369,660 by 2035, growing from 46.6% to 51.5% of the total regional population. Only Columbia County and Aiken County are expected to increase their proportion of minority population in the coming 20 years, with Columbia County increasing the most by 4.5 percentage points compared to Aiken’s 3.7. The projected increase in Columbia County’s minority population between 2015 and 2035 is 80% (from 37,584 to 67,453 individuals), which is less than half the growth in the county’s minority population between 1995 and 2015 (184%). Average Annual Growth Rate Columbia County* 2.5% Augusta-Richmond Co. 0.2% McDuffie County 0.1% Burke County 0.5% Aiken County 1.3% Edgefield County 0.4% *See Appendix A-2 for city-specific data Minority Population: Percent of Region 2015 2035 Columbia County 13.7% 18.2% Augusta-Richmond Co. 47.6% 42.3% McDuffie County 3.6% 3.2% Burke County 4.7% 4.2% Aiken County 20.3% 24.0% Edgefield County 10.0% 8.0% ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 8 VISION 2035 POPULATION AGE 0 TO 17 Overall, the portion of the total regional population comprised of children is projected to remain fairly constant, decreasing from an estimated 24.3% today to 23.5% by 2035. Numerically, this represents a net increase of almost 26,000 children region-wide. On the other hand, Columbia County and Aiken County are projected to increase their number of children dramatically, with Columbia’s proportion leading the way, increasing by 9.3 percentage points (a net increase of 13,243 children to over 49,000) and Aiken’s number growing by 7.5 percentage points (a net increase of 10,779 children to about 48,500). These two counties will contain 58% of all children in the region (Augusta-Richmond County will account for about 32%). In Columbia County, the increase in the number of children by 2035 will represent a 37% increase over 2015, the highest increase in the region, followed by Aiken County with a 29% increase. The increase in Columbia County is less than the growth in the number of children in the previous 20 years, which was 44.6%. POPULATION AGE 70 AND OVER At the other end of the age spectrum, the population in the region that is 70 and over is projected to increase from 54,027 today to 110,859 by 2035, a numerical increase of 56,832, and a proportional increase from 9.2% of the total 2015 regional population to 15.5% in 2035. Again, Columbia County takes the lead in the region, increasing its proportion of older residents by 10.4 percentage points, with a numerical increase of 211%, more than tripling its total of 10,949 to a total of 34,061 by 2035. Columbia County is the only county that increases its proportion of elderly residents in the MSA, and rises from 3rd place to 2nd place in numbers, exceeded only by Aiken County. All of the other counties show relatively minor percentage reductions over the coming 20 years, except for Augusta-Richmond County where the proportion of elderly as a percentage of the region falls significantly by 8.0 percentage points (although the total number increases from 16,290 to 24,650). According to the findings of the Columbia County Retirement Report (2012), the number of residents aged 45-54 that are anticipated to begin retiring within the next ten years will place a greater demand on existing retirement communities (ranging from independent living to assisting living and skilled nursing care) and will create demand for new developments suited for the younger, active retire market. In addition, the Retirement Report found that the majority of seniors in Columbia County have aged in place having moved to the county for work, or to be closer to family, prior to retiring. Based on 2010 Census data analyzed for the report, concentrations of potential ‘naturally occurring retirement communities’ Population 0 to 17: Percent of Region 2015 2035 Columbia County 25.1% 34.4% Augusta-Richmond Co. 36.0% 37.7% McDuffie County 4.0% 3.8% Burke County 4.6% 4.6% Aiken County 26.5% 34.0% Edgefield County 3.8% 3.6% Population 70 and Over: Percent of Region 2015 2035 Columbia County 21.4% 30.6% Augusta-Richmond Co. 30.1% 22.9% McDuffie County 4.1% 3.2% Burke County 3.9% 3.6% Aiken County 35.4% 35.0% Edgefield County 5.2% 4.6% ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 9 VISION 2035 (NORCs) are scattered around the Appling, Clarks Hill Lake, and Martinez areas. These potential NORCs are areas where more than 50 percent of the residents are age 60+. The report concluded that existing county services such as public transit and organized activities/programs will need to be expanded to accommodate a growing senior population. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE In the region today, the average number of people living together in a family (or independently by themselves) is estimated at 2.50. This is expected to fall only to 2.49 by 2035. When compared to the regional averages on a county-by-county basis, however, clear differences appear. With an average household size of 2.70, Columbia County exceeds the regional average by the greatest percentage, and consistently exceeds the regional average throughout the 20-year forecast period, although the average falls 1.6 percentage points to a size of 2.65 people per household by 2035. This will leave it and Burke County tied as having the highest average household sizes in the region at that point. The other counties are projected to have, on average, smaller households by 2035 except McDuffie (with a 2 percentage point increase). Of the three counties projected to have smaller households than the regional average in the next 20 years, only Edgefield County’s average is currently greater than the regional average. NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Consistent with the population forecasts and the average household size forecasts, the number of households in the region is projected to increase 23.2% by 2035, adding 52,621 households and bringing the total to almost 280,000. Also consistent with the forecast that Columbia County will continue to be the fastest growing county in the region for the next 20 years, the county is expected to realize a 53.1% increase in the number of households, moving from 51,544 in 2015 to 78,912 in 2035 (a numerical increase of almost 27,400). No other county in the region can equal this increase numerically or in percentage of growth. The closest county is Aiken County, which is projected to add 19,112 households for a 27.7% increase. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME (IN 2009 DOLLARS) Personal income includes all wages and other labor income, proprietors’ income and rental income of persons, dividend and interest income, and transfer payments, less personal contributions for FICA and Medicare. The income data in this report are the average amounts per household stated in constant (2009) dollars. ‘Constant’ dollars are used to measure the ‘real’ change in income, unaffected by inflation. Average Household Size Compared to Region 2015 2035 Columbia County 8.0% 6.4% Augusta-Richmond Co. -2.8% -3.6% McDuffie County 2.8% 4.8% Burke County 6.4% 6.4% Aiken County -3.2% -3.6% Edgefield County 0.4% -1.2% Number of Households: % Increase Columbia County 53.1% Augusta-Richmond Co. 5.0% McDuffie County 0.0% Burke County 9.7% Aiken County 27.7% Edgefield County 13.1% ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 10 VISION 2035 Today, it is estimated that the average personal income for a household in the region is $87,451, and this is projected to grow (in constant dollars) to $117,005 by 2035 (about a 34% increase). For Columbia County, these figures are $116,475 in 2015, increasing to $142,237 by 2035 (a 22% increase). For 2015, Columbia County is the only county that exceeds the regional average and it will still hold that distinction in 2035 except for Aiken County (which will barely exceed the regional average by less than $800, or In contrast, between 2015 and 2035, each of the five other counties is projected to experience a higher percentage increase in average household personal income than Columbia County, ranging from a low of 23.5% (Edgefield County) to a high of 41.8% (Burke County). By 2035, however, at a total of $11.27 billion, Columbia residents will be earning 33.5% of all of the personal income in the region (up from 29.5% in 2015). The only other county that is projected to register an increase is Aiken County, which is projected to move from a lower dollar total than Columbia County in 2015 to a regional share of only 31.3%. All of the other counties are projected to lose regional share, with Augusta-Richmond County dropping the most by 4.3 percentage points. Household Income Compared to Region 2015 2035 Columbia County 33.2% 21.6% Augusta-Richmond Co. -15.9% -16.1% McDuffie County -8.4% -9.6% Burke County -14.8% -9.6% Aiken County -1.6% 0.7% Edgefield County -1.6% -9.2% Total Personal Income (in millions of 2009 dollars) Columbia Richmond McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield MSA 2015 $6,026.7 $6,115.3 $680.2 $673.7 $6,020.4 $913.0 $20,429.2 2035 $11,256.1 $8,615.9 $899.3 $1,049.1 $10,537.8 $1,257.0 $33,615.1 Percent Increase 86.8% 40.9% 32.2% 55.7% 75.0% 37.7% 64.5% Percent of MSA 2015 29.5% 29.9% 3.3% 3.3% 29.5% 4.5% 100.0% 2035 33.5% 25.6% 2.7% 3.1% 31.3% 3.7% 100.0% Change 4.0 (4.3) (0.7) (0.2) 1.9 (0.7) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 11 VISION 2035 LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS While Columbia County households have and will continue to have the highest average personal in- comes in the region, the number of its households earning less than $30,000 a year will grow. Regionwide, the number of households with money incomes less than $30,000 is projected to fall from 78,010 today to only 63,751 in 2035, a drop of over 18%. Columbia County, in contrast, is projected to be the only county to increase its number of lower income households, adding 1,129 from 9,899 to 11,028 during the coming 20 years. As a percentage of the region, Columbia County’s share is projected to grow by 4.6 percentage points, outpacing Aiken (up 2.8 points) and Edgefield (up 0.5)—although each of the latter two will experience a decrease in the actual number of these households. As a percentage of all households in the county, however, the number of Columbia’s lower income households, while rising in number, is projected to decrease from 19.2% to 14.0% of the total by 2035. This compares to a regionwide reduction from 34.3% of all households in the MSA today to 22.8% in 2035. Aiken County is expected to “pace” the region with a 2015-2035 reduction from 35.4% to 24.7% of its households, while Richmond County is projected to record a drop from 40.5% to 26.8%. WORKING AGE POPULATION 18 TO 69 Labor force forecasts are not available. As a substitute, data for the number of people in the 18 to 69 age group are presented. Although this age group is generally considered being of ‘working age’ (70 being the “new 60”), many of course are not actually employed. Columbia County shows the greatest percentage share increase of working age people, growing by 5 percentage points between 2015 and 2035. None of the other counties increase their share of this age group in the region except Aiken County, which is expected to post an increase of 0.4 points. Even with the increase in the number of children in Columbia County by 37%, and an increase of 211% in the number of residents 70 and over, between 2015 and 2035 the county is forecast to increase its working age population by more than 36%, adding 34,021 people to today’s working age total. No other county in the region is projected to add more working age people to its population or increase by a percentage greater than Columbia County. The next highest is Aiken County, with a projected 13% increase adding 15,071 people of working age. Overall, the working age population in the region is projected to increase by 47,480, or 12.2%, over 2015. Of this, Columbia’s increase of 34,021 will represent almost 72% of the regional increase. Households Earning Less Than $30,000 2015 2035 Columbia County 12.7% 17.3% Augusta-Richmond Co. 41.3% 35.1% McDuffie County 4.4% 3.4% Burke County 5.5% 4.7% Aiken County 31.4% 34.2% Edgefield County 4.7% 5.2% Population 18 to 69: Percent of Region 2015 2035 Columbia County 23.9% 29.0% Augusta-Richmond Co. 35.0% 30.8% McDuffie County 3.6% 3.0% Burke County 4.0% 3.6% Aiken County 28.7% 29.1% Edgefield County 4.9% 4.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 12 VISION 2035 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT In 2010 the Census reported that only 35% of county residents who had jobs actually worked in the county. The employment forecasts by Woods & Poole, however, show an increase in jobs within the County. Unlike every other county in the region except Aiken, Columbia County is projected to increase its share of region-wide employment by 2035. Though only 2.6 percentage points over 2015, the total number of new jobs is projected to be 26,119, a 51% increase over 2015. The only county that is projected to add more jobs is Aiken; their projected number of new jobs of 43,643 is much larger that Columbia’s, but represents only a 45% increase. Augusta-Richmond County is next in total job growth, adding a net of 15,984 jobs by 2035; being the home of Ft. Gordon, this increase is heavily influenced by the total number of federal civilian and military workers employed there. JOBS BY CATEGORY The Atlas of Tables & Charts provides detailed data for each of the job categories addressed here. The following table (Percentage of County Jobs Compared to Region) provides a jobs profile for each county in terms of that county’s ‘share’ of all such jobs in the region, and compares the current distribution of jobs to those projected to 2035. Notably, only Columbia and Aiken Counties show gains in the number of private commercial and industrial jobs. As shown in the Atlas of Tables, the vast majority of jobs in Columbia County are currently in the Commercial and Industrial category followed by State and Local Government (10%) and Construction Total Employment Compared to MSA 2015 2035 Columbia County 16.5% 19.1% Augusta-Richmond Co. 43.4% 38.0% McDuffie County 3.1% 2.6% Burke County 3.2% 3.1% Aiken County 31.1% 34.9% Edgefield County 2.7% 2.3% ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 13 VISION 2035 Percentage of County Jobs Compared to Region Columbia Richmond McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Profile Farm, Forestry & Mining 8.5% 11.1% 10.1% 11.8% 39.6% 19.0% Construction 20.0% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.2% 1.9% Commercial and Industrial 18.0% 39.0% 3.1% 3.2% 34.4% 2.3% Federal Civilian and Military 3.0% 86.1% 0.8% 0.5% 7.0% 2.5% State and Local Government 13.0% 57.6% 3.7% 3.8% 18.6% 3.3% 2035 Profile Farm, Forestry & Mining 9.7% 12.2% 10.9% 10.0% 40.8% 16.4% Construction 19.7% 32.3% 3.3% 2.1% 40.6% 2.0% Commercial and Industrial 20.8% 32.7% 2.5% 3.1% 39.0% 2.0% Federal Civilian and Military 3.7% 86.0% 0.7% 0.4% 6.6% 2.6% State and Local Government 16.5% 55.2% 3.4% 3.9% 17.8% 3.2% Change 2015-2035 Farm, Forestry & Mining 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% -1.8% 1.3% -2.6% Construction -0.3% 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% 0.4% 0.1% Commercial and Industrial 2.8% -6.4% -0.6% -0.1% 4.6% -0.3% Federal Civilian and Military 0.6% -0.2% 0.0% -0.1% -0.4% 0.1% State and Local Government 3.5% -2.3% -0.3% 0.1% -0.7% -0.2% BUILDING PERMIT DATA Cities and counties across the country report the number of housing units they authorize with building permits, some and some annually, to the Census Bureau. The data is reported by the number of units in a building: single-family dwellings, two family buildings, three and four families, and five or more families. The reports also include a ‘cost of construction’ figure, which is an estimate of the anticipated cost, exclusive of the cost of the land, overhead or profit. When a locality misses a reporting month, the Census Bureau ‘imputes’ the data from other sources. This has occurred from time-to-time for all three issuing authorities in Columbia County over the past decade: the County itself (for construction in the unincorporated area), Grovetown and Harlem. Importantly, manufactured homes are not included to the extent that building permits usually are not required for their placement. The permit data from the Census Bureau, therefore, are intended to be for permanent construction. The New Housing Units Table shows the total number of housing units authorized by building permits issued in Columbia County for the years 1999 through 2013, by each issuing authority, as reported by the Census Bureau. It is assumed, of course, that a unit issued a building permit in one year will appear as part of the inventory of housing in the following year. Unfortunately, the building permit data for the issuing authorities in Columbia County are not reliable enough when considering past and future growth trends, as illustrated on the Housing Units: 2000 & 2010 Table. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 14 VISION 2035 Housing Units: 2000 & 2010 Unincorporated County Grovetown Harlem Total County 2000 Census – All Units 30,085 2,473 763 33,321 Less: Manufactured Homes in 2000 3,518 968 33 4,519 Net Units – 2000 26,567 1,505 730 28,802 Plus: New Units Added 2000-2010 10,841 2,053 226 13,120 Net Units – 2010 37,408 3,558 956 41,922 Plus: Manufactured Homes in 2010 3,718 883 10 4,611 Imputed Total Units 41,126 4,441 966 46,533 2010 Census Count 43,208 4,298 1,120 48,626 Variance 2,082 (143) 154 2,093 As a general rule, some housing units get permitted but are never built. The ‘net percentage’ of actual building activity can be an important indicator for future growth, particularly by housing type. To corre- late housing production between the Census counts of 2000 and 2010 with permit authorizations, manufactured homes are first subtracted from the total 2000 housing count, the number of new units added to the inventory during 2000 to 2010 are included, and the number of manufactured homes in 2010 are added in. The results, shown on the table, vary considerably from the actual housing unit counts in the 2010 Census. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 15 VISION 2035 While the accuracy of the building permit data is questionable, partly because the Census Bureau ‘imputes’ its own data when nothing is submitted by the locality, the ‘cost of construction’ figures offer some insight to the different housing markets in the county. The table on the next page shows the construction costs for single-family homes by issuing authority added to the inventory between 2000 and 2014. These figures, as noted above, are estimates, are not verified in any way, and no comparison between estimated construction cost and sales price has ever been done. However, trends are apparent. While cost estimates for homes in the unincorporated area are generally higher every year than in the cities, overall Grovetown homes have New Housing Units Permit Issued* Added to Inventory Unincorporated County Grovetown Harlem Total County 1999 2000 1,095 80 9 1,184 2000 2001 868 67 8 943 2001 2002 983 74 2 1,059 2002 2003 1,375 111 3 1,489 2003 2004 1,302 121 8 1,431 2004 2005 1,370 272 8 1,650 2005 2006 1,450 335 9 1,794 2006 2007 1,027 313 53 1,393 2007 2008 940 274 53 1,267 2008 2009 568 243 53 864 2009 2010 958 243 29 1,230 2010 2011 1,075 182 29 1,286 2011 2012 1,074 180 11 1,265 2012 2013 1,118 72 19 1,209 2013 2014 1,139 84 18 1,241 Note: Permits for new construction exclude manufactured homes. * Totals include Census Bureau estimates for months not reported by locality. Source: US Bureau of the Census, building permit reporting system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 16 VISION 2035 generally paced the county costs while Harlem gained considerably in cost estimates from 2007 to 2013, exceeding Grovetown in several years. For the 2000-2014 period, the average construction cost estimated in the unincorporated area was $152,270. For Grovetown, the average $133,938 was 88% of the county’s, while Harlem’s average of $144,877 was 95% of the county average over the 15 year period (primarily affected by its 2007-2013 surge). While cautiously interesting, little reliance can be placed on these figures. Average Construction Costs: Single Family Homes Units Total cost** Average Units Total cost** Average Units Total cost** Average 1999 2000 891 110,369,126 $ 123,871 $ 80 8,129,413 $ 101,618 $ 9 585,788 $ 65,088 $ 2000 2001 868 112,740,532 $ 129,885 $ 63 6,811,350 $ 108,117 $ 8 520,700 $ 65,088 $ 2001 2002 983 131,766,898 $ 134,046 $ 74 8,231,465 $ 111,236 $ 2 233,000 $ 116,500 $ 2002 2003 1,181 138,635,404 $ 117,388 $ 107 13,145,520 $ 122,855 $ 3 307,900 $ 102,633 $ 2003 2004 1,302 179,718,845 $ 138,033 $ 121 14,143,275 $ 116,887 $ 8 798,900 $ 99,863 $ 2004 2005 1,360 199,977,284 $ 147,042 $ 272 35,600,930 $ 130,886 $ 8 798,900 $ 99,863 $ 2005 2006 1,450 237,670,739 $ 163,911 $ 319 45,821,861 $ 143,642 $ 9 898,762 $ 99,862 $ 2006 2007 1,025 198,312,973 $ 193,476 $ 301 39,168,148 $ 130,127 $ 53 8,985,750 $ 169,542 $ 2007 2008 940 173,388,449 $ 184,456 $ 274 40,406,835 $ 147,470 $ 53 8,985,750 $ 169,542 $ 2008 2009 568 97,379,144 $ 171,442 $ 243 33,136,400 $ 136,364 $ 53 8,985,750 $ 169,542 $ 2009 2010 958 145,525,140 $ 151,905 $ 243 33,136,400 $ 136,364 $ 17 2,150,800 $ 126,518 $ 2010 2011 1,075 173,283,010 $ 161,193 $ 182 25,403,430 $ 139,579 $ 17 2,150,800 $ 126,518 $ 2011 2012 1,074 163,905,732 $ 152,612 $ 180 25,124,271 $ 139,579 $ 3 357,000 $ 119,000 $ 2012 2013 1,118 174,202,026 $ 155,816 $ 0 - $ - $ 7 1,107,800 $ 158,257 $ 2013 2014 1,139 189,089,980 $ 166,014 $ 84 12,345,992 $ 146,976 $ 18 1,959,500 $ 108,861 $ * Totals include Census Bureau estimates for months not reported by locality. Direct cost of construction as estimated by builders. Does not include land or profit. Source: US Bureau of the Census, building permit reporting system. Unincorporated County Grovetown Harlem Added to Inventory Permit Issued* $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Unincorporated County Grovetown Harlem ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 17 VISION 2035 “MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN COLUMBIA COUNTY” REPORT The Multi-Family Housing in Columbia County report, prepared by the Columbia County Planning Department in 2010, assessed the county’s multi-family housing stock (i.e. townhouses and apartments). The report found that over the last 25 years the percentage of single family homes and apartments remained steady, at 79% and 3% of the total housing stock, respectively. During the same time, the percentage of townhomes increased and the percentage of manufactured homes declined. Relative to six Georgia counties that were comparable to Columbia County in total population, population, and household income, the County had the highest rate of owner-occupied housing Neighboring Augusta-Richmond County was found to have the highest rate of renter-occupied housing at 43%. Columbia County also had fewer apartments than similar jurisdictions. At the time of the report’s preparation, there were 1,430 apartment units with an additional 600 units under construction and zoning in place that would allow another 1,300 units. There were 2,000 existing townhome units, approximately 230 under construction and zoned land for another 1,500 units. The report found that if most of the 140 vacant acres already zoned for apartments are developed by 2015, then the County’s apartment total of about 3,500 units would constitute 7% of all housing, which is comparable to the 9% average of the similar communities. The report recommended that future rezoning of property to allow apartments should match the population growth rate in order to preserve a balanced housing mix. From 2000 to 2008, the County’s population increased an average of 2.7 % each year. Therefore, approval of zoning to allow a 2.7 % annual increase in new apartments (in addition to those already approved) was identified as an appropriate maximum threshold for apartment development through 2015. This calculates to about 50 units per year. Since most apartment developments average about 200 units, this would effectively result in only one rezoning over the next four years. With reference to townhouses, this calculates to about 60 units per year. These annual caps were instituted by the County subsequent to the report’s completion. The report further recommended annual monitoring of the development of the vacant acreage and tracking of the number of apartment units and townhouses added each year. It also encouraged locating new apartment developments within nodes identified in the Growth Management Plan and locating any new townhouse development (not to exceed 8 units per acre) within nodes or along corridors. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 18 VISION 2035 DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Analysis of existing land uses and areas requiring special attention EXISTING LAND USE This section describes the nature of existing land use in Columbia County in terms of relative quantities of different land use types and community development characteristics. The Existing Land Use Map displays countywide existing land use, defined as the current use of parcels of land and categorized as described in the Existing Land Use Categories table below. The Existing Land Use Map was developed through a process of GIS analysis that involved tax digest data from Columbia County, aerial photography from various sources, and windshield surveys. Existing Land Use Categories Category Description Agriculture/Forestry Land dedicated to agricultural and forestry activities Parks/Recreation/Conservation Dedicated open space such as public parks and state and federal lands Residential (single-family) Single-family detached homes and manufactured homes on individual lots Multi-Family Apartments, attached homes (i.e. townhomes, duplexes), condominiums Manufactured Home Park Multiple manufactured homes (“mobile homes”) on a single, unsubdivided lot Commercial Non-industrial businesses including retail sales, office, services and entertainment Industrial Land dedicated to warehousing, wholesale trade and manufacturing Public/Institutional State, federal or local government uses including city halls and government building complexes, police and fire stations, libraries, prisons, schools, etc. Transportation/Communication/Utili ties Properties devoted to power generation plants, radio towers, telephone switching stations, electric utility substations, and other similar uses ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 19 VISION 2035 The areas of most intense development in Columbia County include both incorporated and unincorporated communities. South of I-20, the cities of Harlem and Grovetown have concentrations of development that are typical of small towns in the CSRA region, though Grovetown has seen more residential expansion that is largely attributable to its proximity to Fort Gordon. North of I-20, approximately one quarter of the county has been substantially developed in the unincorporated Evans and Martinez communities. Despite the significant levels of land development and population growth in recent decades, approximately half of Columbia County is still classified as Agriculture/Forestry; the vast majority being pine forest in active silviculture. An additional 5.9% of the county’s land area is classified as Parks/Recreation/Conservation, and 3.1% was determined to be “Undeveloped” by land use analysis. In total, approximately 59% of Columbia County has not been developed for residential or commercial/industrial land use. Three residential categories together represent 31.7% of countywide land use. Of all residential land use, 98% is classified as single-family residential. The relatively small amount of multi-family residential land use is mostly located in Evans and Martinez. Manufactured home parks are scattered, with several in the Grovetown community. The combination of existing commercial and industrial land use in Columbia County totals approximately 3.1% of countywide land use. Of this, approximately 55% is classified as commercial and 45% industrial. The majority of commercial use is situated along the major road corridors in the Evans, Martinez and Grovetown communities, and adjacent to I-20 exits. Industrial land is generally clustered in industrial park settings, with some exceptions. Due largely to the portion of Fort Gordon that is located within Columbia County, the Public/Institutional classification totals 5.6% of countywide land. Other Public/Institutional uses include schools, churches, and local government facilities. Existing Land Use Composition (includes cities) Land Use Classification Acres % of Total Agriculture/Forestry 88,985 50.1% Parks/Recreation/Conservation 10,449 5.9% Residential (single-family) 55,200 31.1% Multi-Family 704 0.4% Manufactured Home Park 377 0.2% Commercial 3,003 1.7% Industrial 2,498 1.4% Public/Institutional 10,034 5.6% Transportation/Communication/Utilities 932 0.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 20 VISION 2035 EXISTING LAND USE MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 21 VISION 2035 AREAS REQUIRING SPECIAL ATTENTION Growth inevitably impacts natural and cultural resources as well as the community facilities, services, and infrastructure required to service the local economy and population. Table 3 describes the Columbia County areas requiring special attention due to growth-related impacts, either actual or potential. Categories are listed in the left column of the table with the corresponding summary of the area and specific needs in the right column. Areas Requiring Special Attention Category Summary Areas of significant natural or historic resources, particularly where these are likely to be intruded upon or otherwise impacted by development  Historic  Appling area (including Courthouse and surrounding area / historic resources)  Natural  Lake and River areas  Around Heggie’s Rock  See also Natural Resources Chapter and Map Areas where rapid development or change of land uses is likely to occur  Near I-20 interchanges (existing and future locations, including Louisville Rd at I- 20)  Grovetown and Harlem communities (associated with Fort Gordon expansion and general population growth)  North and west of Evans town center (Evans continues to expand to the north and west)  West of Grovetown Areas where the pace of development has and/or may outpace the availability of community facilities and services, including transportation  Washington Road corridor in Martinez and Evans  Louisville Road corridor in Grovetown  Harlem and Grovetown communities near Fort Gordon  Columbia Road corridor between Evans and Appling Areas in need of redevelopment and/or significant improvements to aesthetics or attractiveness (including strip commercial corridors) For the most part, the corridors listed below have experienced extensive and piecemeal strip development, or have the potential to attract such growth, that would benefit in some areas from traffic calming measures and from improvements that make it easier to walk and bike along the corridor. These include:  Washington Road commercial corridor through Martinez and Evans  Belair Road corridor in Martinez and Evans  Road between I-20 and Grovetown  Areas surrounding Grovetown including Lewiston Road Areas with significant infill development opportunities (scattered vacant sites)  Evans town center infill development opportunities  Highway corridors throughout the county, many of which are identified as areas in need of redevelopment or significant improvements (see above)  Grovetown and Harlem communities ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 22 VISION 2035 NATURAL RESOURCES Description of natural resources and their vulnerability to growth and development ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CRITERIA In order to protect the state’s natural resources and environment, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed Rules for Environmental Planning Criteria (Chapter 391-3-16). These minimum standards and procedures, also known as Part V Criteria, are required under the Georgia Planning Act to be used by local communities in the development of comprehensive plans. In addition, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs’ (DCA) Minimum Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning (Chapter 110-2-1) require local governments to review the Part V Criteria to determine if there is need to adapt development regulations to address protection of the following natural resources:  Water Supply Watersheds  Groundwater Recharge Areas  Wetlands  Protected Rivers  Protected Mountains The Compliance with State Environmental Planning Criteria table on the next page indicates whether these natural resources are present in Columbia County and if the County has implemented protection efforts. The resources are also depicted on the Natural Resources Map, with the exception that water supply watersheds (portions of the Little, Brier and Middle Savannah watersheds) are shown at right. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS IN THE COUNTY ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 23 VISION 2035 Compliance with State Environmental Planning Criteria Resource Definition1 Location Local Protections Water Supply Watershed The area of land upstream of a governmentally owned public drinking water intake; a “large water supply watershed” is 100 square miles or more of land within the drainage basin upstream of the intake There are portions of three large water supply watersheds in the county: Little, Brier and Middle Savannah (see next page) Watershed Protection Ordinance: No Typical provisions:  Buffer and impervious surface requirements streams within a 7-mile radius of a water supply reservoir Groundwater Recharge Areas Any portion of the earth’s surface where water infiltrates into the ground to replenish an aquifer. As delineated by the DNR in Hydrologic Atlas 18, 1989 edition:  Lower susceptibility areas in the upper northwest part of the county  Average and higher susceptibility areas across the southern county boundary Groundwater Recharge Area Protection Ordinance: No Typical provisions:  Septic tank regulations, including minimum lot sizes for new homes  Special requirements for uses with on-site hazardous materials Wetlands Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. County-wide, as delineated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Protection Ordinance: No Typical provisions:  Uses associated with contaminants are prohibited  Local development permit is required for regulated activity Protected Rivers Any perennial river or watercourse with an average annual flow of at least 400 cubic feet per second as determined by appropriate U.S. Geological Survey documents. Savannah River between Clarks Hill Dam on the north and the county line on the south Savannah River Corridor Buffer: Yes Key provisions:  100-feet buffer  Limits on land disturbance within the buffer Protected Mountains All land area 2,200 feet or more above mean sea level, that has a slope of 25% or greater for at least 500 feet horizontally, and shall include the crests, summits, and ridge tops which lie at elevations higher than any such area. There are no protected mountains in Columbia County. Not applicable to Columbia County 1 Definitions taken from DNR Rules for Environmental Planning Criteria (Chapter 391-3-16) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 24 VISION 2035 NATURAL RESOURCES MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 25 VISION 2035 REGIONAL WATER PLAN DCA’s Minimum Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning require local governments to review the Regional Water Plan when preparing a comprehensive plan to determine whether additional or modified regulations/actions are needed. In Columbia County, primary water resources are the Savannah River and Clarks Hill Lake. The Savannah River forms the boundary between Columbia County and South Carolina and is a primary source of drinking water for residents in both the County and the surrounding region. Clarks River Lake, the largest Army Corps of Engineers lake east of the Mississippi River, was created by the construction of the J. Strom Thurmond Dam and is another source of drinking water. The Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Council coordinates regional planning efforts that address long-term water quality protection and adequate water supply. The Council is comprised of residents of a 19-county area who were appointed the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Speaker of the House to prepare a regional water plan in accordance with the requirements of the Statewide Comprehensive Water Management Plan. The Savannah‐Upper Ogeechee Regional Water Plan, adopted in November 2011, describes water resources conditions, projects future demands, identifies resource management issues, and recommends appropriate water management practices to be employed in the region through 2050. Water Availability and Quality The Regional Water Plan found that future water availability and water quality issues include the need for additional water withdrawal and treatment capacity as well as additional wastewater treatment capacity in fast growing counties such as Columbia County. Columbia County can currently treat up to 46 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) of water from the Savannah River, and up to 8 MGD from Clarks Hill Reservoir; the 54 MGD total is higher than the projected 2050 maximum demand of 45.1 MGD. Should additional capacity be needed, a “high rate” expansion (expansion of existing filters) at the Jim Blanchard Water Treatment Plant is anticipated increase water treatment capacity from 46 MGD to 54 MGD. In addition, the County anticipates increasing the water storage contract with the Corps of Engineers for the Clarks Hill Water Treatment Plant over the next two years. With respect to wastewater treatment capacity, overall system capacity is at approximately 66%. Current and planned expansion projects (see also the Community Facilities Chapter) are expected to adequately serve the County through 2030. Projects that can add capacity needed to serve the County through 2050, which is the planning horizon in the Regional Water Plan, can be identified in a Wastewater Master Plan. The County currently does not have a Wastewater Master Plan or a Water Master Plan; the Regional Water Plan recommends local governments prepare and maintain these long-range infrastructure plans. Impaired Streams The Clean Water Act requires the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to monitor the quality of fresh water rivers, streams and lakes. Water bodies that do not support their designated uses (e.g. recreation, water supply, aquatic life) due to poor water quality are included on a list of impaired waters, also known as the 303(d) list of waters. Impairments must be addressed through the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which sets a pollutant budget and outlines strategies for corrective action. The Regional Water Plan maps the region’s impaired streams, which in Columbia County are: Jones Creek, Reed Creek and Uchee Creek. The latest water quality assessments by EPD (conducted in 2012) indicate the streams are do not support their designated uses for fishing due to fecal coliform due from stormwater runoff. TMDL’s were previously completed for each impaired stream, which require ongoing ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 26 VISION 2035 fecal coliform source tracking. The most recent Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (2017-2022 SPLOST) includes funds to perform this TMDL tracking for all three streams. In addition, the Columbia County Adopt-A-Stream Program (through the Keep Columbia County Beautiful Program) has reported on-going clean-up activities along Reed Creek. Past projects have addressed Uchee Creek and Jones Creek. OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES Floodplains A floodplain is any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. Floodplains serve three major purposes: natural water storage and conveyance, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge. Unsuitable development can destroy their value. For example, any fill material placed in the floodplain eliminates essential water storage capacity, causing water elevation to rise, resulting in the flooding of previously dry land. Columbia County’s 100 and 500-year floodplains are shown on the Natural Resources Map in this chapter. In the majority of the county, floodplains tend to be narrow, except in the southern part of the county where they are moderately wide. The upland soils are generally well drained. The bottomland waterways drain off slowly and remain wet for long periods. Flood prone areas include densely developed areas in the vicinity of Reed Creek, Betty's Branch, and Jones Creek. Localized flooding may occur around these creeks after heavy storms. The 2017-2022 SPLOST includes culvert upgrade and stream stabilization projects along these streams to address flooding issues. In addition, the County has adopted a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, which sets forth standards for development within the floodplain. State of Georgia Recreation Areas Located on Clarks Hill Lake, Mistletoe State Park is situated on a nearly 2,000 acre peninsula. Prior to construction of the lake, the area was farmland. The park now includes mixed pine and hardwood forest and attracts a diversity of wildlife, including Canadian geese, ring-necked ducks, wood ducks, wading birds, wild turkey, white-tailed deer, red and gray foxes, and songbirds. The Keg Greek Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is 800 acres of designated land on Clarks Hill Lake and is frequented by fishermen, hikers and mountain bikers. Wildlife Management Areas are public lands set aside by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for the preservation of natural wildlife habitats and provision of recreational opportunities for outdoor sportsmen. Heggie’s Rock Heggie’s Rock is a 130-acre Piedmont flat rock outcrop rising approximately 70 feet above neighboring Benton Branch and Little Kiokee Creek in Appling. The Nature Conservancy owns 101 acres of the site, named the Heggie’s Rock Preserve, and Columbia County purchased 140 acres surrounding the outcropping as part of its Greenspace Program (see also below) with funds from the Georgia Wetland Trust Fund, the State of Georgia’s Greenspace Program grant monies, SPLOST funds, and The Nature Conservancy. Greenspace Program The stated mission of the Columbia County Greenspace Program is to maintain a proper balance between people and their environment by conserving the abundant precious natural resources of the County for ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 27 VISION 2035 future generations and to enhance the quality of life for all residents. The County’s Greenspace Program was established after the Georgia General Assembly created the Georgia Greenspace Program in 2000. The Program is administered by the Columbia County Community and Leisure Division with input from a Greenspace Advisory Board. The Board’s members are volunteers appointed by the Columbia County Board of Commissioners. The County’s goal is to preserve 20% of the geographic area of the county as greenspace (open space and greenways). To date, approximately 11,000 acres of the 30,000 acre-goal has been obtained. Acreage that has been designated as greenspace includes county-acquired properties as well as U.S. Army Corps of Engineer property at Clarks Hill Lake that cannot be built on. Future acquisitions may be in the form of fee simple land acquisition, donations, conservation easements or permanent restrictive covenants. Specific acreage that has been preserved includes the following, based on recommended priority areas in the Greenspace Master Plan prepared after the County’s Greenspace Program was established: Permanently Protected Greenspace Land Type Description Permanently Protected Acreage to Date Savannah River Conservation Area and Greenway Proposed 200-feet wide corridor along the southern banks of the Savannah River to connect the existing North Augusta Greenway to Clarks Hill Lake. 5,598 acres Floodplain Greenways Proposed 100-feet wide corridors along the Kiokee, Little Kiokee, Euchee, Betty’s Branch, Jones and Reed Creek floodplains, linking urbanized parts of the county to passive recreational areas. 376 acres Martinez-Evans Open Space Proposed acquisition of vacant parcels to provide small-scale pocket parks and passive open space. 50 acres Conservation Area Proposed dedicated greenspace in the northwest party of the county, where there is a significant groundwater recharge area (see Natural Resources Map) and development pressure due to proximity to Clarks Hill Lake and Mistletoe State Park 0 Historic/Natural Resources Includes Corps of Engineers and State-owned properties, as well as areas that buffer Heggie’s Rock. 4,148 acres ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 28 VISION 2035 OTHER PROTECTION MEASURES In addition to environmental ordinances that address DNR’s Part V Criteria (see the Compliance with State Environmental Planning Criteria Table), local governments also adopt additional ordinances for natural resource protection. Columbia County has adopted several ordinances that address water resource protection, including:  Soil Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Control Ordinance  Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance  Stormwater Management Ordinance (including a 2015 Columbia County Supplement to the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual to better address local water quality and stormwater management issues)  Outdoor Water Use Ordinance  Cross-Connection Control Program ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 29 VISION 2035 HISTORIC RESOURCES Identification of historic resources and their potential for preservation INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Historic resource surveys provide a working base for communities in devising a local preservation strategy. In 1990 the Columbia County Board of Commissioners authorized a survey of all historic resources in the County built prior to 1940. Approximately 95% of the county was surveyed, resulting in a list of 26 properties identified as being eligible for nominating to the National Register of Historic Places (see National Register of Historic Places Section in this Chapter). At that time, about 75% of the properties surveyed were in good condition. In the written survey prepared by the surveyor, it was stated that numerous important historic sites were being neglected as a result of rapid development and increasing property values. In 2004, a second survey was conducted around the Harlem area, but the original county-wide survey has not been updated, and the status of several of the National Register-eligible properties has changed. Properties have been demolished over the past 25 years, and other structures or sites now have greater historical significance due to their age. The public can view the resources from these surveys on DNR’s official web-based database system: NAHRGIS (Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources Geographic Information Systems). The map at right shows the locations of the surveyed resources, which are primarily buildings. SURVEYED HISTORIC RESOURCES (1990 – County) (2004 – Harlem) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 30 VISION 2035 The following list identifies the National Register eligible resources from the original historic resources survey, with a current status of the building, where known: 1. “The Cedars,” c. 1885 2. Macedonia Baptist Church, c. 1880 – Original building gone, replaced by c. 1948 structure 3. Evans School Dormitory, c. 1900 – Demolished 4. Evans School Arch and Columns, c. 1925 – Relocated due to development 5. G.B. Lamkin House, c. 1925 – Demolished 6. “Cedar Hill.” c. 1820 7. Old Washington Road 8. Damascus Baptist Church, c. 1900 9. Dunns’ Chapel, c. 1890 10. Winfield Area, c. 1840 11. Sharon Church, 1869 12. William Few house site, c. 1930 13. Shiloh Church, c. 1857 14. Cedar Dale, c. 1858 15. Appling Community (multiple sites, c. 1850-1925) 16. Shucraft Road House, c. 1890 17. Columbia Road at Hereford Farm Road, c. 1870 18. Plantation House on Columbia Road, c. 1830 19. Columbia Road, c. 1790 20. Otts House, c. 1865 21. Road, c. 1815 22. Magruder Home, c. 1810 23. Grovetown (multiple sites along Robinson Avenue) 24. The Dodge House, c. 1910 25. Campania 26. Harlem (multiple sites, c. 1850) – Local Historic Districts designated (see Local Historic Districts Section) NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the official list of the nation’s historic and archaeological resources worthy of protection. A program of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, the National Register is intended to identify, evaluate and protect historic places. As an honorary designation, National Register status places no obligations or restrictions on private ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 31 VISION 2035 owners. However, in order to take advantage of incentive-based preservation programs such as the 20% Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, rehabilitation projects must retain a property’s historic character by following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The National Register includes four Columbia County historic resources (see Historic Resources Map; two – Stallings Island and Woodville are not shown due to their archaeological or historic sensitivity). HISTORICAL MARKERS Historical markers (see Historic Resources Map) educate citizens and visitors about the people and events that shaped Georgia’s past and present. The Georgia Historical Society has managed the state markers HISTORIC RESOURCES MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 32 VISION 2035 program since 1998; prior to that time markers were placed by the Georgia Historical Commission. Local historical societies may also erect markers. LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS While National Register designation is largely symbolic, a locally-designated historic district can afford meaningful protection to a historic resource. The City of Harlem is the only jurisdiction that has adopted locally-designated historic districts: the Central, Sanders, and Sawdust Districts. Local designation, accomplished by adoption of an ordinance, requires review and approval of proposed exterior alterations to an affected property. A historic preservation commission (HPC) is appointed as the reviewing body, and approvals are granted in the form of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). An HPC is also authorized to review and approve the proposed relocation or demolition of a building. A COA must be granted before building permits are issued. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Stallings Island Stallings Island, a National Historic Landmark site, was a major settlement of Late Archaic Native Americans from 4,500 to 3,500 years ago. Located in the Savannah River, the 16-acre private island is the namesake of Stallings Culture. It is maintained by the Augusta Archaeological Society. As a National Historic Landmark, Stallings Island is automatically listed on the National Register of Historic Places. National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) are historic places that possess exceptional value in commemorating or illustrating the history of the United States. The National Park Service’s National Historic Landmarks Program oversees the designation of such sites. REGIONALLY IMPORTANT RESOURCES The Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission’s (CSRARC) Regionally Important (RIR) Resources Plan includes Fort Gordon, a portion of which is located in the southwestern part of the county. The RIR Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the protection and management of the natural, cultural, and historic resources found throughout the CSRA region. Fort Gordon, or Camp Gordon, as it was known in 1941, was initiated for infantry and armor training for World War II soldiers. Fifteen years later in 1956, Camp Gordon was designated Fort Gordon, making it a permanent military installation. During these 62 years, the installation has undergone numerous reorganizations, but it is known as the "Home of the Signal Corps." The RIR Plan’s recommends best practices applicable to new developments within a one-mile radius of Fort Gordon. These recommendations are consistent with the recommendations in the 2005 Joint Land Use Study (See Intergovernmental Coordination Chapter).: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 33 VISION 2035 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARDS Columbia County Historical Society The Columbia County Historical Society was founded in 1975 to promote and preserve the County’s history. The Historical Society endeavors to preserve and restore significant buildings and sites and promote awareness of the area’s history. The group meets at the restored county jail in Appling. Columbia County Historic Preservation Advisory Committee The newly formed seven-member advisory committee, appointed by the Board of Commissioners, is charged with raising awareness of Columbia County’s history, making recommendations about historic properties and other preservation issues and collecting and preserving historic documents and artifacts. OTHER PRESERVATION TOOLS Certified Local Government Program The Certified Local Government Program (CLG) is a federal program administered at the state level by HPD. Any city, town, or county that has enacted a historic preservation ordinance and enforces that ordinance through a local preservation commission, is eligible to become a CLG. The benefits of becoming a CLG include eligibility for federal historic preservation grant funds, the opportunity to review local nominations for the National Register prior to consideration by the Georgia National Register Review Board, opportunities for technical assistance, and improved communication and coordination among local, state, and federal preservation activities. The City of Harlem is a CLG. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 34 VISION 2035 COMMUNITY FACILITIES Identification of primary public facilities and services available to Columbia County residents; see also Intergovernmental Coordination Chapter for service arrangements among the County’s jurisdictions WATER AND WASTEWATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT Capacity The Columbia County Water Utility manages services for drinking water and wastewater treatment. Generally, water service is provided to much of the county, while sewer service is currently limited to the mostly densely developed areas in the southeastern part of the county, as shown in the Sewer Service Map (note: the map also shows water main lines, but does not represent the exact water service area). Water and wastewater treatment capacity is sufficient for meeting current demand, and the daily averages (in Million Gallons per Day, or MGD) are generally well below the maximum permitted capacities. Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacity Water Treatment Maximum Permitted Capacity Average Daily Capacity Expansion Projects Jim Blanchard 46 MGD (from Savannah River) 18 MGD Expanding current filters can increase capacity to 54 MGD Clarks Hill 8 MGD (from Clarks Hill Reservoir) 2.4 MGD Anticipate increasing water storage contract with Corps of Engineers Overall capacity is anticipated to be sufficient through 2030 Wastewater Treatment Little River 6 MGD 3.89 MGD Expansion to 12 MGD (2016) Reed Creek 4.6 MGD 3.48 MGD Expansion to 7.5 MDG (2018) Kiokee Creek 0.3 MGD 0.025 MGD Expansion to 0.6 MGD (2018) Crawford Creek 1.5 MGD 0.8 MGD No expansion slated, but have the ability to by- pass flow to the Little River plant Overall capacity is approximately 66% of the total capacity, which is sufficient through 2030 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 35 VISION 2035 System Expansion In addition to capacity improvement projects identified in the Water and Wastewater Treatment Table, expansion or upgrades to sewer lines are planned for the high growth areas in the County, including along: William Few Parkway between Washington and Columbia Roads; Baker Place and Roads; and Scotts Ferry Road. Expansion in the Little Kiokee Creek Basin, toward the western portion of the county, may occur upon approval of 2018 Revenue Bond, and redevelopment in the Martinez and Evans areas will likely result in septic to sewer conversions as lines extend. The availability of sewer along Highway 221 and its proximity to I-20 may place development pressure on large tracts of land in the Appling and Harlem areas. SEWER SERVICE AREA MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 36 VISION 2035 To date, sewer expansion has not continued at the same pace as water expansion; however the historic trend has been to not prevent sewer from extending beyond the most developed areas of the county. Growth and development policies adopted as part of this Comprehensive Plan should guide future sewer expansion, and the creation of Water and Wastewater Master Plans (which currently do not exist), can be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan to ensure additional infrastructure is directed to those areas most suitable for accommodating growth and higher density development. OTHER FACILITIES AND SERVICES Stormwater Utility The Columbia County Board of Commissioners established a Stormwater Management Utility in 2000. The Stormwater Utility provides a dedicated funding source from stormwater service fees that are based on the amount of impervious surface on a property. The revenue is used for projects in the “service area,” which generally encompasses Martinez and Evans within the Reed Creek, Jones Creek, Betty's Branch, and Euchee Creek watersheds. This area has been more impacted by development and resembles the sewer service area boundaries (see Sewer Service Area Map). The 2017-2022 SPLOST project list also includes $7,000,000 in stormwater management projects in the vicinity of the Tributary, Betty’s Branch, Jones Creek, Reed creek (outside of Tributary) and Uchee Creek. Fire Protection The Columbia County Fire Rescue Department has 17 engine companies located in the unincorporated area of Columbia County (see Community Facilities Map). Fifteen stations are fully staffed 24 hours a day, and two stations (one in Harlem, one off of Clarks Hill Road in the northeast part of the County) are fully equipped un-staffed stations that are covered by volunteers. The Department is a combination career paid and volunteer organization with 170 members, along with a business office staff and a 24/7 fire dispatch center. Most are also medical first responder, EMT, or paramedic qualified. The Department has a Class 4/9 Insurance Rating, which results in a 75% or better discount in homeowners insurance, well above the average in Georgia. The first number in the split rating applies to properties within 5 road miles of the responding fire station and 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply, such as a fire hydrant, suction point, or dry hydrant. A classification of is the best that can be achieved by a community; only eight counties in the state have a rating higher than Columbia County. The second number is the class that applies to properties within five road miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. The Grovetown Department of Public Safety Fire Rescue Division provides fire protection, vehicle extrication, rescue, medical first response, and fire safety education to the citizens of Grovetown. The Department also provide these services in the unincorporated area just south of the city limits, under contract with Columbia County along with mutual and automatic aid to surrounding fire departments. The Harlem Fire Department provides fire protection services in the City of Harlem. Public Safety The Columbia County Sherriff’s Office provides public safety services through the following Divisions: Administrative Services, Criminal Investigation, Community Services, Special Operations, Professional Standards, Patrol, and Detention and Court Services. The Detention Center has a rated bed space of 280, and an average of 6,400 inmates are processed through the facility each year. The Sherriff’s Office is the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 37 VISION 2035 first accredited in the State of Georgia. Grovetown Public Safety Department and Harlem Police Department provide public safety services within the respective city jurisdictions. The Columbia County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) is a department of Columbia County Emergency and Operations Division and serves all of Columbia County, including the cities of Harlem and Grovetown. The EMA’s primary responsibilities are to develop and maintain emergency plans (including a Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is currently being updated), conduct disaster training exercises for all County agencies, provide emergency public information, provide awareness and education programs, coordinate area emergency service agencies, and coordinate community warning systems. Parks and Recreation The Columbia County Parks and Recreation Department maintains 1,433 acreage in total parkland. The County’s parks and recreational facilities include the following:  Blanchard Park  Blanchard Woods Park  Bobby Water Gymnasium at Patriots Park  Harlem Park  International Disc Golf Center  Lonnie Morris Park (Appling)  Patriots Park  Reed Creek Nature Park & Interpretive Center  Riverside Park  Riverside Dog Park  Softball Complex at Patriots Park  Wildwood Park The 2002 Recreation Master Plan recommends additional parks based on population projections at the time; however, no plan update has been prepared since then to identify current trends / resident demands for specific park types or programs. County investment in park facilities has been consistent, however, including additional projects to be funded with the 2017-2022 SPLOST. These include: park upgrades and property acquisition to provide additional multi-use fields across the county and to target underserved areas such as Martinez, Harlem, Grovetown and Appling; Gateway Regional Park, a planned baseball and softball tournament venue near the Columbia County Exhibition Center; improvements to Blanchard Park and Patriots Park; potentially expanding the water feature at Evans Town Center Park; and, extension of the Euchee Creek Greenway. Schools The Columbia County School System includes 17 elementary schools, eight middle schools and six high schools. Total enrollment in 2014 was 24, 649, approximately a 15% increase over the past ten years based on comparative data from the Georgia Department of Education. Due to residential growth in the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 38 VISION 2035 Grovetown and Evans areas, the Columbia County Board of Education approved a school rezoning in early 2015 that will shift approximately 2,000 students at 21 schools over a four-year period, including moving students from the overcrowded Greenbrier and Grovetown High Schools. Population growth has also resulted in fairly steady school construction, with five new schools built since 2008 (two elementary, two middle, and one high school). In addition, the renewed Education Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (ESPLOST, approved in 2015) will continue to fund school construction to relieve overcrowding, including a new elementary school on William Few Parkway, a new Grovetown Elementary School, and a new Harlem Middle School. Libraries The Columbia County Libraries are part of the Greater Clarks Hill Regional Library System. The Regional Library System serves Columbia, Burke, Lincoln and Warren Counties. There are three library branches in Columbia County: Columbia County Library (in Evans Town Center), Euchee Creek Library (Grovetown) and the Harlem Branch Library. Hospitals The closest hospitals are located in Augusta; however in 2014, the Georgia Department of Community Health awarded the Georgia Regents Medical Center a certificate of need to build a new hospital in Columbia County. The hospital is anticipated to be located off Exit 190 on I-20, with the County’s portion of funding (20% of costs) provided by SPLOST funds. Other Government Services The Columbia County Senior Center, located on Euchee Creek Drive in the Grovetown area, provides activities, classes, daily hot lunches, home-delivered meal programs, and roundtrip transportation to the Senior Center for local residences using shuttle buses that are part of the Columbia County Public Transit fleet. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 39 VISION 2035 COMMUNITY FACILITIES MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 40 VISION 2035 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Identification of existing coordination mechanisms and processes with adjacent local governments, independent development authorities and districts, school boards, and programs ADJACENT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Columbia County includes two municipalities: Grovetown and Harlem. The county is surrounded by the Georgia county governments of Lincoln, McDuffie and Richmond Counties. It also shares a boundary with Edgefield County, South Carolina. In addition, a large portion of Columbia County falls within the boundary of the Augusta – Richmond County Metropolitan Planning Organization boundary. INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, BOARDS AND AUTHORITIES Columbia County Development Authority The Development Authority of Columbia County is a public, non-profit economic development agency. The role of the Development Authority of Columbia County is to foster economic growth through supporting existing industry and small business, recruiting of new companies, and product development. SCHOOL BOARDS Columbia County Board of Education The Columbia County School Board of Education manages the public school system and its facilities in Columbia County. The five-member School Board is the official governing body for the school system. Its responsibilities include policy making, budget approval, hiring and evaluation of the superintendent, hearing appeals of discipline and grievance issues and other duties as prescribed by law. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 41 VISION 2035 REGIONAL AND STATE PROGRAMS Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission (CSRA RC) The CSRA RC is a public sector, non-profit planning and development agency that serves a 13 county and 41 city region in the eastern portion of Central Georgia. It provides support to counties and municipalities in the areas of local government planning, economic development, grant preparation and administration, job training, and aging services. It also coordinates regional planning efforts in such areas as comprehensive planning, land use planning, and natural and cultural resource planning. Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Council The Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Council coordinates regional planning efforts that address long-term water quality protection and adequate water supply. The Council is comprised of residents of a 19-county area who were appointed the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Speaker of the House to prepare a regional water plan in accordance with the requirements of the Statewide Comprehensive Water Management Plan. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission is recognized as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation and the South Carolina Department of Transportation. It is responsible for carrying out regional transportation planning for the urbanized portions of Columbia and Richmond Counties, as well as Aiken County, South Carolina. It was formed to be consistent with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962, which requires transportation projects in urbanized areas with 50,000 or more in population be based on a “comprehensive, coordinated, and continuing planning process. The use of federal funds for local transportation projects is contingent upon a transportation plan approved by the MPO. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) GDOT maintains and improves state and Federal highways in Columbia County and provides financial assistance for local road improvements. Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) DCA has several management responsibilities for the state’s coordinated planning program and reviews plans for compliance with the state’s adopted minimum planning standards. It also provides a variety of technical assistance and grant funding to counties and cities. Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) DNR is available to provide assistance and guidance to the county in a number of important areas including: water conservation, environmental protection, wildlife preservation and historic preservation. It is the mission of the DNR to sustain, enhance, protect and conserve Georgia’s historic and cultural resources for present and future generations, while recognizing the importance of promoting the development of commerce and utilize sound environmental practices. The department has nine divisions working to accomplish this mission: Environmental Protection Division (EPD), the Coastal Resources Division, Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, Wildlife Resources Division, Water Conservation Program, and the Program Support Division. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 42 VISION 2035 CONSISTENCY WITH FORT GORDON JOINT LAND USE STUDY In order to prevent conflicts between military operations and civilian land use and to encourage cooperative land use planning between military installations and surrounding communities, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) initiated the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program in 1985. The 2005 Fort Gordon Joint Land Use Study, prepared by the CSRA RC, was a collaborative effort between Fort Gordon, Columbia County, Augusta-Richmond County, Jefferson County and McDuffie County. The Study recommended best management practices applicable to new developments within a one-mile radius of Fort Gordon. These are also generally used by the CSRA RC for review of Developments of Regional Impact located within one mile of resources such as Fort Gordon.  Local governments with planning and zoning jurisdiction over areas abutting military installations should coordinate with the military to assess the potential impacts of zoning decisions on military operations. State law requires local governments to solicit a written recommendation from a military base’s commanding officer when there is a proposed change in zoning or special exception of property that is within 3,000 feet of the installation.  Flexible zoning approaches should be used, such as planned unit developments, which reduce post impacts through innovative cluster/site design.  Site plans, building design, and landscaping should be sensitive to proximity of a military training base.  Infrastructure expansion planning should be used to steer development away from areas of natural, cultural, historic, and environmentally sensitive resources.  Local plans and ordinances should be updated to incorporate JLUS recommendations (whenever JLUS recommendations are updated).  Noise and smoke disclosures in Noise Zone I and II and within a 1-mile radius of Fort Gordon should be adopted and made part of the rezoning process.  A noise contour layer should be provided in parcel mapping and made available to residents. The Joint Land Use Study will be updated in 2015-2016. The planning process will provide Columbia County an opportunity to review the recommended actions from the 2005 Study, provide a status for each, and provide input on recommended actions moving forward. CONSISTENCY WITH SERVICE DELIVERY STRATEGY In 1997, the state passed the Service Delivery Strategy Act (HB489). This law mandates the cooperation of local governments with regard to service delivery issues. The act required each county to adopt a Service Delivery Strategy (SDS). The Columbia County Board of Commissioners and city councils of Harlem and Grovetown last updated and adopted the Columbia County SDS in 2007. As part of this Comprehensive Plan update, the SDS is being examined and evaluated. The SDS includes an identification of services provided by various entities, assignment of responsibility for provision of services and the location of service areas, a description of funding sources, and an identification of contracts, ordinances, and other measures necessary to implement the SDS. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 43 VISION 2035 TRANSPORTATION NOTE: The 2040 Augusta Regional Transportation Study (ARTS; adopted in 2015) and the ARTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2012), evaluate local conditions and are substituted for documentation in this Community Assessment. The studies can be found at www.augustaga.gov. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 44 VISION 2035 ATLAS OF TABLES & CHARTS POPULATION MINORITY POPULATION POPULATION AGE 0 TO 17 POPULATION AGE 65 AND OVER AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME (IN 2009 DOLLARS) HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES LESS THAN $30,000 WORKING AGE POPULATION 18 TO 64 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT FARM, FORESTRY AND MINING JOBS CONSTRUCTION JOBS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JOBS FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY JOBS STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT JOBS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 45 Population Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 66,819 190,689 20,148 20,514 122,046 18,519 438,735 1991 69,625 196,040 20,357 20,465 126,745 19,016 452,248 1992 71,767 204,164 20,713 20,717 129,898 19,506 466,765 1993 75,226 199,234 20,715 20,976 132,694 20,149 468,994 1994 78,149 200,402 20,827 21,023 134,214 20,850 475,465 1995 81,491 200,027 21,045 21,083 135,769 21,704 481,119 1996 83,077 198,821 20,948 21,158 136,477 22,268 482,749 1997 85,106 199,120 21,086 21,641 138,080 22,896 487,929 1998 86,675 199,741 21,141 21,867 139,358 23,627 492,409 1999 88,280 199,395 21,212 22,156 141,379 24,160 496,582 2000 90,138 199,547 21,269 22,279 142,742 24,586 500,561 2001 92,537 199,443 21,323 22,582 143,676 24,690 504,251 2002 95,818 198,670 21,141 22,626 145,226 24,962 508,443 2003 98,761 196,958 21,155 22,692 146,793 25,404 511,763 2004 102,934 196,883 21,256 22,867 148,746 25,819 518,505 2005 106,477 195,837 21,419 22,939 150,152 26,196 523,020 2006 110,845 196,449 21,564 22,875 152,577 26,135 530,445 2007 115,074 196,483 21,527 22,972 154,814 26,493 537,363 2008 117,504 198,423 21,790 23,084 156,896 26,774 544,471 2009 121,050 198,489 21,836 23,117 158,499 27,032 550,023 2010 124,934 200,889 21,869 23,379 160,374 26,940 558,385 2011 128,112 201,217 21,673 23,504 160,682 26,670 561,858 2012 130,959 201,971 21,725 23,650 162,874 26,827 568,006 2013 133,874 202,735 21,778 23,797 165,100 26,986 574,270 2014 136,852 203,500 21,831 23,945 167,356 27,145 580,629 2015 139,883 204,246 21,881 24,091 169,625 27,303 587,029 2016 142,964 204,973 21,929 24,236 171,906 27,459 593,467 2017 146,099 205,681 21,976 24,379 174,199 27,612 599,946 2018 149,286 206,370 22,020 24,520 176,505 27,764 606,465 2019 152,525 207,036 22,061 24,660 178,819 27,913 613,014 2020 155,809 207,672 22,099 24,796 181,136 28,058 619,570 2021 159,147 208,286 22,134 24,929 183,461 28,201 626,158 2022 162,528 208,867 22,166 25,060 185,786 28,340 632,747 2023 165,952 209,413 22,194 25,187 188,107 28,475 639,328 2024 169,426 209,933 22,219 25,311 190,432 28,607 645,928 2025 172,936 210,409 22,240 25,430 192,744 28,733 652,492 2026 176,493 210,855 22,257 25,546 195,056 28,855 659,062 2027 180,089 211,262 22,270 25,658 197,358 28,972 665,609 2028 183,725 211,633 22,279 25,766 199,652 29,085 672,140 2029 187,395 211,959 22,283 25,868 201,930 29,192 678,627 2030 191,103 212,247 22,284 25,966 204,197 29,294 685,091 2031 194,856 212,503 22,281 26,061 206,458 29,392 691,551 2032 198,646 212,721 22,273 26,152 208,706 29,485 697,983 2033 202,478 212,906 22,263 26,238 210,945 29,573 704,403 2034 206,351 213,056 22,248 26,321 213,174 29,657 710,807 2035 210,259 213,168 22,230 26,399 215,388 29,736 717,180 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 46 Population (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 15.2% 43.5% 4.6% 4.7% 27.8% 4.2% 100.0% 1991 15.4% 43.3% 4.5% 4.5% 28.0% 4.2% 100.0% 1992 15.4% 43.7% 4.4% 4.4% 27.8% 4.2% 100.0% 1993 16.0% 42.5% 4.4% 4.5% 28.3% 4.3% 100.0% 1994 16.4% 42.1% 4.4% 4.4% 28.2% 4.4% 100.0% 1995 16.9% 41.6% 4.4% 4.4% 28.2% 4.5% 100.0% 1996 17.2% 41.2% 4.3% 4.4% 28.3% 4.6% 100.0% 1997 17.4% 40.8% 4.3% 4.4% 28.3% 4.7% 100.0% 1998 17.6% 40.6% 4.3% 4.4% 28.3% 4.8% 100.0% 1999 17.8% 40.2% 4.3% 4.5% 28.5% 4.9% 100.0% 2000 18.0% 39.9% 4.2% 4.5% 28.5% 4.9% 100.0% 2001 18.4% 39.6% 4.2% 4.5% 28.5% 4.9% 100.0% 2002 18.8% 39.1% 4.2% 4.5% 28.6% 4.9% 100.0% 2003 19.3% 38.5% 4.1% 4.4% 28.7% 5.0% 100.0% 2004 19.9% 38.0% 4.1% 4.4% 28.7% 5.0% 100.0% 2005 20.4% 37.4% 4.1% 4.4% 28.7% 5.0% 100.0% 2006 20.9% 37.0% 4.1% 4.3% 28.8% 4.9% 100.0% 2007 21.4% 36.6% 4.0% 4.3% 28.8% 4.9% 100.0% 2008 21.6% 36.4% 4.0% 4.2% 28.8% 4.9% 100.0% 2009 22.0% 36.1% 4.0% 4.2% 28.8% 4.9% 100.0% 2010 22.4% 36.0% 3.9% 4.2% 28.7% 4.8% 100.0% 2011 22.8% 35.8% 3.9% 4.2% 28.6% 4.7% 100.0% 2012 23.1% 35.6% 3.8% 4.2% 28.7% 4.7% 100.0% 2013 23.3% 35.3% 3.8% 4.1% 28.7% 4.7% 100.0% 2014 23.6% 35.0% 3.8% 4.1% 28.8% 4.7% 100.0% 2015 23.8% 34.8% 3.7% 4.1% 28.9% 4.7% 100.0% 2016 24.1% 34.5% 3.7% 4.1% 29.0% 4.6% 100.0% 2017 24.4% 34.3% 3.7% 4.1% 29.0% 4.6% 100.0% 2018 24.6% 34.0% 3.6% 4.0% 29.1% 4.6% 100.0% 2019 24.9% 33.8% 3.6% 4.0% 29.2% 4.6% 100.0% 2020 25.1% 33.5% 3.6% 4.0% 29.2% 4.5% 100.0% 2021 25.4% 33.3% 3.5% 4.0% 29.3% 4.5% 100.0% 2022 25.7% 33.0% 3.5% 4.0% 29.4% 4.5% 100.0% 2023 26.0% 32.8% 3.5% 3.9% 29.4% 4.5% 100.0% 2024 26.2% 32.5% 3.4% 3.9% 29.5% 4.4% 100.0% 2025 26.5% 32.2% 3.4% 3.9% 29.5% 4.4% 100.0% 2026 26.8% 32.0% 3.4% 3.9% 29.6% 4.4% 100.0% 2027 27.1% 31.7% 3.3% 3.9% 29.7% 4.4% 100.0% 2028 27.3% 31.5% 3.3% 3.8% 29.7% 4.3% 100.0% 2029 27.6% 31.2% 3.3% 3.8% 29.8% 4.3% 100.0% 2030 27.9% 31.0% 3.3% 3.8% 29.8% 4.3% 100.0% 2031 28.2% 30.7% 3.2% 3.8% 29.9% 4.3% 100.0% 2032 28.5% 30.5% 3.2% 3.7% 29.9% 4.2% 100.0% 2033 28.7% 30.2% 3.2% 3.7% 29.9% 4.2% 100.0% 2034 29.0% 30.0% 3.1% 3.7% 30.0% 4.2% 100.0% 2035 29.3% 29.7% 3.1% 3.7% 30.0% 4.1% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 47 Minority Population Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 10,081 87,349 7,502 10,866 31,099 8,653 155,550 1991 10,545 91,407 7,635 10,848 32,730 19,016 172,181 1992 11,001 96,598 7,809 10,977 33,980 19,506 179,871 1993 11,698 96,269 7,869 11,147 35,227 20,149 182,359 1994 12,415 98,593 7,993 11,187 36,031 20,850 187,069 1995 13,231 100,463 8,115 11,227 37,010 21,704 191,750 1996 13,896 101,781 8,179 11,344 37,543 22,268 195,011 1997 14,590 103,903 8,290 11,648 38,435 22,896 199,762 1998 15,294 106,045 8,385 11,791 39,179 23,627 204,321 1999 15,944 107,779 8,455 11,976 40,216 24,160 208,530 2000 16,224 110,206 8,376 11,832 41,466 24,586 212,690 2001 17,572 111,608 8,517 11,932 42,327 24,690 216,646 2002 18,965 112,860 8,542 11,904 42,742 24,962 219,975 2003 20,402 114,058 8,594 11,811 43,660 25,404 223,929 2004 22,422 115,531 8,672 11,920 44,550 25,819 228,914 2005 23,794 115,985 8,820 11,984 45,446 26,196 232,225 2006 25,474 117,421 9,029 12,042 46,488 26,135 236,589 2007 27,101 118,326 9,085 12,134 47,426 26,493 240,565 2008 28,029 120,046 9,279 12,241 48,454 26,774 244,823 2009 29,629 121,243 9,332 12,219 49,342 27,032 248,797 2010 31,132 123,256 9,437 12,408 50,274 26,940 253,447 2011 33,232 123,611 9,484 12,518 50,497 26,670 256,012 2012 34,293 125,282 9,563 12,613 51,758 26,827 260,336 2013 35,350 126,936 9,674 12,711 52,985 26,986 264,642 2014 36,471 128,575 9,762 12,816 54,229 27,145 268,998 2015 37,584 130,211 9,861 12,929 55,513 27,303 273,401 2016 38,716 131,830 9,961 13,038 56,798 27,459 277,802 2017 39,899 133,428 10,045 13,141 58,177 27,612 282,302 2018 41,101 135,043 10,146 13,249 59,544 27,764 286,847 2019 42,348 136,607 10,258 13,388 60,994 27,913 291,508 2020 43,601 138,115 10,360 13,501 62,461 28,058 296,096 2021 44,917 139,602 10,476 13,636 63,973 28,201 300,805 2022 46,250 141,087 10,579 13,759 65,511 28,340 305,526 2023 47,632 142,470 10,698 13,888 67,133 28,475 310,296 2024 49,072 143,875 10,810 14,027 68,777 28,607 315,168 2025 50,539 145,229 10,908 14,151 70,455 28,733 320,015 2026 52,008 146,553 11,025 14,279 72,181 28,855 324,901 2027 53,547 147,821 11,137 14,405 73,912 28,972 329,794 2028 55,143 149,039 11,238 14,530 75,689 29,085 334,724 2029 56,727 150,216 11,345 14,664 77,478 29,192 339,622 2030 58,359 151,394 11,454 14,785 79,288 29,294 344,574 2031 60,065 152,530 11,560 14,913 81,130 29,392 349,590 2032 61,834 153,576 11,657 15,031 82,950 29,485 354,533 2033 63,664 154,592 11,766 15,156 84,834 29,573 359,585 2034 65,539 155,566 11,856 15,251 86,715 29,657 364,584 2035 67,453 156,533 11,956 15,373 88,609 29,736 369,660 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 48 Minority Population (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 6.5% 56.2% 4.8% 7.0% 20.0% 5.6% 100.0% 1991 6.1% 53.1% 4.4% 6.3% 19.0% 11.0% 100.0% 1992 6.1% 53.7% 4.3% 6.1% 18.9% 10.8% 100.0% 1993 6.4% 52.8% 4.3% 6.1% 19.3% 11.0% 100.0% 1994 6.6% 52.7% 4.3% 6.0% 19.3% 11.1% 100.0% 1995 6.9% 52.4% 4.2% 5.9% 19.3% 11.3% 100.0% 1996 7.1% 52.2% 4.2% 5.8% 19.3% 11.4% 100.0% 1997 7.3% 52.0% 4.1% 5.8% 19.2% 11.5% 100.0% 1998 7.5% 51.9% 4.1% 5.8% 19.2% 11.6% 100.0% 1999 7.6% 51.7% 4.1% 5.7% 19.3% 11.6% 100.0% 2000 7.6% 51.8% 3.9% 5.6% 19.5% 11.6% 100.0% 2001 8.1% 51.5% 3.9% 5.5% 19.5% 11.4% 100.0% 2002 8.6% 51.3% 3.9% 5.4% 19.4% 11.3% 100.0% 2003 9.1% 50.9% 3.8% 5.3% 19.5% 11.3% 100.0% 2004 9.8% 50.5% 3.8% 5.2% 19.5% 11.3% 100.0% 2005 10.2% 49.9% 3.8% 5.2% 19.6% 11.3% 100.0% 2006 10.8% 49.6% 3.8% 5.1% 19.6% 11.0% 100.0% 2007 11.3% 49.2% 3.8% 5.0% 19.7% 11.0% 100.0% 2008 11.4% 49.0% 3.8% 5.0% 19.8% 10.9% 100.0% 2009 11.9% 48.7% 3.8% 4.9% 19.8% 10.9% 100.0% 2010 12.3% 48.6% 3.7% 4.9% 19.8% 10.6% 100.0% 2011 13.0% 48.3% 3.7% 4.9% 19.7% 10.4% 100.0% 2012 13.2% 48.1% 3.7% 4.8% 19.9% 10.3% 100.0% 2013 13.4% 48.0% 3.7% 4.8% 20.0% 10.2% 100.0% 2014 13.6% 47.8% 3.6% 4.8% 20.2% 10.1% 100.0% 2015 13.7% 47.6% 3.6% 4.7% 20.3% 10.0% 100.0% 2016 13.9% 47.5% 3.6% 4.7% 20.4% 9.9% 100.0% 2017 14.1% 47.3% 3.6% 4.7% 20.6% 9.8% 100.0% 2018 14.3% 47.1% 3.5% 4.6% 20.8% 9.7% 100.0% 2019 14.5% 46.9% 3.5% 4.6% 20.9% 9.6% 100.0% 2020 14.7% 46.6% 3.5% 4.6% 21.1% 9.5% 100.0% 2021 14.9% 46.4% 3.5% 4.5% 21.3% 9.4% 100.0% 2022 15.1% 46.2% 3.5% 4.5% 21.4% 9.3% 100.0% 2023 15.4% 45.9% 3.4% 4.5% 21.6% 9.2% 100.0% 2024 15.6% 45.7% 3.4% 4.5% 21.8% 9.1% 100.0% 2025 15.8% 45.4% 3.4% 4.4% 22.0% 9.0% 100.0% 2026 16.0% 45.1% 3.4% 4.4% 22.2% 8.9% 100.0% 2027 16.2% 44.8% 3.4% 4.4% 22.4% 8.8% 100.0% 2028 16.5% 44.5% 3.4% 4.3% 22.6% 8.7% 100.0% 2029 16.7% 44.2% 3.3% 4.3% 22.8% 8.6% 100.0% 2030 16.9% 43.9% 3.3% 4.3% 23.0% 8.5% 100.0% 2031 17.2% 43.6% 3.3% 4.3% 23.2% 8.4% 100.0% 2032 17.4% 43.3% 3.3% 4.2% 23.4% 8.3% 100.0% 2033 17.7% 43.0% 3.3% 4.2% 23.6% 8.2% 100.0% 2034 18.0% 42.7% 3.3% 4.2% 23.8% 8.1% 100.0% 2035 18.2% 42.3% 3.2% 4.2% 24.0% 8.0% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 49 Population Age 0 to 17 Years Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 20,496 52,047 5,947 6,849 33,247 5,322 123,908 1991 21,303 52,817 5,971 6,767 34,426 5,410 126,694 1992 21,994 54,469 6,067 6,836 35,182 5,510 130,058 1993 23,123 54,549 6,076 6,942 35,875 5,640 132,205 1994 23,821 54,596 6,093 6,933 36,380 5,820 133,643 1995 24,752 54,447 6,149 6,918 36,663 5,868 134,797 1996 25,101 54,080 6,088 6,889 36,750 5,931 134,839 1997 25,540 54,288 6,045 7,034 36,965 5,977 135,849 1998 25,928 54,784 6,004 7,030 36,737 6,028 136,511 1999 26,205 54,361 5,990 7,037 36,936 5,993 136,522 2000 26,621 53,398 5,913 6,961 37,298 5,911 136,102 2001 26,939 52,887 6,009 7,125 37,147 5,838 135,945 2002 27,640 52,755 5,857 7,069 37,170 5,903 136,394 2003 28,259 52,383 5,840 7,007 36,949 5,837 136,275 2004 29,078 51,564 5,801 6,983 36,894 5,785 136,105 2005 29,894 51,006 5,801 6,984 36,707 5,859 136,251 2006 30,966 50,328 5,914 6,809 36,781 5,822 136,620 2007 32,065 49,991 5,839 6,824 36,879 5,839 137,437 2008 32,508 49,711 5,812 6,730 36,880 5,804 137,445 2009 33,198 49,327 5,795 6,651 36,656 5,847 137,474 2010 33,988 49,261 5,676 6,586 36,764 5,734 138,009 2011 34,099 49,653 5,604 6,444 35,604 5,535 136,939 2012 34,549 49,808 5,615 6,449 36,056 5,472 137,949 2013 34,986 50,062 5,654 6,494 36,573 5,456 139,225 2014 35,436 50,762 5,674 6,520 37,155 5,412 140,959 2015 35,807 51,411 5,731 6,557 37,737 5,384 142,627 2016 36,356 51,959 5,741 6,617 38,343 5,374 144,390 2017 36,873 52,554 5,724 6,656 39,035 5,415 146,257 2018 37,482 53,000 5,709 6,684 39,597 5,359 147,831 2019 37,983 53,342 5,715 6,667 40,115 5,312 149,134 2020 38,527 53,502 5,695 6,640 40,657 5,292 150,313 2021 39,113 53,844 5,733 6,657 41,287 5,259 151,893 2022 39,672 54,210 5,722 6,616 41,885 5,211 153,316 2023 40,347 54,490 5,689 6,611 42,400 5,174 154,711 2024 41,056 54,604 5,675 6,595 42,977 5,148 156,055 2025 41,642 54,633 5,688 6,595 43,482 5,132 157,172 2026 42,411 54,583 5,666 6,585 44,008 5,132 158,385 2027 43,134 54,706 5,633 6,587 44,498 5,091 159,649 2028 43,860 54,528 5,628 6,564 44,811 5,082 160,473 2029 44,724 54,437 5,587 6,572 46,482 5,253 163,055 2030 45,414 54,329 5,579 6,567 46,820 5,240 163,949 2031 46,112 54,203 5,560 6,555 47,155 5,225 164,810 2032 46,840 54,084 5,549 6,545 47,492 5,199 165,709 2033 47,562 53,963 5,537 6,542 47,831 5,176 166,611 2034 48,320 53,840 5,516 6,533 48,169 5,164 167,542 2035 49,050 53,737 5,489 6,522 48,516 5,152 168,466 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 50 Population Age 0 to 17 Years (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 16.5% 42.0% 4.8% 5.5% 26.8% 4.3% 100.0% 1991 16.8% 41.7% 4.7% 5.3% 27.2% 4.3% 100.0% 1992 16.9% 41.9% 4.7% 5.3% 27.1% 4.2% 100.0% 1993 17.5% 41.3% 4.6% 5.3% 27.1% 4.3% 100.0% 1994 17.8% 40.9% 4.6% 5.2% 27.2% 4.4% 100.0% 1995 18.4% 40.4% 4.6% 5.1% 27.2% 4.4% 100.0% 1996 18.6% 40.1% 4.5% 5.1% 27.3% 4.4% 100.0% 1997 18.8% 40.0% 4.4% 5.2% 27.2% 4.4% 100.0% 1998 19.0% 40.1% 4.4% 5.1% 26.9% 4.4% 100.0% 1999 19.2% 39.8% 4.4% 5.2% 27.1% 4.4% 100.0% 2000 19.6% 39.2% 4.3% 5.1% 27.4% 4.3% 100.0% 2001 19.8% 38.9% 4.4% 5.2% 27.3% 4.3% 100.0% 2002 20.3% 38.7% 4.3% 5.2% 27.3% 4.3% 100.0% 2003 20.7% 38.4% 4.3% 5.1% 27.1% 4.3% 100.0% 2004 21.4% 37.9% 4.3% 5.1% 27.1% 4.3% 100.0% 2005 21.9% 37.4% 4.3% 5.1% 26.9% 4.3% 100.0% 2006 22.7% 36.8% 4.3% 5.0% 26.9% 4.3% 100.0% 2007 23.3% 36.4% 4.2% 5.0% 26.8% 4.2% 100.0% 2008 23.7% 36.2% 4.2% 4.9% 26.8% 4.2% 100.0% 2009 24.1% 35.9% 4.2% 4.8% 26.7% 4.3% 100.0% 2010 24.6% 35.7% 4.1% 4.8% 26.6% 4.2% 100.0% 2011 24.9% 36.3% 4.1% 4.7% 26.0% 4.0% 100.0% 2012 25.0% 36.1% 4.1% 4.7% 26.1% 4.0% 100.0% 2013 25.1% 36.0% 4.1% 4.7% 26.3% 3.9% 100.0% 2014 25.1% 36.0% 4.0% 4.6% 26.4% 3.8% 100.0% 2015 25.1% 36.0% 4.0% 4.6% 26.5% 3.8% 100.0% 2016 25.2% 36.0% 4.0% 4.6% 26.6% 3.7% 100.0% 2017 25.2% 35.9% 3.9% 4.6% 26.7% 3.7% 100.0% 2018 25.4% 35.9% 3.9% 4.5% 26.8% 3.6% 100.0% 2019 25.5% 35.8% 3.8% 4.5% 26.9% 3.6% 100.0% 2020 25.6% 35.6% 3.8% 4.4% 27.0% 3.5% 100.0% 2021 25.8% 35.4% 3.8% 4.4% 27.2% 3.5% 100.0% 2022 25.9% 35.4% 3.7% 4.3% 27.3% 3.4% 100.0% 2023 26.1% 35.2% 3.7% 4.3% 27.4% 3.3% 100.0% 2024 26.3% 35.0% 3.6% 4.2% 27.5% 3.3% 100.0% 2025 26.5% 34.8% 3.6% 4.2% 27.7% 3.3% 100.0% 2026 26.8% 34.5% 3.6% 4.2% 27.8% 3.2% 100.0% 2027 27.0% 34.3% 3.5% 4.1% 27.9% 3.2% 100.0% 2028 27.3% 34.0% 3.5% 4.1% 27.9% 3.2% 100.0% 2029 27.4% 33.4% 3.4% 4.0% 28.5% 3.2% 100.0% 2030 27.7% 33.1% 3.4% 4.0% 28.6% 3.2% 100.0% 2031 28.0% 32.9% 3.4% 4.0% 28.6% 3.2% 100.0% 2032 28.3% 32.6% 3.3% 3.9% 28.7% 3.1% 100.0% 2033 28.5% 32.4% 3.3% 3.9% 28.7% 3.1% 100.0% 2034 28.8% 32.1% 3.3% 3.9% 28.8% 3.1% 100.0% 2035 29.1% 31.9% 3.3% 3.9% 28.8% 3.1% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 51 Population Age 70 Years and Over Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 2,376 12,408 1,566 1,618 8,827 1,478 28,273 1991 2,551 12,774 1,602 1,655 9,272 1,539 29,393 1992 2,718 13,180 1,660 1,671 9,782 1,577 30,588 1993 2,928 13,407 1,714 1,680 10,194 1,626 31,549 1994 3,265 13,570 1,744 1,674 10,599 1,655 32,507 1995 3,622 13,906 1,758 1,674 10,966 1,698 33,624 1996 3,926 14,119 1,765 1,672 11,353 1,720 34,555 1997 4,216 14,314 1,781 1,663 11,823 1,765 35,562 1998 4,472 14,621 1,777 1,673 12,149 1,785 36,477 1999 4,611 14,864 1,746 1,655 12,483 1,814 37,173 2000 4,877 15,199 1,776 1,716 12,890 1,862 38,320 2001 5,269 15,037 1,763 1,652 13,136 1,950 38,807 2002 5,640 14,804 1,738 1,629 13,414 1,955 39,180 2003 6,049 14,497 1,723 1,601 13,706 2,012 39,588 2004 6,541 14,272 1,735 1,610 13,999 2,058 40,215 2005 6,819 14,471 1,759 1,583 14,362 2,131 41,125 2006 7,202 14,576 1,771 1,702 15,061 2,172 42,484 2007 7,559 14,552 1,822 1,715 15,356 2,202 43,206 2008 7,673 14,849 1,900 1,760 15,813 2,208 44,203 2009 7,903 15,068 1,885 1,774 16,162 2,264 45,056 2010 8,184 15,445 1,945 1,784 16,445 2,292 46,095 2011 8,586 15,842 1,982 1,804 16,983 2,349 47,546 2012 9,105 15,898 2,053 1,846 17,530 2,441 48,873 2013 9,745 16,011 2,110 1,902 18,255 2,539 50,562 2014 10,325 16,190 2,180 1,977 19,018 2,637 52,327 2015 10,949 16,290 2,247 2,061 19,744 2,736 54,027 2016 11,598 16,360 2,330 2,146 20,535 2,881 55,850 2017 12,790 16,781 2,436 2,223 21,561 3,015 58,806 2018 13,824 17,160 2,535 2,319 22,528 3,141 61,507 2019 14,871 17,680 2,600 2,448 23,502 3,302 64,403 2020 15,851 18,152 2,709 2,569 24,444 3,447 67,172 2021 16,829 18,607 2,752 2,668 25,385 3,547 69,788 2022 17,914 19,062 2,778 2,782 26,374 3,643 72,553 2023 19,153 19,569 2,822 2,894 27,348 3,751 75,537 2024 20,412 20,146 2,880 3,008 28,419 3,871 78,736 2025 21,708 20,752 2,945 3,138 29,538 4,008 82,089 2026 22,959 21,319 3,025 3,233 30,693 4,114 85,343 2027 24,190 21,952 3,070 3,324 31,766 4,235 88,537 2028 25,348 22,427 3,142 3,427 32,918 4,367 91,629 2029 26,648 22,953 3,198 3,507 33,888 4,488 94,682 2030 28,009 23,542 3,228 3,623 34,969 4,646 98,017 2031 29,302 23,955 3,272 3,713 35,980 4,696 100,918 2032 30,561 24,214 3,349 3,788 36,887 4,767 103,566 2033 31,626 24,387 3,379 3,861 37,868 4,880 106,001 2034 32,817 24,513 3,458 3,948 38,776 4,961 108,473 2035 34,061 24,650 3,492 3,986 39,657 5,013 110,859 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 52 Population Age 70 Years and Over (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 8.4% 43.9% 5.5% 5.7% 31.2% 5.2% 100.0% 1991 8.7% 43.5% 5.5% 5.6% 31.5% 5.2% 100.0% 1992 8.9% 43.1% 5.4% 5.5% 32.0% 5.2% 100.0% 1993 9.3% 42.5% 5.4% 5.3% 32.3% 5.2% 100.0% 1994 10.0% 41.7% 5.4% 5.1% 32.6% 5.1% 100.0% 1995 10.8% 41.4% 5.2% 5.0% 32.6% 5.0% 100.0% 1996 11.4% 40.9% 5.1% 4.8% 32.9% 5.0% 100.0% 1997 11.9% 40.3% 5.0% 4.7% 33.2% 5.0% 100.0% 1998 12.3% 40.1% 4.9% 4.6% 33.3% 4.9% 100.0% 1999 12.4% 40.0% 4.7% 4.5% 33.6% 4.9% 100.0% 2000 12.7% 39.7% 4.6% 4.5% 33.6% 4.9% 100.0% 2001 13.6% 38.7% 4.5% 4.3% 33.8% 5.0% 100.0% 2002 14.4% 37.8% 4.4% 4.2% 34.2% 5.0% 100.0% 2003 15.3% 36.6% 4.4% 4.0% 34.6% 5.1% 100.0% 2004 16.3% 35.5% 4.3% 4.0% 34.8% 5.1% 100.0% 2005 16.6% 35.2% 4.3% 3.8% 34.9% 5.2% 100.0% 2006 17.0% 34.3% 4.2% 4.0% 35.5% 5.1% 100.0% 2007 17.5% 33.7% 4.2% 4.0% 35.5% 5.1% 100.0% 2008 17.4% 33.6% 4.3% 4.0% 35.8% 5.0% 100.0% 2009 17.5% 33.4% 4.2% 3.9% 35.9% 5.0% 100.0% 2010 17.8% 33.5% 4.2% 3.9% 35.7% 5.0% 100.0% 2011 18.1% 33.3% 4.2% 3.8% 35.7% 4.9% 100.0% 2012 18.6% 32.5% 4.2% 3.8% 35.9% 5.0% 100.0% 2013 19.3% 31.7% 4.2% 3.8% 36.1% 5.0% 100.0% 2014 19.7% 30.9% 4.2% 3.8% 36.3% 5.0% 100.0% 2015 20.3% 30.2% 4.2% 3.8% 36.5% 5.1% 100.0% 2016 20.8% 29.3% 4.2% 3.8% 36.8% 5.2% 100.0% 2017 21.7% 28.5% 4.1% 3.8% 36.7% 5.1% 100.0% 2018 22.5% 27.9% 4.1% 3.8% 36.6% 5.1% 100.0% 2019 23.1% 27.5% 4.0% 3.8% 36.5% 5.1% 100.0% 2020 23.6% 27.0% 4.0% 3.8% 36.4% 5.1% 100.0% 2021 24.1% 26.7% 3.9% 3.8% 36.4% 5.1% 100.0% 2022 24.7% 26.3% 3.8% 3.8% 36.4% 5.0% 100.0% 2023 25.4% 25.9% 3.7% 3.8% 36.2% 5.0% 100.0% 2024 25.9% 25.6% 3.7% 3.8% 36.1% 4.9% 100.0% 2025 26.4% 25.3% 3.6% 3.8% 36.0% 4.9% 100.0% 2026 26.9% 25.0% 3.5% 3.8% 36.0% 4.8% 100.0% 2027 27.3% 24.8% 3.5% 3.8% 35.9% 4.8% 100.0% 2028 27.7% 24.5% 3.4% 3.7% 35.9% 4.8% 100.0% 2029 28.1% 24.2% 3.4% 3.7% 35.8% 4.7% 100.0% 2030 28.6% 24.0% 3.3% 3.7% 35.7% 4.7% 100.0% 2031 29.0% 23.7% 3.2% 3.7% 35.7% 4.7% 100.0% 2032 29.5% 23.4% 3.2% 3.7% 35.6% 4.6% 100.0% 2033 29.8% 23.0% 3.2% 3.6% 35.7% 4.6% 100.0% 2034 30.3% 22.6% 3.2% 3.6% 35.7% 4.6% 100.0% 2035 30.7% 22.2% 3.1% 3.6% 35.8% 4.5% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 53 Average Household Size Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 2.99 2.60 2.72 2.87 2.66 2.81 2.70 1991 2.98 2.60 2.72 2.87 2.65 2.78 2.69 1992 2.96 2.59 2.70 2.85 2.62 2.75 2.67 1993 2.96 2.60 2.71 2.85 2.62 2.75 2.68 1994 2.95 2.60 2.71 2.85 2.61 2.74 2.68 1995 2.92 2.59 2.68 2.82 2.59 2.72 2.66 1996 2.90 2.58 2.67 2.81 2.57 2.69 2.64 1997 2.88 2.57 2.65 2.79 2.55 2.67 2.63 1998 2.86 2.57 2.63 2.77 2.53 2.65 2.62 1999 2.83 2.57 2.62 2.75 2.53 2.65 2.61 2000 2.86 2.55 2.62 2.76 2.52 2.67 2.61 2001 2.78 2.49 2.58 2.68 2.47 2.59 2.55 2002 2.77 2.48 2.57 2.68 2.46 2.61 2.54 2003 2.73 2.45 2.55 2.66 2.44 2.55 2.51 2004 2.74 2.46 2.56 2.66 2.44 2.54 2.52 2005 2.73 2.45 2.56 2.65 2.44 2.55 2.52 2006 2.73 2.45 2.56 2.66 2.43 2.58 2.52 2007 2.72 2.42 2.56 2.64 2.42 2.56 2.50 2008 2.72 2.41 2.57 2.65 2.43 2.57 2.50 2009 2.73 2.43 2.58 2.67 2.43 2.57 2.52 2010 2.75 2.47 2.60 2.70 2.45 2.56 2.54 2011 2.74 2.46 2.59 2.69 2.44 2.55 2.53 2012 2.76 2.48 2.61 2.71 2.46 2.56 2.55 2013 2.74 2.46 2.60 2.69 2.44 2.54 2.53 2014 2.72 2.44 2.58 2.67 2.43 2.53 2.52 2015 2.70 2.43 2.57 2.66 2.42 2.51 2.50 2016 2.69 2.42 2.56 2.65 2.40 2.50 2.49 2017 2.68 2.41 2.55 2.64 2.40 2.49 2.48 2018 2.67 2.40 2.55 2.63 2.39 2.48 2.47 2019 2.66 2.39 2.55 2.63 2.38 2.47 2.47 2020 2.65 2.39 2.54 2.62 2.38 2.46 2.46 2021 2.65 2.38 2.54 2.62 2.38 2.46 2.46 2022 2.65 2.38 2.54 2.62 2.37 2.46 2.46 2023 2.64 2.38 2.55 2.62 2.37 2.45 2.46 2024 2.64 2.38 2.55 2.62 2.37 2.45 2.46 2025 2.64 2.38 2.55 2.62 2.37 2.45 2.46 2026 2.64 2.38 2.56 2.62 2.37 2.45 2.46 2027 2.64 2.38 2.56 2.62 2.38 2.45 2.46 2028 2.64 2.38 2.57 2.63 2.38 2.45 2.47 2029 2.64 2.38 2.57 2.63 2.38 2.45 2.47 2030 2.65 2.39 2.58 2.63 2.38 2.45 2.47 2031 2.65 2.39 2.58 2.64 2.39 2.45 2.47 2032 2.65 2.39 2.59 2.64 2.39 2.46 2.48 2033 2.65 2.39 2.59 2.65 2.39 2.46 2.48 2034 2.65 2.40 2.60 2.65 2.39 2.46 2.48 2035 2.65 2.40 2.61 2.65 2.40 2.46 2.49 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 54 Average Household Size (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 110.7% 96.3% 100.7% 106.3% 98.5% 104.1% 100.0% 1991 110.8% 96.7% 101.1% 106.7% 98.5% 103.3% 100.0% 1992 110.9% 97.0% 101.1% 106.7% 98.1% 103.0% 100.0% 1993 110.4% 97.0% 101.1% 106.3% 97.8% 102.6% 100.0% 1994 110.1% 97.0% 101.1% 106.3% 97.4% 102.2% 100.0% 1995 109.8% 97.4% 100.8% 106.0% 97.4% 102.3% 100.0% 1996 109.8% 97.7% 101.1% 106.4% 97.3% 101.9% 100.0% 1997 109.5% 97.7% 100.8% 106.1% 97.0% 101.5% 100.0% 1998 109.2% 98.1% 100.4% 105.7% 96.6% 101.1% 100.0% 1999 108.4% 98.5% 100.4% 105.4% 96.9% 101.5% 100.0% 2000 109.6% 97.7% 100.4% 105.7% 96.6% 102.3% 100.0% 2001 109.0% 97.6% 101.2% 105.1% 96.9% 101.6% 100.0% 2002 109.1% 97.6% 101.2% 105.5% 96.9% 102.8% 100.0% 2003 108.8% 97.6% 101.6% 106.0% 97.2% 101.6% 100.0% 2004 108.7% 97.6% 101.6% 105.6% 96.8% 100.8% 100.0% 2005 108.3% 97.2% 101.6% 105.2% 96.8% 101.2% 100.0% 2006 108.3% 97.2% 101.6% 105.6% 96.4% 102.4% 100.0% 2007 108.8% 96.8% 102.4% 105.6% 96.8% 102.4% 100.0% 2008 108.8% 96.4% 102.8% 106.0% 97.2% 102.8% 100.0% 2009 108.3% 96.4% 102.4% 106.0% 96.4% 102.0% 100.0% 2010 108.3% 97.2% 102.4% 106.3% 96.5% 100.8% 100.0% 2011 108.3% 97.2% 102.4% 106.3% 96.4% 100.8% 100.0% 2012 108.2% 97.3% 102.4% 106.3% 96.5% 100.4% 100.0% 2013 108.3% 97.2% 102.8% 106.3% 96.4% 100.4% 100.0% 2014 107.9% 96.8% 102.4% 106.0% 96.4% 100.4% 100.0% 2015 108.0% 97.2% 102.8% 106.4% 96.8% 100.4% 100.0% 2016 108.0% 97.2% 102.8% 106.4% 96.4% 100.4% 100.0% 2017 108.1% 97.2% 102.8% 106.5% 96.8% 100.4% 100.0% 2018 108.1% 97.2% 103.2% 106.5% 96.8% 100.4% 100.0% 2019 107.7% 96.8% 103.2% 106.5% 96.4% 100.0% 100.0% 2020 107.7% 97.2% 103.3% 106.5% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 2021 107.7% 96.7% 103.3% 106.5% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 2022 107.7% 96.7% 103.3% 106.5% 96.3% 100.0% 100.0% 2023 107.3% 96.7% 103.7% 106.5% 96.3% 99.6% 100.0% 2024 107.3% 96.7% 103.7% 106.5% 96.3% 99.6% 100.0% 2025 107.3% 96.7% 103.7% 106.5% 96.3% 99.6% 100.0% 2026 107.3% 96.7% 104.1% 106.5% 96.3% 99.6% 100.0% 2027 107.3% 96.7% 104.1% 106.5% 96.7% 99.6% 100.0% 2028 106.9% 96.4% 104.0% 106.5% 96.4% 99.2% 100.0% 2029 106.9% 96.4% 104.0% 106.5% 96.4% 99.2% 100.0% 2030 107.3% 96.8% 104.5% 106.5% 96.4% 99.2% 100.0% 2031 107.3% 96.8% 104.5% 106.9% 96.8% 99.2% 100.0% 2032 106.9% 96.4% 104.4% 106.5% 96.4% 99.2% 100.0% 2033 106.9% 96.4% 104.4% 106.9% 96.4% 99.2% 100.0% 2034 106.9% 96.8% 104.8% 106.9% 96.4% 99.2% 100.0% 2035 106.4% 96.4% 104.8% 106.4% 96.4% 98.8% 100.0% Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 90.0% 95.0% 100.0% 105.0% 110.0% 115.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 90.0% 95.0% 100.0% 105.0% 110.0% 115.0% 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 90.0% 95.0% 100.0% 105.0% 110.0% 115.0% 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 55 Number of Households Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 21,942 69,178 7,309 7,070 45,234 6,499 157,232 1991 22,993 70,566 7,398 7,065 47,198 6,670 161,890 1992 23,927 72,670 7,571 7,201 48,788 6,851 167,008 1993 25,098 72,480 7,547 7,268 49,941 7,042 169,376 1994 26,143 72,564 7,590 7,293 50,535 7,255 171,380 1995 27,570 72,785 7,745 7,382 51,748 7,428 174,658 1996 28,351 72,772 7,737 7,434 52,499 7,575 176,368 1997 29,285 73,092 7,840 7,653 53,414 7,793 179,077 1998 30,078 73,556 7,908 7,796 54,236 8,051 181,625 1999 30,902 73,415 7,981 7,946 55,079 8,192 183,515 2000 31,321 73,866 7,990 7,962 55,730 8,249 185,118 2001 33,023 75,719 8,168 8,293 57,373 8,469 191,045 2002 34,349 75,730 8,107 8,327 58,083 8,551 193,147 2003 35,860 76,287 8,172 8,427 59,269 8,779 196,794 2004 37,287 76,046 8,170 8,472 59,927 8,892 198,794 2005 38,708 75,972 8,224 8,517 60,670 9,047 201,138 2006 40,280 76,225 8,275 8,491 61,667 9,010 203,948 2007 42,078 76,840 8,287 8,583 63,058 9,186 208,032 2008 42,950 77,520 8,351 8,587 63,657 9,272 210,337 2009 44,034 77,501 8,333 8,550 64,113 9,333 211,864 2010 45,220 77,061 8,287 8,556 64,368 9,333 212,825 2011 46,551 77,438 8,245 8,635 64,725 9,276 214,870 2012 47,273 77,186 8,198 8,625 65,128 9,279 215,689 2013 48,689 78,018 8,266 8,737 66,472 9,413 219,595 2014 50,115 78,809 8,328 8,844 67,800 9,545 223,441 2015 51,544 79,549 8,386 8,946 69,103 9,671 227,199 2016 52,958 80,211 8,434 9,039 70,357 9,786 230,785 2017 54,350 80,788 8,474 9,124 71,554 9,893 234,183 2018 55,724 81,288 8,505 9,200 72,700 9,989 237,406 2019 57,091 81,732 8,530 9,270 73,810 10,081 240,514 2020 58,461 82,135 8,551 9,335 74,898 10,167 243,547 2021 59,839 82,505 8,568 9,397 75,971 10,254 246,534 2022 61,194 82,801 8,578 9,451 76,989 10,326 249,339 2023 62,536 83,040 8,581 9,499 77,966 10,394 252,016 2024 63,878 83,240 8,581 9,542 78,918 10,460 254,619 2025 65,218 83,402 8,576 9,582 79,846 10,516 257,140 2026 66,564 83,534 8,569 9,618 80,756 10,575 259,616 2027 67,913 83,635 8,558 9,650 81,648 10,628 262,032 2028 69,266 83,708 8,545 9,680 82,521 10,675 264,395 2029 70,622 83,753 8,529 9,706 83,376 10,720 266,706 2030 71,979 83,766 8,510 9,729 84,209 10,763 268,956 2031 73,346 83,759 8,488 9,750 85,031 10,804 271,178 2032 74,720 83,732 8,465 9,768 85,840 10,840 273,365 2033 76,105 83,687 8,441 9,785 86,639 10,878 275,535 2034 77,504 83,629 8,415 9,800 87,433 10,910 277,691 2035 78,912 83,553 8,387 9,813 88,215 10,940 279,820 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 56 Number of Households (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 14.0% 44.0% 4.6% 4.5% 28.8% 4.1% 100.0% 1991 14.2% 43.6% 4.6% 4.4% 29.2% 4.1% 100.0% 1992 14.3% 43.5% 4.5% 4.3% 29.2% 4.1% 100.0% 1993 14.8% 42.8% 4.5% 4.3% 29.5% 4.2% 100.0% 1994 15.3% 42.3% 4.4% 4.3% 29.5% 4.2% 100.0% 1995 15.8% 41.7% 4.4% 4.2% 29.6% 4.3% 100.0% 1996 16.1% 41.3% 4.4% 4.2% 29.8% 4.3% 100.0% 1997 16.4% 40.8% 4.4% 4.3% 29.8% 4.4% 100.0% 1998 16.6% 40.5% 4.4% 4.3% 29.9% 4.4% 100.0% 1999 16.8% 40.0% 4.3% 4.3% 30.0% 4.5% 100.0% 2000 16.9% 39.9% 4.3% 4.3% 30.1% 4.5% 100.0% 2001 17.3% 39.6% 4.3% 4.3% 30.0% 4.4% 100.0% 2002 17.8% 39.2% 4.2% 4.3% 30.1% 4.4% 100.0% 2003 18.2% 38.8% 4.2% 4.3% 30.1% 4.5% 100.0% 2004 18.8% 38.3% 4.1% 4.3% 30.1% 4.5% 100.0% 2005 19.2% 37.8% 4.1% 4.2% 30.2% 4.5% 100.0% 2006 19.8% 37.4% 4.1% 4.2% 30.2% 4.4% 100.0% 2007 20.2% 36.9% 4.0% 4.1% 30.3% 4.4% 100.0% 2008 20.4% 36.9% 4.0% 4.1% 30.3% 4.4% 100.0% 2009 20.8% 36.6% 3.9% 4.0% 30.3% 4.4% 100.0% 2010 21.2% 36.2% 3.9% 4.0% 30.2% 4.4% 100.0% 2011 21.7% 36.0% 3.8% 4.0% 30.1% 4.3% 100.0% 2012 21.9% 35.8% 3.8% 4.0% 30.2% 4.3% 100.0% 2013 22.2% 35.5% 3.8% 4.0% 30.3% 4.3% 100.0% 2014 22.4% 35.3% 3.7% 4.0% 30.3% 4.3% 100.0% 2015 22.7% 35.0% 3.7% 3.9% 30.4% 4.3% 100.0% 2016 22.9% 34.8% 3.7% 3.9% 30.5% 4.2% 100.0% 2017 23.2% 34.5% 3.6% 3.9% 30.6% 4.2% 100.0% 2018 23.5% 34.2% 3.6% 3.9% 30.6% 4.2% 100.0% 2019 23.7% 34.0% 3.5% 3.9% 30.7% 4.2% 100.0% 2020 24.0% 33.7% 3.5% 3.8% 30.8% 4.2% 100.0% 2021 24.3% 33.5% 3.5% 3.8% 30.8% 4.2% 100.0% 2022 24.5% 33.2% 3.4% 3.8% 30.9% 4.1% 100.0% 2023 24.8% 33.0% 3.4% 3.8% 30.9% 4.1% 100.0% 2024 25.1% 32.7% 3.4% 3.7% 31.0% 4.1% 100.0% 2025 25.4% 32.4% 3.3% 3.7% 31.1% 4.1% 100.0% 2026 25.6% 32.2% 3.3% 3.7% 31.1% 4.1% 100.0% 2027 25.9% 31.9% 3.3% 3.7% 31.2% 4.1% 100.0% 2028 26.2% 31.7% 3.2% 3.7% 31.2% 4.0% 100.0% 2029 26.5% 31.4% 3.2% 3.6% 31.3% 4.0% 100.0% 2030 26.8% 31.1% 3.2% 3.6% 31.3% 4.0% 100.0% 2031 27.0% 30.9% 3.1% 3.6% 31.4% 4.0% 100.0% 2032 27.3% 30.6% 3.1% 3.6% 31.4% 4.0% 100.0% 2033 27.6% 30.4% 3.1% 3.6% 31.4% 3.9% 100.0% 2034 27.9% 30.1% 3.0% 3.5% 31.5% 3.9% 100.0% 2035 28.2% 29.9% 3.0% 3.5% 31.5% 3.9% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 57 Average Household Total Personal Income (in 2009 dollars) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 87,209 $ 65,687 $ 57,363 $ 50,719 $ 71,603 $ 55,753 $ 68,651 $ 1991 86,642 $ 63,616 $ 58,815 $ 52,377 $ 70,194 $ 56,532 $ 67,520 $ 1992 90,638 $ 62,154 $ 59,073 $ 53,597 $ 70,932 $ 57,350 $ 67,754 $ 1993 90,121 $ 62,708 $ 59,412 $ 51,408 $ 70,266 $ 57,213 $ 67,863 $ 1994 91,722 $ 63,525 $ 62,343 $ 53,719 $ 69,720 $ 59,002 $ 68,704 $ 1995 92,649 $ 63,088 $ 62,794 $ 52,950 $ 69,014 $ 58,554 $ 68,575 $ 1996 93,557 $ 65,418 $ 64,048 $ 54,765 $ 68,993 $ 53,919 $ 69,652 $ 1997 95,713 $ 65,419 $ 64,384 $ 53,504 $ 70,757 $ 57,307 $ 70,692 $ 1998 99,173 $ 68,067 $ 68,517 $ 53,988 $ 74,335 $ 58,242 $ 73,668 $ 1999 101,377 $ 69,056 $ 68,495 $ 55,587 $ 75,352 $ 60,918 $ 75,006 $ 2000 104,636 $ 69,765 $ 72,030 $ 59,102 $ 77,903 $ 63,474 $ 77,025 $ 2001 101,186 $ 69,133 $ 74,457 $ 59,496 $ 79,953 $ 64,900 $ 77,116 $ 2002 99,902 $ 71,649 $ 73,572 $ 59,344 $ 80,433 $ 65,396 $ 78,163 $ 2003 100,671 $ 71,042 $ 73,372 $ 60,941 $ 78,879 $ 65,412 $ 77,812 $ 2004 101,500 $ 72,048 $ 77,430 $ 59,544 $ 79,204 $ 66,939 $ 78,815 $ 2005 102,961 $ 72,821 $ 78,399 $ 60,852 $ 79,810 $ 68,930 $ 79,920 $ 2006 105,808 $ 72,131 $ 78,678 $ 62,080 $ 80,295 $ 73,142 $ 80,759 $ 2007 107,744 $ 72,781 $ 79,430 $ 63,554 $ 80,544 $ 74,194 $ 81,761 $ 2008 111,555 $ 72,182 $ 77,997 $ 67,910 $ 81,137 $ 78,018 $ 82,821 $ 2009 109,182 $ 71,584 $ 75,866 $ 68,908 $ 79,742 $ 78,755 $ 81,867 $ 2010 110,983 $ 72,211 $ 76,158 $ 72,247 $ 81,419 $ 80,877 $ 83,361 $ 2011 112,484 $ 72,473 $ 77,790 $ 73,924 $ 82,767 $ 84,362 $ 84,598 $ 2012 115,925 $ 73,010 $ 79,109 $ 72,955 $ 84,933 $ 85,483 $ 86,346 $ 2013 116,007 $ 73,018 $ 79,338 $ 73,363 $ 85,145 $ 85,602 $ 86,574 $ 2014 116,187 $ 73,215 $ 79,691 $ 73,904 $ 85,513 $ 85,772 $ 86,949 $ 2015 116,475 $ 73,555 $ 80,123 $ 74,551 $ 86,016 $ 86,025 $ 87,451 $ 2016 116,907 $ 74,038 $ 80,692 $ 75,326 $ 86,668 $ 86,404 $ 88,096 $ 2017 117,488 $ 74,652 $ 81,366 $ 76,212 $ 87,464 $ 86,877 $ 88,877 $ 2018 118,207 $ 75,384 $ 82,153 $ 77,215 $ 88,396 $ 87,474 $ 89,785 $ 2019 119,034 $ 76,209 $ 83,029 $ 78,308 $ 89,437 $ 88,127 $ 90,794 $ 2020 119,953 $ 77,116 $ 83,973 $ 79,486 $ 90,575 $ 88,860 $ 91,891 $ 2021 120,941 $ 78,087 $ 84,985 $ 80,727 $ 91,792 $ 89,605 $ 93,057 $ 2022 122,052 $ 79,155 $ 86,086 $ 82,070 $ 93,130 $ 90,497 $ 94,337 $ 2023 123,262 $ 80,303 $ 87,276 $ 83,494 $ 94,572 $ 91,437 $ 95,707 $ 2024 124,540 $ 81,513 $ 88,520 $ 84,999 $ 96,095 $ 92,411 $ 97,148 $ 2025 125,891 $ 82,784 $ 89,834 $ 86,562 $ 97,701 $ 93,490 $ 98,661 $ 2026 127,295 $ 84,106 $ 91,192 $ 88,195 $ 99,379 $ 94,552 $ 100,232 $ 2027 128,754 $ 85,480 $ 92,614 $ 89,898 $ 101,130 $ 95,684 $ 101,865 $ 2028 130,268 $ 86,904 $ 94,074 $ 91,651 $ 102,955 $ 96,880 $ 103,557 $ 2029 131,837 $ 88,377 $ 95,594 $ 93,478 $ 104,854 $ 98,106 $ 105,310 $ 2030 133,465 $ 89,905 $ 97,166 $ 95,371 $ 106,833 $ 99,368 $ 107,127 $ 2031 135,134 $ 91,477 $ 98,801 $ 97,321 $ 108,881 $ 100,660 $ 108,996 $ 2032 136,850 $ 93,093 $ 100,470 $ 99,336 $ 111,000 $ 102,014 $ 110,922 $ 2033 138,606 $ 94,753 $ 102,180 $ 101,404 $ 113,190 $ 103,362 $ 112,897 $ 2034 140,399 $ 96,451 $ 103,943 $ 103,534 $ 115,443 $ 104,785 $ 114,923 $ 2035 142,237 $ 98,195 $ 105,757 $ 105,725 $ 117,773 $ 106,241 $ 117,005 $ Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield $0 $40,000 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield $0 $40,000 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield $0 $40,000 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 58 Average Household Total Personal Income (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 127.0% 95.7% 83.6% 73.9% 104.3% 81.2% 100.0% 1991 128.3% 94.2% 87.1% 77.6% 104.0% 83.7% 100.0% 1992 133.8% 91.7% 87.2% 79.1% 104.7% 84.6% 100.0% 1993 132.8% 92.4% 87.5% 75.8% 103.5% 84.3% 100.0% 1994 133.5% 92.5% 90.7% 78.2% 101.5% 85.9% 100.0% 1995 135.1% 92.0% 91.6% 77.2% 100.6% 85.4% 100.0% 1996 134.3% 93.9% 92.0% 78.6% 99.1% 77.4% 100.0% 1997 135.4% 92.5% 91.1% 75.7% 100.1% 81.1% 100.0% 1998 134.6% 92.4% 93.0% 73.3% 100.9% 79.1% 100.0% 1999 135.2% 92.1% 91.3% 74.1% 100.5% 81.2% 100.0% 2000 135.8% 90.6% 93.5% 76.7% 101.1% 82.4% 100.0% 2001 131.2% 89.6% 96.6% 77.2% 103.7% 84.2% 100.0% 2002 127.8% 91.7% 94.1% 75.9% 102.9% 83.7% 100.0% 2003 129.4% 91.3% 94.3% 78.3% 101.4% 84.1% 100.0% 2004 128.8% 91.4% 98.2% 75.5% 100.5% 84.9% 100.0% 2005 128.8% 91.1% 98.1% 76.1% 99.9% 86.2% 100.0% 2006 131.0% 89.3% 97.4% 76.9% 99.4% 90.6% 100.0% 2007 131.8% 89.0% 97.1% 77.7% 98.5% 90.7% 100.0% 2008 134.7% 87.2% 94.2% 82.0% 98.0% 94.2% 100.0% 2009 133.4% 87.4% 92.7% 84.2% 97.4% 96.2% 100.0% 2010 133.1% 86.6% 91.4% 86.7% 97.7% 97.0% 100.0% 2011 133.0% 85.7% 92.0% 87.4% 97.8% 99.7% 100.0% 2012 134.3% 84.6% 91.6% 84.5% 98.4% 99.0% 100.0% 2013 134.0% 84.3% 91.6% 84.7% 98.3% 98.9% 100.0% 2014 133.6% 84.2% 91.7% 85.0% 98.3% 98.6% 100.0% 2015 133.2% 84.1% 91.6% 85.2% 98.4% 98.4% 100.0% 2016 132.7% 84.0% 91.6% 85.5% 98.4% 98.1% 100.0% 2017 132.2% 84.0% 91.5% 85.7% 98.4% 97.7% 100.0% 2018 131.7% 84.0% 91.5% 86.0% 98.5% 97.4% 100.0% 2019 131.1% 83.9% 91.4% 86.2% 98.5% 97.1% 100.0% 2020 130.5% 83.9% 91.4% 86.5% 98.6% 96.7% 100.0% 2021 130.0% 83.9% 91.3% 86.8% 98.6% 96.3% 100.0% 2022 129.4% 83.9% 91.3% 87.0% 98.7% 95.9% 100.0% 2023 128.8% 83.9% 91.2% 87.2% 98.8% 95.5% 100.0% 2024 128.2% 83.9% 91.1% 87.5% 98.9% 95.1% 100.0% 2025 127.6% 83.9% 91.1% 87.7% 99.0% 94.8% 100.0% 2026 127.0% 83.9% 91.0% 88.0% 99.1% 94.3% 100.0% 2027 126.4% 83.9% 90.9% 88.3% 99.3% 93.9% 100.0% 2028 125.8% 83.9% 90.8% 88.5% 99.4% 93.6% 100.0% 2029 125.2% 83.9% 90.8% 88.8% 99.6% 93.2% 100.0% 2030 124.6% 83.9% 90.7% 89.0% 99.7% 92.8% 100.0% 2031 124.0% 83.9% 90.6% 89.3% 99.9% 92.4% 100.0% 2032 123.4% 83.9% 90.6% 89.6% 100.1% 92.0% 100.0% 2033 122.8% 83.9% 90.5% 89.8% 100.3% 91.6% 100.0% 2034 122.2% 83.9% 90.4% 90.1% 100.5% 91.2% 100.0% 2035 121.6% 83.9% 90.4% 90.4% 100.7% 90.8% 100.0% Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 110.0% 120.0% 130.0% 140.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 110.0% 120.0% 130.0% 140.0% 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 110.0% 120.0% 130.0% 140.0% 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 60 Households with Incomes Less Than $30,000 (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 7.1% 48.9% 6.2% 6.8% 26.0% 5.0% 100.0% 1991 7.2% 48.6% 6.0% 6.5% 26.8% 4.9% 100.0% 1992 7.3% 48.6% 5.8% 6.3% 27.1% 4.8% 100.0% 1993 7.5% 48.1% 5.7% 6.2% 27.7% 4.9% 100.0% 1994 7.7% 47.7% 5.6% 6.1% 27.9% 4.9% 100.0% 1995 7.9% 47.3% 5.5% 6.1% 28.3% 4.9% 100.0% 1996 8.0% 47.0% 5.4% 6.0% 28.6% 4.9% 100.0% 1997 8.1% 46.7% 5.4% 6.1% 28.9% 4.9% 100.0% 1998 8.1% 46.5% 5.3% 6.1% 29.1% 5.0% 100.0% 1999 8.2% 46.1% 5.2% 6.1% 29.4% 5.0% 100.0% 2000 8.2% 46.1% 5.1% 6.0% 29.7% 4.9% 100.0% 2001 8.6% 46.1% 5.1% 6.1% 29.1% 4.9% 100.0% 2002 9.1% 45.4% 5.0% 6.2% 29.3% 5.0% 100.0% 2003 9.4% 44.9% 5.0% 6.1% 29.7% 5.1% 100.0% 2004 9.8% 44.5% 4.8% 6.2% 29.7% 5.1% 100.0% 2005 10.0% 44.2% 4.8% 6.1% 29.8% 5.1% 100.0% 2006 10.2% 44.1% 4.8% 6.0% 30.0% 5.0% 100.0% 2007 10.4% 43.9% 4.7% 5.9% 30.2% 5.0% 100.0% 2008 10.5% 43.9% 4.8% 5.7% 30.3% 4.9% 100.0% 2009 10.8% 43.6% 4.8% 5.5% 30.5% 4.8% 100.0% 2010 11.5% 42.8% 5.0% 5.2% 30.5% 5.0% 100.0% 2011 12.2% 41.9% 4.8% 5.5% 31.0% 4.7% 100.0% 2012 12.1% 42.1% 4.6% 5.6% 31.0% 4.7% 100.0% 2013 12.3% 41.8% 4.5% 5.6% 31.1% 4.7% 100.0% 2014 12.5% 41.5% 4.5% 5.6% 31.2% 4.7% 100.0% 2015 12.7% 41.3% 4.4% 5.5% 31.4% 4.7% 100.0% 2016 12.9% 41.0% 4.4% 5.5% 31.5% 4.7% 100.0% 2017 13.1% 40.8% 4.4% 5.5% 31.6% 4.7% 100.0% 2018 13.3% 40.5% 4.3% 5.4% 31.7% 4.7% 100.0% 2019 13.5% 40.3% 4.3% 5.4% 31.8% 4.7% 100.0% 2020 13.6% 40.2% 4.3% 5.3% 31.8% 4.8% 100.0% 2021 13.8% 39.8% 4.2% 5.3% 32.0% 4.8% 100.0% 2022 14.0% 39.4% 4.2% 5.3% 32.3% 4.9% 100.0% 2023 14.2% 39.0% 4.1% 5.2% 32.5% 4.9% 100.0% 2024 14.5% 38.6% 4.0% 5.2% 32.8% 5.0% 100.0% 2025 14.7% 38.3% 3.9% 5.1% 32.9% 5.1% 100.0% 2026 14.9% 38.0% 3.9% 5.1% 33.1% 5.1% 100.0% 2027 15.1% 37.7% 3.8% 5.0% 33.2% 5.1% 100.0% 2028 15.4% 37.4% 3.7% 5.0% 33.3% 5.2% 100.0% 2029 15.7% 37.1% 3.7% 5.0% 33.4% 5.2% 100.0% 2030 15.9% 36.8% 3.6% 4.9% 33.5% 5.2% 100.0% 2031 16.2% 36.5% 3.6% 4.9% 33.6% 5.2% 100.0% 2032 16.5% 36.2% 3.6% 4.9% 33.7% 5.2% 100.0% 2033 16.8% 35.9% 3.5% 4.8% 33.8% 5.2% 100.0% 2034 17.0% 35.5% 3.5% 4.8% 34.0% 5.2% 100.0% 2035 17.3% 35.1% 3.4% 4.7% 34.2% 5.2% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 61 Working Age Population 18 to 69 Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 43,947 126,234 12,635 12,047 79,972 11,719 286,554 1991 45,771 130,449 12,784 12,043 83,047 12,067 296,161 1992 47,055 136,515 12,986 12,210 84,934 12,419 306,119 1993 49,175 131,278 12,925 12,354 86,625 12,883 305,240 1994 51,063 132,236 12,990 12,416 87,235 13,375 309,315 1995 53,117 131,674 13,138 12,491 88,140 14,138 312,698 1996 54,050 130,622 13,095 12,597 88,374 14,617 313,355 1997 55,350 130,518 13,260 12,944 89,292 15,154 316,518 1998 56,275 130,336 13,360 13,164 90,472 15,814 319,421 1999 57,464 130,170 13,476 13,464 91,960 16,353 322,887 2000 58,640 130,950 13,580 13,602 92,554 16,813 326,139 2001 60,329 131,519 13,551 13,805 93,393 16,902 329,499 2002 62,538 131,111 13,546 13,928 94,642 17,104 332,869 2003 64,453 130,078 13,592 14,084 96,138 17,555 335,900 2004 67,315 131,047 13,720 14,274 97,853 17,976 342,185 2005 69,764 130,360 13,859 14,372 99,083 18,206 345,644 2006 72,677 131,545 13,879 14,364 100,735 18,141 351,341 2007 75,450 131,940 13,866 14,433 102,579 18,452 356,720 2008 77,323 133,863 14,078 14,594 104,203 18,762 362,823 2009 79,949 134,094 14,156 14,692 105,681 18,921 367,493 2010 82,762 136,183 14,248 15,009 107,165 18,914 374,281 2011 85,427 135,722 14,087 15,256 108,095 18,786 377,373 2012 87,305 136,265 14,057 15,355 109,288 18,914 381,184 2013 89,143 136,662 14,014 15,401 110,272 18,991 384,483 2014 91,091 136,548 13,977 15,448 111,183 19,096 387,343 2015 93,127 136,545 13,903 15,473 112,144 19,183 390,375 2016 95,010 136,654 13,858 15,473 113,028 19,204 393,227 2017 96,436 136,346 13,816 15,500 113,603 19,182 394,883 2018 97,980 136,210 13,776 15,517 114,380 19,264 397,127 2019 99,671 136,014 13,746 15,545 115,202 19,299 399,477 2020 101,431 136,018 13,695 15,587 116,035 19,319 402,085 2021 103,205 135,835 13,649 15,604 116,789 19,395 404,477 2022 104,942 135,595 13,666 15,662 117,527 19,486 406,878 2023 106,452 135,354 13,683 15,682 118,359 19,550 409,080 2024 107,958 135,183 13,664 15,708 119,036 19,588 411,137 2025 109,586 135,024 13,607 15,697 119,724 19,593 413,231 2026 111,123 134,953 13,566 15,728 120,355 19,609 415,334 2027 112,765 134,604 13,567 15,747 121,094 19,646 417,423 2028 114,517 134,678 13,509 15,775 121,923 19,636 420,038 2029 116,023 134,569 13,498 15,789 121,560 19,451 420,890 2030 117,680 134,376 13,477 15,776 122,408 19,408 423,125 2031 119,442 134,345 13,449 15,793 123,323 19,471 425,823 2032 121,245 134,423 13,375 15,819 124,327 19,519 428,708 2033 123,290 134,556 13,347 15,835 125,246 19,517 431,791 2034 125,214 134,703 13,274 15,840 126,229 19,532 434,792 2035 127,148 134,781 13,249 15,891 127,215 19,571 437,855 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 62 Working Age Population 18 to 69 (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 15.3% 44.1% 4.4% 4.2% 27.9% 4.1% 100.0% 1991 15.5% 44.0% 4.3% 4.1% 28.0% 4.1% 100.0% 1992 15.4% 44.6% 4.2% 4.0% 27.7% 4.1% 100.0% 1993 16.1% 43.0% 4.2% 4.0% 28.4% 4.2% 100.0% 1994 16.5% 42.8% 4.2% 4.0% 28.2% 4.3% 100.0% 1995 17.0% 42.1% 4.2% 4.0% 28.2% 4.5% 100.0% 1996 17.2% 41.7% 4.2% 4.0% 28.2% 4.7% 100.0% 1997 17.5% 41.2% 4.2% 4.1% 28.2% 4.8% 100.0% 1998 17.6% 40.8% 4.2% 4.1% 28.3% 5.0% 100.0% 1999 17.8% 40.3% 4.2% 4.2% 28.5% 5.1% 100.0% 2000 18.0% 40.2% 4.2% 4.2% 28.4% 5.2% 100.0% 2001 18.3% 39.9% 4.1% 4.2% 28.3% 5.1% 100.0% 2002 18.8% 39.4% 4.1% 4.2% 28.4% 5.1% 100.0% 2003 19.2% 38.7% 4.0% 4.2% 28.6% 5.2% 100.0% 2004 19.7% 38.3% 4.0% 4.2% 28.6% 5.3% 100.0% 2005 20.2% 37.7% 4.0% 4.2% 28.7% 5.3% 100.0% 2006 20.7% 37.4% 4.0% 4.1% 28.7% 5.2% 100.0% 2007 21.2% 37.0% 3.9% 4.0% 28.8% 5.2% 100.0% 2008 21.3% 36.9% 3.9% 4.0% 28.7% 5.2% 100.0% 2009 21.8% 36.5% 3.9% 4.0% 28.8% 5.1% 100.0% 2010 22.1% 36.4% 3.8% 4.0% 28.6% 5.1% 100.0% 2011 22.6% 36.0% 3.7% 4.0% 28.6% 5.0% 100.0% 2012 22.9% 35.7% 3.7% 4.0% 28.7% 5.0% 100.0% 2013 23.2% 35.5% 3.6% 4.0% 28.7% 4.9% 100.0% 2014 23.5% 35.3% 3.6% 4.0% 28.7% 4.9% 100.0% 2015 23.9% 35.0% 3.6% 4.0% 28.7% 4.9% 100.0% 2016 24.2% 34.8% 3.5% 3.9% 28.7% 4.9% 100.0% 2017 24.4% 34.5% 3.5% 3.9% 28.8% 4.9% 100.0% 2018 24.7% 34.3% 3.5% 3.9% 28.8% 4.9% 100.0% 2019 25.0% 34.0% 3.4% 3.9% 28.8% 4.8% 100.0% 2020 25.2% 33.8% 3.4% 3.9% 28.9% 4.8% 100.0% 2021 25.5% 33.6% 3.4% 3.9% 28.9% 4.8% 100.0% 2022 25.8% 33.3% 3.4% 3.8% 28.9% 4.8% 100.0% 2023 26.0% 33.1% 3.3% 3.8% 28.9% 4.8% 100.0% 2024 26.3% 32.9% 3.3% 3.8% 29.0% 4.8% 100.0% 2025 26.5% 32.7% 3.3% 3.8% 29.0% 4.7% 100.0% 2026 26.8% 32.5% 3.3% 3.8% 29.0% 4.7% 100.0% 2027 27.0% 32.2% 3.3% 3.8% 29.0% 4.7% 100.0% 2028 27.3% 32.1% 3.2% 3.8% 29.0% 4.7% 100.0% 2029 27.6% 32.0% 3.2% 3.8% 28.9% 4.6% 100.0% 2030 27.8% 31.8% 3.2% 3.7% 28.9% 4.6% 100.0% 2031 28.0% 31.5% 3.2% 3.7% 29.0% 4.6% 100.0% 2032 28.3% 31.4% 3.1% 3.7% 29.0% 4.6% 100.0% 2033 28.6% 31.2% 3.1% 3.7% 29.0% 4.5% 100.0% 2034 28.8% 31.0% 3.1% 3.6% 29.0% 4.5% 100.0% 2035 29.0% 30.8% 3.0% 3.6% 29.1% 4.5% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 63 Total Employment Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 18,711 128,581 8,887 8,280 73,820 6,549 244,828 1991 19,477 124,674 9,025 7,936 73,480 6,309 240,901 1992 20,227 123,483 9,240 7,662 73,750 6,264 240,626 1993 21,359 124,355 9,568 8,011 74,928 6,429 244,650 1994 23,004 125,829 9,797 8,123 74,997 6,690 248,440 1995 24,452 128,274 10,105 8,143 72,506 7,353 250,833 1996 25,765 128,687 10,121 8,028 72,255 7,088 251,944 1997 26,932 131,303 9,908 8,229 73,486 7,266 257,124 1998 29,507 132,191 10,327 8,580 73,878 7,736 262,219 1999 30,853 134,164 10,467 8,702 75,681 8,354 268,221 2000 32,226 134,952 10,672 9,082 75,860 8,209 271,001 2001 32,266 133,319 10,378 9,275 76,015 8,336 269,589 2002 34,170 132,453 10,094 9,272 78,908 8,463 273,360 2003 36,446 134,422 10,358 8,884 80,567 8,426 279,103 2004 39,710 136,532 10,694 8,810 83,403 8,920 288,069 2005 43,311 136,983 11,273 8,857 84,016 8,439 292,879 2006 45,254 136,462 11,117 8,880 84,905 8,226 294,844 2007 47,095 138,257 10,944 8,902 87,880 8,757 301,835 2008 48,725 136,384 10,435 9,022 89,745 8,585 302,896 2009 47,145 134,830 9,783 9,370 88,961 8,446 298,535 2010 46,926 134,060 9,640 9,413 90,741 8,348 299,128 2011 47,176 134,265 9,697 9,685 90,957 8,287 300,067 2012 48,203 135,149 9,733 9,785 92,569 8,332 303,771 2013 49,246 136,021 9,771 9,886 94,217 8,383 307,524 2014 50,310 136,897 9,810 9,987 95,901 8,428 311,333 2015 51,392 137,760 9,845 10,090 97,625 8,480 315,192 2016 52,498 138,624 9,883 10,198 99,387 8,525 319,115 2017 53,620 139,477 9,920 10,301 101,188 8,574 323,080 2018 54,763 140,324 9,954 10,408 103,026 8,623 327,098 2019 55,928 141,166 9,989 10,513 104,908 8,672 331,176 2020 57,119 142,002 10,025 10,624 106,829 8,719 335,318 2021 58,323 142,832 10,062 10,735 108,795 8,770 339,517 2022 59,548 143,656 10,099 10,847 110,804 8,815 343,769 2023 60,795 144,473 10,130 10,958 112,856 8,864 348,076 2024 62,065 145,284 10,164 11,072 114,952 8,914 352,451 2025 63,359 146,087 10,200 11,187 117,094 8,962 356,889 2026 64,674 146,884 10,233 11,305 119,286 9,010 361,392 2027 66,008 147,672 10,270 11,423 121,523 9,059 365,955 2028 67,369 148,456 10,305 11,543 123,812 9,108 370,593 2029 68,747 149,233 10,341 11,666 126,147 9,157 375,291 2030 70,151 150,005 10,374 11,789 128,533 9,206 380,058 2031 71,578 150,764 10,410 11,910 130,974 9,255 384,891 2032 73,026 151,522 10,443 12,034 133,465 9,304 389,794 2033 74,499 152,267 10,478 12,161 136,012 9,355 394,772 2034 75,996 153,008 10,513 12,288 138,611 9,402 399,818 2035 77,511 153,744 10,547 12,419 141,268 9,453 404,942 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 64 Total Employment (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 7.6% 52.5% 3.6% 3.4% 30.2% 2.7% 100.0% 1991 8.1% 51.8% 3.7% 3.3% 30.5% 2.6% 100.0% 1992 8.4% 51.3% 3.8% 3.2% 30.6% 2.6% 100.0% 1993 8.7% 50.8% 3.9% 3.3% 30.6% 2.6% 100.0% 1994 9.3% 50.6% 3.9% 3.3% 30.2% 2.7% 100.0% 1995 9.7% 51.1% 4.0% 3.2% 28.9% 2.9% 100.0% 1996 10.2% 51.1% 4.0% 3.2% 28.7% 2.8% 100.0% 1997 10.5% 51.1% 3.9% 3.2% 28.6% 2.8% 100.0% 1998 11.3% 50.4% 3.9% 3.3% 28.2% 3.0% 100.0% 1999 11.5% 50.0% 3.9% 3.2% 28.2% 3.1% 100.0% 2000 11.9% 49.8% 3.9% 3.4% 28.0% 3.0% 100.0% 2001 12.0% 49.5% 3.8% 3.4% 28.2% 3.1% 100.0% 2002 12.5% 48.5% 3.7% 3.4% 28.9% 3.1% 100.0% 2003 13.1% 48.2% 3.7% 3.2% 28.9% 3.0% 100.0% 2004 13.8% 47.4% 3.7% 3.1% 29.0% 3.1% 100.0% 2005 14.8% 46.8% 3.8% 3.0% 28.7% 2.9% 100.0% 2006 15.3% 46.3% 3.8% 3.0% 28.8% 2.8% 100.0% 2007 15.6% 45.8% 3.6% 2.9% 29.1% 2.9% 100.0% 2008 16.1% 45.0% 3.4% 3.0% 29.6% 2.8% 100.0% 2009 15.8% 45.2% 3.3% 3.1% 29.8% 2.8% 100.0% 2010 15.7% 44.8% 3.2% 3.1% 30.3% 2.8% 100.0% 2011 15.7% 44.7% 3.2% 3.2% 30.3% 2.8% 100.0% 2012 15.9% 44.5% 3.2% 3.2% 30.5% 2.7% 100.0% 2013 16.0% 44.2% 3.2% 3.2% 30.6% 2.7% 100.0% 2014 16.2% 44.0% 3.2% 3.2% 30.8% 2.7% 100.0% 2015 16.3% 43.7% 3.1% 3.2% 31.0% 2.7% 100.0% 2016 16.5% 43.4% 3.1% 3.2% 31.1% 2.7% 100.0% 2017 16.6% 43.2% 3.1% 3.2% 31.3% 2.7% 100.0% 2018 16.7% 42.9% 3.0% 3.2% 31.5% 2.6% 100.0% 2019 16.9% 42.6% 3.0% 3.2% 31.7% 2.6% 100.0% 2020 17.0% 42.3% 3.0% 3.2% 31.9% 2.6% 100.0% 2021 17.2% 42.1% 3.0% 3.2% 32.0% 2.6% 100.0% 2022 17.3% 41.8% 2.9% 3.2% 32.2% 2.6% 100.0% 2023 17.5% 41.5% 2.9% 3.1% 32.4% 2.5% 100.0% 2024 17.6% 41.2% 2.9% 3.1% 32.6% 2.5% 100.0% 2025 17.8% 40.9% 2.9% 3.1% 32.8% 2.5% 100.0% 2026 17.9% 40.6% 2.8% 3.1% 33.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2027 18.0% 40.4% 2.8% 3.1% 33.2% 2.5% 100.0% 2028 18.2% 40.1% 2.8% 3.1% 33.4% 2.5% 100.0% 2029 18.3% 39.8% 2.8% 3.1% 33.6% 2.4% 100.0% 2030 18.5% 39.5% 2.7% 3.1% 33.8% 2.4% 100.0% 2031 18.6% 39.2% 2.7% 3.1% 34.0% 2.4% 100.0% 2032 18.7% 38.9% 2.7% 3.1% 34.2% 2.4% 100.0% 2033 18.9% 38.6% 2.7% 3.1% 34.5% 2.4% 100.0% 2034 19.0% 38.3% 2.6% 3.1% 34.7% 2.4% 100.0% 2035 19.1% 38.0% 2.6% 3.1% 34.9% 2.3% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 65 Farm, Forestry and Mining Jobs Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 427 408 593 882 1,708 968 4,986 1991 403 388 616 835 1,663 835 4,740 1992 404 386 612 804 1,666 760 4,632 1993 443 390 641 811 1,698 791 4,774 1994 454 384 657 796 1,714 809 4,814 1995 474 384 703 793 1,671 905 4,930 1996 463 385 688 778 1,660 934 4,908 1997 506 403 769 828 1,708 1,070 5,284 1998 505 414 786 852 1,805 1,107 5,469 1999 461 409 742 818 1,704 1,015 5,149 2000 469 393 732 822 1,661 895 4,972 2001 457 387 725 802 1,692 898 4,961 2002 439 378 736 744 1,631 952 4,880 2003 471 378 710 727 1,649 910 4,845 2004 462 380 670 711 1,701 981 4,905 2005 482 406 666 734 1,793 930 5,011 2006 482 420 584 692 1,841 970 4,989 2007 493 397 580 670 1,805 941 4,886 2008 507 460 653 778 1,932 983 5,313 2009 522 483 575 681 2,022 1,051 5,334 2010 440 525 591 653 2,104 1,043 5,356 2011 449 590 536 661 2,140 1,059 5,435 2012 452 592 538 654 2,139 1,050 5,425 2013 455 594 541 648 2,137 1,041 5,416 2014 457 598 543 641 2,136 1,033 5,408 2015 460 600 544 635 2,136 1,025 5,400 2016 463 602 548 628 2,135 1,016 5,392 2017 465 604 550 621 2,134 1,008 5,382 2018 467 606 551 615 2,133 999 5,371 2019 470 609 554 609 2,134 991 5,367 2020 474 611 556 603 2,134 983 5,361 2021 476 613 557 597 2,133 975 5,351 2022 478 616 560 592 2,134 966 5,346 2023 481 619 561 586 2,135 958 5,340 2024 483 620 562 580 2,135 950 5,330 2025 486 622 565 575 2,137 942 5,327 2026 488 624 566 569 2,137 934 5,318 2027 491 627 567 564 2,139 926 5,314 2028 494 629 570 559 2,140 919 5,311 2029 495 631 570 554 2,142 910 5,302 2030 498 634 572 550 2,143 903 5,300 2031 501 635 574 545 2,147 896 5,298 2032 503 637 574 540 2,148 888 5,290 2033 505 640 576 535 2,151 881 5,288 2034 508 642 577 530 2,153 873 5,283 2035 510 645 578 526 2,157 866 5,282 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 66 Farm, Forestry and Mining Jobs (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 8.6% 8.2% 11.9% 17.7% 34.3% 19.4% 100.0% 1991 8.5% 8.2% 13.0% 17.6% 35.1% 17.6% 100.0% 1992 8.7% 8.3% 13.2% 17.4% 36.0% 16.4% 100.0% 1993 9.3% 8.2% 13.4% 17.0% 35.6% 16.6% 100.0% 1994 9.4% 8.0% 13.6% 16.5% 35.6% 16.8% 100.0% 1995 9.6% 7.8% 14.3% 16.1% 33.9% 18.4% 100.0% 1996 9.4% 7.8% 14.0% 15.9% 33.8% 19.0% 100.0% 1997 9.6% 7.6% 14.6% 15.7% 32.3% 20.2% 100.0% 1998 9.2% 7.6% 14.4% 15.6% 33.0% 20.2% 100.0% 1999 9.0% 7.9% 14.4% 15.9% 33.1% 19.7% 100.0% 2000 9.4% 7.9% 14.7% 16.5% 33.4% 18.0% 100.0% 2001 9.2% 7.8% 14.6% 16.2% 34.1% 18.1% 100.0% 2002 9.0% 7.7% 15.1% 15.2% 33.4% 19.5% 100.0% 2003 9.7% 7.8% 14.7% 15.0% 34.0% 18.8% 100.0% 2004 9.4% 7.7% 13.7% 14.5% 34.7% 20.0% 100.0% 2005 9.6% 8.1% 13.3% 14.6% 35.8% 18.6% 100.0% 2006 9.7% 8.4% 11.7% 13.9% 36.9% 19.4% 100.0% 2007 10.1% 8.1% 11.9% 13.7% 36.9% 19.3% 100.0% 2008 9.5% 8.7% 12.3% 14.6% 36.4% 18.5% 100.0% 2009 9.8% 9.1% 10.8% 12.8% 37.9% 19.7% 100.0% 2010 8.2% 9.8% 11.0% 12.2% 39.3% 19.5% 100.0% 2011 8.3% 10.9% 9.9% 12.2% 39.4% 19.5% 100.0% 2012 8.3% 10.9% 9.9% 12.1% 39.4% 19.4% 100.0% 2013 8.4% 11.0% 10.0% 12.0% 39.5% 19.2% 100.0% 2014 8.5% 11.1% 10.0% 11.9% 39.5% 19.1% 100.0% 2015 8.5% 11.1% 10.1% 11.8% 39.6% 19.0% 100.0% 2016 8.6% 11.2% 10.2% 11.6% 39.6% 18.8% 100.0% 2017 8.6% 11.2% 10.2% 11.5% 39.7% 18.7% 100.0% 2018 8.7% 11.3% 10.3% 11.5% 39.7% 18.6% 100.0% 2019 8.8% 11.3% 10.3% 11.3% 39.8% 18.5% 100.0% 2020 8.8% 11.4% 10.4% 11.2% 39.8% 18.3% 100.0% 2021 8.9% 11.5% 10.4% 11.2% 39.9% 18.2% 100.0% 2022 8.9% 11.5% 10.5% 11.1% 39.9% 18.1% 100.0% 2023 9.0% 11.6% 10.5% 11.0% 40.0% 17.9% 100.0% 2024 9.1% 11.6% 10.5% 10.9% 40.1% 17.8% 100.0% 2025 9.1% 11.7% 10.6% 10.8% 40.1% 17.7% 100.0% 2026 9.2% 11.7% 10.6% 10.7% 40.2% 17.6% 100.0% 2027 9.2% 11.8% 10.7% 10.6% 40.3% 17.4% 100.0% 2028 9.3% 11.8% 10.7% 10.5% 40.3% 17.3% 100.0% 2029 9.3% 11.9% 10.8% 10.4% 40.4% 17.2% 100.0% 2030 9.4% 12.0% 10.8% 10.4% 40.4% 17.0% 100.0% 2031 9.5% 12.0% 10.8% 10.3% 40.5% 16.9% 100.0% 2032 9.5% 12.0% 10.9% 10.2% 40.6% 16.8% 100.0% 2033 9.5% 12.1% 10.9% 10.1% 40.7% 16.7% 100.0% 2034 9.6% 12.2% 10.9% 10.0% 40.8% 16.5% 100.0% 2035 9.7% 12.2% 10.9% 10.0% 40.8% 16.4% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 67 Construction Jobs Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 2,451 9,208 611 120 10,496 284 23,170 1991 2,430 5,472 769 116 9,255 271 18,313 1992 2,448 5,054 801 108 7,274 202 15,887 1993 2,462 4,882 835 113 7,259 226 15,777 1994 2,580 5,102 815 127 6,919 249 15,792 1995 2,765 5,079 787 132 6,295 276 15,334 1996 2,881 5,992 726 133 5,648 256 15,636 1997 2,977 6,558 782 140 6,276 296 17,029 1998 3,168 6,812 793 262 6,646 394 18,075 1999 3,492 7,403 965 253 7,174 407 19,694 2000 3,605 6,724 1,014 318 7,236 403 19,300 2001 3,644 6,346 992 362 7,467 386 19,197 2002 3,777 5,974 897 371 7,640 335 18,994 2003 3,917 6,323 861 402 7,977 347 19,827 2004 4,267 6,306 882 465 7,975 363 20,258 2005 4,794 6,713 983 439 8,209 364 21,502 2006 4,984 6,719 923 433 8,460 422 21,941 2007 5,093 6,739 880 435 8,356 505 22,008 2008 4,702 6,356 855 448 7,744 450 20,555 2009 4,063 5,773 726 442 7,033 442 18,479 2010 3,799 5,599 635 421 7,207 362 18,023 2011 3,582 5,761 612 411 7,159 338 17,863 2012 3,599 5,794 614 412 7,203 341 17,963 2013 3,616 5,826 617 413 7,247 344 18,063 2014 3,633 5,858 619 414 7,291 347 18,162 2015 3,649 5,889 621 415 7,334 350 18,258 2016 3,665 5,921 623 416 7,376 352 18,353 2017 3,681 5,951 625 417 7,418 355 18,447 2018 3,696 5,982 627 418 7,460 358 18,541 2019 3,711 6,011 629 418 7,501 361 18,631 2020 3,726 6,041 631 419 7,542 364 18,723 2021 3,741 6,070 633 420 7,582 367 18,813 2022 3,755 6,098 635 420 7,621 369 18,898 2023 3,769 6,126 636 421 7,661 372 18,985 2024 3,783 6,154 638 422 7,699 375 19,071 2025 3,796 6,181 640 422 7,737 378 19,154 2026 3,809 6,208 641 423 7,774 380 19,235 2027 3,822 6,234 643 423 7,811 383 19,316 2028 3,834 6,260 644 424 7,848 386 19,396 2029 3,846 6,285 646 424 7,884 388 19,473 2030 3,858 6,310 647 424 7,919 391 19,549 2031 3,870 6,334 648 425 7,953 394 19,624 2032 3,881 6,358 650 425 7,988 396 19,698 2033 3,892 6,381 651 425 8,021 399 19,769 2034 3,902 6,404 652 425 8,054 402 19,839 2035 3,912 6,427 653 426 8,086 404 19,908 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 68 Construction Jobs (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 10.6% 39.7% 2.6% 0.5% 45.3% 1.2% 100.0% 1991 13.3% 29.9% 4.2% 0.6% 50.5% 1.5% 100.0% 1992 15.4% 31.8% 5.0% 0.7% 45.8% 1.3% 100.0% 1993 15.6% 30.9% 5.3% 0.7% 46.0% 1.4% 100.0% 1994 16.3% 32.3% 5.2% 0.8% 43.8% 1.6% 100.0% 1995 18.0% 33.1% 5.1% 0.9% 41.1% 1.8% 100.0% 1996 18.4% 38.3% 4.6% 0.9% 36.1% 1.6% 100.0% 1997 17.5% 38.5% 4.6% 0.8% 36.9% 1.7% 100.0% 1998 17.5% 37.7% 4.4% 1.4% 36.8% 2.2% 100.0% 1999 17.7% 37.6% 4.9% 1.3% 36.4% 2.1% 100.0% 2000 18.7% 34.8% 5.3% 1.6% 37.5% 2.1% 100.0% 2001 19.0% 33.1% 5.2% 1.9% 38.9% 2.0% 100.0% 2002 19.9% 31.5% 4.7% 2.0% 40.2% 1.8% 100.0% 2003 19.8% 31.9% 4.3% 2.0% 40.2% 1.8% 100.0% 2004 21.1% 31.1% 4.4% 2.3% 39.4% 1.8% 100.0% 2005 22.3% 31.2% 4.6% 2.0% 38.2% 1.7% 100.0% 2006 22.7% 30.6% 4.2% 2.0% 38.6% 1.9% 100.0% 2007 23.1% 30.6% 4.0% 2.0% 38.0% 2.3% 100.0% 2008 22.9% 30.9% 4.2% 2.2% 37.7% 2.2% 100.0% 2009 22.0% 31.2% 3.9% 2.4% 38.1% 2.4% 100.0% 2010 21.1% 31.1% 3.5% 2.3% 40.0% 2.0% 100.0% 2011 20.1% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.1% 1.9% 100.0% 2012 20.0% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.1% 1.9% 100.0% 2013 20.0% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.1% 1.9% 100.0% 2014 20.0% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.1% 1.9% 100.0% 2015 20.0% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.2% 1.9% 100.0% 2016 20.0% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.2% 1.9% 100.0% 2017 20.0% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.2% 1.9% 100.0% 2018 19.9% 32.3% 3.4% 2.3% 40.2% 1.9% 100.0% 2019 19.9% 32.3% 3.4% 2.2% 40.3% 1.9% 100.0% 2020 19.9% 32.3% 3.4% 2.2% 40.3% 1.9% 100.0% 2021 19.9% 32.3% 3.4% 2.2% 40.3% 2.0% 100.0% 2022 19.9% 32.3% 3.4% 2.2% 40.3% 2.0% 100.0% 2023 19.9% 32.3% 3.4% 2.2% 40.4% 2.0% 100.0% 2024 19.8% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.4% 2.0% 100.0% 2025 19.8% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.4% 2.0% 100.0% 2026 19.8% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.4% 2.0% 100.0% 2027 19.8% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.4% 2.0% 100.0% 2028 19.8% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.5% 2.0% 100.0% 2029 19.8% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.5% 2.0% 100.0% 2030 19.7% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.5% 2.0% 100.0% 2031 19.7% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.5% 2.0% 100.0% 2032 19.7% 32.3% 3.3% 2.2% 40.6% 2.0% 100.0% 2033 19.7% 32.3% 3.3% 2.1% 40.6% 2.0% 100.0% 2034 19.7% 32.3% 3.3% 2.1% 40.6% 2.0% 100.0% 2035 19.7% 32.3% 3.3% 2.1% 40.6% 2.0% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 69 Commercial and Industrial Jobs Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 13,104 81,565 6,395 5,807 54,423 4,073 165,367 1991 13,864 82,591 6,292 5,498 55,250 3,975 167,470 1992 14,389 81,681 6,450 5,198 57,026 4,074 168,818 1993 15,363 83,339 6,696 5,478 57,890 4,155 172,921 1994 16,790 83,372 6,895 5,531 58,468 4,369 175,425 1995 18,173 85,566 7,163 5,522 56,610 4,868 177,902 1996 19,268 85,416 7,203 5,437 57,138 4,552 179,014 1997 20,268 86,051 6,836 5,573 57,572 4,496 180,796 1998 22,583 86,606 7,168 5,838 57,616 4,562 184,373 1999 23,572 88,622 7,099 6,056 58,969 5,071 189,389 2000 24,718 89,562 7,163 6,358 58,803 5,153 191,757 2001 24,565 88,553 6,918 6,559 58,760 5,303 190,658 2002 26,183 88,297 6,707 6,592 61,522 5,401 194,702 2003 28,116 89,307 6,990 6,173 62,671 5,405 198,662 2004 30,781 91,620 7,378 6,100 65,570 5,816 207,265 2005 33,717 91,315 7,889 6,150 65,329 5,389 209,789 2006 34,834 90,740 7,806 6,177 65,885 5,082 210,524 2007 36,287 91,761 7,693 6,200 68,890 5,544 216,375 2008 37,989 89,595 7,146 6,147 71,172 5,357 217,406 2009 36,990 87,413 6,734 6,606 71,094 5,144 213,981 2010 37,206 86,358 6,711 6,749 72,574 5,094 214,692 2011 37,718 87,402 6,923 7,016 72,917 5,058 217,034 2012 38,630 88,050 6,953 7,113 74,453 5,100 220,299 2013 39,558 88,690 6,982 7,208 76,027 5,149 223,614 2014 40,506 89,333 7,014 7,306 77,636 5,189 226,984 2015 41,473 89,969 7,043 7,405 79,286 5,238 230,414 2016 42,460 90,607 7,074 7,508 80,978 5,282 233,909 2017 43,464 91,239 7,104 7,608 82,709 5,328 237,452 2018 44,489 91,866 7,134 7,710 84,478 5,374 241,051 2019 45,534 92,491 7,162 7,813 86,291 5,421 244,712 2020 46,602 93,114 7,192 7,920 88,145 5,465 248,438 2021 47,685 93,733 7,224 8,027 90,046 5,513 252,228 2022 48,788 94,349 7,256 8,136 91,991 5,558 256,078 2023 49,911 94,962 7,284 8,244 93,978 5,605 259,984 2024 51,056 95,571 7,314 8,354 96,014 5,652 263,961 2025 52,225 96,177 7,344 8,466 98,095 5,699 268,006 2026 53,414 96,778 7,376 8,580 100,229 5,746 272,123 2027 54,620 97,375 7,409 8,696 102,406 5,793 276,299 2028 55,853 97,969 7,440 8,811 104,639 5,840 280,552 2029 57,105 98,561 7,473 8,931 106,918 5,890 284,878 2030 58,378 99,150 7,503 9,051 109,252 5,936 289,270 2031 59,674 99,731 7,537 9,168 111,639 5,983 293,732 2032 60,991 100,313 7,568 9,290 114,079 6,033 298,274 2033 62,332 100,884 7,602 9,414 116,576 6,082 302,890 2034 63,695 101,456 7,635 9,540 119,127 6,128 307,581 2035 65,078 102,026 7,669 9,667 121,737 6,178 312,355 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 70 Commercial and Industrial Jobs (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 7.9% 49.3% 3.9% 3.5% 32.9% 2.5% 100.0% 1991 8.3% 49.3% 3.8% 3.3% 33.0% 2.4% 100.0% 1992 8.5% 48.4% 3.8% 3.1% 33.8% 2.4% 100.0% 1993 8.9% 48.2% 3.9% 3.2% 33.5% 2.4% 100.0% 1994 9.6% 47.5% 3.9% 3.2% 33.3% 2.5% 100.0% 1995 10.2% 48.1% 4.0% 3.1% 31.8% 2.7% 100.0% 1996 10.8% 47.7% 4.0% 3.0% 31.9% 2.5% 100.0% 1997 11.2% 47.6% 3.8% 3.1% 31.8% 2.5% 100.0% 1998 12.2% 47.0% 3.9% 3.2% 31.2% 2.5% 100.0% 1999 12.4% 46.8% 3.7% 3.2% 31.1% 2.7% 100.0% 2000 12.9% 46.7% 3.7% 3.3% 30.7% 2.7% 100.0% 2001 12.9% 46.4% 3.6% 3.4% 30.8% 2.8% 100.0% 2002 13.4% 45.3% 3.4% 3.4% 31.6% 2.8% 100.0% 2003 14.2% 45.0% 3.5% 3.1% 31.5% 2.7% 100.0% 2004 14.9% 44.2% 3.6% 2.9% 31.6% 2.8% 100.0% 2005 16.1% 43.5% 3.8% 2.9% 31.1% 2.6% 100.0% 2006 16.5% 43.1% 3.7% 2.9% 31.3% 2.4% 100.0% 2007 16.8% 42.4% 3.6% 2.9% 31.8% 2.6% 100.0% 2008 17.5% 41.2% 3.3% 2.8% 32.7% 2.5% 100.0% 2009 17.3% 40.9% 3.1% 3.1% 33.2% 2.4% 100.0% 2010 17.3% 40.2% 3.1% 3.1% 33.8% 2.4% 100.0% 2011 17.4% 40.3% 3.2% 3.2% 33.6% 2.3% 100.0% 2012 17.5% 40.0% 3.2% 3.2% 33.8% 2.3% 100.0% 2013 17.7% 39.7% 3.1% 3.2% 34.0% 2.3% 100.0% 2014 17.8% 39.4% 3.1% 3.2% 34.2% 2.3% 100.0% 2015 18.0% 39.0% 3.1% 3.2% 34.4% 2.3% 100.0% 2016 18.2% 38.7% 3.0% 3.2% 34.6% 2.3% 100.0% 2017 18.3% 38.4% 3.0% 3.2% 34.8% 2.2% 100.0% 2018 18.5% 38.1% 3.0% 3.2% 35.0% 2.2% 100.0% 2019 18.6% 37.8% 2.9% 3.2% 35.3% 2.2% 100.0% 2020 18.8% 37.5% 2.9% 3.2% 35.5% 2.2% 100.0% 2021 18.9% 37.2% 2.9% 3.2% 35.7% 2.2% 100.0% 2022 19.1% 36.8% 2.8% 3.2% 35.9% 2.2% 100.0% 2023 19.2% 36.5% 2.8% 3.2% 36.1% 2.2% 100.0% 2024 19.3% 36.2% 2.8% 3.2% 36.4% 2.1% 100.0% 2025 19.5% 35.9% 2.7% 3.2% 36.6% 2.1% 100.0% 2026 19.6% 35.6% 2.7% 3.2% 36.8% 2.1% 100.0% 2027 19.8% 35.2% 2.7% 3.1% 37.1% 2.1% 100.0% 2028 19.9% 34.9% 2.7% 3.1% 37.3% 2.1% 100.0% 2029 20.0% 34.6% 2.6% 3.1% 37.5% 2.1% 100.0% 2030 20.2% 34.3% 2.6% 3.1% 37.8% 2.1% 100.0% 2031 20.3% 34.0% 2.6% 3.1% 38.0% 2.0% 100.0% 2032 20.4% 33.6% 2.5% 3.1% 38.2% 2.0% 100.0% 2033 20.6% 33.3% 2.5% 3.1% 38.5% 2.0% 100.0% 2034 20.7% 33.0% 2.5% 3.1% 38.7% 2.0% 100.0% 2035 20.8% 32.7% 2.5% 3.1% 39.0% 2.0% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 71 Federal Civilian and Military Jobs Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 444 17,931 142 166 1,664 208 20,555 1991 390 16,735 132 150 1,738 200 19,345 1992 416 16,684 140 157 1,839 200 19,436 1993 417 15,627 135 154 1,832 204 18,369 1994 376 16,279 129 145 1,802 197 18,928 1995 394 16,340 133 137 1,791 199 18,994 1996 384 16,046 146 139 1,776 202 18,693 1997 400 16,811 155 138 1,723 227 19,454 1998 411 16,060 164 142 1,703 453 18,933 1999 416 15,524 180 141 1,636 613 18,510 2000 403 16,305 183 144 1,696 611 19,342 2001 404 16,459 169 136 1,590 589 19,347 2002 442 15,967 179 137 1,524 576 18,825 2003 454 16,227 181 139 1,514 565 19,080 2004 428 15,856 172 136 1,448 553 18,593 2005 431 15,417 167 127 1,400 530 18,072 2006 454 15,714 162 128 1,391 517 18,366 2007 472 16,221 163 125 1,393 517 18,891 2008 537 17,138 174 125 1,434 526 19,934 2009 567 18,313 182 121 1,480 530 21,193 2010 593 18,823 173 120 1,534 552 21,795 2011 616 17,967 158 118 1,473 523 20,855 2012 625 18,083 158 117 1,479 528 20,990 2013 633 18,200 159 117 1,484 532 21,125 2014 642 18,317 160 116 1,490 538 21,263 2015 650 18,434 161 115 1,496 543 21,399 2016 660 18,551 161 116 1,501 547 21,536 2017 669 18,668 162 115 1,506 552 21,672 2018 679 18,785 162 115 1,512 557 21,810 2019 688 18,902 163 114 1,517 561 21,945 2020 699 19,019 164 113 1,522 566 22,083 2021 709 19,137 165 113 1,527 572 22,223 2022 720 19,254 165 112 1,532 576 22,359 2023 731 19,370 166 111 1,537 581 22,496 2024 743 19,488 166 111 1,542 586 22,636 2025 754 19,605 167 110 1,546 590 22,772 2026 766 19,722 167 110 1,551 595 22,911 2027 778 19,838 168 109 1,556 600 23,049 2028 791 19,956 169 109 1,560 605 23,190 2029 803 20,072 170 109 1,564 609 23,327 2030 817 20,189 171 108 1,568 615 23,468 2031 830 20,306 171 108 1,572 620 23,607 2032 844 20,423 172 107 1,576 624 23,746 2033 858 20,540 172 107 1,580 629 23,886 2034 874 20,656 173 106 1,584 634 24,027 2035 888 20,771 173 106 1,587 639 24,164 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 72 Federal Civilian and Military Jobs (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 2.2% 87.2% 0.7% 0.8% 8.1% 1.0% 100.0% 1991 2.0% 86.5% 0.7% 0.8% 9.0% 1.0% 100.0% 1992 2.1% 85.8% 0.7% 0.8% 9.5% 1.0% 100.0% 1993 2.3% 85.1% 0.7% 0.8% 10.0% 1.1% 100.0% 1994 2.0% 86.0% 0.7% 0.8% 9.5% 1.0% 100.0% 1995 2.1% 86.0% 0.7% 0.7% 9.4% 1.0% 100.0% 1996 2.1% 85.8% 0.8% 0.7% 9.5% 1.1% 100.0% 1997 2.1% 86.4% 0.8% 0.7% 8.9% 1.2% 100.0% 1998 2.2% 84.8% 0.9% 0.8% 9.0% 2.4% 100.0% 1999 2.2% 83.9% 1.0% 0.8% 8.8% 3.3% 100.0% 2000 2.1% 84.3% 0.9% 0.7% 8.8% 3.2% 100.0% 2001 2.1% 85.1% 0.9% 0.7% 8.2% 3.0% 100.0% 2002 2.3% 84.8% 1.0% 0.7% 8.1% 3.1% 100.0% 2003 2.4% 85.0% 0.9% 0.7% 7.9% 3.0% 100.0% 2004 2.3% 85.3% 0.9% 0.7% 7.8% 3.0% 100.0% 2005 2.4% 85.3% 0.9% 0.7% 7.7% 2.9% 100.0% 2006 2.5% 85.6% 0.9% 0.7% 7.6% 2.8% 100.0% 2007 2.5% 85.9% 0.9% 0.7% 7.4% 2.7% 100.0% 2008 2.7% 86.0% 0.9% 0.6% 7.2% 2.6% 100.0% 2009 2.7% 86.4% 0.9% 0.6% 7.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2010 2.7% 86.4% 0.8% 0.6% 7.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2011 3.0% 86.2% 0.8% 0.6% 7.1% 2.5% 100.0% 2012 3.0% 86.2% 0.8% 0.6% 7.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2013 3.0% 86.2% 0.8% 0.6% 7.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2014 3.0% 86.1% 0.8% 0.5% 7.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2015 3.0% 86.1% 0.8% 0.5% 7.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2016 3.1% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 7.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2017 3.1% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.9% 2.5% 100.0% 2018 3.1% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.9% 2.6% 100.0% 2019 3.1% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.9% 2.6% 100.0% 2020 3.2% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.9% 2.6% 100.0% 2021 3.2% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.9% 2.6% 100.0% 2022 3.2% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.9% 2.6% 100.0% 2023 3.2% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.8% 2.6% 100.0% 2024 3.3% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.8% 2.6% 100.0% 2025 3.3% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.8% 2.6% 100.0% 2026 3.3% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.8% 2.6% 100.0% 2027 3.4% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.8% 2.6% 100.0% 2028 3.4% 86.1% 0.7% 0.5% 6.7% 2.6% 100.0% 2029 3.4% 86.0% 0.7% 0.5% 6.7% 2.6% 100.0% 2030 3.5% 86.0% 0.7% 0.5% 6.7% 2.6% 100.0% 2031 3.5% 86.0% 0.7% 0.5% 6.7% 2.6% 100.0% 2032 3.6% 86.0% 0.7% 0.5% 6.6% 2.6% 100.0% 2033 3.6% 86.0% 0.7% 0.4% 6.6% 2.6% 100.0% 2034 3.6% 86.0% 0.7% 0.4% 6.6% 2.6% 100.0% 2035 3.7% 86.0% 0.7% 0.4% 6.6% 2.6% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 73 State and Local Government Jobs Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 2,285 19,469 1,146 1,305 5,529 1,016 30,750 1991 2,390 19,488 1,216 1,337 5,574 1,028 31,033 1992 2,570 19,678 1,237 1,395 5,945 1,028 31,853 1993 2,674 20,117 1,261 1,455 6,249 1,053 32,809 1994 2,804 20,692 1,301 1,524 6,094 1,066 33,481 1995 2,646 20,905 1,319 1,559 6,139 1,105 33,673 1996 2,769 20,848 1,358 1,541 6,033 1,144 33,693 1997 2,781 21,480 1,366 1,550 6,207 1,177 34,561 1998 2,840 22,299 1,416 1,486 6,108 1,220 35,369 1999 2,912 22,206 1,481 1,434 6,198 1,248 35,479 2000 3,031 21,968 1,580 1,440 6,464 1,147 35,630 2001 3,196 21,574 1,574 1,416 6,506 1,160 35,426 2002 3,329 21,837 1,575 1,428 6,591 1,199 35,959 2003 3,488 22,187 1,616 1,443 6,756 1,199 36,689 2004 3,772 22,370 1,592 1,398 6,709 1,207 37,048 2005 3,887 23,132 1,568 1,407 7,285 1,226 38,505 2006 4,500 22,869 1,642 1,450 7,328 1,235 39,024 2007 4,750 23,139 1,628 1,472 7,436 1,250 39,675 2008 4,990 22,835 1,607 1,524 7,463 1,269 39,688 2009 5,003 22,848 1,566 1,520 7,332 1,279 39,548 2010 4,888 22,755 1,530 1,470 7,322 1,297 39,262 2011 4,811 22,545 1,468 1,479 7,268 1,309 38,880 2012 4,897 22,630 1,470 1,489 7,295 1,313 39,094 2013 4,984 22,711 1,472 1,500 7,322 1,317 39,306 2014 5,072 22,791 1,474 1,510 7,348 1,321 39,516 2015 5,160 22,868 1,476 1,520 7,373 1,324 39,721 2016 5,250 22,943 1,477 1,530 7,397 1,328 39,925 2017 5,341 23,015 1,479 1,540 7,421 1,331 40,127 2018 5,432 23,085 1,480 1,550 7,443 1,335 40,325 2019 5,525 23,153 1,481 1,559 7,465 1,338 40,521 2020 5,618 23,217 1,482 1,569 7,486 1,341 40,713 2021 5,712 23,279 1,483 1,578 7,507 1,343 40,902 2022 5,807 23,339 1,483 1,587 7,526 1,346 41,088 2023 5,903 23,396 1,483 1,596 7,545 1,348 41,271 2024 6,000 23,451 1,484 1,605 7,562 1,351 41,453 2025 6,098 23,502 1,484 1,614 7,579 1,353 41,630 2026 6,197 23,552 1,483 1,623 7,595 1,355 41,805 2027 6,297 23,598 1,483 1,631 7,611 1,357 41,977 2028 6,397 23,642 1,482 1,640 7,625 1,358 42,144 2029 6,498 23,684 1,482 1,648 7,639 1,360 42,311 2030 6,600 23,722 1,481 1,656 7,651 1,361 42,471 2031 6,703 23,758 1,480 1,664 7,663 1,362 42,630 2032 6,807 23,791 1,479 1,672 7,674 1,363 42,786 2033 6,912 23,822 1,477 1,680 7,684 1,364 42,939 2034 7,017 23,850 1,476 1,687 7,693 1,365 43,088 2035 7,123 23,875 1,474 1,694 7,701 1,366 43,233 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 74 State and Local Government Jobs (Percent of MSA) Columbia County Augusta- Richmond Co McDuffie County Burke County Aiken County Edgefield County MSA 1990 7.4% 63.3% 3.7% 4.2% 18.0% 3.3% 100.0% 1991 7.7% 62.8% 3.9% 4.3% 18.0% 3.3% 100.0% 1992 8.1% 61.8% 3.9% 4.4% 18.7% 3.2% 100.0% 1993 8.2% 61.3% 3.8% 4.4% 19.0% 3.2% 100.0% 1994 8.4% 61.8% 3.9% 4.6% 18.2% 3.2% 100.0% 1995 7.9% 62.1% 3.9% 4.6% 18.2% 3.3% 100.0% 1996 8.2% 61.9% 4.0% 4.6% 17.9% 3.4% 100.0% 1997 8.0% 62.2% 4.0% 4.5% 18.0% 3.4% 100.0% 1998 8.0% 63.0% 4.0% 4.2% 17.3% 3.4% 100.0% 1999 8.2% 62.6% 4.2% 4.0% 17.5% 3.5% 100.0% 2000 8.5% 61.7% 4.4% 4.0% 18.1% 3.2% 100.0% 2001 9.0% 60.9% 4.4% 4.0% 18.4% 3.3% 100.0% 2002 9.3% 60.7% 4.4% 4.0% 18.3% 3.3% 100.0% 2003 9.5% 60.5% 4.4% 3.9% 18.4% 3.3% 100.0% 2004 10.2% 60.4% 4.3% 3.8% 18.1% 3.3% 100.0% 2005 10.1% 60.1% 4.1% 3.7% 18.9% 3.2% 100.0% 2006 11.5% 58.6% 4.2% 3.7% 18.8% 3.2% 100.0% 2007 12.0% 58.3% 4.1% 3.7% 18.7% 3.2% 100.0% 2008 12.6% 57.5% 4.0% 3.8% 18.8% 3.2% 100.0% 2009 12.7% 57.8% 4.0% 3.8% 18.5% 3.2% 100.0% 2010 12.4% 58.0% 3.9% 3.7% 18.6% 3.3% 100.0% 2011 12.4% 58.0% 3.8% 3.8% 18.7% 3.4% 100.0% 2012 12.5% 57.9% 3.8% 3.8% 18.7% 3.4% 100.0% 2013 12.7% 57.8% 3.7% 3.8% 18.6% 3.4% 100.0% 2014 12.8% 57.7% 3.7% 3.8% 18.6% 3.3% 100.0% 2015 13.0% 57.6% 3.7% 3.8% 18.6% 3.3% 100.0% 2016 13.1% 57.5% 3.7% 3.8% 18.5% 3.3% 100.0% 2017 13.3% 57.4% 3.7% 3.8% 18.5% 3.3% 100.0% 2018 13.5% 57.2% 3.7% 3.8% 18.5% 3.3% 100.0% 2019 13.6% 57.1% 3.7% 3.8% 18.4% 3.3% 100.0% 2020 13.8% 57.0% 3.6% 3.9% 18.4% 3.3% 100.0% 2021 14.0% 56.9% 3.6% 3.9% 18.4% 3.3% 100.0% 2022 14.1% 56.8% 3.6% 3.9% 18.3% 3.3% 100.0% 2023 14.3% 56.7% 3.6% 3.9% 18.3% 3.3% 100.0% 2024 14.5% 56.6% 3.6% 3.9% 18.2% 3.3% 100.0% 2025 14.6% 56.5% 3.6% 3.9% 18.2% 3.3% 100.0% 2026 14.8% 56.3% 3.5% 3.9% 18.2% 3.2% 100.0% 2027 15.0% 56.2% 3.5% 3.9% 18.1% 3.2% 100.0% 2028 15.2% 56.1% 3.5% 3.9% 18.1% 3.2% 100.0% 2029 15.4% 56.0% 3.5% 3.9% 18.1% 3.2% 100.0% 2030 15.5% 55.9% 3.5% 3.9% 18.0% 3.2% 100.0% 2031 15.7% 55.7% 3.5% 3.9% 18.0% 3.2% 100.0% 2032 15.9% 55.6% 3.5% 3.9% 17.9% 3.2% 100.0% 2033 16.1% 55.5% 3.4% 3.9% 17.9% 3.2% 100.0% 2034 16.3% 55.4% 3.4% 3.9% 17.9% 3.2% 100.0% 2035 16.5% 55.2% 3.4% 3.9% 17.8% 3.2% 100.0% 1990 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2015 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield 2035 Columbia Augusta McDuffie Burke Aiken Edgefield ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 75 VISION 2035 CITY POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 76 CITY POPULATION PROJECTIONS Although Woods & Poole Economics provides an excellent resource for a wide range of socioeconomic forecasts at the county level, equivalent data is not available at the city level. In order to create population projections for Grovetown and Harlem, we instead rely on a ‘trend analysis’ approach based on annual estimates published by the Census Bureau through their annual population estimates program. OVERVIEW OF THE POPULATION METHODOLOGY The methodology used to forecast population growth for the next 20 years for the two cities proceeds generally along the following lines: A continuous stream of historic population data is created from 1990 to 2013 based on annual estimates by the Census Bureau, which involves rectifying the Bureau’s 1991-1999 estimates to the actual 2000 census count, and thus matching up with the Bureau’s rectified 2001-2009 estimates. The 1990-2013 historic data stream is projected out to 2035 using regression analysis techniques that examine future growth proceeding as a straight line, a parabolic curve and an ‘ess’ curve. The ‘most likely’ population forecast is chosen considering each historical trend line projection, a realistic view of past trends and growth opportunities that differentiate each city. POPULATION TREND DATA: 1990-2013 In order to make projections against trend line data, the population data for the ‘historic data’ years must be continuous. The U.S. Bureau of the Census publishes annual estimates of the population, which can provide a base of historic data points for the trend line projections. However, as the years go by from each previous decennial census, the Census Bureau estimates become ever more inaccurate until, when the next decennial census is taken, surprises sometimes occur. An examination of the Census Bureau estimates through 1999 indicates that the Bureau had underestimated Grovetown’s total population, considering the actual census figure for 2000, while considerably overestimating Harlem’s 1999 population. The 1991-1999 estimate figures for the two cities therefore need adjustment to determine what the actual estimates would have been to arrive at the actual 2000 census figure, in order to provide a continuous stream of data points into the following decade of the 2000s. The following Table (entitled Time-Series Population Estimates—1990-2000) presents the results of the methodology used to rectify the Census Bureau’s annual population estimates for the two cities for 1991 through 1999 with the 2000 census. (The Census Bureau has already rectified its annual population estimates for the county as a whole and each city through its Intercensal Estimates published after the 2000 Census; cities were not included in the revised 1991-1999 Intercensal Estimates.) The first step in the methodology is to compare the annual July 1 Census estimates for all years between 1990 and 1999 (published by the Census Bureau in October of 1999) with the Bureau’s July 1 estimate for 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 77 To do this, the 1990-1999 Bureau estimates are projected to what the 2000 census count would have been, had those annual estimates been correct. This figure is compared to the ‘actual’ 2000 census figures and the variance between them is determined. This variance is then applied in increasing annual steps to the 1991-1999 estimates (as reported by the Census Bureau) to modify them to the ‘actual’ 2000 census figure. Time Series Population Estimates 1990-2000 Census Bureau Annual Estimates (7/1 of each year) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Columbia County* 66,819 69,625 71,767 75,226 78,149 81,491 83,077 85,106 86,675 88,280 90,138 Grovetown 3,891 3,960 4,003 4,159 4,368 4,612 4,856 5,206 5,502 5,740 6,137 Harlem 2,294 2,297 2,316 2,390 2,444 2,484 2,487 2,508 2,516 2,513 2,010 Unincorporated 60,725 63,848 66,350 70,067 73,239 76,858 78,744 80,981 82,836 85,059 81,991 Annual Census Estimates Projected to 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Variance Grovetown 3,725 3,901 4,086 4,280 4,482 4,695 4,917 5,150 5,394 5,649 5,917 1.0373 Harlem 2,294 2,323 2,352 2,381 2,410 2,439 2,468 2,498 2,527 2,556 2,585 0.7776 Annual Census Estimates Rectified to 2000 Census 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Grovetown 3,891 3,975 4,033 4,205 4,433 4,698 4,965 5,342 5,666 5,932 6,137 Harlem 2,294 2,246 2,213 2,231 2,227 2,208 2,155 2,118 2,068 2,010 2,010 Time Series Population Estimates 2000-2013 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Columbia County 90,138 92,537 95,818 98,761 102,934 106,477 110,845 115,074 117,504 121,050 124,942 128,096 131,563 135,416 Grovetown 6,137 6,581 7,087 7,560 8,126 8,650 9,249 9,841 10,283 10,794 11,311 11,727 12,172 12,389 Harlem 2,010 2,054 2,118 2,172 2,254 2,323 2,411 2,495 2,541 2,608 2,687 2,751 2,784 2,848 Unincorporated 81,991 83,902 86,613 89,029 92,554 95,504 99,185 102,738 104,680 107,648 110,944 113,618 116,607 120,179 Notes: All data as of July 1 each year. Source: US Bureau of the Census, Population Division: 2000-2009 population: Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties and Cities of Georgia. 2010-2013 population: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013; released March 2014. * Intercensal estimates by Census Bureau post 2000 Census. Actual 2000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 78 The second table on the previous page (entitled Time-Series Population Estimates—2000-2013) presents population estimates from two sources provided by the Census Bureau. For the period from 2000 to 2009, the Census Bureau published Intercensal Estimates for both counties and cities, correcting the annual estimates to the actual 2010 Census. Since then, the Bureau’s Annual Estimating Program has produced July 1 estimates for 2000-2013. POPULATION TREND LINE REGRESSIONS This Section presents trend line analyses of past population growth in the two cities and projects those trend lines forward to 2035. While this is a mathematical exercise, the results are informative in identifying the ‘type’ of projections that are realistic—i.e., a ‘best fit’— for each jurisdiction. First, 1st, 2nd and 3rd order regressions are prepared for each of the two cities against their historic trend data. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd order regressions produce straight line, parabolic curve and ‘ess’ curve functions, respectively, which are then projected out to 2035. The annual population data from the Population Estimates Tables above are used as the historic trend line data in calculating the mathematical regressions and projecting the trends forward. Two data sets are used for each city: the 23-year period 1990-2013 and the more recent 2000-2013 period. The tables on the following pages present the Population Regressions and show the regression data for each jurisdiction, along with a graph for each projection. On the graphs, the particular regression (the straight line, parabola, or ‘ess’ curve) is overlaid on the historic Census data to illustrate the ‘fit’ between the regression line and the past data. GROVETOWN PROJECTIONS The first two following pages show the Regression Tables and graphs for the 1990-2013 and the 2000- 2013 projection periods, respectively, for Grovetown. Considering the various projections, their relationship to reasonableness and the relative correlations, the straight line 2000-2013 projection to a population of 23,805 is recommended as the ‘most likely’ forecast. This reflects a 2015-2035 population increase of 74% (compared to the countywide growth of about 50%) and respects the city’s proximity to a main gate to the Army Base and the spinoff of employment growth that the base is expected to generate (and its need for close-in ‘quick-response’ housing). HARLEM PROJECTIONS The two pages following Grovetown present the Regression Tables for Harlem. Unlike Grovetown, Harlem’s growth is anticipated to take advantage of a somewhat different set of opportunities, including its access to I-20, developing commercial and workplace concentrations, and its relatively higher-priced housing market (see the building permits section). From its small current size of almost 3,000 people, Harlem is expected to experience the highest growth rate in the county, increasing 125% to over 7,100 people by 2035. Following the Regression Tables, the future population forecasts for the county as a whole, the two cities and the unincorporated area are shown together on a summary table. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 79 Although the ‘Ess’ curve has the highest correlation ‘best fit’ to the historic data), the projection to 2035 showing a loss in population is not credible. The variance between the straight line and the parabola is notable. Grovetown 1990-2035 Census Straight Line Parabola "Ess" Curve 1990 3,891 2,820 3,642 3,976 1991 3,975 3,224 3,831 3,991 1992 4,033 3,627 4,040 4,065 1993 4,205 4,031 4,268 4,194 1994 4,433 4,434 4,515 4,375 1995 4,698 4,838 4,782 4,604 1996 4,965 5,241 5,069 4,876 1997 5,342 5,645 5,375 5,189 1998 5,666 6,048 5,700 5,538 1999 5,932 6,452 6,045 5,920 2000 6,137 6,855 6,410 6,331 2001 6,581 7,259 6,794 6,767 2002 7,087 7,662 7,197 7,224 2003 7,560 8,066 7,620 7,699 2004 8,126 8,469 8,063 8,188 2005 8,650 8,873 8,525 8,687 2006 9,249 9,276 9,006 9,192 2007 9,841 9,679 9,507 9,700 2008 10,283 10,083 10,028 10,206 2009 10,794 10,486 10,568 10,708 2010 11,311 10,890 11,127 11,201 2011 11,727 11,293 11,706 11,681 2012 12,172 11,697 12,305 12,145 2013 12,389 12,100 12,923 12,589 2014 12,504 13,560 13,010 2015 12,907 14,217 13,402 2016 13,311 14,894 13,764 2017 13,714 15,590 14,090 2018 14,118 16,305 14,378 2019 14,521 17,040 14,623 2020 14,925 17,795 14,821 2021 15,328 18,569 14,969 2022 15,732 19,362 15,064 2023 16,135 20,175 15,101 2024 16,539 21,007 15,076 2025 16,942 21,859 14,986 2026 17,346 22,731 14,828 2027 17,749 23,622 14,596 2028 18,153 24,532 14,288 2029 18,556 25,462 13,900 2030 18,960 26,412 13,428 2031 19,363 27,381 12,868 2032 19,767 28,369 12,216 2033 20,170 29,377 11,469 2034 20,574 30,405 10,623 2035 20,977 31,452 9,675 Correlations: 0.9736 0.9953 0.9986 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Straight Line Census Straight Line - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Parabola Census Parabola - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 "Ess" Curve Census "Ess" Curve ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 80 More recent history again projects a loss of population with the ‘Ess’ curve, this time going negative. The straight line and the parabola have similar 2035 populations and very similar (and high) correlations, and are consistent with the straight line 1990-2013 projection. The straight line projection (highlighted on the table above) is recommended as the ‘most likely’ forecast for Grovetown. Grovetown 2000-2035 Census Straight Line Parabola "Ess" Curve 2000 6,137 6,142 6,001 6,142 2001 6,581 6,646 6,571 6,581 2002 7,087 7,151 7,129 7,065 2003 7,560 7,656 7,677 7,581 2004 8,126 8,160 8,214 8,121 2005 8,650 8,665 8,740 8,675 2006 9,249 9,170 9,256 9,232 2007 9,841 9,674 9,761 9,784 2008 10,283 10,179 10,254 10,320 2009 10,794 10,684 10,738 10,831 2010 11,311 11,188 11,210 11,306 2011 11,727 11,693 11,671 11,736 2012 12,172 12,198 12,122 12,111 2013 12,389 12,702 12,562 12,422 2014 13,207 12,991 12,658 2015 13,712 13,409 12,809 2016 14,216 13,817 12,867 2017 14,721 14,214 12,820 2018 15,226 14,600 12,660 2019 15,730 14,975 12,376 2020 16,235 15,339 11,958 2021 16,740 15,693 11,398 2022 17,244 16,036 10,684 2023 17,749 16,368 9,808 2024 18,254 16,689 8,759 2025 18,758 16,999 7,527 2026 19,263 17,299 6,103 2027 19,768 17,588 4,478 2028 20,272 17,866 2,640 2029 20,777 18,[PHONE REDACTED] 21,282 18,390 (1,710) 2031 21,786 18,635 (4,243) 2032 22,291 18,870 (7,026) 2033 22,796 19,094 (10,070) 2034 23,300 19,308 (13,385) 2035 23,805 19,510 (16,980) Correlations: 0.9967 0.9982 0.9998 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Straight Line Census Straight Line - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Parabola Census Parabola (20,000) (15,000) (10,000) (5,000) - 5,000 10,000 15,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 "Ess" Curve Census "Ess" Curve ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 81 Unlike Grovetown, the shorter-term 2000-2013 projections for Harlem are unconvincing. While the ‘Ess’ curve goes negative, the straight line and parabola projections reflect very weak future growth of 44% and 36% respectively (compared to countywide growth of about 50% and Grovetown growth of 74%). Harlem 2000-2035 Census Straight Line Parabola "Ess" Curve 2000 2,010 1,994 1,983 2,005 2001 2,054 2,061 2,056 2,057 2002 2,118 2,129 2,127 2,117 2003 2,172 2,196 2,198 2,183 2004 2,254 2,264 2,268 2,253 2005 2,323 2,331 2,337 2,327 2006 2,411 2,399 2,405 2,401 2007 2,495 2,466 2,473 2,476 2008 2,541 2,534 2,539 2,549 2009 2,608 2,601 2,605 2,620 2010 2,687 2,669 2,671 2,685 2011 2,751 2,737 2,735 2,745 2012 2,784 2,804 2,799 2,797 2013 2,848 2,872 2,862 2,840 2014 2,939 2,924 2,872 2015 3,007 2,985 2,893 2016 3,074 3,046 2,900 2017 3,142 3,105 2,891 2018 3,209 3,164 2,867 2019 3,277 3,222 2,824 2020 3,344 3,280 2,761 2021 3,412 3,337 2,677 2022 3,480 3,392 2,571 2023 3,547 3,448 2,441 2024 3,615 3,502 2,285 2025 3,682 3,555 2,102 2026 3,750 3,608 1,890 2027 3,817 3,660 1,648 2028 3,885 3,711 1,375 2029 3,952 3,762 1,068 2030 4,020 3,[PHONE REDACTED] 4,087 3,[PHONE REDACTED] 4,155 3,909 (65) 2033 4,223 3,956 (519) 2034 4,290 4,002 (1,014) 2035 4,358 4,048 (1,551) Correlations: 0.9964 0.9968 0.9989 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Straight Line Census Straight Line - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 Parabola Census Parabola (2,000) (1,500) (1,000) (500) - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 "Ess" Curve Census "Ess" Curve ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 82 The ‘Ess’ curve of the longer-term view has the highest correlation to the historic data, and results in a 2035 population growth of 53% over 2015. However, Harlem’s access to I-20, developing commercial and workplace concentrations, and its relative higher-priced housing market offer opportunities that support the higher parabola regression, yielding a 2035 population of 7,119 (125% over 2015). Harlem 1990-2035 Census Straight Line Parabola "Ess" Curve 1990 2,294 2,016 2,322 2,358 1991 2,246 2,043 2,269 2,286 1992 2,213 2,070 2,223 2,226 1993 2,231 2,097 2,185 2,177 1994 2,227 2,124 2,154 2,139 1995 2,208 2,151 2,130 2,111 1996 2,155 2,178 2,114 2,093 1997 2,118 2,205 2,105 2,084 1998 2,068 2,232 2,103 2,085 1999 2,010 2,259 2,108 2,094 2000 2,010 2,286 2,120 2,112 2001 2,054 2,313 2,140 2,137 2002 2,118 2,340 2,167 2,170 2003 2,172 2,367 2,201 2,210 2004 2,254 2,393 2,243 2,256 2005 2,323 2,420 2,291 2,309 2006 2,411 2,447 2,347 2,368 2007 2,495 2,474 2,410 2,431 2008 2,541 2,501 2,481 2,500 2009 2,608 2,528 2,558 2,574 2010 2,687 2,555 2,643 2,651 2011 2,751 2,582 2,735 2,733 2012 2,784 2,609 2,835 2,817 2013 2,848 2,636 2,941 2,905 2014 2,663 3,055 2,995 2015 2,690 3,176 3,087 2016 2,717 3,305 3,181 2017 2,744 3,440 3,276 2018 2,771 3,583 3,372 2019 2,798 3,733 3,469 2020 2,825 3,891 3,565 2021 2,852 4,055 3,661 2022 2,879 4,227 3,757 2023 2,906 4,406 3,851 2024 2,933 4,592 3,943 2025 2,959 4,786 4,034 2026 2,986 4,986 4,122 2027 3,013 5,194 4,207 2028 3,040 5,410 4,289 2029 3,067 5,632 4,367 2030 3,094 5,862 4,442 2031 3,121 6,099 4,511 2032 3,148 6,343 4,576 2033 3,175 6,595 4,636 2034 3,202 6,853 4,690 2035 3,229 7,119 4,737 Correlations: 0.5597 0.9449 0.9500 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Straight Line Census Straight Line - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Parabola Census Parabola - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 "Ess" Curve Census "Ess" Curve ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 83 Altogether, the population forecasts for the total county, Grovetown, Harlem and the unincorporated area are: 2010 124,934 11,311 2,687 110,936 2015 139,883 13,712 3,176 122,995 2016 142,964 14,216 3,305 125,443 2017 146,099 14,721 3,440 127,938 2018 149,286 15,226 3,583 130,477 2019 152,525 15,730 3,733 133,061 2020 155,809 16,235 3,891 135,684 2021 159,147 16,740 4,055 138,352 2022 162,528 17,244 4,227 141,057 2023 165,952 17,749 4,406 143,797 2024 169,426 18,254 4,592 146,580 2025 172,936 18,758 4,786 149,392 2026 176,493 19,263 4,986 152,244 2027 180,089 19,768 5,194 155,127 2028 183,725 20,272 5,410 158,043 2029 187,395 20,777 5,632 160,986 2030 191,103 21,282 5,862 163,959 2031 194,856 21,786 6,099 166,971 2032 198,646 22,291 6,343 170,012 2033 202,478 22,796 6,595 173,088 2034 206,351 23,300 6,853 176,197 2035 210,259 23,805 7,119 179,335 Sources: US Bureau of the Census: 2010 population (July 1 estimate). Woods & Poole Economics: Columbia County total. ROSS+associates: city regressions against historic Census data. Unincorporated Area Harlem Grovetown Columbia County ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 84 VISION 2035 WOODS & POOLE METHODOLOGY ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 85 Selected data from Woods & Poole for the years 1990 to 2040 have been used as critical factors in the creation of population, household and employment estimates for Columbia County as a whole and for each of the other five counties in the Augusta-Richmond County Metropolitan Statistical Area. The following has been excerpted from the 2014 State Profile for Georgia, prepared by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., in explanation of the methodology W&P uses in creating their estimates and projections, and the interconnected nature of their econometric model approach. INTRODUCTION The Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. database contains more than 900 economic and demographic variables for every county in the United States for every year from 1970 to 2040. This comprehensive database includes detailed population data by age, sex, and race; employment and earnings by major industry; personal income by source of income; retail sales by kind of business; and data on the number of households, their size, and their income. All of these variables are projected for each year through 2030. In total, there are over 180 million statistics in the regional database. The regional model that produces the projection component of this database was developed by Woods & Poole. The regional projection methods are revised somewhat year to year to reflect new computational techniques and new sources of regional economic and demographic information. Each year, a new projection is produced based on an updated historical database and revised assumptions. The fact that the proprietary Woods & Poole economic and demographic projections rely on a very de- tailed database, makes them one of the most comprehensive county-level projections available. A description of some characteristics of the database and projection model is contained below. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTION METHODS The strength of Woods & Poole's economic and demographic projections stems from the comprehensive historical county database and the integrated nature of the projection model. The projection for each county in the United States is done simultaneously so that changes in one county will affect growth or decline in other counties. For example, growth in employment and population in Houston will affect growth in other metropolitan areas, such as Cleveland. This reflects the flow of economic activity around the country as new industries emerge or relocate in growing areas and as people migrate, in part because of job opportunities. The county projections are developed within the framework of the United States projection made by Woods & Poole. The U.S. projection is the control total for the 2014 regional projections and is described in the ‘Overview of the 2014 Projections’ chapter included in Woods & Poole publications. The regional projection technique used by Woods & Poole—linking the counties together to capture regional flows and constraining the results to a previously determined United States total—avoids a common pitfall in regional projections. Regional projections are sometimes made for a city or county without regard for potential growth in surrounding areas or other areas in the country. Such projections may be simple extrapolations of recent historical trends and, as a result, may be too optimistic or pessimistic. If these county projections were added together, the total might differ considerably from any conceivable national forecast scenario; this is the result of each regional projection being generated independently without interactive procedures and without being integrated into a consistent national projection. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 86 The methods used by Woods & Poole to generate the county projections proceed in four stages. First, forecasts to 2030 of total United States personal income, earnings by industry, employment by industry, population, inflation, and other variables are made. Second, the country is divided into 172 Economic Are-as (EAs) as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The EAs are aggregates of contiguous counties that attempt to measure cohesive economic regions in the United States…; in the 2005 Woods & Poole model, EA definitions released by the BEA in May 2003 are used. For each EA, a projection is made for employment, using an ‘export-base’ approach; in some cases, the employment projections are adjusted to reflect the results of individual EA models or exogenous information about the EA economy. The employment projection for each EA is then used to estimate earnings in each EA. The employment and earnings projections then become the principal explanatory variables used to estimate population and number of households in each EA. The third stage is to project population by age, sex, and race for each EA on the basis of net migration rates projected from employment opportunities. For stages two and three, the U.S. projection is the control total for the EA projections. The fourth stage replicates stages two and three except that it is performed at the county level, using the EAs as the control total for the county projections. THE ‘EXPORT-BASE’ APPROACH The specific economic projection technique used by Woods & Poole to generate the employment, earnings, and income estimates for each county in the United States generally follow a standard economic ‘export-base’ approach. This relatively simple approach to regional employment projections is one that has been used by a number of researchers. Certain industrial sectors at the regional level are considered ‘basic.’ This means that these sectors pro- duce output that is not consumed locally but is ‘exported’ out of the region for national or international consumption. This assumption allows these sectors to be linked closely to the national economy, and hence follow national trends in productivity and output growth. Normally, the ‘basic’ sectors are mining, agriculture, manufacturing, and the Federal government. In contrast, ‘non-basic’ sectors are those such as retail trade, transportation, communication, and construction, the output of which is usually consumed locally. The growth of the ‘non-basic’ sectors depends largely on the growth of the ‘basic’ sectors that form the basis of the region's economy. Intuitively, this approach has great appeal and there are numerous examples that seem to support the ‘export-base’ theory. Automobile production in Detroit, for instance, is obviously much more sensitive to national and international price and demand for transportation equipment than to local demand. In Texas, oil and natural gas exploration and production are tied closely to the worldwide demand and supply of petroleum resources and not tied primarily to energy consumption in Texas. Although the theory is appealing, some shortcomings do exist in the ‘export-base’ approach. For example, some ‘basic’ commodities produced locally are consumed locally. Producers of durable equipment used in other manufacturing processes are often affected not by the national demand for their product but by the regional demand. Machine tool makers that supply the local automobile industry in Detroit will prosper to the extent Detroit's automobile producers prosper. In Houston, the strength of the local oil industry will affect the demand and production of equipment for oil and natural gas production and exploration. In both of these instances, some durable manufacturing industries exist to serve local, not national, markets. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 87 However, despite the shortcomings, the availability of relatively clean data for sub-national geographic areas makes the ‘export-base’ approach very useful. The analytical framework for projections using the ‘export-base’ approach entails estimating either demand equations or calculating historical growth rate differentials for output by sector. The principal explanatory variable, or the comparative data series for growth rate differentials, is the national demand for the output of that sector. Employment-by-sector data are often used as a surrogate variable since county output-by-sector data are not available; employment-by-sector data is used by Woods & Poole. Earnings projections are then obtained by using earnings-per-employee data either estimated as part of the model or imposed exogenously on the system. The complementary relationship could also be estimated, i.e., using an earnings forecast to derive employment based on earnings-per-employee data; this procedure has been used previously in some Woods & Poole regional models. THE DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL The demographic portion of the regional model follows a traditional cohort-component analysis based on calculated fertility and mortality in each county or EA. The ‘demand’ for total population is estimated from the economic model: if the demand for labor is forecast to rise for a particular county or EA, then either the labor force participation rate will rise or population in-migration will be positive. The inverse is true for counties and EAs with projected declines in employment. Therefore, future EA and county migration patterns for population by age, sex, and race are based on employment opportunities. Individuals and families are assumed to migrate, at least in part, in response o employment opportunities with two exceptions: for population aged 65 and over and for college or military-aged population, migration patterns over the forecast period are based on historical net migration and not economic conditions. The integration of economic and demographic regional analysis is a significant strength of the Woods & Poole approach. The age, sex, and race distribution of the population is projected by aging the population by single year of age by sex and by race for each year through 2040 based on county or EA specific mortality, fertility, and migration rates estimated from historical data. In the Woods & Poole model, projected net mortality and migration are estimated based on the historical net change in population by age, race, and sex for a particular county or EA. Similarly, projected net births and migration of age zero population by race are estimated based on the historical change in age zero population by race per female population age 15 to 44 by race for a particular county or EA. The United States population by age, sex, and race projections, 2012-2040, are based on Bureau of the Census population estimates for 1990 through 2011 and the 2010 Census. Woods & Poole forecasts these U.S. estimates with a cohort-component model based on the year to year change in U.S. population by single year of age, race, and sex. Forecast fertility, mortality, and international migration are estimated from the Census population estimates and are applied exogenously to the Woods & Poole U.S. projections. Woods & Poole produces only a ‘middle’ U.S. population forecast - this forecast is similar to the Census ‘middle’ forecast scenario for the U.S. population. The U.S. population by age, sex, and race forecast is the control total for the EA projections. Each EA projection serves as the control totals for the county projections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 88 POPULATION Population is defined as July 1 residential population and includes: civilian population; military population except personnel stationed overseas; college residents; institutional populations, such as prison inmates and residents of mental institutions, nursing homes, and hospitals; and estimates of undocumented aliens. Excluded are persons residing in Puerto Rico, U.S. territories and possessions, and U.S. citizens living abroad. For the years 1990 to 2040 the population data are broken down by five race/ethnic groups: White not including Hispanic or Latino (i.e. Non-Hispanic), Black Non-Hispanic, Native American or American Indian Non-Hispanic, Asian American and Pacific Islanders Non-Hispanic, and Hispanic or Latino. Population by race as defined by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by respondents and does not denote any clear-cut scientific definition of biological stock. White population includes people who identify themselves as White and people who do not identify themselves by any race but identify themselves by nationality, such as Canadian, German, Italian, Arab, Lebanese, Near Eastern, or Polish. Black population includes people who identify themselves as Black and people who do not identify themselves by any race but identify themselves by nationality, such as African American, Afro-American, Black Puerto Rican, Jamaican, Nigerian, West Indian, or Haitian. Native American population includes people who identify themselves as Alaska Native or American Indian by Indian tribe or classify themselves as Canadian Indian, French American Indian, Spanish-American Indian, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Alaska Indians. Asian American and Pacific Islander population are people who identify themselves as having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, Vietnam, Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Hispanic or Latino population are people whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican Republic, and who identify themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on. Hispanic population is not a race group but rather a description of ethnic origin. Although Hispanics are part of the other four race groups they split out separately in the Woods & Poole database so that the four race groups plus Hispanic equals total population. HOUSEHOLDS Households are defined as occupied housing units. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters. The occupants of a housing unit may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any group of related or unrelated persons who share living quarters. All people are part of a household except those who reside in group quarters. Group quarters include living arrangements such as prisons, homes for the aged, rooming houses, college dormitories, and military barracks. The average size of households is defined as total population less group quarters population divided by the number of households. Mean household income is defined as total personal income less estimated income of group quarters population divided by the number of households. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 89 EMPLOYMENT The employment data in the Woods & Poole database are a complete measure of the number of full- and part-time jobs by place of work. Historical data, 1969-2011, are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Because part-time workers are included, a person holding two part-time jobs would be counted twice. Data on proprietors include farm and non-farm proprietors by sector. Proprietors include not only those people who devote the majority of their time to their proprietorship, but people who devote any time at all to a proprietorship. Thus, a person who has a full-time wage and salary job and on nights and weekends runs a small business legally defined as a proprietorship would be counted twice. The employment data therefore include full- and part-time proprietors. Private household employment data include persons employed by a household on the premises, such as full-time baby-sitters, housekeepers, gardeners, and butlers. Miscellaneous employment data include judges and all elected officials, persons working only on commission in sectors such as real estate and insurance, students employed by the colleges or universities in which they are enrolled, and unincorporated subcontractors in sectors such as construction. The employment data used by Woods & Poole comprise the most complete definition of the number of jobs by county. Woods & Poole data may be higher than that from other sources because they measure more kinds of employment. EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR The employment data is by two-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry. The two-digit industries are defined in the 2002 North American Industry Classification System Manual. The employment data in the Woods & Poole 2014 database are no longer based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system definitions. For the years 1969-2000 BEA provided employment industry data by SIC rather than by NAICS; Woods & Poole has estimated the NAICS industry data for 1969-2000 from the BEA SIC 1969-2000 employment industry data and the NAICS employment industry data for the years 2001-2011. As a rule, employment is classified in a given industry depending on the primary activity of the establishment. For example, employees of a large oil company are classified in many different sectors depending on the specific establishment in which they worked, even though the company as a whole would be considered a mining company: employees at a refinery are in manufacturing; employees at the company headquarters are in services; pipeline operators are in transportation; and oil field workers are in mining. If a given establishment is engaged in activities in different sectors, all employees are classified according to the primary activity of the establishment regardless of their actual occupations; thus, a secretary for a trucking company is a transportation worker and an accountant at a small plumbing company is a construction worker. The main exception to this rule is the classification of government workers in the Woods & Poole database: all government employees are classified in Federal civilian, Federal military, or state and local government employment, regardless of the usual classification of the establishment in which they work. Definitions for each sector, based on NAICS industries, in the Woods & Poole database are as follows: Farming includes establishments such as farms, orchards, greenhouses, and nurseries primarily engaged in the production of crops, plants, vines, trees (excluding forestry operations), and specialties such as ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 90 Christmas trees, sod, bulbs, and flower seed. It also includes establishments such as ranches, dairies, feedlots, egg production facilities, and poultry hatcheries primarily engaged in the keeping, grazing, or feeding of cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, poultry of all kinds, and special animals such as horses, bees, pets, fish farming, and animals raised for fur. Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other includes establishments primarily engaged in harvesting timber, and harvesting fish and other animals from their natural habitats. The sector also includes agricultural support establishments that perform one or more activities associated with farm operation, such as soil preparation, planting, harvesting, and management, on a contract or fee basis. Excluded are establishments primarily engaged in agricultural research and establishments primarily engaged in administering programs for regulating and conserving land, mineral, wildlife, and forest use. Other consists of jobs held by U.S. residents who are employed by international organizations and by foreign embassies and consulates in the United States. Mining includes establishments that extract naturally occurring mineral solids (e.g. coal and ores), liquid minerals (e.g. crude petroleum), and gases (e.g. natural gas.) Mining includes quarrying, well operations, beneficiating crushing, screening, washing, and flotation), and other preparation customarily per- formed at the mine site, or as a part of mining activity. Utilities includes establishments engaged in the provision of electric power, natural gas, steam supply, water supply, and sewage removal. Utilities include electric power generation, electric power transmission, electric power distribution, natural gas distribution, steam supply provision, steam supply distribution, water treatment, water distribution, sewage collection, sewage treatment, and disposal of waste through sewer systems and sewage treatment facilities. Excluded from this sector are establishments primarily engaged in waste management services that collect, treat, and dispose of waste materials but do not use sewer systems or sewage treatment facilities. Also excluded from this sector are federal or state or local government operated establishments. Construction includes establishments primarily engaged in building new structures and roads, alterations, additions, reconstruction, installations, and repairs. It includes general contractors engaged in building residential and nonresidential structures; contractors engaged in heavy construction, such as abridges, roads, tunnels, and pipelines; and special trade contracting, such as plumbing, electrical work, masonry, and carpentry. Construction includes establishments primarily engaged in the preparation of sites for new construction, including demolition, and establishments primarily engaged in subdividing land for sale as building sites. Construction work done may include new work, additions, alterations, or maintenance and repairs. Manufacturing includes establishments engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products. The assembling of component parts of manufactured products is considered manufacturing, except in cases where the component parts are associated with structures. Manufacturing establishments can be plants, factories, or mills as well as bakeries, candy stores, and custom tailors. Manufacturing establishments may either process materials or may contract with other establishments to process their materials for them. Broadly defined, manufacturing industries include the following: food processing, such as canning, baking, meat processing, and beverages; tobacco products; textile mill products, such as fabric, carpets and rugs; apparel; wood products, including logging, sawmills, prefabricated homes, and mobile homes; furniture; paper; printing; chemicals, such as plastics, paints, and drugs; petroleum refining; rubber and plastics; leather products; stone, clay, and glass; primary metals, such as steel, copper, aluminum, and including ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 91 finished products such as wire, beams, and pipe; fabricated metals, such as cans, sheet metal, cutlery, and ordnance; industrial machinery, including computers, office equipment, and engines; electronics and electrical equipment; transportation equipment, such as cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes; instruments; and miscellaneous industries, such as jewelry, musical instruments, and toys. Excluded from manufacturing is publishing of printed materials. Wholesale trade includes establishments engaged in wholesaling merchandise, generally without trans- formation, and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise. The merchandise described in this sector includes the outputs of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and certain information industries, such as publishing. Wholesale establishments are primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; or to industrial, commercial, institutional, farm, construction contractors; or to professional business users; or to other wholesalers or brokers. The merchandise sold by wholesalers includes all goods used by institutions, such as schools and hospitals, as well as virtually all goods sold at the retail level. Wholesalers can be merchant wholesalers who purchase goods from manufacturers or other wholesalers and sell them; sales branches of manufacturing, mining, or farm companies engaged in marketing the products of the company to retail establishments; or agents, merchandise or commodity brokers, and commission merchants. Retail trade includes establishments engaged in retailing merchandise, generally without transformation, and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise. Retail trade includes store retailers such as motor vehicle and parts dealers including automobile, and boat dealers as well as tire and automobile parts stores; furniture and home furnishing stores; electronics and appliance stores; food and beverage stores, including supermarkets, convenience stores, butchers, and bakeries; health and personal care stores such as pharmacies and optical goods stores; gasoline stations; clothing and clothing accessory stores; sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores; department stores; and miscellaneous establishments, including office supply stores, mobile home dealers, thrift shops, florists, tobacco stores, and pet shops. Retail trade also includes nonstore retailers such as Internet and catalog sellers, as well as home delivery establishments such as heating oil dealers. Retail trade excludes eating and drinking places, including restaurants, bars, and take-out stands. Transportation and warehousing includes industries providing transportation of passengers and cargo and warehousing and storage for goods. Establishments in these industries use transportation equipment or transportation related facilities as a productive asset. Transportation includes railroads, highway passenger transportation, trucking, shipping, air transportation, pipelines, and transportation services. Transportation also includes private postal services, and courier services but excludes the U.S. Postal Service. Warehousing includes refrigerated storage and grain elevators. Information includes establishments engaged in producing and distributing information and cultural products; providing the means to transmit or distribute these products as well as data or communications; and processing data. The main components of this sector are the publishing industries, including software publishing, and both traditional publishing and publishing exclusively on the Internet; the motion picture and sound recording industries; movie theaters; the broadcasting industries, including traditional broadcasting and those broadcasting exclusively over the Internet; the telecommunications industries; the industries known as Internet service providers and Web search portals; data processing industries; and the information services industries. Finance and insurance includes establishments primarily either engaged in or facilitating financial transactions (e.g. transactions involving the creation, liquidation, or change in ownership of financial ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 92 assets.) Establishments include depository institutions, such as commercial banks, credit unions savings and loans, and foreign banks; credit institutions; credit card processing; investment companies; brokers and dealers in securities and commodity contracts; security and commodity exchanges; carriers of all types of insurance; insurance agents and insurance brokers. Also included are central banks and monetary authorities charged with monetary control. Real estate and rental and leasing includes establishments primarily engaged in renting, leasing, or otherwise allowing the use of tangible or intangible assets, and establishments providing related services. Real estate includes real estate leasing establishments, real estate agencies and brokerages, property management establishments, appraisals establishments, and escrow agencies. Rental and leasing includes car and truck rental, consumer goods rentals such as video stores and formal wear rental stores, and commercial equipment renting and leasing construction, transportation, office and farm equipment. Also included are establishments that lease nonfinancial and noncopyrighted intangible assets such are patents and trademarks. Professional and technical services includes establishments that specialize in performing professional, scientific, and technical activities for others. These activities include legal advice and representation; accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services; architectural, engineering, and specialized design services; computer services; consulting services; research services; advertising services; photographic services; translation and interpretation services; veterinary services; and other professional, scientific, and technical services. Excluded are establishments primarily engaged in providing office administrative services, such as financial planning, billing and recordkeeping, personnel, and physical distribution and logistics. Management of companies and enterprises includes bank holding establishments, other holding establishments, corporate management establishments as well as regional and subsidiary management establishments. Company or enterprise headquarters are included. Administrative and waste management includes establishments engaged in office administration, hiring and placing of personnel, document preparation and similar clerical services, solicitation, collection, security and surveillance services, cleaning, and waste disposal services. Among many other establishments administrative includes call centers, tele-marketers, janitorial services, armored cars, temporary employment agencies, locksmiths, landscaping, and travel agencies. Waste management includes, among other establishments, solid waste collections and disposal, landfill operations and septic tank maintenance. Excluded from administrative and waste management are establishments involved in administering, overseeing, and managing other establishments of the company or enterprise. Also excluded are government establishments engaged in administering, overseeing, and managing governmental programs. Educational services includes private elementary schools, junior colleges, colleges, universities, and professional schools. Also included are trade and vocational schools, business and secretarial schools, computer training services, language schools, fine arts training, sports training establishments, driving schools, flight schools and establishments that provide test preparation and tutoring. Educational services may be provided imparted in educational institutions, the workplace, or the home through correspondence, television, or other means. Public schools, including colleges and universities, are excluded from educational services. Health care and social assistance includes establishments providing health care and social assistance for individuals. Health care establishments include ambulatory care services (e.g. physician offices, dentists, ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 93 specialists, HMOs, dialysis centers, blood banks, ambulance services), hospitals, and nursing and residential care facilities. Social assistance establishments include individual and family services (e.g. adoption agencies and youth centers) and community services such as food banks and homeless shelters. Excluded from this sector are aerobic classes and nonmedical diet and weight reducing centers. Also excluded are public hospitals and clinics. Arts, entertainment, and recreation includes establishments that are involved in producing, promoting, or participating in live performances, events, or exhibits intended for public viewing; establishments that preserve and exhibit objects and sites of historical, cultural, or educational interest; and establishments that operate facilities or provide services that enable patrons to participate in recreational activities or pursue amusement, hobby, and leisure time interests. The sector includes establishments engaged in the performing arts, sporting events, museums, zoos, amusement and theme parks, golf courses, marinas, casinos, and gambling establishments. Excluded are movie theaters. Accommodation and food services includes hotels, motels, casino hotels, bed and breakfasts, campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks and other lodging places as well as eating and drinking places, including restaurants, bars, and take-out stands. Also included are caterers and food service contractors. Other services, except public administration includes churches and establishments engaged in equipment and machinery repairing, promoting or administering religious activities, grantmaking, advocacy, and establishments providing and laundry services, personal care services, death care services, pet care services, photofinishing services, temporary parking services, and dating services. Private households that engage in employing workers on or about the premises in activities primarily concerned with the operation of the household are included in this sector. Federal civilian includes all Federal government workers regardless of their establishment classification. Federal civilian employment includes executive offices and legislative bodies; courts; public order and safety; correctional institutions; taxation; administration and delivery of human resource programs, such as health, education, and public assistance services; housing and urban development programs; environmental programs; regulators, including air traffic controllers and public service commissions; the U.S. Postal Service; and other Federal government agencies. Federal military includes Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Merchant Marine, National Guard, and Navy. Personnel deployed abroad are counted in their home base or port. Reserves who receive regular training are included. Civilians working on a military base are classified in the sector appropriate to their occupation. State and local government is defined the same as Federal civilian except that the activities are run by state and local governments. At the local level, this includes all public schools as well as police and fire departments; at the state level, it includes all public junior colleges, colleges, and universities. PERSONAL INCOME The historical data (1969-2011) for total personal income are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Total personal income is the income received by persons from all sources, that is, from participation in production, from both government and business transfer payments, and from government interest, which is treated like a transfer payment. Persons consist of individuals, nonprofit institutions serving individuals, private uninsured welfare funds, and private trust funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 94 Personal income is the sum of wages and salaries, other labor income, proprietors' income, rental income of persons, dividend income, personal interest income, and transfer payments less personal contributions for social insurance. Personal income data in the Woods & Poole database are presented in 2009 dollars. These are called ‘constant’ dollars and are used to measure the ‘real’ change in earnings and income when inflation is taken into account. For example, it would be incorrect to assume that Americans were more than twice as wealthy in 1980 as in 1970 even though income per capita increased from $4,080 to $10,091; during those ten years the general price level increased more than 97%, and $10,091 in 1980 could not buy as much as $10,091 could in 1970. When adjusted for the rate of inflation by making income per capita ‘constant’ in 2009 dollars, the increase from 1970 to 1980 was only 26% ($18,271 to $22,945). THE ACCURACY OF THE PROJECTIONS Unlike other sciences, economics and demographics cannot rely on experimentation to test theories and verify hypotheses. Rather, historical data are analyzed and theories are developed that explain the historical data. The resulting models are then used to make a projection. Woods & Poole projections, like all economic and demographic projections, utilize this approach: analyzing historical data to make estimates of future data. There are, of course, inherent limitations to projections, and the Woods & Poole projections should never be interpreted as an infallible prediction of the future; future data may differ significantly from Woods & Poole projections and Woods & Poole does not guarantee the accuracy of the projections. In all Woods & Poole publications, the word ‘forecast’ is used as a synonym for ‘projection’ and refers to Woods & Poole estimated data for any [future] year [up] to 2040; in Woods & Poole publications ‘projections,’ or ‘forecasts,’ both mean estimates of future data to 2040. One key limitation to all projections, and Woods & Poole projections in particular, is that the future is never known with any certainty. The model on which the projections are based may not accurately reflect future events. In addition, there is always the possibility of an unanticipated shock to the economy, or of some other event that was not foreseen based on an analysis of historical data. For instance, a local government may enact a new industrial policy that has an unexpected, beneficial effect on employment growth. Or an abrupt economic change, although anticipated, may occur with much greater intensity or in a shorter time period than expected. For example, the projection may assume an increase in the price of a commodity, such as oil, over a five-year period, but an embargo may raise the price to that level in only one year. In addition, the projections may not be accurate because historical data is revised; or because the projection model does not accurately reflect demographic or economic phenomena; or because the projections contain errors; or because the smooth growth path of the long-term projections inaccurately reflects important variance in economic or demographic growth for particular regions; or because assumptions about national or regional growth, upon which the projections are based, turn out to be incorrect. There are many other types of economic and demographic events that could create outcomes far different from Woods & Poole's projections. Another limitation results from doing forecasts for small geographic areas for small data series. Statistically, models are more reliable the larger the area and/or the series being studied. Small area forecasts, such as county population for White men age 84, are subject to more error because of the small sample size. This error can be reduced, although never eliminated, by constraining the small area forecasts to the forecast totals for a larger area or series; this is the method used by Woods & Poole. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 95 VISION 2035 THE DATA REGRESSION PROCESS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 96 The term ‘regression’ when used in projecting historical data into the future is a mathematical expression for a method of finding trends in the known data on which the projections can be based. Some refer to this as ‘curve-fitting’ because the process attempts to find the mathematical line that ‘best fits’ the known data points; continuing this line into the future produces the projection. The ‘best fit’ line is the line that has the highest correlation to the data—that is, the line with data points that are, collectively, the closest to reproducing the historic data points. In some cases, of course, the ‘best fit’ is not the most realistic projection, as discussed below. Demographic data is highly complex and rarely fits neatly along a simple line. On the other hand, demographic data regarding population and employment most often reflect a progression from the past into the future as change occurs. Some years may show a much greater change than others, but trends in these changes over time are usually evident. Regression analysis, then, attempts to ‘fit’ a straight line (1st order regression), a parabolic curved line (2nd order, which assumes a steady change that is constantly increasing or decreasing), and an ‘ess’ curved line (3rd order, which assumes that the trend is to go up for a while and then down, or vice versa) to best define the trend in the data. Ultimately, fitting trend lines to historic data must be viewed as an approximation at best, and extending these lines into the future is useful as an analytical tool, an indicator of the future, but not necessarily a ‘prediction’ of reality. ‘BEST FIT’ REGRESSIONS To illustrate the regression analysis process, particularly when the historic data is relatively ‘continuous’ such as population counts, the Data Table on the right has been created for use as an example. The table shows the historic data that has been created, as well as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd order regressions that have been calculated against the historic data (the ‘straight line,’ the ‘parabola’ and the ‘ess’ curve, respectively). The correlations indicate the ‘fit’ to the data, with a ‘1.0’ being a perfect fit and ‘0.0’ being no fit at all. First, we’ll look at how a regression might treat apparently unrelated, ‘non-continuous’ data, in contrast to the example considered here. Then, we’ll discuss how well the regressions in the Example Data Table fit the historic data itself to illustrate our example. Sometimes, data can seem to be quite scattered, with no apparent relationship between one year and the next, as shown on the graph on the left, below. A regression line, however, may reveal a trend, such as shown on the graph on the right where an overall increase ‘on average’ is indicated by the rise in the trend line. In this case, however, the correlation between the trend line and the data is very low, suggesting that conclusions drawn strictly on this trend alone would be relatively unreliable, particularly if the line were projected forward to future years. Historic Straight Line Parabola "Ess" Curve 1970 30,021 22,357 28,976 30,828 1975 31,998 31,200 32,146 30,823 1980 36,524 40,043 37,206 35,354 1985 42,105 48,886 44,158 43,364 1990 51,876 57,729 53,001 53,795 1995 66,520 66,572 63,735 65,588 2000 79,361 75,415 76,361 77,684 2005 88,056 84,258 90,878 89,025 2010 93,102 107,286 98,554 2015 101,945 125,585 105,210 2020 110,788 145,775 107,937 2025 119,631 167,856 105,675 2030 128,474 191,829 97,366 Correlations: 0.9475 0.9908 0.9962 EXAMPLE DATA TABLE ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 97 The following graphs are based on the data shown in the Example Data Table on the previous page, which is more ‘continuous’ in nature and more illustrative of population trends. The first graph shows the historic data points for this example (in this case, data between 1970 and 2005 in 5-year increments). In the second graph, a 1st order (straight line) regression has been run against the historic data points, producing a line that ‘fits’ the data on average as best it can. Still, the eye tells one that the points on the first graph look more like some kind of a curve, and that the straight line doesn’t ‘fit’ the data very well. In the third graph, all three regressions from the Data Table are shown. Examining the graph, the ‘ess’ curve seems to be the ‘best fit’ because that line actually comes closer to hitting each of the historic data points than the other lines. In fact, the ‘ess’ curve has the highest mathematical correlation to the historic data and does provide, therefore, the ‘best fit’ of the three lines. Continuing the regression lines into the future provides trend-line projections—that is, if the trend indicated by the past data continues into the future, what would be the result? Historic Data - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Historic Data Trend Line - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Historic Data Trend Line Historic Data 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Historic Straight Line Regression 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Historic Straight Line All Regressions 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Historic Straight Line Parabola "Ess" Curve ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Community Assessment 98 TREND LINE PROJECTIONS The graph below illustrates the results of projecting the regression lines shown in the example on the previous graphs into the future. This is done by using the formula calculated for each regression, and extending the results out to the forecast horizon year (in this case, extending out from 2005 to 2030). As shown on the Example Data Table and the historic trend graph above, the ‘ess’ curve had the best fit (that is, the highest correlation) to the actual historic data. This is very much a function of the historic data itself, which shows an ‘up-swing’ in the rate of change between 1970 and 1990, followed by a slight ‘down-swing’ after 1995. By imposing an ‘ess’ curve, the ‘down-swing’ is continued into the future. (The extent to which the ‘dots’ on the ‘ess’ curve line fit in the circles for the historic data points indicates how well the line fits the data.) This curve, projected into the future on the graph to the left, however, turns into a negative growth rate—a population loss—in this example. While this is mathematically the best fit curve to the actual past data, the result of projecting this curve into the future is very suspect. The parabola, not having the ‘down- swings’ as well as the ‘up-swings’ of an ‘ess’ curve, projects forward as a steady curve reflecting the overall change of the past. In our example, the parabola fits the historic data almost as well as the ‘ess’ curve, however, and shows continued growth into the future because of the general ‘up-swing’ of the historic data overall. Lastly, the straight line regression, which had the lowest correlation to the historic data, produces a higher result than the ‘ess’ curve in this example, but less than the parabola. Data Projections 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Historic Straight Line Parabola "Ess" Curve ---PAGE BREAK--- VISION 2035 D ---PAGE BREAK--- VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program i VISION 2035 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose 1 Scope 1 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS 3 Board of Commissioners 3 Steering Committee 3 Project Management Team 3 Specific Groups Targeted for Outreach 4 PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES 5 Steering Committee 5 General Public Meetings 5 Additional Information Gathering Techniques 6 Public Relations Strategies 7 SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF VISION 2035 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program ii VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Community Participation Program for Columbia County PURPOSE The purpose of the Community Participation Program is to ensure that Vision 2035, Columbia County’s comprehensive plan, reflects the full range of the community’s values and desires, by involving a diverse group of stakeholders in the development of the plan. This broad-based participation, through stakeholder commitment and involvement, will help ensure that the plan is implemented. SCOPE The Community Participation Program provides a schedule to guide the development of Vision 2035, including planned community participation events or meetings at key points during the process. This document includes three steps described in the sections below:  Identification of Stakeholders  Identification of Participation Techniques  Schedule for Completion of the Final Comprehensive Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 2 VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 3 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS Outline of the comprehensive plan’s diverse group of community stakeholders who will be involved in the development of Vision 2035 Coordination and oversight are very important parts of the overall work effort for this project. This approach, to ensure proper management of the process, includes oversight by the Columbia County Board of Commissioners, Steering Committee and County staff. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Ron C. Cross Chairman Doug Duncan District 1 Trey Allen District 2 District 3 William D. Morris District 4 STEERING COMMITTEE Tim Beatty Columbia County. Board of Education Tim Cole Columbia County Chamber of Commerce Al Harris District 4 Representative John Ramey Fort Gordon Thom Tuckey CSRA Alliance District 1 Representative Robbie Bennett Development Authority of Columbia County Bill Corder Chair, Columbia County Greenspace Advisory Board Philip Howard Georgia Regents University Ken Richards Pierwood Construction Pat Buchholz Fort Gordon Jim Cox Planning Commission Mark Ivey Ivey Residential Gary Richardson Planning Commission David Butler Columbia Co. Historical Property Advisory Committee Marva Dixon Fort Gordon Chris McLaughlin Georgia Bank & Trust Ken Shah District 3 Representative William Butler Harlem City Planner Jean Garniewicz Vice-Chair, Development Authority of Columbia County Frank Neal Grovetown City Planner Charles Sharpe District 2 Representative PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM Andrew Strickland, AICP Planning Director Paige Hatley, AICP AMEC Foster Wheeler Nayna Mistry Planning Manager Tela Dunagan AMEC Foster Wheeler Danielle Bolte Planner I Demi Patch AMEC Foster Wheeler Lee Walton, AICP AMEC Foster Wheeler Inga Kennedy Planners for Environmental Equality Ron Huffman, AICP, ASLA AMEC Foster Wheeler Bill Ross Ross + Associates ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 4 VISION 2035 SPECIFIC GROUPS TARGETED FOR OUTREACH Developing a shared vision for the community requires input from all segments of the population. The Vision 2035 planning process will incorporate techniques (described in Chapter 3 of this document) that target outreach to the following diverse range of stakeholders/stakeholder groups in order to provide each with the opportunity to participate:  Augusta Archaeological Society  Augusta Technical College’s Columbia County Center  Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission / Metropolitan Planning Organization  Augusta Women’s Club  Builders Association of Greater Augusta  Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission  Central Savannah River Land Trust  Cities of Grovetown and Harlem  Columbia County Board of Education  Columbia County Chamber of Commerce  Columbia County Community Connections  Columbia County Development Advisory Board  Columbia County Convention and Visitors Bureau  Columbia County Department of Family and Children Services  Columbia County Emergency Management Agency  Columbia County Extension Office  Columbia County Greenspace Advisory Board  Columbia County Health Department  Columbia County Historic Properties Advisory Committee  Columbia County Historical Society  Columbia County Libraries  Columbia County Senior Center  Columbia County Water Utility  CSRA Alliance for Fort Gordon  CSRA Economic Opportunity Authority, Inc.  Development Authority of Columbia County  Fort Gordon  Georgia Sierra Club – Savannah River Group  Greater Augusta Association of Realtors  Homeowners Associations  Keep Columbia County Beautiful  Local clubs / community groups (with contact information on Columbia County website)  Local/regional news media  Places of worship, ecumenical councils ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 5 PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES Identification of the specific techniques to be used during the planning process that will help develop Vision 2035 Columbia County will rely heavily on public input during the preparation of Vision 2035. Techniques described below include Steering Committee meetings, workshops, surveys, press releases, an open house, public hearings, and presentations to elected officials. STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee is charged with providing feedback, advising the planning team, and providing assistance in shaping the overall planning process. Individuals invited to participate on the Steering Committee represent a wide range of interest groups and, to some extent, are intended to serve as a microcosm of the community (see list on page The committee will meet regularly during the planning process often meeting in advance of major public meetings. The Steering Committee will assist with keeping the project on schedule, reviewing the preliminary data and findings, providing a “reality check” to the staff and planning team, and serving as a political barometer for plan recommendations. GENERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS Kickoff Meeting The purpose of a kickoff meeting is to announce the beginning of the planning process to the citizens and other stakeholders and provide opportunity to view a presentation covering the project purpose and general plan approach. Initial opinion surveys and volunteer sign up forms will be available at this meeting. The meeting is intended to also fulfil the Georgia Department of Community Affairs’ “process kickoff public hearing” requirement and will be advertised accordingly. Visioning Workshops Visioning workshops (four total held in locations throughout the County) are facilitated meetings designed to determine the community vision and address three key planning questions – “What do we have?” “What do we want?” and “How will we get it?” These will be highly interactive meetings where attendees work in groups to draw maps, develop goals and policies, and design their community. The planning team will use the input from the workshops to finalize community needs and opportunities, character areas and to define a county-wide vision for future growth and development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 6 VISION 2035 Land Use Charrette A land use charrette will take place following the visioning workshops. The charrette will include a presentation of the information gathered during the visioning workshops, including recommendations for addressing preliminary needs and opportunities. The planning team will facilitate interactive planning exercises that are intended to fine tune the community vision, as represented in the draft Future Development Map. The charrette will also provide participants an opportunity to identify key areas of the county where more specific implementation strategies are desired to fulfil the desired community vision. The planning team will use the input from this meeting to prepare a final draft of the comprehensive plan. Open House The Open House will take place following the land use charrette for the purpose of reviewing the draft recommendations of the Vision 2035 document, including the Future Development Map and implementation program. Attendees will be provided an opportunity to offer comments that may result in changes to the. The open house format allows participants to drop in at their convenience and stay as long as they wish. The meeting is intended to also fulfil the Georgia Department of Community Affairs’ “draft plan review public hearing” requirement. Following the Open House, and based on input from the public and county officials and guidance from staff, Vision 2035 will be finalized for transmittal to the Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission (CSRARC) for review. Transmittal Public Hearing At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Commissioners, the final Vision 2035 document will be presented. The purpose of the meeting will be the adoption of a resolution authorizing the transmittal of the comprehensive plan to CSRARC for review and comment. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERING TECHNIQUES Web-Based Community Survey The planning team will distribute a community survey to those who attended the Kickoff Meeting in order to solicit comments, seek opinions, and begin to identify community goals. The survey will be reviewed and approved by the Steering Committee and Planning Department staff prior to distribution. A digital version of the survey will be posted to the Columbia County website, and a link to the online survey will be sent to administrators of Columbia County- oriented Facebook and Twitter accounts (see also the Online Social Media section of this document on page The link will also be emailed to the Steering Committee and organizations and individuals that are in an email “blast” database (see also page 7) to promote the survey and encourage participation. A PDF of the survey will be provided to the Planning Department so that it may be printed and distributed to public buildings and locations that receive heavy foot traffic and to other locations where web access is limited. The planning team and County staff will also coordinate with local newspapers to publicize the survey, which may include a request that each include in multiple editions a copy of a printed survey that residents can complete and submit for consideration in the planning process as well as directions on accessing the web-based version. Survey responses will be collected through May 4, 2015. Random Telephone Survey The planning team will distribute a survey to a random sample of Columbia County residents to receive opinions about the County’s major needs and opportunities. The telephone survey will be developed by the planning team with input from the Steering Committee and Planning Department staff. It will be conducted after the Public Kickoff Meeting. Results from the survey will be used in conjunction with results from the web-based survey to identify and prioritize perceived needs and opportunities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 7 VISION 2035 Stakeholder Interviews The planning team will coordinate with the Planning Department to determine the need for conducting one-on-one interviews with key community leaders during the planning process. The intent of the interviews is to provide additional means of gathering information about local needs and opportunities, as well as desired goals for the County. If it is determined interviews are needed to supplement the public involvement activities described in the Community Participation Program, the planning team will coordinate with Planning Department staff to schedule the meetings. Interviewees will be asked a standardized series of questions designed to gather detailed information about Columbia County’s existing issues and desired future. PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGIES Press Releases Press releases will be prepared for distribution to the newspapers that serve Columbia County. Deadlines for papers that are routinely used by the County for public notice will be provided to the planning team. The press releases will be used to announce public meetings and the posting of web-based documents for public review. Press releases will include contact information for project management team members, as directed by the Planning Director. Suggested publications are:  The Columbia County News Times: www.newstimes.augusta.com  The Augusta Chronicle: www.chronicle.augusta.com  Columbia County Magazine: www.columbiacountymag.com  Metro Spirit: www.metrospirit.com Web Page The planning team will consult with the County’s IT Department to create a project webpage through the Columbia County website to serve as a portal for plan information throughout the planning process. PDF versions of meeting notices, agendas and presentations will be posted for public review, as will draft documents. The project webpage will also include contact information in order to submit comments by e-mail, traditional mail, fax or by telephone. Email “Blast” Database Periodic mass mailings by email to provide important notices and other information are also a tool for distributing information. The database will be compiled from contact information provided by County staff and/or that is publically available (e.g. contact information for local organizations and places of worship that is posted for information purposes on the County website). At public meetings, attendees can provide their e-mail addresses on the sign-in sheet. Periodic progress e-mails and future meeting announcements will then be sent to the distribution list. Online Social Media The planning team will incorporate social media to further inform the public and provide opportunities for input. The team will provide project updates and informational links throughout the development of Vision 2035 to Columbia County-oriented Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, such as the following:  Facebook ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 8 VISION 2035 o Columbia County Government o Columbia County Community Events o Columbia County Library o Keep Columbia County Beautiful o Columbia County Chamber of Commerce o Columbia County Convention and Visitors Bureau o Columbia County Magazine o Columbia County Fair (Merchants Association of Columbia County)  Twitter o Columbia County Events o Columbia County Government o Columbia County Library o Columbia County Emergency Management Association o Columbia County Traffic Engineering Other Methods Beyond the use of newspapers and the Internet for notification, there are many other alternatives for public outreach. Newsletter Newsletters of community groups and neighborhood associations can be beneficial in targeting information of interest in a particular geographic area or to specific interest groups. The planning team will coordinate with County staff to identify newsletters that are used by both public (e.g. Columbia County Government Newsletter, Keep Columbia County Beautiful Greenzine, etc.) and private (e.g. homeowners associations) entities. Flyers The planning team will prepare announcement flyers / FAQ sheets in advance of key project milestones. The flyers will be in PDF format for use by County staff to post in government buildings. The planning team will also seek permission from local libraries and schools to post the flyers. Information Display An information display can be set up in the lobbies of frequently visited public buildings to show photographs, maps, and other pertinent project information. They can also be displayed at community-wide events such as Columbia County Fair events and concerts at Lady Antebellum Amphitheater. The planning team can man the temporary displays at up to five community events throughout the development of the comprehensive plan. Meeting to Go Prior to the Open House in mid-August, the planning team will coordinate with County staff to develop and promote “meeting to go” materials. The concept allows groups such as homeowners associations to facilitate a meeting and gather, record and submit input on the comprehensive plan. The Vision 2035 Meeting to Go packet will include meeting host and participant materials, including a sign-in sheet and instructions for gathering input on the draft Future Development Concept and draft Goals and Strategies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 9 VISION 2035 This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided printing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Community Participation Program 10 SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF VISION 2035 Outline of the schedule proposed for preparation, review and adoption of Vision 2035 The proposed schedule for completion of the comprehensive plan is as follows: Public Kickoff Meeting (Required Public Hearing  March 19, 2015 Visioning Workshops (four total)  April 20, 2015 through May 1, 2015 Land Use Charrette  May 14, 2015 Steering Committee Meetings  March 12, 2015  April 13, 2015  June 1, 2015  July 20, 2015  August 27, 2015  November 9, 2015 Open House (Required Public Hearing  August 17, 2015 Transmittal Resolution Public Hearing  December 1, 2015 Adoption  February 2016