Dorchester County development report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

D C ESTER

cc p'STkL ZONY'

Maryland
Rural
M^%10-3
HN flopment
1ram
OR
COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT
REPORT

49
.C6
M3
1983

Torrey C. Brown, M. D.
LOUIS N. PHIPPS. JR.
SECRETARY DEPUTY SECRETARY
STATE OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION
TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING
ANNAPOLIS 21401

May 24, 1984

Mrs. June Cradick, Program Assistant
Great Lakes & South Atlantic Regions
Coastal Programs Division
NOAA/OCRM
Page Building #1
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear June:

Enclosed is Dorchester County's Rural Development Report. It is an excellent
one in that it focuses development where it is already occurring and it uses the
study efforts we funded for Vienna and Cambridge (urban waterfront projects).

Enclosed also is a listing of major work efforts that the Counties have been
undertaking with the FY84 grant. A sample proposed stormwater ordinance is also
attached so that you know that the counties are moving ahead with them as required,
in our significant improvements. Only one sample is enclosed because the copying
of other jurisdictions would consist of hundreds of pages of printed material.
That we will provide you with in June.

Sincerely,

Sarah J. Taylor, PhD
Director,Coastal Resources Division

SJT:mjb
Enclosures TTY FOR DEAF BALTIMORE 269-2609, WASHINGTON METRO 565-0450

DORCHESTER
COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT
REPORT

property of CBC biblum

U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Prepared by:

Office of Technical Services
Division of Local and Regional Development
Maryland Department of Economic and Community Development

December 30, 1983

Preparation of the Program documents has been financed by Area Development
Assistance Planning Grants (MD-A-0997 and MD-A-1464) from the Farmers Home
Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, as authorized by the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1926, as amended and by a
Dev el o pment Planning Assistance Grant (01-25-01332-05) from the Economic
cbDevelopment Administration as authorized by the Public Works and Economic
lt6;velopment Act of 1965, as amended.

C@j

PREFACE

This Rural Development Report, prepared as a document of the Maryland Rural
Development Program, presents an overall development strategy or action program
intended to improve the quality of life for Dorchester County rural residents.
The projects included in the strategy range from those which are concepts to
those which are well engineered and environmentally approved. For some projects
where a final design has not been prepared, regulatory or environmental approval
by the appropriate State agencies still remain to be obtained. Although
technical assistance has been provided by the Department of Economic and
Community Development in preparing this Report, such assistance does not
constitute and should not be inferred as representing the required State
approval of any project. The Department's role is to assist the local
governments in formulating an investment strategy, in developing concepts into
implementable projects and in obtaining financing fo r projects with the
requisite federal, State and local approvals.

AC KNOWLEDGEMENTS

As with all underta ki ng s , the Maryland Rural Development Report fo r
Dorchester County includes the contributions of many individuals. Particularly
important contributions were made by Olga Radwick, Peter Johnston, and Deborah
Silverman. Mr. Johnston originated the project and prepared Parts I and 11 of
the original rural development report. Ms. Silverman and Ms. Radwick were
responsible for the preparation of Part III and Ms. Radwick assisted in updating
the statistics in Part 1. Without the information and invaluable assistance
provided by officials of Dorchester County, particularly Leonard Dayton, Linda
Nabb and by the officials of Cambridge, Ray Willis, and Vienna, Dewey Blades,
this report could not have been completed. In addition, other staff members of
the Department of Econ(xnic and Community Development especially Ed White, Lowell
Frederick, Robert Goodman, and Robert Schult provided both insights on the
County. situation and assistance in preparation and review of the documents.
Likewise, William Livingston of the Department of State Planning provided
valuable advice on the report. Throughout its preparation, initially Judith
Trunzo and currently Penny Davis and John Moore of DECO, as well as John
Daniello, James Waters, and Arthur Greenwood of the Maryland Farmers Home
Administration Office, provided guidance and critical comment. Grace Gaf fney ,
Marilyn Arend, and Dee Daugherty displayed both skill and stamina in typing the
many drafts and the final report. Many thanks to all!

David A. Schultz
Program Coordinator
Maryland Rural Development Program
Division of Local and Regional Development

THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF D0RCHESTER COUNTY

C0UNTY OFFICE BUILDING

P 0. BOX 26
CAMBRIDGE. MARYLAND 21613
PHONE 228-1700
COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E LLOYD September 20, 1983

PHILIP G. D'ADAMO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

E. THOMAS MERRYWEATHER
ATTORNEY

RICHARD D HARRINGTON
DEPUTY ATTORNEY

LEONARD W. DAYTON
JOHN F, LUTHY, JR
CALVIN TRAVERS
WILLIAM I. WINGATE

Mr. David Schultz
Program Coordinator
Maryland Rural Development
Maryland Department of Economic & Community Development
2525 Riva Road
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Schultz:

This letter is to advise you that the Board of County Commissioners for
Dorchester County has considered and approved the Development Report for the
County prepared by the Office of Technical Services of the Department of
Economic and Community Development. This Development Report presents an
overall development strategy in the areas of job creation, skills development
housing rehabilitation and construction, and improvement of community
facilities and lists important development projects that need funding assistance
from State and federal agencies.

Projects of primary concern to the County Commissioners include (a)
he Cambridge Creek Redevelopment Project; (b) Business Development at the
Chesapeake Industrial Park; (c) upgrading of the Cambridge-Seaford Rail
Line; (d) Eastern Shore Hospital Center. The County Commissioners encourage
all funding agencies, particularly those on the Joint Funding Committee,
to give prompt and favorable consideration to loan or grant applications for
these and any other projects included in the investment strategy (Part V)
of the Dorchester County Development Report.

Sincerely,

THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DORCHESTER COUNTY

CT/sfj Calvin Travers, President

AREA CODE 301

r 'HO?4E 228-4020
EXECLrrrVE DEPARTMENT September 13, 198 3 T_LLF

Mr. David A. Schultz
Program Coordinatcr
Maryland Rural Development Program
Maryland Department of Economic and Community Development
2525 Riva Road
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Schultz:

I am pleased to announce that during the regular City Council
me:zting held Monday evening, September 12, 1983, the Commissioners
of Cambridge voted unanimously in favor of approving the Rural
Development Report for Dorchester County, dated August 9, 1983.

We understand the Report is "continuing in nature" and subject
to revision as local conditions warrant. The COMMi5sioner5 and I
look forward to working with you and your staff regarding this
investment strategy for improving the quality of life for our local
citizens.

We look forward to hearing from you very soon, to learn of programs
that can be of assistance to Cambridge in the many projects we are
currently implementing, as well as future projects planned to enrich
the lives of all of our residents.

Best regards,

C. Lloyd Robbins,
Mayor

cc: Mr. Edward White
Mr. Raymond Willis

COMMISSIONERS OF VIENNA

VIENNA. MARYLAND 21669
August 22, 1983

Mr David A. Schultz
Program Coordinator
Maryland Rural Development Program
Maryland Department of Economic
Community Development
2525 Riva Road
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Schultz:

I want to thank you for sharing a copy of your
It is certainly one of the most complete publications
-that I have seen prepared to furnish demographic information
for Dorchester County.

There are a few typographical errors and some new
information for Vienna which was left out through no fault
of yours.

I am enclosing a copy of Vienna's Waterfront Plan
prepared by Kenneth Creveling Associates of Fairfax,Virginia.
Also, you will find a copy of our Comprehensive Planning Program

which was completed in June 1981, with a grant from the
Coastal Zone Management Program. As we discussed, excerpts
from these documents may be included in an addendum to your
report or other such manner you deem acceptable.

If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate
to contact me.

Yours truly,

Dewey E. Blades
President

Enclosures

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGES

S L11 MA R Y ..........................................................

INTRODUCTION ....................................................

Part 1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE .......................................... 4

A . Economic and Social Indicators ............................. 5
B. Need Indicators ............................................ 11
C. Development Needs .......................................... 15

Pa -t I I. PLAN PROFILE .................................................... 19

A. Statement of Needs ......................................... 20
B. Statement of Goals and Objectives .......................... 21
C. Desired Pattern of Development ............................. 23
D. Plan Evaluation ............................................ 26

Part III. ACTIVITY PROFILE ................................................ 29

A. Summary of Current Activities .............................. 30
B. Employment Projects ........................................ 30
C. Education Projects ......................................... 32
D. Housing Development Projects ............................... 33
E. Health Care Projects ....................................... 36
F. Community Facilities Projects .............................. 37
G. Revitalization Projects .................................... 42
H. Capacity Building .......................................... 43

Part IV. ANALYSIS OF INTERRELATIONSHIPS .................................. 45

A. Findings-of the Analysis ................................... 46
B. Possible Local Investments/Actions ......................... 50

Part V. RURAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY ....................................... 52

A. Industrial and Commercial Development ....................... 53
B. Housing Development ......................................... 55
C. Community Facilities Development ............................ 57
D. Skills Development .......................................... 59

SELECTED REFERENCES ............................................. 61

SUMMARY

Dorchester County in Ten Years

Cambridge - January 15, 1994. At the County Econom i c
Develo"pment Conference held yesterday, the County's Economic
Development Coordinator discussed the economic assets that make the
County one of the fastest growing in Maryland. He pointed out that
the Chesapeake Industrial Park is fully occupied and that the seven
new businesses in the park are going great. These businesses employ
750 workers and plan to add another 250 by 1995. Also, there are more
businesses than ever using the public rail siding now that the new
Choptank River Bridge has ope,ned.

The Mayor of Cambridge smiled broadly when he spoke of the new
Downtowner Motel . This year the motel will be the site of two major
state conventions; a first for Cambridge. He noted that this activity
in downtown Cambridge would not have been possible without the
redevelopment of the Cambridge Creek area. Compared to the old
buildings of the 1970s, we see a beautiful setting with a good
restaurant and many shops catering to the ever increasing number of
tourists."

If this type of news article is to be written in 1994, the following

Rural Development Report is an important starting point. The article notes a

significant improvement in the economy of Dorchester County. Such an

improvement in the quality of life for County residents will be aided by

implementing the rural investment strategy presented in this Report. This

strategy is designed to alleviate socio-economic distress and to capitalize on

the growth potential of the County. It is a guide for the allocation of funds

within Dorchester County by federal and State funding agencies. Specifically,

the rural investment strategy for Dorchester County is composed of four

substrategies relating to: (a) industrial and commercial development; (b)

housing devel opment (c) development of community facilities; and, (d)

development of labor force skills.

1. Industrial and Commercial Development

The need fo r increased job opportunities is based on t he fol I owi ng

demographic information: (a) the 1982 annual average unemployment level in

Dorchester County was 12.8 percent compared to 8.4 percent for the State.

Seasonally, the County rate increased to 14.6 percent in the months of January

through Harch, (b) the median household effective buying income of the County in

1980 was lower than that of the State ($13,776 vs $20,658), and (c) in 1980,

10.7 percent of the County's families had incomes below poverty compared to 7.3

percent for the State. To resolve this need, the County will continue to

attract new industry, promote existing food processing industries, and develop

recreational facilities and services related to tourism.

The County has and is continuing to pursue development activities that will

accompl i sh - these objectives. The primary step was the formation of an

industrial development program through the Economic Development Committee of the

County Chamber of Commerce. The County support of this program facilitated its

certification under the Maryland Certified Counties Program. The County now ha s

the sta f f ca pa b i 1 i ty to promote i tsel f a s a good pl ace to do bus i n es s and the

resources to conduct a cooperative advertising program and a tourism program.

In addition to local resources, outside funds are needed in the next three years

to:

(a) continue grant support of the cooperative advertising program;

(b) provide financing for business development at the Chesapeake

Industrial Park, Cambridge-Dorchester Airport and the Cambridge Creek

Redevelopment area; and,

These activities should stablilize employment in existing industries, and

revitalize the central business district of Cambridge, and create an additional

1,500 permanent jobs in the County over the next five years.
ii

2. Housing Development

The County needs to expand the quantity and the quality of its housing

stock. In 1980, 9.6 percent of the year-round housing lacked some or all

plumbing facilities. The largest number of these substandard units are in

election districts of Cambridge (#7), Straits (#10), and Hurlock (#15). This

need has been recognized for several years by the County and incorporated towns,

which have established the objectives of rehabilitating substandard housing and

providing new units including mobile homes for low and moderate income families.

State and federal housing assistance has been used to improve or construct over

700 units of housing in Cambridge and Hurlock.

Regardless of this progress, substandard housing still exists in the County

particularly in Crocheran, Lakesville, Upper -Hooper Island, the Depot area of

East New Market, and Vienna. To resolve this gap and to provide additional

housing, certain actions/ investments need to be implemented.

(1) Cambridge will continue to apply for CDBG funding fo r its housing

rehabilitation program.

(2 The housing rehabil itation activities of the County Human Resources

Commission should be strengthened. Such action would allow the Commission

to process applications fo r CDA assistance, to aid the housi.ng

rehabilitation of the municipalities, and to administer community

development block grants if the County applies.

(3 housing rehabilitation programs should be developed for the Depot area of

East New Harket and Vienna. CDBG funding is needed to conduct each of

these programs.

iii

Furthermore, investments of $1,350,000 in new single family housing in

Cambridge and about $800,000 in rental housing in Vienna are needed. These

investments will hel p to assure that low and moderate income families can

obtain affordable housing. The construction and permanent financing will come

from several sources, particularly FmHA, CDA, and HUD. Also, a market study is

needed to determine the demand and economic feasibility of multi-family housing

for low and moderate income families in the northern part of the County.

3. Community Facilities Development

In Dorchester County, the need exists in several communities to improve and

expand community facilities and to improve medical care. There are four types

of community facilities where the need exists: (1) water supply and sewerage

facilities, (2) industrial and commercial park development, (3) transportation

facilities, and (4) health care and social facilities. The election districts

of Fork, East New Market, Vienna, Williamsburg, and Hurlock are medically

underserved and the County has a general need for domiciliary care facilities.

The County's objectives to address the need for community facilities are to

provide adequate facilities including maintenance of the rail line and

improvement of the Cambridge po rt and to ex pa nd nursing home units. To

accomplish the objectives, the County, its towns, and the State of Maryland have

initiated several actions; some of which are only partially completed or are

funded, but still need to be constructed. These actions include: (a) sewerage

facilities for Cambridge, Hurlock, East New Market -Secretary, Church Creek and

Christs Rock, (b) water facilities for Hurlock, Vienna, and East New Market, (c)

highway improvements on Route 50 in Cambridge and Vienna and bridges across the

Choptank and Nanticoke Rivers, (d) redevelopment of the Cambridge-Dorchester

Airport including construction of a taxiway, (e) constuction of an access road,

a rail siding, and sewerage facilities for the Chesapeake Industrial Park, (f)

financial support to maintain rail service between Cambridge, Hurlock, and

Seaford, Delaware, and (g) support to development of the Cambridge Port by

Maryland Port Authority (MPA). The priorities for funding are:

(a) water supply improvements and sewage improvements for Cambridge and

Sanitary District #1 which will cost about $5.4 million;

(b) street improvements, bulkheading and water and sewerage facilities in

the Cambridge Creek Area which will cost about $5 million;

million;

(d) improvement of the quality of the Seaford-Cambridge rail line with an

estimated cost of $150,000; and,

(e) a new fire house for Secretary at a cost of $150,000.

In the last decade, the County has supported several health care

investments particularly the No rth Dorchester Health Service, Dorchester General

Hospital , and the Cambridge House Expansion. These investments have resulted in

improved medical care particularly more nursing home units. However, a gap

currently exists related to domiciliary care. Investment of $1,500,000 of

federal, State, and private funds are needed to provide 120 domiciliary units

for the County.

4. Skills Development

To reduce unemployment of the County's labor force, its skills must be

improved and matched to current job availability. In particular, the basic

educational level of the labor force needs to be improved. In 1980, 44.9

percent of the County's population over 25 years of age had finished high

school , compared to 66.7 percent for the State. The County is aware of thi s

need and has supported and will continue to support key educational programs for

County residents, namely, Chesapeake College, County Vocational Center, the

Wor-Wic Tech Nursing program, and pre-employment industrial training. Out si d e

funding of $15,000 from the Maryland Industrial Training Program is needed each

year to train 50 workers and, thereby, facilitate industrial expansion. Al so ,

the Chamber of Commerce needs to continue its efforts to improve communication

and coordination between the educational system, manpower training network, and

the business community.

The investments/actions included in this investment strategy should, when

implemented, resolve the current development needs and improve the quality of

life for the residents of Dorchester County. State and federal funding agencies

are encouraged to direct funds to these particular actions.

INTRODUCTION

In 1979 the Carter Administration announced the intent to develop a.

nationwide Rural Development Policy. This initiative was supported by Congress

with the enactment of the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 (Public Law

96-355). The Reagan Administration assumed this commitment and established an

Office of Rural Development Policy to formulate the policy framework. Integral

to the development of such a policy was the initiation of a process through

which "multi-state, State, substate, and local rural development needs, goals,

objectives, plans and recommendations" could be reviewed and assessed on a

continuing basis.

As part of this national initiative, the State of Maryland with the

Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) assuming a lead role

launched the Maryland Rural Development Program in 1980 with Area Development

Planning Assistance funds from Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and planning

assistance funds from the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The

purpose of the Program is to establish an integrated, broad-based development

planning/implementation process designed to alleviate socio-economic distress

and to enhance the potential for economic growth and social well-being in

certain rural Maryland jurisdictions. The rural counties that are included in

the Program are the nine Eastern Shore counties (Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester,

Kent, Queen Anne's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester), four Western

Maryland counties (Allegany, Frederick, Garrett, and Washington) and three

Southern Maryland counties (Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary's).

The two major tasks of the Maryland Rural Development Program (MRDP)

are: (a) the development of a rural investment strategy and (b) the

establishment of a forum for the joint funding of development projects. The

development of the investment strategy involves the identification of critical

projects which could be funded by the federal and State funding agencies which

are members of the joint funding forum. In this way, the two major tasks of the

MRDP are integrally linked.

The initial step in developing the strategy is to describe the current

economic condition and to identify the socio-economic distress in the County

(socio-economic profile). In other words, the socio-economic profile outlines

the County's development needs. The next steps are to summarize the local

development objectives (plan profile) and to i nventory the recently completed,

current, and proposed development activities (activity profile). The plan

profile shows the extent of the local commitment to alleviate distress and to

take advantage of its natural assets and economic opportunities. The activity

profile depicts the extent to which the local governments have initiated

development projects and programs to al leviate distress or to take advantage of

opportunities.

Based on information in the three profiles, the interrelationships

among development needs, objectives, and activities are analyzed. This analysis

identifies any gaps in planning and implementation. An implementation gap

occurs when an objective was established by the County or by- a town, but

insufficient activities have been or are being implemented to accomplish the

objective. This analysis provides a framework fo r identifying

investments/actions to resolve the gaps. These investments plus some others

that will prevent future gaps in implementation constitute the investment

strategy. . In essence, the strategy is a guide to the allocation of investment

resources in the County.

The second major task of the MRDP is to establish a forum of federal

and State agencies to provide funds to critical rural development projects in a

cooperative and joint manner. To achieve this cooperation, the Joint Funding

Committee has been established. The Committee's specific objectives are as

follows: (a) to review opportunities for joint funding of rural development

projects, (b) to regularly provide up-to-date information to local officials and

businessmen on the availability of State and federal funds and on revised

program policies, and (c) to fund projects that are identified in local

investment strategies. The member agencies of the Committee are (a) the

Maryland Department of Economic and Community Development, (b) the Maryland

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (c) the Ma ryl and Department of

Transportation, (d) Farmers Home Administration (USDA), (e) the Economic

Development Administration (USDC), (f) the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, and (g) the Small Business Administration.

The investment strategy outlined in this Maryland Rural Development

Report fo r Dorchester County was developed by Office of Technical

Services/Di vision of Local and Regional Development staff in conjunction with

Dorchester County officials. The socio-economic profile for Dorchester County

is presented in Part 1, the plan profile in Part II and the activity profile in

Part III. The analysis of interrelationships among County needs, objectives and

activities is presented in Part IV, and Part V, the County investment strategy,

is a listing of development projects to resolve the gaps in implementation.

PART I

SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

The purpose of the socio-economic profile for Dorchester County is to

provide a statistical basis for the analysis of the County's needs. This

profile is the starting point for the development of a County investment

strategy as part of the Maryland Rural Development Program. This investment

strategy will be used by FmHA, DECD, and other federal and State agencies on the

Joint Funding Committee as well as the local governments of Dorchester County as

a guide for the allocation of resources to further economic and community

development.

Included in the profile is the most recent statistical information on

various physical, economic and social characteristics of the County.

Specifically, information on geographic characteristics, population, education

and government finance is included in Section A. In Section B, the development

needs indicators for Dorchester County are shown by statistics on the levels of

income and poverty, employment and unemployment, housing and health care.

Section C summarizes the development needs including the results of a survey of

needs from the perspectives of the towns.

The information in the profile is from a number of sources. The

statistics in Section A on population and education are from the Bureau of

Census (U.S. Department of Commerce) and the Maryland Department of State

Planning, while those on government finance are from Maryland Departments of

Fiscal Services and Assessments and Taxation publications. In Section B, the

data on income and employment are primarily from Bureau of Census sources,

Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) sources and Maryland

Department of Human Resources publications. The housing statistics are from the

Bureau of Census and the information on medical care is from the Public Health

Service (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), the Maryland Department

of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Health Planning Council of the Eastern

Shore.

Section A. Economic and Social Indicators

1. Geographic Description

Dorchester County, the largest Eastern Shore County, extends into the

Chesapeake Bay as a broad peninsula almost surrounded by the waters of the

Chesapeake Bay and the Choptank and Nanticoke Rivers (see Map 1). North across

the Choptank River lies Talbot County, farther to the east is Caroline County

and southeast across the Nanticoke is Wicomico County. The eastern extremity of

Dorchester- County borders the State of Delaware for approximately five miles.

Dorcheste- County lies entirely within the Atlantic Coastal Plain

ranging in altitude from sea level to 53 feet in the northern part of the

County. Much of the lower two-thirds of Dorchester County is marshland, with

altitudes of two feet or less above sea level. Characteristic of tidewater

regions, its 580 square miles of land area and 108 square miles of water area

are marked by many bays, inlets, creeks and rivers. About 60 percent of the

County is subject to control under the State Wetlands Law.

The drainage of the County is controlled by two large tidal rivers,

the Choptank and the Nanticoke, and by many small rivers and creeks, which are

direct tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. The Nanticoke River has a prominent

tributary, Marshyhope Creek, which is tidal up to Federalsburg. The Choptank

River is tidal up to Greensboro.

MAP I

P E N N S Y L V A N I A
Cum6odan7m
0
@ALLEGAN@@, WASIIINGTON CEC
CARROLL
GARRETT D
W

IIARFOR
N 0 Bel Ait
01
4 BALTIMORE
V/ FREDERICK To."" 0
Nad-cli 0

C."
rillroll CoV, 1KX
IIOWAR
MONTGOMERY .2"
[email protected] 0 ANNE
ARUNDEL A N ES
An po

PRINCE
-,C
DC 10
/GEORGES
Uppof 0 to rA as
a L OT
L

CA ERT
A. aAh
CHARLES 0 r, .,i,b
0
La Plate

Leon dlow"
(% II .
MARYS
ad
R
"I
c
0
r
R'C
K

S MONT7ME1
P_@ .0

SCALE: I Inch equals 29 miles

The major highway 1 inking Dorchester to other regions of the State is

Route 50 which crosses the Choptank River from, Talbot County to Dorchester at

Cambridge and traverses the northern part of the County east to west. U.S. 50

is one of the primary highways utilized by those traveling to the ocean resorts

(see Map 2). A rail line owned by the State of Maryland operated by the

short-line operator, Maryland and Delaware Railroad Company, links Cambridge to

Seaford, Delaware and other points north and south. The County has a general

aviation airport near Cambridge t hat was recently ex pa nd ed to support

aviation-oriented businesses. In addition, there is a deep-water port in

Cambridge which is now owned by the State and is in close proximity to Route 50.

There are nine incorporated towns in Dorchester County which in 1980

contained 48 percent of the County population. The towns and their 1980

populations are: Cambridge 11,703; Brookview - 78; Church Creek - 124; East

New Market - 230; Eldorado 93; Galestown - 142; Hurlock@ - 1,690; Secretary -

487; and Vienna - 300. Five of the incorporated towns, particularly Vienna,

Brookview and East New Market, lost population between 1970 and 1980, while

other towns and rural areas gained. For example, Hurlock's population grew by

60 percent over the same period, and Secretary grew by 38.4 percent. The

population increase in the period of 1970 to 1980 was highest in the election

districts of Hurlock, Madison, and Fork (26.7, 18.5, and 18.4 percent,
respectively) . 1

2. Population

Dorchester County population increased in the period 1970 to 1980 from

29,405 to 30,623 (see Table 1). Although this increase in population reverses

the decline of the previous decade, the rate of increase (roughly 4.0 percent)

is small relative to other counties. Over several decades, there has been a

MAP 2
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK A
To Y.wk 70ftiled.104

C E C I Ain-1
L L z
H A ItF R D

6 A L I N 0 R E b0i

H w

r,0

h y

A
belt, 5

R U N
Lyp C A L I 1i
E

IPI C
rk, -.9 -
N."twool
A.Wpw A;
R G 5
-T A BOT
JON

L @.CA VERT

C H A L E

own

D 0 R C H 1 3 T E R

w I

and Sao% P-..;
5 T

w 0 R C s
'-en- A. T
"I

N- 0 -.M E T
lilt f,

t Alp I hn ;elk
UK to

PRINCIPAL HIG"WAYS NAVIGATION CHANNELS
(Nw-iw ;" eves eopph is feet)
0 COUNTY' SEAT AIRFIELDS (P..d)

i i i i RAILROADS QUNvmY 23ar to 0",

4- RAILROAD LINES OFtRATED "WAY SM wW @p
UNDER Pusuc SUBSIDY
(As of Apt 1 1, 1976). opts

TAB L E1

POPULATION: RANK AND PERCENT OF CHANGE FOR STATE OF

MARYLAND AND EASTERN SHORE COUNTIES:

1980 and 1970

Political Percent Change
Subdivision 1980 Rank 1970 1980/1970

Maryland 4,216,446 3,923,897 7.5

Cecil 60,430 14 53,291 13.4

Kent 16,695 24 16,146 3.4

Queen Anne's 23,508 19 18,422 38.5

Caroline 23,143 22 19,781 17.0

Talbot 25,604 18 23,682 8.1

Dorchester 30,623 21 29,405 4.1

Wicomico 64,540 13 54,236 19.0

Worcester 30,889 20 24,442 26.4

Somerset 19,188 23 18,924 1.4

Source: Maryland Department of Sta te Pl an n i ng. Maryland Population Data:
State, County Minor Civil Division and Municipal Trends Through 1980.
DSP Publication 31-25, Baltimore: October 1981.

shift in distribution of population within the County The southern part has

experienced a continual decline in population while the northern part,

particularly near Hurlock and Secretary, has experienced an increase in

population. The growth in the northern part dovetails with the increased

industrial and commercial development along major transportation routes and is

associated with expanded community water and sewerage facilities and more

favorable conditions for on-lot sewage systems. Conversely, the southern part

of the County, which has extensive drainage problems, has experienced (a) a loss

of many seafood industries and their associated employment because of the

impacts of stringent environmental regulations , and (b) an abandonment of

marginally productive farmland. Also, the communities in Southern Dorchester

County lack public water and sewerage facilities and available home sites

approved for on-lot water and sewage facilities.

According to the 1980 Census, the racial composition of Dorchester

County's population was 69.9 percent white and 30.1 percent nonwhite. The

composition by sex was 52.5 percent female and 47.5 percent male. Al so , the

population of Dorchester County continues to have an age structure similar to

other Eastern Shore counties, namely, a higher percentage of people in the age

group of 65 years and older. County population in the age group 65 years and

more accounted for 15.6 percent of the County total, while this percentage for
the State was 9.4. 2

Dorchester County is primarily a rural county and is one of the least

densely populated counties in the State, 52 persons per square mile in 1980.

The proportion of Dorchester population living in rural areas actually increased

in the period 1960 to 1980 with the shift of population out of Cambridge and

other towns into unincorporated areas. In 1960, 58.7 percent of Dorchester was

rural ; in 1970, this proportion increased to 60.6 percent, and in 1980, the

proportion was 61.8 percent.

3. Educational Attainment

The level of education within an area will influence its capacity to

support economic and community development. The higher its general educational

level and the greater the skills of its labor force , the greater the capacity of

the area to support development. This section presents inforination regarding

the level of educational attainment and skill levels for Dorchester County

compared to other areas.

As shown in Table 2, only 44.9 percent of the 1980 population 25 years

and over in Dorchester County had completed at least four years of high school

and presumably obtained a high school diploma. The diploma is an entry level

requirement for employment with most firms and public agencies. In comparative

terms, Dorchester County had a lower percentage than both the State of Maryland

(66.7 percent) and the U. S. (66.3 percent). In essence, the need exists in

1970 to increase t he basic educational level of the County residents.

During the decade of the 1970s significantly more young people in the

County completed high sc ho ol than did previously. In 1980, 356 students

graduated from high school. This number of graduates represented 69.5 percent of

the students that entered the 9th grade in 1976. In relative terms, this
holding power percentage is among the lowest of the Eastern Shore counties.3

Table 2 showed that 28.8 percent of Dorchester's population in 1980

that had only an eighth grade education or less. The percentage was higher than

that for the State of Maryland (17.4 percent) and for the nation (18.4 percent).

A need exists to improve the skills of this segment of the population. During

the 1970s, the County supported vocational and adult education courses for this

TABLE 2

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 1980

Persons 25 Years and over

DORCHESTER COUNTY

MARYLAND U. S
NUMBER PERCENT PERCENT PERCE
YEARS COMPLETED 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980

ELEMENTARY 0-8 5594 7430 28.8 42.9 17.4 27.4 18.4
HIGH 1-3 5094 5011 26.3 28.6 15.9 20.3 15.3
HIGH 4 5626 3109 29.0 17.8 32.2 28.5 34.4
COLLEGE 1-3 1500 1035 7.7 5.9 14.7 9.9 15.7
COLLEGE 4 yrs. or more 1589 832 8.2 4.8 19.8 13.9 16.2
TOTAL 19403 17491 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AT LEAST 4 yrs. H.S.
8715 4987 44.9 28.5 66.7 52.3 66.3

SOURCE: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, General Social and
Economic Characteristics, Maryland, PC (1) - C22, Issued March, 1972.

Maryland Department of State Planning, Census of Population and
Housing, 1980 - Summary Tape File 3A, Dorchester County, Table 50,
page 106

segment in the County High School , County Vo-Tech Center, Wor-Wic Tech, and

recently Chesapeake College, and these programs are continuing.

4. Government and Governmental Finance

Dorchester County has a County Commissioner form of government with

five commissioners elected every four years. The administrative offices of

County government are located in Cambridge, which is the County seat. Besides

the County government, there are nine incorporated towns, each with separate

governmental powers exercised by a mayor and town council.

According to the State report, Local Government Finances in Maryland

for fiscal year 1980, total County government revenue was $25,800,748 of which

$9,877,703 was operating revenue and $15,923,045 was "other" revenue. As shown

in Table 3, the major sources of the County operating revenues were local

property taxes (53.3 percent) and income tax (25.2 percent). The major sources

of "other" revenue were State grants (62 percent) and federal grants (28.6

percent). This revenue is earmarked for specific programs (e.g., education)

Table 4 shows t he amount and di s tri b ut ion of o perat i ng and other

expenditures for FY 80. Total County expenditures were $28,364,456 ($3,084,988

for operating and $25,279,468 for other expenditures). A total of 20.4 percent

of operating expenditures was made for economic development and construction and

maintenance of supportive community facilities. Of these expenditures, 6.0

percent were made for parks and recreation, 5.2 percent for sanitation and waste

control, 3.6 percent for natural resources, and the remaining 5.6 percent for

other public works, economic development, and economic opportunity. In addition

20.7 percent of County operating expenditures covered debt service which in most

instances had been incurred in financing the construction of community

facilities. Most of "other" expenditures were for education which amounted to

62.9 percent.

TABLE 3 Page
DORCHESTER COUNTY
REVENUES FOR FY 1980

County Brookview Cambridge
,Total County* Operating Other

Total Revenues $ 25,800,748 $9,877,703 $15,923,045 $ 1,622 $4,320,757

Source of Revenues % % % % %

Property Tax 20.4 53.3 22.4 25.4

Income Tax 9.6 25.2 23.8 4.1

Taxes, Other 0.7 1.8 0.2

Taxes, State Shared 4.6 1.8 6.4 3.6 4.6

Licenses and Permits 0.1 0.3 0.0 2.9 1.4

Federal Revenue 1.8 4.5 25.6 5.0
Sharing

Federal Grants 17.7 0.3 28.6 14.7

State Grants 39.8 3.9 62.0 4.6

County Sources - - 21.6 1.6

Other Sources

Service Charges 2.1 1.9 2.1 32.5

Fines and 0.1 0.2 0.5
Forfeitures

Mi scel I aneous 3.1 6.8 0.9 5.4
Revenues

*"Total County" column includes aggregate of financial data of the County's boards, and its
the special districts.
Repres tmvaluefb@tweep Q.0 and.O.Jope cent.
Source: Yetpsar ent o iscal Service M Government Finances in Maryland for the Fiscal Year
June 30, 1980.

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

MRABLM = = M M M
DORCHESTER COUNTY
REVENUES FOR FY 1980
Page 2 of 2

East New
Market Eldorado Galestown Hurlock Secretary

Total Revenues $ 31,604 $ 2,806 $ 2,878 $347,344 $109,675

Source of Revenues % % % % %

Property Tax 29.2 29.1 18.6 27.3 29.4

Income Tax 18.2 22.8 35.6 4.3 6.1

Taxes, Other

Taxes, State Shared 0.8 12.7 2.6 7.9 0.2

Licenses and Permits 0.8 1.6 2.5 0.7 0.5

Federal Revenue 3.3 15.8 13.9 5.1 3.7
Sharing

Federal Grants

State Grants 2.7 13.7

County Sources 3.7 10.7 20.8 2.1 1.0

Other Sources

Service Charges 40.1 38.8 44.0

Fines and
Forfeitures

Miscellaneous 3.8 7.3 5.9 11.1 1.4
Revenues

"Total County" Col umn includes the aggregate of financial data for the county's boards, and its
special districts.
Represents a value between 0.0 and 0.1 percent.
Source: Department of Fiscal Services, Local Government Finances in Maryland for the Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 1980.

Review of Table 4, which also presents the percentage of distribution

of expenditures by each municipality, shows t hat al 1 mun ici palities i n

Dorchester County spent more than 60 percent of their FY 80 budgets on community

facilities supportive of economic and community development. The facilities

include highways, sanitation and waste control, other public works, recreation

and parks and debt serv ice. Incl uded in the percentage for Cambridge is

expenditures for urban development and housing (12.4 percent) which was financed

from federal grants.

The major sources of local revenue for the municipalities are property
tax, income tax, service charges, and federal revenue sharing and grants. 4

The percentage distribution of all sources for each municipality are shown in

Table 3.

Chart 1 presents a synopsis of statistical data on the County's

financial capability as of June 30, 1979. The Table shows that the County

government is in sound financial condition and well managed. The per capita net

debt of the County is $152.10 and is low relative to other counties. The gross

debt is only 4 percent of the assessed value, and the County has the capacity to

borrow up to 10 percent of the assessed valuation. For FY 82, the total

assessed valuation of property is $247 million and the property tax rate is

$2.24 per $100 of assessed valuation. In essence, the County has the capacity

to support an additional $20 million in development projects through the

issuance of general obligation bonds without affecting its credit rating. Al so ,

more funds can be obtained through industrial development bonds, which do not

require the full faith and credit of the County.

TABLE 4
DORCHESTER COUNTY Page 1 of
EXPENDITURES FOR FY 1980

County Brookview Cambridge

Total County Operating Other

Total Expenditures $28,364,456 $3,084,988 $25,279,468 $ 2,125 $4,561,362

Expenditure Category % % % % %

General Government 2.6 24.0 11.7 4.7
Police 1.2 10.9 13.9
Fire 0.4 3.9 16.5 1.0
Correction 0.2 2.1
Other Public Safety 0.2 1.7 2 9
Highways 14.3 16.0 43.1 7.6
Sanitation and Waste 1.2 5.2 0.7 28.7 21.0
Control
Other Public Works 0.4 2.8 0.1 17.9
Health 3.5 5.1 3.3
11o s pi tal s 5.2 3.4 5.4
Social Services 9.0 0.4 10.1
Education 56.1 62.9
Recreation and Par ks 0.7 6.0 0.8
Library @0.8 0.9
Natural Resources 0.4 3.6
Urban Development and 12.4
Housing
Economic Development 0.2 1.8 0.1
Economic Opportunity 0.1 1.0
Intergovernmental 0.1 1.5
Mi sc el I an eo us 0.6 5.9 6.2
Debt Service 2.8 20.7 0.6 11.5

TABLE 4
DORCHESTER COUNTY Page 2 of 2
EXPENDITURES FOR FY 1980

East New
Market Eldorado Galestown Hurlock Secretary Vi
Total Expenditures $74,970 $2,432 $2,690 $564,248 $97,424 $8

Expenditure Category % % % %

General Government 9.2 33.5 11.1 3.7 33.5 1
Pol ice 8.0
Fire 2.1 1.1 2.1
Correction 0.1
Other Public Safety
Highways 3.6 40.2 61.5 10.1 3.6
Sanitation and Waste 69.7 26.3 27.4 15.8 33.8 6
Control
Other Public Works 14.5 49.6 1
Health
Hos pi tal s
Social Services
Education
Recreation and Parks 0.3
Library
Natural Resources
Urban Development and
Housing
Economic Development
Economic Opportunity
Intergovernmental
Mi scel I aneous 7.1 0.6
Debt Service 0.8 4.1 26.4

"Total County" Column includes aggregate of financial data of the county's boards, and its
special districts.
Represents a value between 0.0 and 0.1 percent.

Source: Department of Fiscal Services, Local Government Finances in_Maryland for the Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 1980.

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

Section B. Need Indicators

1. Income and Poverty

The 1980 Census reported that 10.7 percent, 884 families of the 8,275

in Dorchester County, had incomes below poverty. The portion of Dorchester

families living below poverty was higher than the State figure, 7.3 percent, and

the U.S. figure, 9.6 percent. The largest percentage of these poor families

resided in election districts of Vienna (#3), Cambridge (0), Straits (#10), and

Williamsburg (#12) (Map 3). As can be seen from Table 5, median family incomes

varied from a low of 12,036 in election district 16, Madison, to a high of

27,321 in district 11, Drawbridge.

An indicator of income in Dorchester County is the median household

effective buying income (EBI) which is essentially family income less payment

for taxes. In 1969, Dorchester County's median household EBI was $6,992, one of

the lowest in the State. Despite an increase of almost 100 percent in the

period from 1969 to 1980, Dorchester County families had a low median household

EBI of $13,776 in. 1980 (see Table 6). In 1980, the State median household EBI

was $20,658, over one third higher than that for Dorchester County.

Areas of concentration of poor families which have been identified by

local planning staff as target areas for priority assistance are: Mission Hill ,

Harrison Terry Road, Travers Road, Bobtown, Croc hero n-Ted ious Creek, Butler

Subdivision and Depot area. In addition concentrations of poor families, mostly

nonwhite, exist in the City of Cambridge, Ward 2.

2. Employment and Unemployment

Dorchester County's labor force averaged 15,309 workers in 1982, down
from 15,553 in 19B1 and 16,896 in 1978.5 In 1981, the largest segment of wage

and salaried employees in Dorchester County by industry was manufacturing (see

CHART I

SYNOPSIS OF STATISTICAL DATA

Pertaining to

DORCHESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND

(As of June 30, 1979, unless otherwise noted)

Population (as of July 1. 1979) ................................ 1. 31,000 (1)

Assessed value of all property ................................... $214,879,888 (2)

Estimated market value .......................................... $346,384,533 (3)

Ratio of assessed value to estimated market
value ........................................................... 62.0%

Tax rate per $100 for fiscal year 1979 ........................... S2.45

Tax rate per $100 for fiscal year 1980 ........................... $2.34

Portion of 1979 levy collected as of June 30, 1979

Amount ....................................................... 5 4,756'sal (4)

Percentage ................................................... 92.7% (5)

Gross bonded indebtedness (after issuance of the Bonds) ........ 5 8.550,001) (6)

Less: Self-supporting debt ........................................ $ 3,935.000 (7)

Not bonded Indebtedness (after Issuance of the Bonds) ........... S 4,715,000

Overlapping debt ................................................. 5 5,005,499 (a)

Ratio of gross bonded Indebtedness to
assessed value (after issuance of the Bonds) ................... 4.0%

Ratio of net bonded Indebtedness to
estimated market value (after Issuance of the Bonds) ........... 1.3%

Per capita met debt (after Issuance of the Bonds) ................. $152.10

11) SOURCE: Maryland Department of State Planning, preliminary projection.
(2) This figure represents assessed value of residential real estate 0 45% of
estimated market value, other real estate assessed 0 50% of market value, and
assessed volue-of business personal- property, -46omestic and foreign corporations
and public utilities @ 100% of estimated market value.
SOURCES: (Amount) Audited financial statements of Dorchester County for year
ended June 30, 1979; (Rates) Maryland State Department of Assessments and
Taxation.
13) Figures represent the estimated market value derived by the equalization ratio
listed in Note (2) to the appropriate property.
(4) SOURCE: Audited financial statements of Dorchester County for year ended June
30, 1979.
(5) Represents the percentage of taxes collected In year of levy.
(6) This figure reflects the total bonded Indebtedness of the County adjusted to
Include the Bonds offered hereby In the aggregate principal amount of $1.550,000.
(7) This figure reflects the total bonded indebtedness of the Dorchester County
Sanitary Commission, the pre-Jume 30, 1967 school bonds and the Dorchester
General Hospital Bonds of 1979.

MAP 3: Percent of families below the poverty level in Dorchester County
by election district - 1979.

15 12
9.0%
9.2% 1
8
8.2% 2 8.8%
10.0%
16 12.6% 14 2.0% 3
4 9.5% 6.2% 13 5.9% 15.2%
0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
9.8%

/0--
11 .60' 10 0.0%

.6%

KEY: 0 Number of election districts.
Percentage - Percent of families below
poverty level .

Source: Maryland Department of State Planning, Census of Population and
Housing, 1980 - Summary Tape File 3 A, Dorchester County,
lable 61, pages 10/ - JZ4.

TABLE 5

DORCHESTER COUNTY

FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION, 1979

$2,500 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000
Under to to to to to to
$2,500 $4,999 $9,999 $14,999 $19,999 $24,999 $34,999
DORCHESTER COUNTY 221 466 1396 1561 1403 1219 1188

Districts

1. Fork 4 30 74 80 109 85 66
2. East New Market 9 44 94 98 106 65 56
3. Vienna 16 17 52 45 40 55 32
4. Taylors Island 0 7 0 41 37 14 0
5. Lakes 0 9 47 12 32 9 19
6. Hoopers Island 0 5 78 71 16 22 11
7. Cambridge 148 220 628 810 565 529 529
8. Neck 7 10 35 49 43 48 56
9. Church Creek 1 10 12 21 35 39 33
10. Straits 0 18 34 64 36 24 40
11. Drawbridge 0 0 5 0 0 0 18
12. Williamsburg 17 26 53 35 12 31 41
13. Bucktown 0 0 5 10 23 38 52
14. Linkwood 5 7 93 68 117 119 113
15. Hurlock 9 47 159 194 209 101 96
16. Madison 5 5 14 35 18 6 22
17. Salem 0 5 9 10 5 34 14
18. Elliott 0 0 4 18 0 0 0

Source: Maryland Department of State Planning, Census of Population and -
Housing, 1980 - Summary Tape File 3A, Dorchester County, Table 51, pa es
T66-12-4-.-

TABLE 6

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD

EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME

PERCENTAGE

COUNTY 1980 1976 1976-1980

Cecil 16,744 13,389 25.1
Caroline 13,350 9,151 45.9
Dorchester 13,776 9,408 46.4
Kent 14,810 9,570 54.7
Queen Anne's 16,004 12,719 25.8
Somerset 10,651 7,222 47.5
Tal bot 15,423 11,383 35.5
Wicomico 15,826 12,158 30.2
Worcester 13,985 10,310 35.6

Total State 20,658 15,494 33.3

SOURCE: Sales and Marketing Management, Survey of Buying Power, 1976 ano 1980.

Table 7). This segment accounted for more than 40 percent of wage and salary

employment and nearly 35 percent of total employment. The second largest

segment was government which accounted for 17 percent of wage and salary

employment and more than 14 percent of total employment. Agriculture, including

proprietors and wage and salaried workers, accounted for more than five percent
of total employment in the County in 1981.6

The estimated total labor force of Dorchester County was 51 percent

blue collar workers, 31 percent white collar workers, 13 percent service workers

and 4 percent farm workers. The proportion of non-white employees that were

blue collar workers was high at 68 percent, and for nonwhite males it was 73

percent (see Table 8). Overall, women comprise over 42 percent of the labor

force and nonwhites about 28 percent.

The average payroll per employee in Dorchester County as reported by

the Bureau of Census and measured in the first quarter of 1980 was $2,444.

During the same period, the Maryland average was $3,178, which is about $734
greater than Dorchester County's average.7

Unemployment in Dorchester County is subject to high winter rates,

primarily due to the seasonal nature of employment in the food processing

industries. In 1982, the average annual unemployment rate for Dorchester County

was 12.8 percent, but the average for January through March was over 14.6

percent. The State average unemployment rate in 1982 was 8.4 percent.
Dorchester 'County's average annual unemployment rate has increased since 1976
and 1977 when it was 8.6 percent and over 10 percent respectively.8 Table 9

shows that unemployment was most severe among non-white females (26.1 percent).

3. Housing

The Census Bureau reported a total supply of 12,342 year-round housing

units in Dorchestr County in 1980 or a 14.2 percent increase over 1970. Of

TABLE 7

EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

BY PLACE OF WORK

Percent
Employment Employment Change
1978 1981 1978-1981

Total Employment 13,597 13,294 -2.2
Total Number of Proprietors 1,765 1,849 4.8
Farm 571 610 6.8
Non-Farm 1,194 1,239 3.8
Total Wage and Salary Employment 11,832 11,445 -3.3
Farm 392 393 0.3
Agricultural, Forestry, Fisheries and Other 119 129 8.4
Mining (D) (D) (D)
Construction 740 (D) (D)
Manufacturing 4,641 4,642 0.5
Non-Durable Goods 2,564 2,032 -20.7
Durable Goods 2,077 2,610 25.7
Transportation and Public Utilities 604 604 0.0
Wholesale Trade 291 (D) (D)
Retail Trade 1,342 1,044 -22.2
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (D) 184 (D)
Services 1,479 1,648 11.4
Federal Government, Civilian 67 55 -21.8
Federal Government, t1ilitary 153 171 11.2
State and Local Government 1,798 1,718 -4.4

The employment figures used in this table are employment by type (wage and
salary and proprietor) and by broad industrial sector published by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. These data are based on
the covered employment series of the Md. Department of Human Resources and are
then adjusted to obtain total covered and uncovered employment by place of work,
as is the nonagricultural employment series.

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential data.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Note: Employment figures for 1978 and 1981 are based on 1972 Standard
Industrial Classification.

TABLE 8
EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS AND RACE/SEX COHORTSI

1981 ANNUAL AVERAGES

DORCHESTER COUNTY

White Non-white
Occupation Total- Males Females Males Femalel
Total Employed 13,682 5,808 3,990 2,049 1,835

Total White-Collar Workers 4,290 1,871 1,952 179 288
Professional , Technical and
Kindred 1,315 525 572 74 144
Managers and Administrators,
Except Farm 897 659 194 15 29
Sales Workers 656 385 254 17
Clerical and Kindred 1,422 302 933 90 98

Total Blue-Collar Workers 7,030 3,105 1,286 1,486 11152
Craftsmen, Foremen, and
Kindred Workers 2,025 1,584 ill -288 42
Operatives, Exc. Transport 3,347 743 1,085 507 11012
Transport Equipment Operatives 590 268 16 297 9
Laborers, Except Farm 1,068 511 74 394 89

Service Workers 1,771 407 713 263 387

Farm Workers 591 424 38 120

lObtained by applying the 1981 annual average employment from the LAUS
benchmark estimates to the 1970 percent distribution of employment by
occupation, race and sex.

SOURCE: Maryland Department of Human Resources
Research and Analysis Division

TABLE 9

LABOR FORCE STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONAL POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER
BY SEX, RACE, AND AGE - 1981 ANNUAL AVERAGES AND PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

DORCHESTER COUNTY

Civilian Labor Force Employment Un em
Percent Percent
Population Group Number Distribution Number Distribution Number

Total 15,553 100.0 13,682- 100.0 1,871

Males 8,595 55.3 7,857 52.4 738
Females 6,958 44.7 5,825 42.6 1,133
Both Sexes, 16-19 INA - INA - INA

White 10,630 68.4 9,792 71.6 838

Males 6,156 39.6 5,803 42.4 353
Females 4,474 28.8 3,989 29.2 485
Males, 16-19 INA - INA - INA
Females, 16-19 INA - INA - INA

Nonwhite 4,923 31.6 3,890 28.4 1,033

Males 2,439 15.7 2,054 15.0 385
Females 2,484 15.9 1,836 13.4 648
Males , 16-19 INA - INA - I NA
Females, 16-19 INA INA INA

INA: Information not available.

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Sources: Maryland Department of Human Resources
Research and Analysis Division

these units, 7,730 (or 63 percent) were owner occupied and 3,599 (or 29 percent)

were renter occupied. Over eight percent of the total units or 1,013 were

vacant.

In 1980, 9.6 percent of the total year-round units were of substandard

quality, lacking some or all plumbing facilities compared to 20.4 percent for

1.970 (see Table 10). Substandard units are generally scattered throughout the

County. Concentrations of substandard housing units which have been identified

by the County as target areas for housing are Bobtown, Croc hero n-Ted ious Creek,

the Depot area of East New Market, Cambridge, Hurlock, Rabbitown, Smithville,

Upper Hopper Island, Travers Road area, Butler Subdivision, Mission Hill and

Harrison Ferry Road.

For 1980, election districts of Cambridge (0), Straits (#10), and

Hurlock (#15) had the largest number of substandard units, while election

districts of Lakes (#5), Straits (#10), and Drawbridge (#11) had the largest

percentage of substandard units. During the decade of the 1970s, the greatest

improvement in housing quality occurred in election districts of Fork (#I),

Taylors Island (#4), Cambridge (#7), Neck (#8), Bucktown (#13), Madison (#16),

and Salem (#17).

4. Health Care

Each resident of Dorchester County needs to have access to an adequate

quality of health care. Basic health care is needed by all residents, and

certain specialized care is needed for the newborn, elderly, handicapped people.

Also, emergency services are needed at convenient locations. This section

reviews the health care services currently available to the residents of

Dorchester County and lists those areas of the County where additional medical

services are needed.

TABLE 10

AMOUNT AND PERCENTAGE OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING! BY MINOR CIVIL DIVISION

IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, 1970 and 1980.

Percentage of

Amount (Units) Total

Minor Civil Division 1970 1980 Change 1970 1980

1. Fo rk 138 60 -56.5* 24.1 * 8.5

2. East New Market 151 106 -29.8 24.4* 13.5*

3. Vienna 140 100 -28.6 32.6* 22.2

4. Taylors Island 92 33 -64.1* 58.6* 21.0*

5. Lakes 112 77 -31.3 46.5* 33.0*

6. Hooper Island 114 78 -31.6 38.3* 22.1*

7. Cambridge 468 177 -62.2* 9.0 3.1

8. Neck 77 25 -67.5* 18.5 6.3

9. Church Creek 58 33 -43.1 26.2* 12.6*

10. Straits 218 1.42 -34.9 60.9* 39.8*

11. Drawbridge 19 15 -21.1 42.2* 34.1*

12. Williamsburg 132 73 -40.9 45.2* 22.6*

13. Bucktown 78 37 -52.6* 42.4* 16.2*

14. Linkwood 73 42 -42.5 13.0 5.1

15. Hurlock 224 125 -44.2 26.4* 10.8*

16. Madison 44 21 -52.3* 27.2* 11.3*

17. Salem 35 17 -51.4* 33.3* 15.2*

18. Elliott 37 23 -37.8 49.3* 32.4*

Total 2210 1189 -46.2 20.4 9.6
1 Substandard housing units are defined as units lacking some or complete
plumbing facilities.

Source: Maryland Department of State Planning, 1980 Census Report,
"Characteristics of Housing Units for Dorchester County", Census Printouts,
page 10.
Percentage exceeds the corresponding county percentage.

a. Inventory of Facilities and Services

Dorchester County residents are provided medical, surgical, obstetrical

and pediatric care through a general community hospital in Cambridge, namely,

Dorchester General Hospital. The hospital currently has 125 beds, and a staff

of 50 physicians, both general practitioners and specialists. In addition,

residents in the eastern part of Dorchester County have access to similar

services at Peninsula General Hospital in Salisbury, which is a 660 bed regional

medical facility. Peninsula General provides advanced cancer treatment and has

an advanced diagnostic scanner. In addition, basic services are provided at the

primary care center in Hurlock operated by North Dorchester Health Services,

Inc.

County residents are provided specialized services through three State

operated facil ities. Serious emotio nally disturbed* indiv iduals are housed at

the Eastern Shore Hos pi tal Center in Cambridge and this facility provides

regional psychiatric services. Aged and chronically ill people are treated at

Deer's Head Center in Salisbury. Deer's Head has a 232 bed capacity and also is

a regional facility for dialysis treatment. The developmentally disabled can

obtain care and treatment at Holly Center located in Wicomico County near

Salisbury. Holly Center can accommodate 150 residents and provide out-patiebt

care for 1,000 patients.

Lastly, the County Health Department in Cambridge provides basic

public health services to County residents. These services include family

planning and home health assistance, prenatal and mental health clinics, and

environmental health management including control of water and sewage quality.

Elderly residents that need daily care are served by three nursing

homes in Dorchester County having 228 beds. These homes are Glasgow Nursing

Home in Cambridge, St. Mary's Domiciliary in Williamsburg, Cambridge House in

Cambridge. Based on 1986 population projections from the Maryland Department of

State Planning and a demand of 47 beds per 1,000 population aged 65 years and

over, the County demand is 239 beds or slightly more than current in-County

supply. However, the excess nursing homes beds in Talbot and Wicomico Counties

are available to meet this need. These estimates do not include the demand for

domiciliary care facilities.

b. Medically Underserved Areas

Election districts of Fork (1@, East New Market (2), Vienna (3),

Williamsburg (12) and Hurlock (15), all in the Northeast portion of the County,

were designated "primary care manpower shortage areas" as of June 1980. This

designation shows a shortage of front line physicians, rather than buildings or

physical equipment. The areas designated are targeted by the federal government

for assistance in expanding the supply of medical personnel and expanding the

size and number of medical facilities.

Section C. Development Needs

1. County Summary

The major socio-economic needs identified in the demographic profile

for Dorchester County are the need to (a) increase employment opportunities, (b)

increase family income level, (c) raise the skill level of the labor force, (d)

improve the quality and increase the quantity of housing, and (e) improve

medical care.

In 1982, the unemployment level in Dorchester County was 12.8 percent

compared to 8.4 percent for the State. The need for an increase of job

opportunities is manifested by the seasonal nature of the employment in the

seafood and agricultural processing industries. The unemployment rate between

January and March 1982 was 14.6 percent.

Due to the lack of employment opportunities and to the relatively low

paying jobs, there is a need for an increase in the family income for County

households. In 1980, Median Household Effective Buying Income was $13,776

compared to $20,658 for the State. The largest percentages of poor families

resided in election districts of Vienna (#3), Cambridge (#7), Straits (#10), and

Williamsburg (#12).

There is a need for raising the skill level of the Dorchester County

labor force. According to the 1980 Census, only 44.9 percent of the population

over 25 years of age had completed four years of high school This percentage

is lower than that for the State of Maryland (66.7 percent). Although general

educational and skill level have increased during the 1970s, further increases

are needed in order to effectively support industrial growth.

Another socio-economic need identified in Dorchester County is

improvement in the quality of housing stock in the County. The need for

additional housing and housing rehabilitation is high in the election districts

of Lakes, Cambridge, Straits, Drawbridge, and Hurlock.

In June 1980, the election districts of Fork, East New Market, Vienna,

Williamsburg, and Hurlock were designated as "medically underserved areas" which

means that these areas show a shortage of general practitioners. The major need

for the County is to expand the supply of medical personnel rather than to just

expand the quantity of medical facilities.

Another need that exists in the County is the revitalization of retail

sales in the central business districts (CBDs) of the County's established

communities. Although relevant data are unvavailable, the CBDs of the

incorporated towns, particularly Cambridge, have declined over the last twenty

years. Resolution of this need will require a coordinated effort by the local

merchants, town officials, and county commissioners. This effort would include

protection of the market for the businesses in the CBDs, improvement in their

physical appearance, and integration of other compatible development into the
CBDs. Resolution of the identified needs wil I requi re development or

expansion of supportive community facilities. These facilities, particularly

water and sewerage, will not resolve the needs per se, but these are a necessary

condition for economic growth and development. The socio-economic profile does

not include specific information on the current status of the existing community

facilites; however, such information is presented in other reports particularly

the County water and sewerage plan.

2. Town Summary

The Towns of Cambridge and Vienna responded to the requ est of the

Maryland Rural Develoment Program staff to provide information about needs from

the Towns' perspectives. Identified needs are as follows: a) increase in job

opportunties, b) improvement and expansion of community facilities, and c)

improvement of quantity and quality of housing.

The need for an improvement in job opportunities was indicated by

Cambridge and V.ienna. In order to increase job opportunities, both towns desire

business and industrial loans and industrial park development. The need for

improvement and expansion of community facilities also exists in both towns.

These needs include water supply facilities, wastewater facilities and highways

and streets. In addition, Vienna desires improvement in port/navigation

facilities. Both Towns indicated the need for improvement in quantity and

quality of housing. The needs in Vienna are rental housing and housing

rehabilitation while Cambridge needs more units of single family housing.

Footnotes

Maryland Department of State Planning Maryland Popu,lation Data: State,
County, Minor Civil Division and Municipai Trends_Through 1980. DSP Publication-
81-25. Baltimore MD: October 1981. page 214.
2 Office of Planning Data, Maryland Department of State Planning. Maryland
1980 Population by Age and Sex. Baltimore, MD: January, 1982. pages 1 and 16.
3 Holding power is the percentage of the students who graduated from high
school in a particular year compared to those who enrolled in ninth grade four
years perviously.
4 The revenue totals for each subdivision include federal grants, which are
usually obtained through an application process on a project-by-project basis or
on an annual basis. Therefore, the federal grants received in 1980 do not
represent a steady source of local revenue.
5 Maryland Department of Human Resources, Research and Analysis Division.
Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment by Places and Residence, 1978, 1982.
6 Regional Economic -Information Systems. Employment by T4pe and Broad
Industrial Sources, 1978-1981, Table 25, Bur u of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, April 1983.
7 U.S. Bureau of Census. County Business Patterns, 1980 - Maryland, 1982.
8 Maryland Department of Human Resources Research and Analysis Division, Labor
Force, Employment, and Unemployment by Place of Residence, 1982, 1978, T_9T7_,
1976, 1975.

PART I I

PLAN PROFI LE

The plan profile for Dorchester County is a consolidated statement of

the County's needs, goals and objectives as reflected in existing plans. Thi s

statement is integral to the development of a County investment strategy as part

of the Maryland Rural Development Program. This strategy will be used by FmHA,

DECD, and the other federal and State agencies on the Joint Funding Committee

as well as by the local governments of Dorchester County as a guide for the

allocation of resources to further economic and community development in the

County.

In preparing this consol idated statement, County and municipal

comprehensive development plans as wel 1 as the County Overall Economic

Development Plan (OEDP) and County water and sewerage plan were reviewed. Based

on this review of Dorchester County planning documents, the plan profile

includes a discussion of County needs in Section A, a statement of the County's

and towns' overall development goals and objectives in Section B, a generalized

description of the desired pattern of development for the County in Section C

and an evaluation of the plan documents with regard to their consistency,

relevancy and confo rmity to a standard planning processes in Section D.

Because it addresses a broad range of economic and community

development issues, the County comprehensive development pl.an is the most

important planning document in DDrchester County. In contrast , the OEDP and the

water and sewer plan deal only with specific development issues. In many

instances , these specific documents provide more detailed information and

recommendations on issues covered generally in the comprehensive plan. In

effect, these specific plans could be considered components of the overall

planning program of the County, supplementing the comprehensive development plan

with functional and/or technical recommendations.

Section A. Statement of Needs

In the 1970s, Dorchester County was fac ed with the problem of

reversing long term decline both in the population base of the County and in its

economy. As a result, restoring economic vitality, while maintaining the

existing population, was a major concern of the County. Population loss,

particularly of those people in their prime working years, detracted from the

County's appeal for industry seeking available labor. The economy of the

County was subject to high rates of unemployment, particularly in the winter,

and median family incomes were low. These problems were most severe among the

non-white population of the County. These needs were reflected in the 1974

County Comprehensive Plan which has not been updated.

The plan also indicated that a significant portion of the existing

housing stock was substandard. The need for low and moderate income housing was

termed "critical" in the County plans.

According to the Comprehensive Plan, the central business district of

Cambridge had suf fe red,a loss of its competitive position through the

development of commercial areas and shopping centers along Route 50 which

offered more convenient shopping facilities, lower prices and better access.

The older commercial areas in downtown Cambridge were unable to compete

successfully for an adequate amount of limited retail sales and could not

justify reinvestment in properties. Until the Cambridge Creek redevelopment

project was conceived, no new investment in the older business area was

occurring and some properties were deteriorating.

Section B. Statement of Goals and Objectives

According to the 1974 plan , the County's overall aim of maintaining a

high quality of life for Dorchester County residents involves several major

goals in which the County intends to concentrate its efforts. The most

important one is the provision of well-paying employment opportunities for the

County's residents. Other goals are the provision of housing and public

services to the existing population, including provision for the needs of the

elderly and poor, safe, economical , and convenient movement of goods and people;

and judicious use of the County's natural resources. Also, maintenance of

quality of life in Dorchester County involves a number of plan objectives

designed to provide adequate community facilities and services and to minimize

costs of these facilities.

Provision of stable well-paying employment opportunities will help in

accomplishing a number of objectives such as raising incomes, stabilizing the

population, expanding economic opportunity and reversing the decline of existing

industries. In order to raise incomes, the County set as its objective

attraction of new industry that will provide skilled and semi-skilled employment

for young workers and those displaced from declining industries. By providing

jobs for young workers in new industries and expanding existing manufacturing

and service industries, the County was acting to reverse the out-migration of

young workers and overall population loss.

Since 1974, Dorchester County has undertaken projects that have

expanded economic opportunity. The projects included development of the

County's tourism industry with related accommodations and recreation facilities

and promotion of the existing industries, agriculture and seafood. Since the

plan was developed, two additional objectives have been approved by "the County

Commissioners (a) to increase the tax base by supporting an expansion of the

Vienna Power Plant, and (b) to create new jobs through development of the Woods

Road Industrial Park and the Chesapeake Industrial Park, which includes a public

rail siding. As an incentive to industrial development and expansion, the

County grants property tax concessions to specific industries.

Provision of adequate facilities and services includes recreation

facilities, police and fire protection, cultural and educational facilities and

health and social services. The objective established by the County in 1974 is

to provide these facilities and services at levels adequate to meet the needs of

the County and consistent with revenues.

The goal of comfortable, safe and affordable housing includes three

basic objectives. One objective is to insure that new housing is sound and that

it is provided in a choice of locations and styles that meet citizen needs

including mobile home developments. Another objective is to preserve the

existing housing stock and upgrade units as warranted. The third objective is

removal of housing not suitable for habitation.

The County transportation goal of safe, economic and convenient

movement of goods and people includes water, rail , air and highway modes of

transport as well as public transit. Water transport is. centered around

Cambridge Port and the objective is to promote expansion and greater use of the

Po rt. Maintenance of rail service is an objective shared by the County and City

of Cambridge. The existing airport is to be promoted for use by industries that

can utilize air transport. Highway transport objectives include upgrading Route

50 at Cambridge and Vienna , a new Choptank River Bridge, and improved traffic

circulation for the major growth centers. Finally, Dorchester County h as

established an objective of providing a public transportation system for County

residents.

The abundant natural resources located in Dorchester are of great

importance to the County. Farmlands, wetlands and forests are to be retained

and protected from exploitation. The resource objectives of Dorchester are to

control pollution, erosion and flooding to the benefit of the natural environ-

ment, to encourage good land management practices, to protect water quality, and

to utilize mineral resources (i.e., sand and gravel) wisely.

Minimizing costs is to be accomplished through the concentration of

growth around existing communities and the utilization of existing facilities to

serve new growth. Other objectives for minimizing costs include maintaining an

adequate commercial/industrial assessable base, not allowing growth to occur in

areas of inadequate facilities, and requiring any new development to support

financially the community services that it requi--es.

Section C. Desired Pattern of Development

Dorchester County has two major objectives in its development

philosophy. One objective is to accommodate a one percent per annum population

increase in predetermined growth areas. The other objective is to insure that

growth does not destroy the positive natural and man-made features of the County

that already exist. The growth areas are those areas in which the County will

encourage residential , commercial and industrial development in order to provide

most efficiently community services and to reduce conversion of open space and

agricultural land. Areas marked for conservation include wetlands, farmlands

and forest area. These areas are to be maintained for their value to the

economy of the County for agricultural land, seafood production, boating,

recreation and tourism.

Three types of growth areas, principal , secondary and limited, were

identified. In addition, the County has included existing villages as minor

growth areas. In al I , there are 26 growth areas scattered throughout the County

which include nine municipalities and 17 unincorporated villages. The Cambridge

area in the northern part of the County has been designated as the principal

population, employment and commercial center for the County. The Hurlock area

and Secretary-East New Market Complex are secondary growth areas serving as

regional centers for population, employment and commerce for North Dorchester.

Limited growth, primarily residenti al and convenience commercial, and waterfront

redevelopment are envisioned for the Vienna area in the eastern part of the

County. In essence the desired pattern would focus on industrial , commercial and

residential activity in the northern and northeastern parts of the County.

These five growth areas are programmed for or already have central

water and sewerage systems with capacity for additional development as needed.

Water and sewerage facilities are viewed as principal tools in implementing the

County's growth policy and these facilities are programmed by the County in

cooperation with the major growth centers. Cambridge and Secretary have water

and sewerage policies expressed in their plans, and current water and sewerage

project priorities have been given to Vienna, Hurlock, Cambridge and East New

Market. Growth of the remaining 21 minor areas, the villages, will be limited

by the extent to which water and sewage facilities including shared system

leasing can be made available and by the unsuitable nature of the soils around

many of the villages for on-lot septic systems.

In order to meet its growth objectives, the County will need to

strengthen its economy, by expanding employment opportunities and, thereby,

raising family incomes. To accomplish these ends, the County intends to

selectively choose new industries, to expand existing industries and to promote

local traditional industries, agriculture and seafood. The criteria fo r

selecting industry include stability of products or services, financial

soundness, stable year-round employment, high wage levels and lack of negative

environmental effects. In general, new industries that would employ the

existing labor force, and perhaps provide job training that would use existing

community facilities, particularly the Cambridge marine port, Woods Road and

Chesapeake Industrial Parks and the airport, are to be especially encouraged.

Elsewhere, new manufacturing plants are to be located in or near Hurlock, Vienna

and Linkwood Village.

The County planned to add 1600 to 1800 new jobs per decade in the

1970s and 1980s to meet its growth objectives. In the manufacturing sector the

County wants to add 50 to 60 new manufacturing jobs annually. The County also

feels that 800 additional wholesale and retail jobs are currently required to

upgrade the current level of employment to meet its growth objectives and, after

reaching this level, 25 to 30 new jobs should be added annually to maintain a

desirable level of employment in this sector. In support of development of the

tourism industry in the County, service industries will have to be expanded,

particularly the hotel /motel /restaurant business; however, no specific levels of

employment have been established. Because the plan has not been updated, the

employment objectives for the 1980s have not been specified by the County.

Key transportation projects that the County wants to complete are

improvements to Route 50 in Cambridge and across the Choptank River, access to

the Woods Road and Chesapeake Industrial areas, expansion of the State owned

Cambridge Port and related marina facilities, planned expansion of the Cambridge

Airport and rural transit development. County and City of Cambridge officials

would like to see the port active in order to provide more employment and

increased income. County officials will continue to provide funds to operate

the State own ed rail line between Cambridge, Hurl oc k and the principal

north-south 1 ine in Delaware. State funds are available for rehabilitation of

the rail line, which is considered important to the development of the County's

agriculture and food processing industries.

Community facilities of major interest to the County are waterfront

facilities, fire protection facilities, water and sewerage facilities , and

heal th care facil ities. Projects such as a large waterfront park near Cambridge

are env i s ioned as a mea ns o f boost i ng t he to uri sm i nd ustry a nd improv i ng publ ic

access to water. The County also feels it lacks adequate nursing home capacity

and would like to add additional nursing home beds in the Cambridge area.

Recently, there has been an expansion of Cambridge House, which partially

satisfied the need for additional nursing home beds.

.To meet the County-wide critical demand for low and moderate income

housing and the shortage of decent housing, both the County and the City of

Cambridge are encouraging the rehabilitation of substandard units and the

construction of new housing for low and middle income families. The rate of

production that is desired to meet the current demand is 250 new low and middle

income housing units per year for a 10 year period and 60 to 70 units of low and

moderate income units added thereafter. In Cambridge, the rehabilitation of

many neighborhood units and the construction of public housing for the elderly

and low and mode-ate income groups are proposed.

Section D. Plan Evaluation

Plans reviewed for Dorchester County include the County Comprehensive

Plan (prepared by a consultant and adopted in 1974), the town plans of Secretary

(adopted in 1981) Cambridge (which was prepared by a consultant and adopted in

1978), Vienna (adopted in June, 1981), and the County OEDP and water and

sewerage plan. The plan documents of Dorchester County, the City of Cambridge,

Vienna, and Secretary collectively present a consistent development program for

the County. The County comprehensive plan which recommends that development

occur in the existing towns, villages and the City of Cambridge, is supported by

the growth policies expressed in the plans of Cambridge, Vienna and Secretary.

The ot her i nco rpo ra ted mun i c i pal i t i es in Dorchester have no plans or

implementing ordinances.

The development plans of Dorchester County followed a standard

planning process. Problems, opportunities and existing con ditions are

adequately identified, long-range goals set , objectives to be achieved in

reaching the long-range goals are established, and recommendations to implement

goals and objectives given. Since 1974, many of the objectives in the County

Plan have been addressed. Long-range goals are provided for a number of areas

such as land use, the economy, population, community facilities and others. In

areas, such as port or rail , where the County has little effective control , the

goals cannot be achieved solely by local actions.

Objectives in the Dorchester plans relate to parts or all of

identified problems that should be addressed to insure accomplishment of

long-range goal s . Recommendations give some specific levels of accomplishment

such as construction of 250 units of new low and middle income housing annually,

but for most part do not recommend a prescriptive action program. One exception

is the Cambridge Creek Redevelopment Program. This program is an action plan

designed to retain existing businesses, improve and expand housing, and develop

a hotel/restaurant complex adjacent to the Creek.

The County, City and Town development plans do address most of the

needs identified in the socio-economic profile (limited employment, low median

family income, deficient health care facilities and housing). The primary

exception is the need for increased skill level in the labor force. Because the

needs addressed have existed for many years, the County plans, which are based

on 1970 Census data, are still generally reliable in their identification of

needs.

PART III

ACTIVITY PROFILE

The purpose of the activity profile is to provide a summary of

proposed, ongoing or recently completed development projects and/or programs in

Dorchester County for use in analyzing their interrelationships with development

needs and objectives. This analysis will facilitate the development of a County

investment strat-gy as part of the Maryland Rural Development Program. This

investment strategy will be used by FmHA, DECD and other federal and State

agencies on the Joint Funding Committee as well as by the local governments of

Dorchester County as a guide for the allocation of resources to further economic

and community development.

Section A of the profile is a summary of recent development actions in

Dorchester County through February, 1981, while specific projects and programs

to address the development needs are enumerated in Sections B through H. The

information contained in the profile is from federal , State and local sources

and has been reviewed for accuracy and completeness by representatives of

Dorchester County. Federal sources include the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Sewer Priority List and material from the U. S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD), U. S. Corps of Engineers and FmHA. State sources

include Maryland Department of State Planning's (DSP) Grants in Aid List,

Maryland Department of Transportation's (MDOT) Consolidated Transportation Plan

and material from Maryland Departmen.. of Natural Resources (DNR), Maryland

Office on Aging, School Construction Division of the Maryland Department of

Education, DECD's Community Development Administration (CDA), Maryland

industrial Land Act (MILA), Maryland Industrial Development Financing Authority

(MIDFA), Maryland Industrial and Commercial Redevelopment Fund (MICRF), and the

Division of Local and Regional Development.

section A. Summary of Current Activities

As shown in the following map of Dorchester County, six types of

development projects and programs are in progress at the present time in the

County. Most of these projects contribute to the improvement or expansion of

public facilities or services (water and sewer, transportation, and educational

facilities), areas of investment traditionally assumed to be the responsibility

of the public sector. Numerous projects, however, are also ongoing in the area

of housing rehabil itation and/or devel opment , industrial and commercial

development, and nursing care, areas of responsibility into which the public

sector has recently moved. In addition, most of these projects were or are

being assisted with federal or State monies from FmHA,,HUD, EPA, Maryland DECD

(CDA, MILA and MIDFA), Maryland DOT and Maryland Department of Health and Mental

Hygiene. Also, the majority of the projects are located in Cambridge, which

supports the County's and towns' intent to encourage development in and around

existing town centers, particularly Cambridge which is considered the principal

growth area in the County.

Section B. Employment Projects

The projects listed below are directed toward resolving the need to

increase full time employment opportunities that help to increase family income

and reduce the advantage of out-of-county employment.

1. Construction of an access road, a rail siding and sewer and water

facilities for the Chesapeake Industrial Park is being undertaken by

MAP 4

DORCHESTER COUNTY

%
r ock
19V I.- S,,.Sicre
East'NeVL
Market.
(1 2)
4 iamf A, sel.
14
2 A

Church Vi nna
Creek

%
%
%
00
1@r %
%

Key

Major Highway
Oth:r Hiqhway
Sew r Projects
w Water Projects
go Solid Waste Projects
a Industrial Development Projects
-6 CDmmcrcial Develolwmnt Projects
-a Housing Development Projects
T Agricuitural Development Projects
* Education Facilities Projects
J0 Ciovernment Buildings Projects
Ilealth Care Projects
MNursfna Home and Other Senior Citizen
rrn.jects

SCALE: I INCH EQUALS 5 MILES
e

-gill

the County with $738,400 from the Economic Development Administration

(EDA), $100,000 from the Maryland Section 304 Program, $84,600 from

the County and a $500,000 MILA loan closed in December of 1980.

During construction, the new industrial park supported 30 jobs and

will create 940 jobs through the location of new industrial tenants.

These facilities will also serve the site of Airpax Electronics.

2. DECD is aiding in the restructuring of present loans of the Harper and

Bateman Pickle Company in Hurlock to permit the removal of old

buildings and construction of new facilities. The extent of this

project is still under consideration by the owner.

3. Daffin Disposable, Inc. was aided by DECD in financing the purchase of

the former Perfect Garment Company Building in Secretary. Money was

also used for building renovation, purchase of equipment and the

training of the initial work force. The company is currently

operating in its new location and expects to increase its work force

to almost 350 by 1984.

4. DECD aided the Railcon Corporation in locating prospective sites in

Dorchester County. Preliminary zoning approval is pending site

approval. This company would be a rail user and employ 20 to 30

persons.

5. Dorchester County approved on December 21, 1982 an industrial revenue

bond for $500,000 for the Eastern Maryland Wood Treating Company. The

bond was issued on December 22, 1982 for an adjustable rate based on a

percentage of the prime interest rate. This company is expected to

create an additional 20 jobs.

6. An Industrial Retention Program was begun in March of 1980 by the

Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the economic development

consultant. The Chamber is continuing to manage the program with

funds from the County Commissioners. The Chamber has contracted for a

full time Economic Development Coordinator. These actions have

allowed the county to become certified under the Maryland Certified

Counties Program.

7.- In 1982, DECD provided a $3,340 matching grant for development of

County tourism. This grant is being used to advertise tourist

attractions in various ways including publication of touri sm

bulletins.

Section C. Education Projects

The projects listed below are directed toward resolving the need to

increase the skill level of the population and labor force. Educational

facilities include development of new educational and training programs, new

school construction projects and additions and renovation of existing schools.

The construction projects are approved by the School Construction Division of

the Maryland Department of Education.

1. Construction was c ompleted in June, 1982 of a new school facility with

a capacity of 395 students and contains 38,000 square feet to replace

the Hurlock Intermediate School built in 1925 and the Hurlock Primary

School built in 1956.

2. A grant of $38,952 from the U. S. Department of Education has been

provided to the County Board of Education to undertake a reading

improvement program.

3. Chesapeake College, a 2-year regional community college with an

enrollment of over 1,400 in Queen Anne's County, serves Caroline,

Dorchester, Kent , Queen Anne's and Tal bot Counties. Chesapeake

provides general tra in ing in t he areas of secretarial science,

business management technology, electronics technology and wide

variety of pre-empl oyment a nd s peci f ic tra i n i ng at convenient

locations throughout the County.

4. The Dorchester Vo-Tech Center in Cambridge offers courses in auto

mechanics, body and fender repair, carpentry, electricity,

horticulture, medical science, food service, air conditioning and

refrigeration, diesel and marine mechanics, welding, and masonery.

These courses increase the technical skills of all segments of the

labor force.

5. The Maryland- Industrial Training Program of DECD has aided Airpax

Electronics and Daffin Disposables in establishing training programs.

Airpax, which is 1 o ca ted in Cambridge adjacent to t he proposed

industrial park, expects to add 325 jobs in the next few years.

6. Wor-Wic Tech conducts a nursing program in Cambridge. The program has

two types of courses. One course leads to a practical nursing

certificate (one year) and the other to an Associate degree (two

years) in nursing. The certificate course is attended by 32 full time

and 12 part time students and the degree course is attended by 20 full

time and 40 part time students.

Section D. Housing Development Projects

The projects listed below are directed toward resolving the need to

improve quantity and quality of housing particularly for low income, elderly and

handicapped people. Housing projects are categorized as multifamily projects,

single family projects, housing rehabilitation projects and housing targeted

specifically to the elderly.

1. Multifamily Housing

Two housing projects are located in Cambridge and administered through

the City Housing Authority. One housing project has 150 units with a

contract authority of $117,402, a budget authority of $4,696,000 and a

loan authority of $2,453,006. The other project has 40 units with a

contre-t authori",, of $71,476, a budget authority of $2,859,040 and a
loan authority of $82'8,702.

- Burt Mill Apartments is located in Cambridge and has 40 units of FmHA

Section 8 housing.

- Cambridge Park Apartments located in Cambridge has 30 units of Section

8 housing.

- Greenwood Village Apartments is located in Cambridge and has 20 units

of FmHA Section 8 housing.

- Thirty-seven units of CDA existing Section 8 housing is located in

three housing projects in Cambridge and administered by the Cambridge

Housing Authority.

- CDA Multifamily Program has provided financing for two projects.in the

County from implementation to December 31, 1982. These projects

contains 152 Section 8 units funded for $4,737,800.

- The Crusader Arms Apartments is located in Cambridge and has 56 units

of Section 8 housing.

- The Prospect Heights Apartments is located in Hurlock and has 16 units

of FmHA admininstered Section 8 housing.

2. Housing Rehabilitation

- Nineteen units of Section 8 moderate rehabilitated housing are located

in Cambridge. Eight of these units are designated for elderly

persons.

- A small cities CDBG of $486,780 from HUD has been awarded to Cambridge

to provide decent housing especially for low and moderate income

families.

- Through December 31, 1982, the Maryland Housing Rehabilitation Program

has assisted the rehabilitation of 15 units at an investment of

$128,950 and the Residential Energy Conservation Program has assisted

six units for a cost of $20,000.

3. Elderly Housing

- Cambridge Senior Citizen Apartments contain 122 Section 8 elderly

units mortgaged under the CDA Multifamily Program for $3,662,000 (CDA

Revenue Bond, 1979 Series B). Parkside Village contains 30 units

mortgaged for $1,075,760.

4. Single Family Housing

- From implementation of the program to December 31, 1982, 32 loans for

a total of $766,600 have been made in Dorchester County through CDA's

Single Family Programs. The Maryland Home Financing Program financed

25 units at a cost of $553,400 and the Mortgage Purchase Program

financed seven at a cost of $213,200.

- FmHA 502 program for low income families has provided $1,040,220 for

52 units in Dorchester County. FmHA 504 Program has provided $6,320

for two projects.

Section E. Health Care Projects

The projects listed below are directed toward resolving the need to

improve health care.

- The North Dorchester Health Service received a rural health initiative

grant of $73,600 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS) to develop a primary care clinic.

- A Senior Volunteer Program is sponsored by the Dorchester Community

Development Corporation with funding of $18,558 from ACTION. This

program is to develop a variety of community volunteer service

opportunities for persons 60 and over through community oriented, cost

shared projects.

Through the Maryland Office on Aging and Maintenance of the Aged in

the Community, Inc., funds are channeled into Dorchester County for

nutrition programs ($72,821, federal Title III-C), social services and

senior centers ($52,742, federal Title III-B, and $16,429, federal

Title V), home delivered meals ($557), a life support program (which

provides personal services of volunteers to nursing home residents)

and other funds totaling $500.

In 1979, Cambridge House expanded its facility by 60 beds for a cost

of $660,000 (1977 dollars). This expansion was privately financed.

Dorchester General Ho s pi tal provides medical , surgical , obstetrical

and pediatric care. The hospital has 125 beds and a staff of 50

physicians. In 1980, the hospital was renovated, and the County

issued a general obligation bond of $1.8 million to help finance the

renovation. The County continues to support the hospital with 112

percent of the funds of the liquor dispensary program of the hospital.

Section F. Community Facilities Projects

The projects listed below are directed toward resolving the need to

improve community facilities.

1. Transportation Projects

- Four lane primary highway construction for 3.7 miles on U.S. Route 50

at the Choptank River crossing and approaches to Cambridge are

proposed by MDOT. This project which has costs of $364,000 for

preliminary planning, $4,400,000 for preliminary engineering,

$3,234,000 for right of way acquisition and $80,000,000 for

construction. The purpose of construction is to prevent tie ups on

Route 50 during summer weekends.

- Evaluation of four lane freeway construction on U.S. Route 50/Vienna

Bypass is being undertaken by MDOT. This project, which will be built

if more money is available,. has costs of $169,000 for preliminary

planning, $4,540 for preliminary engineering, $180,000 for right of

way acquisition and $57,200,000 for construction.

- Two lane reconstruction of Maryland Route 14 from Maryland 392 to

Maryland 331 for 2.64 miles is being undertaken by MDOT. Costs

include $80,000 for preliminary engineering, $55,000 for right of way

acquisition, and $910,000 for construction.

- Evaluation of two lane construction and bridge replacement for 0.42

miles on Maryland Route 313 at the Sharptown Bridge is being

undertaken by MDOT. This project, which will be funded if more money

becomes available, has costs of $66,000 for preliminary engineering,

$10,000 for right of way acquisition and $4,989,000 for construction.

- A $200,000 community facility loan from FmHA has been made to the

Cambridge-Dorchester Airport for the purchase of hangars and an

existing lease at the airport from Jet America, Inc. The County will

use its own money (approximately $73,000) to construct an

administration building using three modular units. The airport now

has a new fixed based operator. In addition, the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) awarded grants totaling $372,866 and the State

contributed approximately $36,000 to the County for the construction

of a taxiway and drainage improvements which were completed in early

1981.

2. Sewerage Projects

The City of Cambridge Department of Public Works is undertaking a

sewer system evaluation survey to determine the impacts of system

r0rabilitation and total separation of sanitary waste and s to rm

runoff. The total cost of this survey is $646,500 and is supported by

an EPA grant of $484,870 and State grant from DHMH of $80,815 plus

$80,815 from the City. Until the survey is completed, accurate

estimates of construction cost cannot be made. However, it is

anticipated that the complete project including the total separation

of sanitary and storm water would cost about $4 million.

- The City of Cambridge Department of Public Works is conducting a study

of the market and marketing techniques for composted sludge.

- The Mayor and Council of Hurlock are expanding and upgrading the

Town's sewerage treatment plant. Planning for this project, began in

January, 1977 with the issuance of State and federal grants that

allowed preparation of a facilities plan for a cost of $70,000. This

plan was completed in May, 1981 and it recommended upgrading of the

treatment plant a nd addition of a disinfection system with a

pretreatment program. Also, this plan recommended no discharge during

t he summer months to protect water quality. Treatment plant

improvements are currently under design and construction of the entire

project will cost an estimated $424,000 of which the EPA share is

$318,000 and the State and local shares are both $53,000. The State

and federal grants for this project were awarded in August, 1981.

The Mayor and Council of Vienna are undertaking the construction of

improvements to the sewerage treatment plant and the sewer system.

The recommended sewerage treatment plant improvements involve

installation of an extra chamber on the effluent stream that would

provide for chlorination and dechlorination. Improvements to the

collection system would be to correct the infiltration/ inflow problems

to. provide better treatment and to prevent overloading during storm

conditions. The total cost of this project is $340,800, and in

September, 1 980, EPA and State grants were awarded in the amounts of

$255,600 and $42,600 respectively. The local share of the project is

also $42,600 for which an FmHA loan will be requested. Although the

construction of the treatment plant improvements was contracted for

March, 1981, the sewer system improvements have not been bid to date.

The Towns of Secretary and East New Market sponsored construction of a

sewer collection system for the communities. This project involved

upgrading of the sewerage treatment system and installation of force

mains and pumping stations. The existing lagoons at Secretary would

be utilized for secondary treatment. The construction grant for

this project was issued in February, 1980. The total cost of the

project was $799,600 of which the EPA share was $599,700, the State

grant was $99,950 and the local share was $11,700. The local share

was financed by a loan from the FmHA. This project was completed in

March, 1982.

The Dorchester County Sanitary Commission is redesigning a 30,000 gpd

innovative alternative vacuum collection system for the Church Creek

area. During the redesign, disposal options are being restudied. The

Commis-4on is e-aluating the feasibility of connecting a pressure

sewer system to the City of Cambridge system. Before the redesign

study, EPA and State grants were awarded for an innovative system, the

EPA share of the project is 85 percent of the total eligible cost of

$1,102,510 or $937,130. The 1 ocal share is $41,348 and the State

share $124,032. Because of the redesign study, this project cannot be

implemented until 1984.

The Dorchester Sanitary Commission developed a facilities plan for the

Christs Rock area. This plan evaluated the use of an innovative

system that would have cost $417,500. The County Commissioners

decided not to construct the facility because of the lack of citizen

support. Presently, each individual owner is responsible for managing

his own sewerage discharge.

The Dorchester Sanitary Commission also is considering improvements to

the lagoon in Sanitary District #1, located west of Cambridge. The

facilities plan has been expanded to review the alternative of pumping

sewerage to the City of Cambridge system. The current cost of this

planning study is $62,160 of which the EPA share is $46,620 and the

State and local shares are both $7,770. The estimated cost of the

selected alternative is $1,800,000.

The Dorchester County Sanitary Commission is constructing sewerage

facilities for the Jacktown area located east of Cambridge. This area

has a high percentage of septic tanks in need of repair. The

Commission is considering an innovative grinder pump pressure sewer

system to connect to Cambridge that would cost $1.6 million to

construct. As presently designed, the project was amended to be done

in phases. State and federal grants for Phase I of the project were

awarded in August, 1981. The total cost of Phase I i s $725,550 of

which the federal share is $616,930 and the State share is $81,650.

The local share is $27,220 and will be funded out of sanitary sewer

charges to be levied by the Sanitary Commission. The project should

be operational in late 1983.

The City of Cambridge a nd Dorchester County are pursuing the

construction of a hospital force main. This project is for the

purpose of separating the hospital's sewage flow from the City's

system. The project is funded by a State loan of $76,650 and local

funds equaling $10,950.

Maryland Environmental Service is pursuing the engineering and

construction of an innovative treatment system and pressure sewer

system for the Horn Point Center for Estuarine and Environmental

Studies. The engineering study will cost $173,600, and the

construction will cost $762,000.

3. Water Projects

- Construction of a water tank in Hurlock is sponsored by the Town with

a $449,000 domestic water loan from FmHA.

- The Town of Vienna is currently sponsoring a water project with

$304,000 in loans and $354,000 in grants from FmHA. This project will

replace the high sodium water supply currently being pumped from the

Calvert Strata.

- The Town of East New Market has a $197,900 grant and a $176,800 loan

from FmHA for the construction of a water project.

4. Public Facilities Projects

- Dredging, pier construction, repairing and resurfacing of the parking

lot for a public boat ramp in Secretary was to be undertaken 1978-79

with $39,820 in funds from the Maryland DNR. The project provides

improved access to recreational facilities.

An "imminent threat" grant from HUD is-being sought by the Secretary

Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. to construct a new firehouse to replace the

existing, inadequate facility.

The Vienna Volunteer Fire Co. is replacing obsolete equipment to

maintain equipment certification with $63,000 in loans from FmHA and

$63,000 from fund raising activities sponsored by the fire company.

Section G. Revitalization Projects

The projects listed below are directed toward resolving the need to

increase retail sales in the central business districts of Cambridge and Vienna.

1. Cambridge Creek Redevelopment Project. This project involves the

development of motel -restaurant complex, commercial stores, and

housing around Cambridge Creek primarily with private investment. The

project would include developing a river walk, bulkheading of the

Creek, and improving water, sewer, and streets. The development

program and marketing survey for this project was conducted by the

American Cities Corporation for a cost of $435,000. The County and

the City of Cambridge paid for the development program, and the County

sold land to the developer of luxury homes. These homes were

developed in 1982. American Cities is currently acting as a financial

packager and a facilitator.

2. Vienna prepared a plan for redevelopment of its waterfront. The plan

recommends acquisition of the land adjacent to the waterfront, removal

of existing structures, and development of a park and a restaurant.

The pa r k development will include construction of a shelter,

resurfacing of the boat ramp, installation of an off-street parking

area, and dredging, bul kheading, planting, and seeding. The total

public investment will be $670,000.

Section H. Capacity Building

This section lists activities that aid in increasing the capacity of

Dorchester County in a variety of areas including planning.

1. Technical assistance was provided by DECD to the City of Cambridge in

determining UDAG el ibil ity.

2. The Maryland Historical Trust has provided $5,000 for the resto ration

of the Customs House in Vienna. This grant is to aid in preserving

the Town heritage.

3. The Maryland Arts Council has provided $10,530 for the artist in

schools program a nd assisted in various concerts, classes and

pe rfo rmances . Some local contribution has aided in these projects.

4. An archeological survey was undertaken by the Maryland Historical

Trust. Funding of $3,000 was provided for a summer intern to do the

survey.

5. The Maryland Historical Trust provides approximately $23,000 per year

to support the Lower Delmarva Regional Preservation Center at

Salisbury State College. The Center, which started in June, 1980 and

serves the counties of Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester,

is responsible for assisting local governments in managing cultural

resources. In 1981, the Center prepared a cultural management plan

and conducts compliance related studies and shoreline surveys. A

priority activity is to utilize remote sensing data to better manage

the cultural resources.

6. A comprehensive development plan and zoning ordinance is being

prepared by an independent consultant for the Town of Vienna. In

addition, the consultant is also undertaking a study of the impact of

the expansion of the Delmarva Power and Light plant and construction

of the Vienna Bypass on the Town. Both the plan and the study were

completed in 1981.

7. Church Creek is participating in the Small Town Assistance Program of

the Delmarva Advisory Council. This program aids towns in defining

their problems, acquiring sources of assistance and developing

solutions to identified problem areas.

8. With $15,000 in funds from the Coastal Zone Management Program, DNR's

Tidewater Administration sponsored the establishment of additional

benchmarks in flood prone areas. These funds are also being used to

develop Vienna's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.

PART IV

ANALYSIS OF INTERRELATIONSHIPS

The analysis of the interrelationships among Dorchester County's

development needs (as identified in the socio-economic profile and the plan

profile), development objectives (as presented in the plan profile), and

development activities (as listed in the activity profile) has been undertaken

to identify gaps in planning or implementation with regard to socio-economic

needs. Generally, a gap in implementation under the Maryland Rural Development

Program is identified when one of the following conditions was observed:

a. Lack of certification under the Maryland Certified Counties Program.

b. Insufficient housing rehabilitation programs to reduce the percentage

of substandard units to below the State average.

c. Insufficient job training programs to effectively retrain the labor

force.

d. Inadequate physical facilities in size and quality to support the

projected industrial , residential , and commercial development.

e. Existence of a medically underserved area in the County.

f. Incomplete implementation of a downtown revitalization program by a

community with a deteriorated central business district.

Because the purpose of the investment strategy for Dorchester County

is to develop projects to resolve such gaps, the analysis of interrelationships

is crucial to the development of the investment strategy. The findings of the

analysis are presented in Section A and possible local investments/actions

needed to resolve gaps are discussed in Section B.

Section A. Findings of the Analysis

The development needs listed in Table 11 and discussed in Part I

(socio-economic profile) and Part II (plan profile) are as follows: (a) greater

full time employment opportunities that will help to raise family income and

reduce the advantage of out-of-county employment, (b) improvement in the skill

level of labor force, (c) improved and expanded community facilities, (d) more

and better housing, (e) increased retail sales, and (f) improved medical care.

The County and town development plans for Dorchester County have

addressed each nf the above needs with the exception of increasing the skill

level. The planning gap regarding skill levels should be resolved when the

plans are updated. In particular, updating of the County plan is critical. The

current plan was adopted in 1974, and since that date, many of the needs

identified in the plan have been or are being resolved. For example, before

1974, a significant percentage of the County's young people were moving from the

County to find job opportunities. Today, out-migration is not a major problem

because of increased job opportunities in the County. An updating of the plan

would recognize the progress in economic development since 1978 and would refine

the development objectives to address today's needs.

Despite the jobs created during the decade of the 1970s, the need

still exists to increase full time employment opportunities that help to raise

family income and reduce the advantage of employment in other counties. TO

resolve this need, the County intends to attract new industry providing

year-round employment, promote existing food processing industries, and develop

recreational facilities and services r-lated to tourism.

Table 11: INTERRELATIONSHIP OF DEVELOPMENT NEEDS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTIVITIES IN
DORCHESTER COUNTY

Development Needs Development Objectives Develupmetit Activities,

Increase full time employ- - Attract new industry Industrial expdrision No I
ment opportunities that - Expand existing industry projects
help to raise family in- especially agricultural New industry on rdil line
come and reduce the advan- and seafood processing. Tourism Projects
tage of out-of-county - Uevelop recreational drid Industrial Retention Pru-
employment. tourism facilities and gram for LhdmDer of
services Commerce
-MCLP LertitlCdtlUrl
-Industrial training
2. Improve the skill level of - None program for AirpdX & 14U
labor force. Udffin Uisposables
-County Vo-Tech Center in
Cambridge
-Support of CheSdpedKe
College
-Wur-wic Tech-Nursing

3. Improve and expand Provide adequate -Chesapeake Industrial Pdrk In
community facilities. facilities including -Water dnd Sewerdge fi
maintenance of rail and Projects ad
improvement of port -highway Projects ex
-FindnCial support of fd
Cambridge rail line
-Lambridge-uorchester
Airport
-MPA's Development of
Cambriage Port

4. Improve and expand the - Rehabilitate substandard -kehabi litatea housing in Urn
quality and quantity of housing Cambridge re
housing. - Provide units, including -New multi-tdMily WUSing Pd
mobile homes, for low and in Cambriage and murluCk Up
moderate income families Ld
1"Id

Development Needs Development objectives Development Activities

5. Increase retail sales. Revitalize CBD of - Cambridge Creek N
Cambridge Redevelopment Project
- Small Town Assistance
Program for Church Creek
- Vienna Waterfront Plan

6. Improve medical care. Expand nursing home units - Senior Volunteer Program I
- North Dorchester Health c
Service
- Cambridge House Expansion
- County support of
Dorchester General
Hospital

The development activities associated with the objectives of expanding

existing industry and attracting new industry have been initiated by the private

sector with the assistance of the DECD financing programs. These activities

include assistance with (a) refinancing of loans for the Harper and Bateman

Pickle Company in Hurlock, (b) site selection of Railcon Corporation and (c)

funding for Eastern Maryland Wood Treating, (d) acquisition and renovation of

building and purchase of equipment for Daffin Disposable, Inc. and, (e) the

expansion of Airpax Electronics. Although the County and town governments did

not provide direct financial support to the businesses, they provided support in

terms of zoning approvals and funding of supportive community services and

facilities. Also, the County has spent many dollars on disposal of food

processing waste and has encouraged the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

to lower itsdisposal requirements.

The ongoing Chamber of Commerce's Industrial Program emphasizes

expansion of existing business. DECD assisted the Chamber in developing its

industrial retention program, and in 1982, the County was certified under the

Maryland Certified Counties Program. Certification provides grant funds to the

County for promotion of industrial development.

The objective of developing recreational and tourism facilities is

being accompl ished by three activities. The County, using State funds, is (a)

repairing public boat ramps, particularly one in Secretary, that will provide

access to recreational facilities, (b) restoring the Customs House in Vienna,

and (c) advertising the County's tourist attractions. These activities appear

to be sufficient for the near future.

The need to improve the skill level of the labor force has not been

addressed in the County's plans. Therefore, a planning gap exists. Despite the

planning gap, four activities have been or are 'being implemented to address

these needs: (a) vocational education classes are provided through the County

Vo Jec h Center, (b) voca t i o nal /tec hn i c al and ad ul teducation courses at

Chesapeake College and Delaware Tech have been initiated in the last two years,

training programs funded by the Maryland Industrial Training Program for Airpax.

Electronics and Daffin Disposables are being conducted. These activities should

be sufficient to satisfy the need to increase skill levels of all segments of

the labor force. Also, the existing programs at the County Vo-Tech Center and

Chesapeake College should be sufficient to provide the needed pre-employment
trainin g. The need to improve and expand community facilities is addressed by

the County's objective of providing adequate facilities including maintenance of

the rail line and improvement of the Cambridge Port. The activities to satisfy

this objective are as follows: (a) construction of sewerage facilities for

Cambridge, Hurlock, East New Market-Secretary, Church Creek and Christs Rock,

(b) construction of water facilities for Hurlock, Vienna, and East New Market,

Choptank and Nanticoke Rivers, (d) redevelopment of the Cambridge-Dorchester

Airport including construction of a taxiway, (e) construction of an access road,

a rail spur, and sewerage facilities for the Chesapeake Industrial Park, (f)

financial support to maintain rail service between Cambridge, Hurlock, and

Seaford , Del aware, and (g) administrative support to development of the

Cambridge Port by Maryland Port Authority (MPA). These activities when fully

implemented, should provide adequate public and community facilities and,

thereby, contribute to the County's capability to keep and attract industry.

However, local fi nanci al resources are insufficient to fully support these

activities.

The need to expand the quantity and to improve the quality of housing

has the objectives of providing new units including mobile homes for low and

moderate income families and rehabilitating substandard housing. Projects to

date have resulted in the construction of an estimated 695 new Section 8 housing

units in Cambridge and Hurlock and the rehabilitation of about 20 units of

Section 8 housing in Cambridge. All of these projects utilized State and fed-

eral financial assistance. Regardless of the progress in Cambridge and Hurlock,

substandard housing still exists in these communities in Crocheron, Upper Hooper

Island, Lakesville, and East New Market. Although this gap in implementation

needs to be resolved, its resolution in Crocheron, Upper Hooper Island, and

Lakesville is dependent on finding a solution to the sewerage problems that

currently exist throughout the southern part of the County.

The need to increase retail sales in downtown Cambridge has existed

for many years. In 1970 both the County and the City of Cambridge established

the objective of revitalizing the central business district of the City. The

core of this revitalization effort is the Cambridge Creek Redevelopment Concept.

The concept was refined by the American Cities Corporation in a waterfront

revitalization study that was supported by County, City, and private funds.

Based on this study and technical assistance from DECD, several businesses in

downtown Cambridge have been or are now being renovated. Implementation of the

American Cities Program is critical to resolving this need in Cambridge.

The need to improve health care is being partially addressed by the

objective of expanding nursing home units. Although Cambridge House has been

expanded and the Senior Volunteer Program is providing needed services to the

elderly, additional domiciliary care units are needed in the County. However,

no projects are being pursued that would provide the needed domiciliary units.

The medically underserved areas that exist in Dorchester County have

been addressed by the County Commissioners through support of Dorchester General

Hos pi tal and development of a primary care center at Hurlock. The North

Dorchester He alt h Service was assisted in this effort by a rural health

initiative grant. These health care improvements should eliminate the current

medically underserved designations. for the election districts of Fork, East New

Market, Vienna, Williamsburg, and Hurlock.

Section B. Possible Local Investments/Actions

Section A notes the following gaps in planning and implementation:

(a) no County objective to increase the skill level of the labor force, (b)

unmet needs for housing rehabilitation particularly in Crocheron, Upper Hooper

Island, Lakesville, and East New Market, (c) insufficient local financial

resources to adequately improve and expand community facilities, and (d)

insufficient domiciliary care units.

The planning gap related to increasing skill levels arise because the

towns and County plans are mostly concerned with land-use issues, zoning, and

the provision of public services and facilities. This focus is related to the

State regulations regarding these plans. However, the most recent plan for the

City of Cambridge is broader in scop- and includes poverty and unemployment

issues. It is anticipated in future updates of the County's plan that the need

for increased skill levels will be addressed. If so, the planning gap can be

corrected easily.

The gap regarding housing rehabilitation can be closed by conducting a

formal rehabilitation program in the County and towns. Additional resources are

needed for the County's program and these resources should be focused on

rehabilitation of housing in the smal ler communities in the County, particularly

Crocheron, Upper Hooper Island, Lakesville, and East New Market. In addition,

the County should develop greater staff capability in housing development or

rehabil itation. For example, the individuals trained at Chesapeake College or

the County Vo-Tech Center could be employed to improve substandard units in the
County. The implementation gap regarding community facilities will be somewhat
difficult to resolve. First, the County and the appropriate towns should

maintain effective capital improvement programs that schedule the implementation

of needed phys i c al fac i 1 i ti es to support economic development. These

governments should then allocate greater local resources and more actively seek

State and federal resources to implement their respective programs.

The gap related to domiciliary care could be corrected either by

encouraging development of a private non-profit nursing home operation assisted

financially by an i nd us tri al revenue bond or the County developing such a

facility with available grant and loan assistance. Initially, both alternatives

will require the formation of a committee of local governmental leaders and

health professionals. This committee should determine the best location for a

domiciliary care facility and the level of care that the facility should

provide.

PART V

RURAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY

The dev el o pme nt actions/investments presented in this part of the

Dorchester County Development Report are intended to resolve the existing gaps

in implementation identified in Part IV or to prevent additional gaps in

implementation from occurring in the future. These specific actions/investments

for Dorchester County constitute the rural investment strategy for Dorchester

County being developed under the Maryland Rural Development Program (MRDP). The

actions included in the strategy are categorized into four types of development:

1. Industrial and Commercial Development - Actions related to (a) the need to
retain existing job opportunities and to promote additional job oppportunites
through cooperative advertising, financial assistance to businesses, marketing
of industrial property, and (b) the need to revitalize retail sales in the
central business districts of existing communities.

2. Housing Development - Actions related to the need to improve the quality and
quantity of housing including housing rehabilitation and development of
additional single-family, rental, mobile, and specialized housing.

3. Community Facilities Development - Actions related to the needs to improve
health care and to improve and expand physical infrastructure, namely, water,
sewer, transportation facil ities , recreational facil i ties and detention
centers.

4. Skills Development - Actions related to the need to increase the skill level
of the labor force@ including communication and coordination between the
educational system, the manpower training network and the business community,
development of specialized vocational training, and improvement of the skills of
the lowest trained segment of the labor force.

These four types of development are related to the six areas of development

need presented in the socio-economic profile (Part 1) and summarized in the

analysis of interrelationships (Part IV). The need to increase retail sales was

combined with the need to increase job opportunities because the same basic

federal and State funding programs apply to both. For the same reason the

need to improve health care was combined with' the need to improve other

community facilities.

The actions or investments cited will resolve the gaps or will accomplish

an objective currently considered to be most important by the local

government(s). As additional actions to accomplish local development objectives

and to resolve socio-economic needs presented in the socio-economic profile are

identified by the County or the towns through the rural development process,

these actions will be added to the investment strategy for Dorchester County.

Thus, t he rural investment strategy (i.e., listing of development

actions/ investments) will act as a guide for the allocation of current and

future investment within Dorchester County by federal and State funding agencies

and private financial institutions.

Part V presents a combination of tabular information and text that describe

the needed development actions or investments. Table 12 presents information

relating to implementation for each action, specifically the implementing

agency, the potential sources of finance and the related supportive resources

needed to implement a project, plus the consequences and extent of the impact of

a particular action with a time frame for its implementation. The table al so

shows which gap an action wil 1 hel p to resol ve and which 1 ocal devel opment

objective will be accomplished by the action. The text summarizes the projects

and presents an overall analysis of impacts.

Section A. Industrial and Commercial Development

Investment s/actio ns A-1 through A-5 shown in Table 12 will help Dorchester

County to attract new industry and to expand existing industry. These five

projects will help the County to: (1) increase its effectiveness in promoting

itself as a good area for new industrial growth; (2) encourage existing

industries to stay in Dorchester County; and, (3) restore the economic viability

of the central business district of Cambridge. The recommended actions expand

on the current activities of the Chamber of Commerce, which have been effective

in promoting the County for business development. The current actions of the

Chamber include certification under the Maryland Certified Counties Program,

development of the Chesapeake Industrial Park, and implementation of physical

improvements needed for the Cambridge Creek Redevelopment Project.

Action A-1 is an outgrowth of the recently completed certification process

and represents an acceleration of the existing cooperative advertising program

for the County. A $10,000 grant from the Office of Business and Industrial

Development/DECD will accelerate the current promotion program by allowing the

Economic Development Committee formed through the County Chamber of Commerce to

more aggressively recruit those industries that most closely match the skills of

the existing labor force of Dorchester County. This accelerated and continuing

program was initiated in 1982.

The Economic Development Committee is also attempting to implement two

specific Actions (A-2 and A-5) designed to attract new industries in the

Cambridge area. Action A-2 is the promotion in business development at

Chesapeake Industrial Park, and Action A-5 is promotion of the Cambridge-

Dorchester Airport. Construction of the necessary access roads and water and

sewage facilities was recently completed for the industrial park, and it is now

ready for business occupancy. The airport is currently ready for industrial and

commercial firms. Outside investments are needed to aid private investors at

both si tes. Potential sources of funds are industrial revenue bonds, loan

guarantees, and loans. The County's promotion of these sites will be

co ordinated closely with Chesapeake Country, the regional promotion agency, and

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

NAME AND LOCATION OF IMPLEMENTING WHAT GAP WILL ACTION RELATED LOCAL DEVELOP
NUMBER PROJECT OR ACTION AGENCY HELP RESOLVE MENT OBJECTIVE

A-1 Cooperative Advertising Economic None Attract new industry an
Program Development assist existing industr
Committee (EDC)

A-2 Promotion and business Economic No ne Attract new industry an
development of the Development expand existing industr
Chesapeake Industrial Committee (EDC)
Pa rk

A-3 Business development in American Cities None Attract new industry an
the Cambridge Creek Corporation expand existing industr
Redevelopment Area

A-4 Promotion of the Maryland Port None Attract new industry an
Cambridge Port Administration expand existing industr
(MPA) & EDC

A-5 Industrial and Economic None Attract new industry an
Commercial Development Development expand existing industr
of the Committee (EDC)
Cambridge-Dorchester
Airport

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES
(e.g., DOES) EXPECTED IMPACTS OF ACTION
SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
NUMBER NEED TO BE DEVELOPED?) CONSEQUENCES EXTENT 0

A-1 Implement a County business advertis Countywid
ing program to promote new businesses
in the County and to match these
industries to the existing labor
force. The Economic Development
Director will administer the
cooperative advertising grant.

A-2 Cooperative Advertising Provide 1200 new jobs using curren@. Countywide
Program; shell building County staff and a portion of the
construction; pumping station cooperative advertising grant

A-3 Provide 1200 new jobs using current Countywide
County staff and a portion of the
cooperative advertising grant.

A-4 Pier improvements Promote at least one additional Cambridge
customer of the port through its
regular promotion program.

A-5 Water and sewer facilities to Provide 100 new jobs using the Countywide
airport and a road to connect current County staff and a portion of
the airport to the Industrial the cooperative advertising grant
Park

BID/DECD, the State promotion agency. When the si tes are ful ly devel oped , 1200

new permanent jobs should be available in the area.

Action A-3 is business development of the Cambridge Creek area. As wi th

the Chesapeake Industrial Park, this development was begun in 1982 and 83. The

program is being implemented by the American Cities Corporation and will be

coordinated with the Sta te and regional promotion agencies. Financial

assistance will be needed to aid private investors. In addition to the

aforementioned agencies, MICRF, EDA, and FmHA are potential sources for funding.

Action A-4 is industrial and commercial expansion in the area of the

Cambridge Port. The same technical and financial assistance needed for the

previously mentioned actions will be needed for port development. Also, this

activity needs to be coordinated with the promotion activity being implemented

by the Maryland Port Administration. Promotion and industrial development of

the port are to be implemented within 1983 and 1984.

In summary, the industrial and commercial development projects will help to

satisfy the need for job opportunities within Dorchester County. In general ,

these activities will stabilize employment in the existing commercial and

industrial firms and will create an additional 1500 permanent jobs over the next

five years.

Section B. Housing Development

Investment/actions B-6 through B-12 will resolve the gaps in implementation

related to housing development or will accomplish local development objectives

relating to providing new housing for low and moderate income families. The six

projects address the gaps and/or objectives in two ways: (a) rehabilitation of

existing units and (b) new housing construction.

As indicated in Part IV, the City of Cambridge is already conducting a

housing rehabilitation program (Action B-6). Using funds from Communi ty

Development Block Grants (CDBG), the City maintains an administative staff

(i.e., rehab administrator, inspectors, and secretarial support). A total of

$40,000 per year in CDBG funds or other funds is needed to support these

employees. In addition, CDBG funds need to be combined effectively with funds

from FmHA and DECD's Maryland Housing Rehabilitation Program to rehabilitate

about 25 homes per year. This program will allow Cambridge to complete

rehabilitation of the existing substandard units in about five years.

Next, the housing rehabilitation activities of the County Human Resources

Commission (Action B-8) should be strengthened. Additional County resources for

the Commission's staff will facilitate (a) more active processing of

applications. for loan assistance under CDA's Home Improvements Program, (b) the

provision of assistance to t he housing rehabi 1 i tat ion programs of the

incorporated municipalities, and (c) the future administration, if desirable, of

CDBG funds for rehabilitation. Also, the staff could provide technical

assistance to non-incorporated areas like Lakesville, Upper Hooper Island, and

Straits, that need adequate water and sewerage facilities before housing can be

rehab il itated .

In addition, housing rehabilitation programs for the Depot area of East

New Market and Vienna (Actions B-7 and B-9) need to be -developed. These

programs would both seek funding for needed sewerage facilities and for housing

rehabilitation of 25 houses per year. Over a five year period, implementation

of such programs would rehabilitate about 50 percent of the substandard units in

these areas . Approximately $500,000 from all funding sources (HUD, FmHA and

DECD) plus technical assistance from DECD/TA staff and the County Human

Resources Commission will be needed to undertake these programs.

1%
TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES
(e.g., DOES) EXPECTED IMPACTS OF ACTION
SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
NUMBER NEED TO BE DEVELOPED?) CONSEQUENCES EXTENT OF

B-6 Rehabilitate 25 houses per year to Cambridge
assure adequate plumbing, structural
safety and general appearance for
$10,000 per house plus the cost of
salaries for housing rehab staff

B-7 Water and sewer facilities Rehabilitate 25 houses per year to East New Mar
assure adequate plumbing, structural
safety and general appearance for
$10,000 per house plus the cost of
salaries for housing rehab staff

B-8 Water and sewer facilities Rehabilitate 25 houses per year to Targeted are
assure adequate plumbing, structural particularly
safety and general appearance for Crocheron, U
$10,000 per house Hooper Islan
Lakesville

B-9 Water and sewer facilities Rehabilitate 25 houses per year to Vienna area
assure adequate plumbing, structural
safety and general appearance for
$10,000 per house plus the cost of
salaries for housing rehab staff

B-10 Provide additional units of rental Northern par
housing. Conduct a market study to County betwe
determine feasibility of market rate Cambridge-Hu
rental housing in the northern area
of the County

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUN`Y

NAME AND LOCATION OF IMPLEMENTING WHAT GAP WILL ACTION RELATED LOCAL DEVELOP-
NUMBER PROJECT OR ACTION AGENCY HELP RESOLVE 11ENT OBJECTIVE

B-6 Continuation of housing City of Unmet housing Rehabilitate substandard
rehabilitation program Cambridge rehabilitation needs housing
for Cambridge

B-7 A housing rehabilita- Town of East Unmet housing Rehabilitate substandard
tion program for homes New Market rehabilitation needs housing
outside of Towns

B-8 Housing Rehabilitation Dorchester Unmet housing Rehabilitate substandard
Program for homes County Human rehabi i tat ion needs housing
outside of town Resources
commission,
DECD/CDA

B-9 Unmet housing Rehabilitate substandard
Housing Rehabilitation rehabilitation needs housing
Program for Vienna
B-10 Pri va te None Provide housing for low
Development of multi- developer and moderate income
family housing between families
Cambridge and Hurlock

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

NAME AND LOCATION OF IMPLEMENTING WHAT GAP WILL ACTION RELATED LOCAL DEVELOP-
NUMBER PROJECT OR ACTION AGENCY HELP RESOLVE MENT OBJECTIVE

B-11 Development of rental Town of Vienna No ne Provide @)using for low
housing in Vienna and moderate income
families

B-12 Development of single City of None Provide housing for low
family housing in Cambridge and moder:ite income
Cambridge famil ies

C-13 Improvement of City of Insufficient local Revital4ze CBD of
facilities in the Cambridge and financial resources to Cambrid-e
Cambridge Creek area Dorchester adequately improve and
including water, r-ewer, County expand community
bulkheading, streets Commissioners facil ities

C-14 Improvement of the State Rail Adm. Insufficient local To provide adequate
Cambridge-Seaford Rail (SRA) financial resources to facil ities including
line adequately improve and maintenance of rail and
expand community improvement of ports
facilities

C-15 Development of a public Rail Users Insufficient local To provide adequate
rail siding on the Association financial resources to facil ities including
Cambridge line adequately improve and maintenance of rail and
expand communty improvement of ports
facilities

A second set of investments relating to housing development are

construction and permanent financing of new single family housing in Cambridge

(Action B-12) and of rental housing for low and moderate income families in the

northern part of the County and in Vienna (Actions B-10 and B-11). Even though

no specific gap for new housing has been identified, such housing is needed in

addition to the rehabilitation of units to assure that low and moderate income

families can obtain affordable housing in the future. Each municipality with

the technical assistance from DECD/TA staff would be responsible fo r

implementing the projects. The construction and permanent financing would come

from several sources including FmHA, DECD/CDA and HUD. About $1,350,000 for

single family development in Cambridge and $800,000 for rental housing

development including supportive infrastructure in Vienna will be needed. These

two projects will provide 32 units of new housing in Cambridge and approximately

20 units in Vienna.

Action B-10, the undertaking of a market study, will lead to the

development of additional multi-family housing for moderate income families in

areas that can be served with water and sewerage facilities. The market study

will help to confirm the level of demand for one or two bedroom apartments with

a $200-$300 per month rent and to estimate the needed amount of investment funds

for this housing project.

Section C. Community Facilities Development

Investment/ act ions C-13 through C-23 will resolve the gap in implementation

related to community facilities (i.e., insufficient local financial resources)

or will accomplish the objectives related to providing adequate community

facilities in the County. Financial assistance is needed for four basic types

of community facilities: (1) water supply and sewerage facilities, (2)

industrial and commercial park development, (3) transportation facilities, and

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY P

OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES
(e.g., DOES) EXPECTED IMPACTS OF ACTION
SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
NUMBER NEED TO BE DEVELOPED?) CONSEQUENCES EXTENT OF

B-11 Provide additional 20 units of rental Vienna area
housing for a cost of $800,000 for
construction and permanent financing

B-12 Water and sewerage facilities Provide an additional 32 units of City of Camb
single family housing for low to
moderate income families for a cost
of $1,350,000 for construction and
permanent financing.

C-13 Cambridge Creek Commercial The improved facilities would provide City of Camb
development off loading equipment and more
dockage area for a construction cost
of $5,000,000.

C-14 Improve 7 grade crossings on rail Countywide
line to achieve Class 2 standards for
a cost of $180,000.

C-15 Provide a public loading/unloading Countywide
facility to increase the volume of
business on the rail line for a cost
of $150,000.

(4) health care and five protection facilities. Sufficient funds will be

available by combining t he funds from the identified outside financial

assistance programs with available local investment funds.

Currently, water supply improvements in Vienna (Action C-19) and sewage

improvements (e.g., system rehabilitation or expansion of facilities) fo r

Cambridge and Sanitary District #1 (Actions C-22 & C-23) are needed to support

additional industrial , commercial , and residential development. In the next

year, these improvements need to be implemented. These facilities will support

projected development in Vienna and Cambridge for approximately ten years. The

total cost of all of these projects will be about $5.4 million. The major

sources of outside investment for these projects will be the FmHA, the Maryland

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH), EPA, and HUD.

Redevelopment of the Cambridge Creek area is a major objective of the

County's development activities. The street improvements, bulkheading, and

water and sewerage facilities (Action C-13) will be needed to adequately

revitalize this area so that business redevelopment can continue to take place.

In 1983, loan and grant assistance from FmHA, EDA, MICRF, and the Maryland DHMH

will be needed to implement the needed facilities. The construction cost of all

of the needed community facilities is $5 million.

Several transportation improvements (Actions C-14 through C-18) are needed

to provide better support for business development in the County. These

improvements include improvement of the Seaford Cambridge rail line, development

of a public rail siding, development of the Choptank River Bridge and its

approaches, development of the Nanticoke River Bridge in Vienna, and port

related developments at Vienna and Cambridge. The most significant project is

the Choptank River Bridge. This bridge will be built to interstate standards at

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

NAME AND LOCATION OF IM PLEMENTI NG WHAT GAP WILL ACTION RELATED LOCAL DEVELO
NUMBER PROJECT OR ACTION AGENCY HELP RESOLVE MENT OBJECTIVE

C-16 Construction of a MDOT/SHA Insufficient local To provide adequate
Choptank River Bridge financial resources to facilities including
and approaches adequately improve and maintenance of rail an
expand community improvement of ports
fac i 1 i ti es

C-17 Construction of a MDOT/SHA Insufficient local To provide adequate
Nanticoke River Bridge financial resources to facilities including
and approaches at adequately improve and maintenance of rail an
Vienna expand community improvement of ports
facil ities

C-18 Redevelopment of the Town of Vienna Insufficient local To revitalize the
waterfront in Vienna financial resources to waterfront and create
adequately improve and compatible commercial
expand the waterfront recreational developme
area

C-19 Improvement of Town of Vienna Insufficient local
facilities (water financial resources to
supply, wastewater, and adequately improve and
streets) in Vienna expand community
facil ities

C-20 Development of Private Insufficient Expand nursing home un
domiciliary care Dev el o per domiciliary care
facilities for County capacity

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES
(e.g., DOES) EXPECTED IMPACTS OF ACTION
SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
NUMBER NEED TO BE DEVELOPED?) CONSEQUENCES EXTENT OF

C-16 Construct a bridge to interstate Countywide
standards for a cost of $83,000,000.

C-17 Construct a bridge to interstate Vienna area
standards for a cost of $80,000,000.

C-18 New Nanticoke River Bridge Restore Old Customs House, develop Vienna area
Open Shelter, Restaurant and Fishing
Pier, and redevelop Boat Ramp and
Ferry Tenders Office for a cost of
$700,000

C-19 Expand system capacity and Vienna am
rehabilitate system for a
construction cost of $340,000.

C-20 Construct 120 units at a construction Countywide
cost of $1,500,000.

a cost of $83,000,000 dollars. Construction will be initiated in 1985. Another

important project is improvement of the quality of the rail line. The State Rail

Administration using Transportation Trust Fund money will upgrade the line to

make it more feasible for industrial use. The estimated cost of construction is

$180,000 dollars and it should facilitate a threefold increase in traffic on the

rail line over the next five years.

Additional health care and fire protection facilities (Actions C-20 & C-21)

are also needed in the County. Specifically, a domiciliary care facility is

needed in the County and a new fire house for the Town of Secretary. The fire

house would be a 15,000 square foot building to house two fire engines at a

construction cost of $150,000. The domiciliary care facility would resolve an

implementation gap in health care by providing 120 domiciliary care units within

the County. . Funding for this project could come from the FmHA and Maryland

DHMH. The development of this facility is being coordinated with the Health

Planning Council for the Eastern Shore, which is the agency responsible for

approving the development of additional health care facilities.

Section D. Skills Development

A goal of the rural investment strategy is the reduction of local

unemployment. To accomplish this goal , it is important that the skills of the

labor force be matched to job availability. The current activities of the

Chamber of Commerce are helping to accomplish this goal by providing for

improved communication and coordination between the educational system , the

manpower training network, and the business community and also by providing a

more complete program of vocational and technical training in the skilled trades

for all segments of the labor force. Action D-24 is provision of pre-employment

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

NAME AND LOCATION OF IMPLEMENTING WHAT GAP WILL ACTION RELATED LOCAL DEVELO
NUMBER PROJECT OR ACTION AGENCY HELP RESOLVE MENT OBJECTIVE

C-21 New firehouse for Secretary Fire Insufficient local To proviO, adequate
Secretary Dept. financial resources to facilities
adequately improve and
expand community
facilities

C-22 Renovation of the City of Insufficient local To provide adequate
Cambridge sewer system Cambridge financial resources to facilit.4es
adequately improve and
expand community
facilities

C-23 Lagoon improvements in City of Insufficient local To provide adequate
Sanitary District #1 Cambridge financial resources to facilities
adequately improve and
expand community
facilities

D-24 Pre-employment PIC None None
industrial training

TABLE 12: INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY

OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES
(e.g., DOES) EXPECTED IMPACTS OF ACTION
SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
NUMBER NEED TO BE DEVELOPED?) CONSEQUENCES EXTENT OF

C-21 Construct a 15,000 sq. ft. garage to Secretary ar
house two fire engines for a
construction cost of $150,000

C-22 Improve effluent quality, rehabil- Cambridge
itate system, and separate storm and
sanitary waste for an estimated
construction cost of $4,000,000.

C-23 Improve effluent quality and Sanitary Dis
rehabilitate system for a #1
construction cost of $1,000,000.

D-24 Train 50 employees per year to add to Countywide
production operations at new or
growing industries for an annual cost
of approximately $15,000

training to industrial employees. This training will be aided by financial

assistance from the Maryland Industrial Training Program. The cost of this

training would be approximately $15,000. The current activities as well as

additional preemployment training will provide additional marketable skills to

50 employees in the existing labor force each year. Maintenance of these

tra in i ng programs will hel p the County to maintain its ef fectiveness in

industrial promotion and business retention.

SELECTED REFERENCES

General

1. A Symposium: The Quality of Rural Management," Public
Administration Review, Vol . 40, No. 1 Washington, DC: American
Society for Public Aim-inistration, January/ February 1980.

2. Brown, David, Donal d Steward and Gen e Ingalsbe (eds.). "Rural
Development Perspectives." Washington, DC Economics, Statistics
and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agricul ture, March
1980.

3. Deavers , Kenneth and David Brown. "Social and Economic Trends in
Rural America." White House Rural Development Background Paper.
Washington, DC: Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, October 1979.

4. Farmer's Home Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"Maryland State Management Plan, 1981." Newark, Del: 1980.

5. Fox, William. "Size Economies in Local Government Services: A
Review." Rural Development Research Report No. 22. Washington, DC:
Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, August 1980.

6. Hogan, William (ed.) Guide to Federal Resources for Economic
Development. Washington, DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute, 1979.

7. Flov en , Harold. Development Financing for Distressed Areas.
Washington, DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute, June 1979.

8. Kieschnick, Michael. Smal 1 Business and Community Economic
Development: A Review of Evidence, Issues and Programs." Prepared
for the National Center for Economic Alternatives, July 1979.

9. Newlin, Larry (ed.). Resource Guide for Rural Development: Handbook
for Assessing Government and Private Funding Sources. Prepared for
National Rural Center. Washington, DC 1978.

10. Office of Development Planning , Maryland Department of Economic and
Community Development. Financial Assistance to Maryland Industry.
Annapolis, MD: October 1980.
11. Pi e r'ce , Neal , Jerry Hag s trom and Carol Steinbach. Economic
Development: The Challenge of the 1980s. Washington, ff: The
Council of State Planning Agencies, 1979.

12. Regional and Local Planning Division, Maryland Department of State
Planning. A Summary of Land Use Plans and Procedures of Maryland
Counties and Balt!morLL1_t1_. Baltimore, MO: August-797-9-.

13. Regional and Local Planning Division, "Maryland Department of State
Planning. Directory of Maryland Planning Agencies, 1979. Baltimore,
MD: 1978. -

14. "Rural Development Policy Act of 1980." Public Law 96-355. September
24, 1980.

15. Rural Development Progress: Fifth Report of the Secretary of
Agriculture to the Congress. Washington, DC U.S. Department of
Agriculture, October 1979.

16. Rural Development Progress: Fourth Annual Report of the Secretary of
Agriculture to the Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, January 1977.

17. "Small Community and Rural Development Policy." The White House.
Washington, DC: December 20, 1979.

18. Stam, Jerome and J. Norman Reid. "Federal Programs Supporting
Multicounty Substate Regional Activities: An Overview." Rural
Devel opment Reseach Report No. 23. Washington, DC : Economics,
Statistics and Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
August 1980.

PART I

1. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Characteristics
of Housing Units by Minor Civil Division, 1980: Year Round Housing
Units - Tenure and Vacancy Status by-P-lumbing Facil iTI-es -;Housing
Units by Number of Rooms per Unit. Maryland Department of State
Planning, February 1982 (Printouts).

2. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Census of
Housing, 1980 Census Profile, Population and Housing CharaFt-eristics
for Maryland Counties. Maryland Department of State Planning
Publication 82-3, Census Profile Series, January 1982.

3. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Maryland
Population Data, State, CounU, Minor Civil Division and Municipal
Trends ThrougF--T9-80. Maryland Depirtment of State Planning
Publication 81-25. Statistical Report Series, October 1981.

4. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Maryland 1980
Population by Age and Sex. Maryland Department of State Planning,
January 1982.

5. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. County Business
Patterns, 1977: Maryland. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Ff-fice, July 1979.

6. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Employment
by Type and Broad Industrial Sources, 1976-1981. Washington, DC:
April 1983.

7. Business and Industrial Development, Maryland Department of Economic
and Community Development. "Brief Industrial Facts: Dorchester
County, Maryland." Annapolis, MD: January 1981.

8. Division of Fiscal Research, Maryland Department of Fiscal Services.
Local Government Finance in Maryland for Fiscal Year ended June 30,
T980. Annapolis, MD: May 1981.

9. Division of Licensing and Certification, Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene. Directory of Acute General Hospitals_and__Special
Hospitals. Baltimore, MD: May 1978.

10. Division of Licensing and Certification, Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene. Directory of Licensed Institutions. Baltimore,
MD: May 1978.

11. Division of Research, Maryland Department of Economic and Community
Devel opment . Maryland Statistical Abstract, 1979. Annapolis, MD:
February 15, lq-8O.

12. Maryland Center for Health Statistics, Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene. Annual Vital Statistics Report, 19.7.7. Baltimore,
MD: 1978.

13. Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. Thirty Sixth Report.
Made to the Governor and General Assembly. Balf-imore, MD: January
1980.

14. Maryland Department of State Planning. Age and_Mobility Character-
istics of Maryland, 1970. Volume Il. Baltimore, MD: 1974.

15. Maryland Department of State Planning. Maryland Family Income
Characteristics, 1970. Publ ication 178. Baltimore, MD. April 1972.

16. Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of the State of Maryland. Character-
istics of Physicians in Maryland: December 31, 1977. MD: -j-uly 1979.

17. Ma ryl and Department of State Planning. Census of Population and
Housing, 1980 - Summary Tape File 3A, Dorchester County, pages
106-124.

18. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Wel fare. "Health Manpower Shortage Areas: Criteria for Designation,"
Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 6. Washington, DC : January 10, 1978.

19. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Wel fare. "Designation of Medically Underserved Areas," Federal
Register, Vol. 41, No. 201. Washington, DC: October 15, 1976.

20. Research and Analysis Division, Maryland Department of Human
Resources. "Affirmative Action Data: Dorchester County." Baltimore,
MD: September, 1982.

21. Re search and Anal ysi s Divi s ion, Mar yland Department of Huma n
Resources. "Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment by Place of
Residence, 1982." Baltimore, MD: March 1983.

22. Sales and Marketing Management - Survey of Buying Power. New York
City, NY: 1970, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981.

23. Subcommittee on Education to the Task Force to Study State-Local
Fiscal Relationships. Final Report. Annapolis, MD: January 28, 1981.

24. Tawil , Jack and Robert Goodman. "A General Framework for Assessing
the Potential Social-Economic Impact of MIDFA Applicants." Annapolis,
MD: Division of Research, Maryland Department of Economic and
Community Development, February 1976.

PART 11

1. Andrews, Miller and Associates. Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan
for Dorchester County, Maryland. Prepared fo r the County
Commissioners of Dorchester County, Maryland, 1974.

2. Comprehensive Plan, Secretary, Maryland (draft). 1981.

3. Frago, Jacob and Robert Dodd. The Comprehensive Plan: Cambridge,
Maryland, Comprehensive Planning Program. 1978.

4. Maryland Department of State Planning. The Lower Eastern Shore
Region. Baltimore, MD: February 1979.

5. Overal 1 Economic Development Program Committee. Overall Economic
Development Program, Dorchester County, Maryland. 1976.

6. Urban Pathfinders, Inc. The Comprehensive Plan: Dorchester County,
Maryland, Comprehensive Planning Program. Prepared for the Dorchester
County Planning and Zoning Commission, November 1974.

PART III

Miscellaneous, published and unpublished information from:

1. Chesapeake College

2. Community Services Administration,

3. Economic Development Administration, U.S'. Department of Commerce,

4. Farmers Home Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

5. Maryland Department of Economic and Community Development,

6 Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,

7. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,

8. Maryland Department of State Planning,

9. Maryland Department of Transportation,

10. Maryland Office on Aging, '

11. Maryland State Board of Education,

12. U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army,

13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

14. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

15. U.S. Department of Labor,

16. U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency, and

17. Wor-Wic Tech Community College.

Department of Economic and Community Development
Division of Local and Regional Development
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

3 6668 00oOO 8708