Northampton background study

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

Coastal Zon@e
Information
zu; py
E Cc'
Center

MAY
3

7;@
w9M

7 v-i
@gk@ J
northa n
LA

HT
165 c
N6
1975
c.2
PATHFINDERS; INC.

t 3

Will,

oft-w

d1ozo-

1A111

Prepared for:
Northampton County Planning Commission
Courthouse
Eastville, Virginia 23347 t Z I C collection
Prepared by: -

Urban Pathfinders, Inc.
P.O. Box 8642
Baltimore/Washington Int'l Airport
Baltimore, Maryland 21240

January, 1975

Z
ftv%EFFPFN1q%r@ PU -PY

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page

INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................ o ..............

CHAPTER ONE
Natural Features .......... ......................... 9

CHAPTER TWO
Population ............ .................... 27

CHAPTER THREE
Economics ............................................... 47

CHAPTER FOUR
Housing ................................... o ............ 79

CHAPTER FIVE
Public Services ........ ........... ............... 97

CHAPTER Six
Transportation ................... ................. ... 115

CHAPTER SEVEN
Land Use ... .................... o .................. 0 ..... 129

CHAPTER EIGHT
Public Finance ....... ......... .............. ... 139

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

I-A Brown & Root Industrial Site Map .................... x

1-A Physiographic Regions Map ........................... 12

1-B Barrier Island Erosion .............................. 13

1-C Marshland Acreages ....................... 14

1-D Protected Areas .... ............................ o .... 15

1-E Protected Areas Map ..... o.......................... 16

1-F Flood Hazard Areas Map ................... o .......... 18

1-G Soil Associations By Percent of Land Area ........... 19

1-H Agricultural Suitability Map ........................ 20

Timber Typeo ... -- ...... ............... 0 ...... 21

1 J Timer Growth and Cut Rates .......................... 22

.1-K Estimated Eastern Shore (Virginia) Water Needs: 1970. 24

2-A 1970 Populations: Lower Delmarva Peninsula ........ 29

2-B Governmental Jurisdictions map .................. 30.

2-c Population Change " Lower Delmarva Peninsula:
1960-1970 ............................. oo ...... 0 ..... 31

2-D Northampton County Population: 1930-1970 32

2-E Racial Composition of Magisterial Districts: 1970 33

2-F Population Distribution by Towns and Magisterial
Districts .......... ........................ ........ 35

Page

2-G Median Age of County Residents: 1960-1970 .......... 36.

2-H Population Age Profile: 1960-1970 .................. 38

2-1 Total Population Migration Patterns: 1960-1970 ..... 39

2-1 Population Migration By Race: 1960-1970 .......... 41

2-K Northampton County - Highest Level of Education ..... 42

2-L Migrant Population Per Month: 1973 o ................ 43

2-M Population Projections ............................... 45

3-A Per Capital Income: 1959-1969 ...................... 49

.3-B 1969 Per Capita.'[email protected] by 1970 Magisterial District.. 50,

3-C Median Annual Family Income: 1959-1969 ............. 51

3-D Distribution of Annual Family Income: 1969 .......... 52

3-E Families Below Poverty Level: 1969 ...- ........ 53

3-F Distribution of Annual Black Family Income: 1969 ... 54

3-G Black Families Below Poverty Level: 1969 ...... 55

3-H Average Weekly Wages: 1970-1973 .... o ............... 56

3-1 Selected Weekly Wages: 1973 ........... o ............ 57

3-J Employment By Industry: 1950-1972 ............... 58

3-K Manufacturing in Northampton County: 1972 ........ 60

3-L Farm.Statistics: 1964-1969 ...................... 61

3-M Value of Farm Products .............................. 62

3-N Acres of Crops Harvested ... oo ....................... 63-

i@v

Page
3-0.' Value of Seafood Catch: 1969 .-1973 ............. 64

3-P Retail Sales Per Capita: 1973 ...... o ............... 65

3-Q Retail Trade and Services Sales: 1967-1972 o ........ 66

3-R Wholesale Trade Sales: 1967-1972 .......... o ........ 66

3-S Workers Commuting Out-Of-County: 1970, Lower Delmarva
Peninsula ........................................... 67

3-T Destination of Northampton Out-Commuters: 1960-
1970 ................................................ . 68

3-U Residence of In-Commuters to Northampton: ".1960-
1970 ................................................ 69

3-V County Work Force and Employment Levels: 1968-1972.. 71

3-W Unemployment: 1968-1972 ............................ 72
3-X Labor Pool Occupations: 1970 ........................ 73
3-Y Seasonal Employment By Industry: 1972 ............... 74

3-Z Distribution of Easter n Shore Unemployment By
Industry ............................................ 75

3-AA Skill Level of Unemployed Virginia Eastern Shore
Manufacturing Workers: 1972 ........................ 76

3-BB Future Employment Levels: Year-Round Workers ....... 77

4-A New Housing Units .......................... ......... 82

4-B Location and Occupancy of Housing Units: 1970 ....... 83

4-C Housing Occupancy By Race: 1970 .................... 84

4-D Age of Occupied Housing By District: 1970 .......... 85

4-E Age of Housing By Occupancy: 1970 .................. 85

Paq e

4-F Housing Deficiencies ............................... 86.

4-G Occupied Deficient Housing By District .............. 87

4-H Overcrowded Units By District . .....................

4-1 Value of All Owner Occupied Homes on Lots Less
Than 10,Acres: 1970 ......... o........ - .......... 90

4-J Contract Rent ..... o......... -.0 ........... 91

4-K Northampton County Housing Needs ... .......... o ..... 92

4-L Rent in Excess of 25 Percent of Income ...... . 94

4-M Maximum Affordable Rents ............... o.oo ... 94

5-A Public School Enrollment ........ o ............... 99

5-_B Northampton County Public School Attendance: 1974... 100

5-C County Educational Expenses: FY 1969-1973 ......... 101
5-D Public Welfare Programs ................ o ............ 103

5-E Physician Deficiencies on the Eastern Shore ....... 104

5-F Recreation Facility Standards ..... o ................ 108

6-G Recreation Facilities Map ...... o............. 109

5-H Proposed Central Sewage Systems . ................. 112

6-A Regional Transportation Map ................... 118

6-B Traffic Counts Map ......... o ....................... 120

6-C Northampton County Secondary Road Characteristics 121

6-D Railroad Map ...................................... 122

6-E Freight Shipment To and From the Eastern'Shore: 197.2o 123

Page

6-F Eastern Shore Penn Central Car Float Usage: 1972 .... 125.

6-G Rail Vs. Truck Shipping Costs ...................... 126

7-A Land Use By Acreage ....................... .... 131

7-B Land Use Map ............. ............ 132

7-C Land Use Within The Incorporated Towns .. ........ 133

8-A Total Revenues and Expenditures ....... o ............ 141

8-B Total County Expenditures ........................... 143'71@"'

8-C General Operating Expenditures ........... o ......... 144

8-1) Capital Outlay Expenditures . ........................ 145.

8-E Debt Position: FY 1969-1973 .................. o... o 146

8-F Northampton County Long Term Indebtedness ..... o.... 147

B-G Total County Revenues .............................. o 148

8-H Federal Grants to Northampton County .......... o.... 149

8-1 State Grants to the County ......................... 150

8-J Local Revenues to the County ....................... 152

8-K 1973 Real Property Assessments By Districts and
Towns ...... o ................ o,-; ................ 153

8-L Tax Rates, Incorporated Towns ................... 155

8-M Appraised and Assessed Value of Farm Land and Open
Space ........... o ............................... 155
8-N Bonded Indebtedness: FY 1970-1973 ................ 157

vii

-INTRODUCTION..

InDecember 1974, the Northampton County Planning Commi
I ssion re-
@ceived an amended request from Brown Root,Inc. of Houston, Texas,
to rezone 980 acres of land known as Hollywood Farm from agri-
cultural to industrial use. The location of this property
is shown on Figure I-A.

Brown & Root is one of th e world's largest engineering and con-
struction companies. The company designs and constructs a
variety of large scale industrial and transportation facilities
including off-shore oil platforms, power plants, pulp and
paper plants, and petroleum and chemical refineries, as well
as hydroelectric dams, bridges, and ports. Brown,& Root's
headquarters, major manufacturing facilities, and principal
engineering offices are located in Houston.

Brown & Root desires to use its Cape Charles property to
establish a permanent East Coast manufacturing facility.
Work to be conducted on the site would include the fabrica-*-
tion of a variety of metal structures for off-shore oil pro-
duction, . liquefied natural gas storage, and other marine
operations. The company has clearly stated that these.
Northampton County facilities will be used only for metal
fabrication and that there will be no handling, storage, or
'processing of petroleum or other hazardous substanckes.

The Brown & Root proposal, if implemented, would have a profound
effect on Northampton County. Brown & Root employment is
estimated to reach 1,500 persons, nearly 25 percent
of the county's current work force. New people and new busi-
nesses requiring new housing and public services would be
attracted to the county. These and other ramifications would
affect all aspects of county life and touch every county
citizen, in one way or another, for years to come.

The Northampton County Board of Supervisors and the County
Planning Commission intend to make a timely and proper decision
on this most complex and significant proposal. The decision
will not be easy. Every advantage and disadvantage of the Brown
&-Root proposal must be carefully examined as part of the over-
.all decision.

rown oo
IN I L ITE
FIGURE I-A

o..aco3coooT&cA 0
o .0
norftnvon

5 MILE

I MILE
SCALE

NORTHJ

CKRITON LEGEND

SITE

northampton
BACI(GROUND
B &R t
T

STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

MM MON.

CI)m

I All

The purpose of the Northampton County Background Study is to docu-
ent existing conditions and trends within the county; thus provid-
ing Northampton's officials and citizens with a factual base upon
m

which to develop effective and practical public policy.

This document is divided into eight chapters. Each chapter pre-
sents data and analysis on a separate aspect of county life.

The executive summary presents some of the key factors contained
within each of the study's chapters.

NATURAL FEATURES

Northampton County contains approximately 140,000 acres of land
and waters and can be subdivided in three basic geographical zones:
barrier islands, marshes, and mainland. Nearly 26,000 acres of
barrier island and marsh are currently under the protective owner-
ship of either the state or the Nature Conservancy.

Over three-four'ths of the county's soils are well suited for in-
tensive agriculture use. Many of these better soils are also suit-
able for residential and other types of development.

Northampton County relies on two aquifers for its water supply.
The upper aquifer is estimated to be capable of supplying 21.3
billion gallons of water per year and is recharged by rain water
seeping into the ground. Its quality is generally good. The
capacity of the lower aquifer is believed to be substantial but
data.is insufficient to form.any precise estimates of available
quantities.

Current demand for water is estimated at 1.5 billion gallons per
year. overall, the water supply appears adequate to meet the fore-
seeable demand, although local problems of both quantity and quality
do occur.

POPUIATION

In 19700 the county had 14,442 residents, a decline of nearly 15
percent from 1960 and 22 percent since 1930.

Approximately one-third of the population lives in the county's
fiveincorporated towns and the remaining two-thirds live in the
outlying sections.

Blacks comprise slightly more than one-half of the population.

The proportion of older Northampton County residents has in-
creased in the past decade. The median age o*f.all residents.
was 30.5 years in 1960, rising to 34.4 years by 1970.

Th,e decline in population size and the increase in median age::are
the result of two factors. First, families are having fewer
children. Second, a significant number of teenagers and young
adults are leaving to seek employment and educational opportuni-
ties elsewhere. The decline in numbers of youngerpeople has
been partly offset by,an influx of older, retired persons.

The county's population is expected to continue to decline for
the foreseeable future, perhaps reaching 11,000-by the year 2000.

ECONOMICS

In 1970, median family income in Northampton County was $4,778
per year. This.was less than half the state median. Approximately
one-third of all Northampton families in 1969, lived below the
officially designated poverty levels. Blacks and elderly persons
largely composed this group.

During 1972, 5,188 Northampton residents were employed, mostly
within the county. Total employment, however, was 22 percent less
than in 1950. Areas of increased employment included government
and service industries. Areas of employment decline included
agriculture, food processing, transportation, and trade.

Because of the county's strong dependency on farming and food pro-
cessing industries, employment in Northampton shows dramatic sea-
sonal variations.

Upward of 7,000 workers are employed during the summer months,
whereas only 6,000 workers are employed during the winter. Cor-
respondingly, unemployment has fluctuated.between summer lows of
4 to 5 percent and winter highs of 14 to 16 percent.

Continuing consolidation and mechanization in the county's agri-
cultural industries combined with further population declines
are expected to result in a continuing decrease in county em-
ployment.

HOUSING

Northampton County contains approximately 5,500 year-round homes.
Almost 90 percent are single family structures.

Throughout the county, mobile homes are growing in popularity and
are currently believed to number 300, double the 1970 total.

Approximately 60 percent of the county's homes are owner-occupied;
the remaining 40 percent are renter occupied.

In 1970, the average home owner valued his-Northampton residence
at @7,600. The average renter paid $30 in monthly rent.

Approximately 2,200 new units are required to meet the housing
needs of current residents. The majority of these units should
be built for low and moderate income families.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Northampton residents receive public services from a variety of
county, municipal and state agencies.

The county provides education to over 3,000 children in five ele-
mentaxy schools, one junior high school, one senior high school and
several other public and private schools. Proposed school construc-
tion projects, including a new elementary school and additions to
-the junior and senior high schools, will take care of the county's
foreseeable educational facilities needs.

Social services are under the direction of the county's public
welfare department. In 1973, the agency provided the county's
citizens with over @700,000 in financial assistance.

Health.care is centered on the new Northampton-Accomack Memorial
Hospital, a modern well-staffed facility in Nassawadox. However,
both counties have a deficiency in general practitioners, a situa-
tion which is expected to worsen as older doctors retire.

Northampton's forests, shores and waters offer excellent recrba-
tional opportunities. The county has recently acquired two 50
acre sites which will be developed to serve local recreation
needs.

TRANSPORTATTON

Two major transportation systems serve Northampton County: highway
and rail.

U.S,.,Route 13, which forms the spine of the Virginia Eastern Shore,
links Northampton to Accomack County, Maryland, and Delaware to
the north; and the Virginia mainland to the south. Route 13 con-
veys approximately 5,740 vehicles per day through the county.
Another 3,300 trips per day along the highway are locally generated
traffic.

In 1972, over 4, 900 ra il cars originated or terminated in the
Virginia Eastern Shore. Petroleum and stone were the major rail
import; canned goods, the major export.

The Penn Central has proposed abandonment of its county facilities.
This would create serious economic and employment problems for the
county.

LAND USE

Ninety-five percent of Northampton County is open and undeveloped.
This open space is divided approximately equally among beach and
marshes, forests, and farmlands. The developed areasconsisting
primarily'of residences and roads, total less than five percent
of -th-6--county.

Three factors are expected to have increasing impact on land
use in the future; 1) the continuing decline in population;
2).changing agricultural practices; and, 3) growth of tourism
and recreation.

PUBLIC FINANCE

Northampton County's ability to provide services to its citizens
is directly related to its financial-soundness.

Between 1969 and 1973, county revenues and expenditures rose approxi-
mately 22 percent per year to more than $4 million annual ly. Much
of this growth represents new services to county residents.-

Education and public welfare accounted for over 90 percent of
Northampton County expenses in 1973.

In 1973, federal and state grants amounted to over 72 percent
of county revenues. The remaining revenues were local taxes and
fees.

To raise additional local revenue, Northampton County is depend-
ent upon real property taxes or additional bonded indebtedness.

Substantial growth in real property tax revenues is limited by
a six year cycle between reassessments. This six year period
between reassessments freezes real property tax revenues to the
county, often during periods of inflating costs. The 1973 assess-
able base was over $14.7 million.

Northampton County can, if necessary, issue an additional $2,200,000
in bonds to provide additional capital.'

Northampton County lies at the southern tip of the Delmarva
Peninsula. This peninsula extends southward from the Chesa-
peake and Delaware Canal and includes the State of Delaware,
nine Maryland counties and two Virginia counties. Northampton
County is bounded by Accomack County, Virginia,to the north,
the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Chesapeake Bay to the
west. The county's position on both the bay and the ocean
has provided an abundance of unique natural resources which
have shaped the county physically, socially, and economically.

AREA

The county is an enlongated peninsula approximately 33 miles
long and 14 miles wide at the widest point. Total land and
water area was approximately 140,160.acres in-1969.

TOPOGRAPHY

Northampton County can be subdivided into three physiographic
regions: barrier islands, marshes, and mainland. These
regions are graphically depicted on Figure 1-A on the following
page.

BARRIER ISLANDS

The barrier islands are a string of six long low lying islands
along Northampton County's east coast. They ..contain extensive
-beaches-and some are partly wooded.

The barrier islands serve-as a protective wall separating
Northampton County from the Atlantic Ocean. They are broken by
a series of inlets. Little Machipongo Inlet, Great Machipongo
Inlet, and Sand Shoal Inlet are the three largest.

The barrier islands are presently uninhabited. However, Hog
Island, the northern-most one, at one time contained a village
with several hundred inhabitants.

FIGURE 1-A
R 10

0 m

I WLE
SCALE

NORTH.

LEGEND

BARRIER ISLAND
MARSH
MAINLAND

northampton
BACKGROUND
PHYSIOGRAPHIC
N

STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

Rising mean sea level, lack of sand from the north to replenish
beach material carried southward by local currents, and damaging
storms contribute to erosion of the islands. The Virginia
Institute of Marine Science studying hydrographic charts between
1852 and 1962 estimated the following erosion rates for each of
the six barrier islands.

FIGURE 1-B
Barrier Island Erosion

Island

Hog Island North end, accretion at 9 ft/yr.
South end, erosion at 18 ft/yr.
Cobb Island Erosion at 16 ft/yr.
Wreck Island Erosion at 34 ft/yr.
Ship Shoal Island. Irregular, quasi-stable
Myrtle Island Erosion at 19 ft/y'r.
Smith Island Erosion at 23 ft/yr.

SOURCE: Virginia Institute of Marine Science

The barrier islands are an extremely fragile environmental sys-
tem ftot suited for intensive human activity, though several pro-
posals for such development have been advanced in the past.

MARSHES

Northampton County contains extensive acreage of salt marsh or
wetlands. The distribution of these marshes is shown in
Figure 1-C on the following page.

FIGURE 1-C
Marshland Acreages

Ac reage

Bayside 2,246
Oceanside 25,808

TOTAL 28,054

SOURCE: Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Nortliampton'County's total marsh acreage of 28,054 acres is
15.8 percent of all salt marsh contained in the Commonwealth
of Virginia. They are a significant ecological resource which
provides habitats for many unique forms of plant and animal
life. They are important feeding grounds for many kinds of
waterfowl and shore birds. Their shallow water areas serve
as spawning grounds for many species of fish and provide
nourishment for young animals, protecting them from predators
and rough water. In addition, marsh areas are effective in
filtering out water pollutants and restoring water quality
balance.

Dredging, filling, and construction in wetland areas is
governed by the Virginia Wetlands Act (Chapter 2.1 of Title
62.1, code of Virginia) and-the Northampton County Wetlands
.Ordinance. In both statutes, wetlands are defined as all
lands between mean low water and an elevation 1.5 times
the mean tidal range which contain 1 of 35 forms of marsh
vegetation such as saltmyrtle, and groundsel tree. Applica-
tions for development of marshlands are reviewed and ap-
proved by a Northampton County Wetlands Board after evaluation
by several state agencies such as the Virginia Marine Resources

Commission, the Virginia Institute of Marino-scien6e,, the State
Water Control Board, and the Department of Health.: '-Decisions
of the local board can be reviewed.and overturned by the
Virginia marine Resources Commission.

PROTECTED AREAS

State agencies and the Nature Conservancy are acquiring portions
of the barrier islands and marshes from private owners to pre-
serve them intheir present unspoiled state. Present holdings
by these agencies is shown on the following table and on the
accompanying map, Figure I-E.

FIGURE 1-D
Protected Areas

Barrier Islands Owner Acreage

Wreck & Bone Islands Virginia Division of.
State Parks 1,380
Hog Island (partial). Nature Conservancy .3,651
Cobb Island Nature Conservancy @1,844
Smith,*Myrtle, Ship
& Shoal Islands Nature Conservancy 8,760

TOTAL 15,635

Marshes Owner Acreage

Mockhorn Island Water- Virginia Commission of
. Fowl Management Area Game & Inland Fisheries. 9,000
Rogue Island Nature Conservancy 390
Goodwin Island Nature Conservancy 850
Mink Island Nature Conservancy 28

TOTAL 10,268

SOURCE: Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission

p TED
.A FIGURE 1-E

5 MIKLE

--Dam

I Ulu
SCALE

NORTH.

LEGEND

g@ FEDERAL& STATE GOWT.
PRIVATE (NATURE CONSER-
m VANCY)

northampton
BACI(GROUND
ROTEC
R AS

STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

MAINLAND

Northampton County 's mainland is a low flat'plain composed of
a series of terraces. Maximum elevation on the highest terrace
is slightly more than 40 feet, however, the majority of the
county lies at much lower elevati6ns.

The county's fast lands are laced with numerous picturesque,
but shallow creeks and streams. The Federal Insurance Admin-
istration, part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development,in late 1974 prepared a series of maps identifying
flood hazard areas in Northampton County. Communities with
such flood prone areas have until July 1, 1975 to apply for
permanent participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program.

participation in the program allows property owners to pur-
chase low cost flood insurance. As a prerequisite for partici-
pation, land use controls which avoid or reduce flood damage
danger must be adopted by the local-jurisdiction.

Figure 1-F portrays the portions of Northampton County determined
to be special flood hazard areas.

CLIMATE

,Northampton County is blessed by a favorable climate. Precipita-
tion averaqes 43 inches annually. Air temperature averages 41
degrees in January and 77 degrees in July. The county's
elongated shape and the proximity of the ocean and bay have- an
especially strong moderating influence on county weather not
evidenced further up the Eastern Shore.

SOILS

This warm, pleasant climate and the county's fertile soils form
a combination ideally suited for intensive agriculture.

Northampton County contains 17 distinct soils types which are
customarily grouped into 5 major soil associations and tidal marsh
as illustrated on the following table, Figure 1-G.

A D
A FIGURE 1-F.

cco
DOM a...
roxieroon wmmm, WME
:MILE

I
-wx

I MILE
SCALE

NORTH@
LEGEND

FLOOD HAZARD
HIGH GROUND

northampton
BACKGROUND
FLO D HA R

STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

FIGURE 1-G
Soil Associations By Percent of Land Area

Percent of Total,
Association Land, Area

Sassafras/Woodstown 76%
Woodstown/Dragston 15
Fallsington/Dragston/Othello 9
Dune Sand less than 1
Coastal Beach
less than

TOTAL
100%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture,. Soil,Conservation
Service

The Sassafras/Woodstown soils which comprise,much'of the
county are ideally suited to intensive agricultural,culti-
vation; the Woodstown/Dragston soils@follow close behind.
Estimates made from aerial photographs indicate that about
40,000 acres of these associations are currently.under
cultivation.

Agricultural productivity in the Fallsington-/Dr.aqston/Othello
associations is not as high as in the first two a'$-$0qiations
because of poorer drainage. However, with proper management,
ditching and other measures, this soil also can.be productive
farmland or valuable woodlots. Figure 1-H, Agriclutural
Suitability,shows the ability of Northampton County s-oils
to support intensive agricultural cropp 'ing based upon,soil
capacity and expected long term yields under good soil manage-
ment. The Sassafras/Woodstown'and the-Woodstown/Drags,ton
associations are classified as good; the,Fallsington/Dr'agston/
Othello is classified as fair; and Dune'.Sand,:Coastal Beach
and Tidal Marsh are classified as poor.

Good farmland is often ideally suited for residential develop-
ment as well. Both the Sassafras/Woodstown/Dragston ass6cia--n.'.
tions usually can support septic tank sewage disposal systems
without major difficulty. Local problems.may arise, however,

'AGRICULTURAL
Bi I Y FIGURE 1-H

a MLE

Alp oorAm

WLE
SCALE

PF
NMH@
LEGEND

GOOD
9E@@ FAIR
Ak-
POOR

northampton
ACKGROUND
STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

especially in waterfront areas. On the other hand, the Falls-
ingston/Dragston/Othello association, because of poor drainage,
often is not suited to,septic system disposal.

TIMBERLAND

in 1957, Northampton County contained about 38,100 acres of
timberland; by 1966 (the latest figure available) the county
contained over 31,373 acres. This represents an approximate
loss of 7,300 acres orl7.6 percent of the 1957 total. This
decline was due to conversion of timber land to cropland
and the natural transition of woodland along the coast into
marsh. The following table indicates the composition of
Northampton County's forests.

FIGURE 1- 1
TimbeE_Type

Acres In Forest

Loblolly Pine 7,752
Oak & Pine 15,506
Oak & Hickory 8,115

TOTAL 31,373

SOURCE: Virginia Division of State planning and Community
Affairs

Northampton County is best suited commercially to the growing
of pine species. However, many woodlots have been neglected and
have consequently reverted to less desirable hardwoods. This
is common in areas like Northampton which have few large tracts
of woodlands suitable for large scale commercial management.

This lack of emphasis on timber production and improvement is
.supported by the following statistics which indicate that only
two-thirds of Northampton's growing stock is being harvested..

FIGURE 1- J
Timber Growth And Cut Rates Cords of Wood

Grown Cut

Soft Woods (conifers) 8,000 2,000
Soft Hard Woods (redmaple, gums, etc.). 2,000 1,000
,.Hard Hardwoods (oak, ash, hickory, etc.) 2,000 5,000

TOTALS 12,000 8,000

SOURCE: Virginia Division of State Planning and Community
Affairs

Overall cutting rates are substantially lower than averages for
the mainland.portions of the state where emphasis on timber
production and cutting is greater. Throughout Virginia as a
whole, soft wood timber, which is used for paper and lumber
products, is being'cut 15 percent faster than it is grown.
The heavy cutting of hard hardwoods is likely for firewood
which is generally in short supply.

GROUND WATER SUPPLY

The Eastern Shore's major ground water supply is contained in
two aquifers commonly known as the "upper" and "lower" aquifers.
The upper aquifer extends from the water table to a depth of
approximately 90 feet. Averaging data from well logs indicates
that the water table is shallow-- usually 11.5 feet below-
the surface. Water yields average 17 gallons per minute, though
several large diameter wells have produced substantially greater
amounts.

Water quality in the upper,aquifer, which is recharged by surface
water is generally good; however, iron content is often higher
than that recommended by U.S. Public Health Service. (This is
not a serious problem.) A Virginia Polytechnic Institute study
indicates that 213,000 gallons per acre per year could be withdrawn
from the upper aquifer, although withdrawal at such a high rate
would lower the summer water table. This would suggest that the
upper aquifer could provide as much as 21 billion gallons of water
a year. Since the upper aquifer is recharged by rainfall the
flow of water in the aquifer moves towards the coasts. Prolonged
intensive pumping in coastal areas could cause salt water to en-
croach into this aquifer.

The lower aquifer is most productive at depths of 100 to 300 feet.
Yields are between 10 and 20 gallons per minute for small wells
and over 100 gallons per minute for wells with larger diameters.
Water in the deeper aquifer is possible recharged from the
land, west of the Chesapeake Bay. This water is usually hard and
high in bicarbonate. The quantity of water available in the lower
aquifer is believed high, at least as great as the upper aquifer,
but data on its flow is too limited to permit an estimate.

Few Eastern Shore wells have been drilled to depths greater than
300 feet. One, drilled to 992 feet on Cobb Island, produced brackish
water. Another, drilled at Cape Charles to a depth of 1,793, found
no significant quantities of water at all.

GROUND WATER DEMAND

The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Depart-
ment of Agricultural ECDnomics in IbLte 1971, prepared an estimate
of annual water supply demand on the Eastern Shore (Accomack and
Northampton Counties).

The economists estimated that the single largest group of water
users.was private individuals and business or public facilities,
Aschools, offices, stores, etc.) Using a national water con-
sumption standard of 100 gallons per person per day, they
estimated that domestic and public demand was 1.586 billion
gallons per year based upon the 1970 Eastern Shore population
of 43,446individuals.

The second.largest water demand was found to be irrigation.
Irrigation was estimated to consume 1.356 billion gallons
per year, primarily in the summer. The amount of water
needed for irrigation fluctuates dramatic ally depending upo n
railfall patterns, crops grown, and other variables.

Food processing and the poultry industry accounted for an
additional 1.120 billion gallons per year.

All other ground water uses were estimated at .365 billion
gallons per year.

These water demands are summarized below.

FIGURE 1- K
Estimated Eastern Shore (Virginia) Water Needs: 1970

Billion of Gallons Per Year

.Domestic and Public Users 1.586
irrigation
Food Processing & Poultry 1.120
Other .365

TOTAL 4.427

SOURCE: Virginia Polytechnic Insti tute and the State
Unversity.

Annual ground water use was estimated at over 4.4 billion
gallons in the two counties.

The water usage in Northampton County can be estimated at 1/3
of the Eastern Shore total or 1.476 billion gallons per year.
This compares favorably with the county's estimated supply
in the upper aquifer of 21.3 billion gallons per year.

In summary, ample supplies of ground water appear to be
available to meet overall present and future needs in
Northampton County. However, localized shortages, falling
water table and excessive hardness and mineral content will
continue to be problems.

"TIN,

lit

CHAPTER TWO

This chapter summarizes characteristics of Northampton County's
population including its size, geographical distribution, age,
racial composition and educational attainment. 'Selected data,
is also presented for the county's five incorpora ted towns;
Cape Charles, Cheriton, Eastville, Exmore and Nassawadox and
for the county's three magisterial districts; Capeville, East-
ville and Franktown. The location of these jurisdictions is
depicted in Figure 2-B Governmental Jurisdictions.

To provide additional insight and,perspective, data is. also
presented for Accomack County, the lower Delmarva Peninsula and
the Commonwealth of Virginia. At the conclusion of this chapter,
a population projection to the years 1980, 1990 and 2000 is made
for Northampton County.

The U.S-. Census, last taken in April 1970, reported 14,442 resi-
dents in Northampton County. As the following table demonstrates,
this was the smallest population of any of the seven counties in
the lower Delmarva Peninsula.

FIGURE*2-A
1970-Populations: Lower Delmarva Peninsula

Percent of
1970 Population Peninsula Region

Lower Peninsula Region
Northampton Co., Va. 14,442 5.8%
Accomack Co., Va.. 29,004 11.6
Worcester Co., Md. 24,442 9.7
Wicomico Co., Md. 54,236 21.7
Somerset Co., Md. 18,924 7.5
Dorchester Co., Md. 29,405 11.7
Sussex Co., Del. 80,356 32.0

Total 250,809 100.0%

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

FIGURE 2-13
ENTAL
JU IS I I.QNS

acco

t MILE
noft
exmo
Sol,
3
FR w
s 2

so o

I MILE
SCALE

ea- I

NORTH

LEGEND

che it PS1111111 COUNTY BOUNDARY

cape
ch MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS
IN 1970
L
TOWNS

northampton
BACI(GROUND
STUDY
Cm GOVERNM

URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

POPULATION CHANGE

A comparison of 1960 and 1970 population data reveals that Northamp-
ton County's total population declined 14.9 percent during the
1960's, from 16,966 inhabitants in 1960 to 14,442 in 1970. The
following table Fiqure 2-C,.Population Cha.nqe, Lower Delmarva Pe-
ninsula: 1960-1970 compares this.decline with the other six count-
ies in the lower Delmarva Peninsula as well as with the Common-
wealth of Virginia.

FIGURE 2-C
Population Change, Lower Delmarva Peninsula: 1960-1970

Percent
1970 Population Change 1960-1970

Lower Peninsula Region 250,809 + 3.0%
Northampton Co., Va. 14,442 -14.9
Accomack Co., Va. 29,004 - 5- 3
Worcester Co., Md. 24,442 + 3.0
Wicomico Co., Md. 54,236 _+_10.6
Somerset Co., Md. 18,924 - 3.6
Dorchester Co., Md. 29,405 - 0.9
Sussex Co., Del. 80,356 + 9.8
Commonwealth of Virginia 4,651,448 +17.6

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

The Commonwealth of Virginia showed substantial growth between
1960 and 1970. This growth was due primarily to the rapid devel-
opment of the state's urbanized areas including Norfolk, Newport
News-Hampton, Richmond, Petersburg, Roanoke, Lynchburg and the
Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.

On the other hand, population growth among the lower peninsula
counties ranged from moderate growth to moderate loss. Wicomico
County, Maryland,and Sussex County, Delaware, both expanding urban
centers, showed the strongest growth. The more rural counties

including Northampton and Accomack, experienced the greatest popu-
.1ationjosses. Nationwide, most rural areas are experiencing simi-
lar Population declines. The 1960 _r-o 1970 decline in Northampton
County is part of a continuing trend for the county as illustrated
by the. following chart which traces the county's population size
from 1930 to 1970.

FIGURE 2-D
Northampton County Population: 1930-1970

% Population Decline
Year Population During the Previous Decade.

1930 18,565
19401, 17 597 5.2%
1950 17:300 1*.7
1960 16,966 --1.9
1970 14,442 -14.9

1930 to 1970 change -22.2%

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

Northampton County experienced a moderate (-5;2 percent) population
decline during the Great Depression and only very slight losses
(approximately 2 percent) during World War II and the post war
recovery period of the 1950's. However, during the 1960's the
county's population decline accelerated to 14.9 percent and repre-
sented a loss of 2,524 persons in 10 years. This loss is attributed
to sharp employment reductions made during the 1950's and 1960's
in several.of the county's major industries, including agriculture,
food processing and transportation. A more detailed discussion of
these economic trends is presented in Chapter Three, "Economics".

SEX COMPOSIT ION

The 1970 census recorded 52.7 percent of the Northampton population
as female and 47.3 percent as male.

The county's percentage of females was slightly higher than the
state's (50.6 percent) suggesting the presence of a significant num-
ber of single or widowed women over 60 years of age.

RACIAL COMPOSITION

Northampton County is more racially balanced (52.3@Taercent_black)
than either the Commonwealth of Virginia or neighboring Accomack'
County. The Commonwealth is 23.6 percent black and Accomack is
37.4 percent black. The racial composition of Northampton's
Ithree magisterial districts is presented below.

FIGURE 2-E
Racial Composition of Magisterial Districts: 1970

Total' Percent Percent
Population White Black

Northampton County 14,442 47.5% 52.3%
6apeville District 5,932 51.0 48.9
Eastville District 3,180 36.6 63.4
Franktown District 5,330 50.1 49.5

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

The proportion of whites and blacks was distributed rather evenly
among the 4---hree districts. Only the Eastville district had @L
slightly higher proportion of blacks than the overall county aver-
age.

Other racial groups, such as orientals, accounted for only 26
county residents, 0.2 percent of the population.

ETHNIC GROUPS

Of the county's 14,44 2 inhabitants in 1970, 98.2 percent were na-
tive born Americans of native American parents. An additional 1.2
percent were native born Americans with one or both parents foreign
born. only 78 residents, 0.5 percent, were themselves foreign born.
These persons were chiefly English or German in origin, groups
which have traditionally assimilated easily into our society.

MOBILITY

Mobility is the measure of how often people move their place of
residence. High mobility represents frequent moves; low mobility
represents'few moves and a stable population.

Residents of Northampton County show a low degree of mobility. In
1970, 8,772'Northampton residents, 67.8 percent of the population
five years of age or older, had lived in the same house for at
least the previous five years. Another 3,000.retidents,-.23.2 per-
cent, had moved during the previous five years, but from a.differ-.
ent house in Northampton County. Thus 91 percent of the residents
had lived in-county for more than five years. of those who had
moved into the county during this period, the majority had moved
from Accomack County. This represents a very stable population
condition.

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

Northampton Count'Y's five incorporated towns collectively contained

4,559 inhabitants in 1970. This amounted to 31.6 percent of
Northampton's total population. The remaining 68.4 percent of
the county's population lived in the rural areas outside the
towns.

The following table presents the 1970 distribution of Northampton
County's population in further detail.

FIGURE 2-F
Population Distribution by Towng.and-Magisterial Districts

Area 1970 Population % Change 1960-1970

Towns
Cape Charles 1,689 -17.3%
Cheriton 655 -13.9
Eastville 203 -22.2
Nassawadox 591 - 9.1
Exmore 1,421 - 9.3
Town Subtotal 4,559 -13.6

Rural Portions of
Magisterial Districts
Capeville (excluding 3,588 -16.7
Cape Charles, Cheriton)
Eastville (excluding East- 2,977 -17.1
ville)
Franktown (excluding 3,318 -12.1
Nassawadox, Exmore)

District Subtotal 9,883 -15.4

County Total 14,442 -14.9%

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

As indicated-in the above chart, the county's loss in population
was widespread, affecting all jurisdictions, and generally uniform
with a low of 9.1 percent in Nassawadox and a high of 17.3 percent

in Cape Charles. The overall rate of population loss among the
towns was 13.6 percent, slightly less than the county as a whole.
'Population loss in the rural areas outside the towns was,
slightly greater than the county average (15.4 percent). This
more rapid loss of rural population was probably a result of the
declining employment opportunities in the county's agricultural
and food processing industries.

AGE

In 1970, the median age of Northampton County residents was 34.4
years. -The median age is that age at which one-half of'-.the
residents are younger and one-half.are older. The 1960 Northampton
Cou-nty median age was 30.5, nearly four years younger.

The following table illustrates the 1960 and 1970 median ages for
county residents by both sex and race.

FIGURE 2-G
Median Age of CountV Residents: 1960'-1970

1960 Median Age 1970 Median Age

White Males 35.9 years 39.1
White Females 39.9 44.4
-Black.Males 22.9 22.9
Black Females 23.6 26.3

County Median 30.5 34.4 years

SOURCE: 1960 and 1970 U.S. Census

The above figure shows that in general in the county the white
population is older, and getting older -fas-ter''than the black
populationj and that females are older-than males.

A similar but less dramatic trend has occurred in Accomack County,
where the median age rose from 33.6 years in 1960 to 35.3 years in
1970. In contrast, the median age for the Commonwealth of Virginia
in 1970 was 26.8 years,a slight decline from 1960 when it was 27.1.

The falling median age in Virginia reflects the strong influence of
the state's urban centers attracting and holding large numbers of
young people. On the other hand, the increasing age of the popu-
lation in Northampton and Accomack Counties represents two opposite
trends. First is the significant number of young adults leaving
the Shore to seek education or employment opportunities elsewhere;
and second, an influx of older, probably retired, people.

Figure 2-H, Northampton County Population Age Profile: 1960-1970
illustrates the changing age characteristics of the county's popu-
lation in more detail. The chart shows the age composition of
the population by ten year age groups. Each age group is repre-
sented as a percentage of the total county population. The 1970
population curve for the state has been added to give perspective.
The chart shows that between 1960 and 1970 the number of children
in the county under the age of 10 dropped significantly. This de-
cline reflects the recent national trend towards fewer children
per family as well as a declinein the number of childbearing
families in the county. During the 1960 to 1970 period, the per-
centage of teenagers in the county increased, but as will be dis-
cussed later, these teenagers were leaving the county in strong
numbers. Young adultsi 20 to 29 years old, showed a dramatic de-
cline. Between 1960 and 1970 and as they reached adulthood, more
than one-half of this group left the county, most likely to pur-
sue employment or educational opportunities elsewhere. This re-
presented a serious loss of labor capability and potential new
families for the future. Adults, 30-59 years old (the next three
age groups in the chart) and the peak working group also declined
significantly and represented another loss of resources. On the
other hand, the adult group over 60 years of age (the last three
groups in the chart) increased slightly in number. This increase
can be attributed to people living longek and retirees moving into
(or perhaps back to) Northampton County. These population trends
suggest that Northampton County will continue to decline in size
in the foreseeable future.

POPULATION MIGRATION

Further insight into the changes in the population can be gained
by examining the county's migration patterns. In-migration repre-
sents people moving into Northampton County; out-migration repre-
sents people leaving Northampton County to live elsewhere.

FIGURE 2-H
Population Age Profile: 1960-1970

z 18 1970 STATE POPUIATION CURVE
0

14
0
12

0 10
E-4

z 6

4
P4
2

0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 +

TEN YEAR AGE GROUP

1960

1970

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

Between 1960 -and 1970, there was an out-migration of approximately
3,150 persons and an in-migration of only 125, leaving a net loss
of 3,025. The following chart illustrates how these migration
patterns occurred by age groups. The great majority of the out-
migration occurred in those groups ;under 50 years of age. One-
half of the total net migration loss was accounted for by that

CAT SID: 06090 OL
Entire record displayed.

OLUC ti "NORTHAMPTON BACKGROUND STUDY" Record 1 of 1

HELD BY NO@ - 1 OTHER HOLDING

OCLC: 6138031 Rec stat: n
Entered: 19800328 Replaced: 19971217 Used: 19970228
Type: a ELvl: I Srce: d Audn: Ctrl: Lang: eng
BLvl: m Form: Conf: 0 Biog: MRec: Ctry: mdu
Cont: GPub: Fict: 0 Indx: 0
Desc: i Ills: a Fest: 0 DtSt: s Dates: 1975,
1 040 ODN *c ODN

2 090 HT165 *b N6 1975 1

3 090 *b 41

4 049 NO@M
5 110 2 Urban PathfindeTs, Inc. I
6 245 10 Northampton background study *c Urban Pathfinders Inc. I
7 260 Baltimore *b Urban Pathfinders, *c 1975. 1
8 300 xi, 157 p. *b illus., charts, maps ; *c 28 cm. I
9 500 "Prepared for Northampton County Planning Commission" 41
10 651 0 Northampton County (Va.) *x Cities and towns *x Planning.
11 650 0 Cities and towns *x Planning *z Virginia *z Northampton County.

FIGURE 2-1
Total Population Migration Patterns: 1960-1970

In-Migration

0
Out-Migration
6

12 .... ... X-:-:-XX-X-X_:-X
-X-X-:_X_:-

18 X.:
-X

24
..........

30
P4
36 ....

-X.
42

60
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

AGE

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

age group which was 10-19 years old in 1960-and became 20-29
years old by 1970.-.These teenagers and young adults left
Northampton County at the rate of 150 persons per year, most
likely soon after leaving high school.

Two other groups showed strong out-migration trends. One was
the 20-29 year olds of.1960 (who became 30-39 by 1970). Nearly
20 percent of this group (32'9 individuals) left, most likely to
improve their employment status elsewhere. The second group
was the children, 0-9 years, who most likely left as their
parents (20-29 and 30-39 year groups) left.

As would be expected, persons over 50 years of age showed stable
migration trends. Two of these groups (50-59 and 70-79 years)
showed net in-migrations reflecting the trend for retirees'to
settle in the county or earlier out-migrants to return.

The black community has shown an especially strong out-migration
pattern as illustrated in Figure 2-J.

Blacks accounted for 71.3 percent of the net out-migration (2,158
individuals) even though they composed only 52.3 percent of the
total population. Again persons under 50 represented almost all
of the loss and nearly two out of every three black teenagers
participated in this out-migration'.

it is believed that blacks have been leaving Northampton County
at such a rapid rate because they have been especially hard hit
by the county's limited economic and employment opportunities.
The agricultural and food processing industries have traditionally
employed a large sement of the black population and three factors
make this work increasingly unattractive:

1. Low wages,
2.. Seasonal employment, and
3. Continuing reduction in the number of jobs available.

Economic trends. within Northampton County' and especially within
the agricultural and food processing industries are discussed in
detail in Chapter Three, "Economics".

FIGURE 2-J

Population Migration by Race: 1960-1970

In-Migration

... -Migration
.... .... .... .... Out
.... .... ....
6

30
z

P4
42

66
0-9 110-19 120-24 30-A 40-49150-59160-69170-79

AGE

SOURCE: 1960-1970 U.S. Census

WHITE

BLACK

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

In 1970, 1,123 men, 27.2 percent of Northamton County's males
over the age of 25, had completed high school. A slightly
higher percentage of county females over 25 years of age, 35.9
percent (1,630 women,) were high school graduates.

The Northampton County proportion of high school graduates is
slightly lower than national norms. In 1970, 29.7 percent of
the nation's males and 36.9 percent of its females had graduated
from high school.

The following table shows the maximum formal education attained
by Northampton County residents over 25 years of age as of 1970.

FIGURE 2-K
Northampton County - HighestLevel of Education

Population over 25 years of age

Males Females

Total number of persons 3,808 4,540
College graduates 4.9% 5.8%
Some college education 5.7 9.5
High school graduate 16.6 20.6
Some high school 17.7 20.4
Under 8 years of
schooling 51.0 41.7
No schooling 4.1 2.0

100.0% 100.0%

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

SEASONAL POPULATION

-The 1970 U.S. census was taken in April when Northampton County's
population was at its lowest seasonal point. The.popUlation reaches
oits peak during the summer and fall with the annual influx of tourists
and migrant workers. Migrant agricultural workers represent a
significant group in Northampton County. These workers are em-
ployed in the county from March to December for average stays
ranging from 2 to 38 weeks. The 1973 distribution of migrants
by month was as follows:

FIGURE 2-L
Migrant Population Per Month: 1973

Number of Migrants
Month Northampton County

January
February
March 165
April 194
May 312
June 1,790
July 2,482
August 1,737
September 1,271
October 1,278'
November 341
December 70

SOURCE: Virginia Department of Health

A peak of 2,482 migrants.in the county was reached during the
month of July, 1973.

These workers live in camps while working in the county and generally
require little in the way of community services. The state, through

various.departments, helps regulate living and-sani-Eary con-
dit'ions among this group'.

FUTURE POPUTIATION SIZE

As mentioned earlier, Northamp ton County's populat ion has shown
steady decline since 1930, according to the U.S. census taken every
ten years. In October 1974, the University of Virginia's Taylor
.Murphy Institute, using birth and death statistics, school enroll-
ments, and income tax returns,estimated Northampton County's July 1,
1972 population was 15,000,inhabitants. Based upon experiences,with
other counties in the United States, this estimate may be off by as
much as 5.0.percent (750 persons).

Population size is most directly affected by economic and employ-
ment conditions. Areas with stable, well-paying jobs attract people
and grow in population, whereas areas with unstable and poorly pay-
ing jobs generally lose population.

At this time, no factors can be identified which are likely to
-significantsly alter the population's historical declining trend.
Agriculture.and food!processing dre'ciexpected to continue to em-
ploy fewer people and this will continue to push 'the population
down. A national trend toward earlier retirement and the renewed
interest in rural living will help to offset the decline.

Figure 2-M presents the county's estimated year-round population
for the years 1980, 1990, and 2000 as predicted by four sources.

Curve #1 represents a continuation of the 1960 to 1970 out-migra-
tion patterns.. It represents the most severe loss of population
with an estimated population, of 12,300 at 1980, 10,500 at 1990,
and 8,900 at 2000.

Curve #2 represents the predictions of the Accomack/Northampton
County Planning District-and was used as a basis for the planning
district commission's water quality management plan. It is the
most optimistic projection, estimating 13,800 by 1980, 14,300 by
1990, and 15,800 by the year 2000. This projection anticipates a
dramatic economic and employment upturn.in the Eastern Shore dur-
ingthe 1970's.

.Curve #3 was made by the Division of State Planning and Community
Affairs and represents a continuing but moderate decline. The
state estimates are for 13,500 in 1980, 13,200 in 1990, and 13,000
by 2000. -The state projection further predicts the county's popu-
lation remaining at 13,@000 until 2010 when it would begin an upturn.

Curves #2 and #3 were made before off@-shore oil production was a
serious possibility and therefore do not reflect its possible impact.

Curve #4, made by Urban Pathfinders, Inc. lies between a continuation
of historical trends (Curve #1) and Curve #3, the state estimate.
This projection is based on a continuing decline in the employment
picture, moderately offset by a slight increase in retirees and
tourist related business. The authors' projections are for 13,200
by 1980, 12#200 by 1990 and 11,500 by 2000. This projection spe-
cifically does not take into consideration the possible impacts.-of
off-shore production. This impact will be specifically addressed
in the second phase of this study.

FIGURE 2-M
Population.Projections

P4 3
0 4
P4 10
44
0

E-1
0

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR

Curve #1 Projection of 1960 to 1970 Historical Trend
Curve #2 'Accomack-Northampton Plannin g District Commission
Curve #3 Virginia Division of State Planning- and Community Affairs
Curve :94 Urban Pathfinder s, Inc.

CHAPTER THREE
);@k @k7

ECONOMICS
47

The data presented in this chapter analyze individual, family
and business economic characteristics, including income, ex-
penditures, payrolls, employment patterns, and receipts to
determine Northampton County's relative economic strengths
and weaknesses. It reveals that in past decades, Northampton
County has not experienced,overall economic growth.

Northampton County is not alone in its plight; many of its
problems are shared with neighboring Accomack County. Economic
lethargy is typical of rural areas dependent upon farming,
fishing, and the processing of agricultural or seafood pro-
ducts.

INCOME

The following table presents average annual per capita incomes
for Northampton and Accomack Counties and the state for 1959
and 1969.

FIGURE 3-A
Per Capita Income: 1959-1969

% Change
1959 1969 1959-1969

Northampton County .$1,253 $1,698 36
Accomack County 1,289 1,944 51
Commonwealth of Virginia 1,816 3,013 66

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

In 1959, per-capita income in both Eastern Shore counties was
approximately the same with both counties significantly
below the state average. Between 1959 and 1969, per-capita
income increased 66 percent for the state, 51 percent for
Accomack County, and only 36 percent for Northampton County.

As a result of the slower growth of per-capita income in Northamp-
ton County, the income disparity between Accomack. and Northampton
Counties widened. Furthermore, Northampton's per capita-income
of $1,253 in 1959 was 69.0 percent of the state average; by 1969,
the county's overall income of $1,698 was only 56.4 percent of
the -state average.

The following table summarizes the 1969 per capita-income figures
for Northampton County's.three magisterial districts.

FIGURE 3-B
1969 Per Capital Income by 1970 Magisterial District

District 1969 Per Capita Income

Capeville $1,611
Eastville 1,436
Franktown 1,.952

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

of the three districts, Franktown had the highest per capita
income. This is due principally to Exmore and Nassawadox, both
m
r
ajor economic centers on the Virginia Eastern Shore. Exmore's
many businesses and the Northampton-Accomack Memorial Hosiptal
in Nassawadox provide substantial employment and economic
stability for the Franktown District.

The Capeville District, which ranked second in per capita income,
contains Cape Charles and Cheriton. Each town enjoys a signifi-
cant element of stable higher paying government, public service
and industrial employment. These include several small military
bases, the offices of the Bay-Bridge Tunnel, the railroad ferry
as well as substantial private industry, such as Bayshore
Concrete Products located south of Cape Charles.

The Eastville District, except for the town of Eastville, the
county seat, lacks a significant economic center and has there-
fore the lowest per capita income of the three districts.

Figure 3-C presents median annual incomes for families in
Northampton and Accomack Counties as well as the Commonwealth
of Virginia for 1959 and 1969.

FIGURE 3-C
Median Annual Family Income: 1959-1969 % Change
Northampton County 1959 1969 1959-1969
$2,659 $4,778 79.7
Accomack County 2,817 5,670 97.5
Commonwealth of Virginia 4,964 9,049 83.0

SOURCE: 1969 and 1970 U.S. @_ensus

Median Family income in Northampton in 1959 was slightly below
the Accomack level. Between 1959 and 1969, Northampton family
income rose 79.7 percent to $4,668. However, it did not rise
as rapidly as either Accomack or the state as a whole and in
1969 lagged Accomack by $892 per family and dropped to only
52.8 percent of the state level.

Figure 3-D indicates the range of family incomes within
Northampton County. The distribution for,Accomack County and
the state are also presented to provide comparison.

Approximately 27 percent (961 families) of all Northampton County
families earned less than $3,000 annually in 1969. In compari-
son 24.5 percent of Accomack County families and only 10.9 per-
cent of all Virginia families earned less than $3,000.

FIGURE.3-D
'Distribution of Annual Family.Income: 1969

Commonwealth
Northampton Accomack of
County County Virginia
Number of % of All % of All % of All
Families Families Families Families

Under $ 1,000 239 6.7 5.2 2.8
$ 1,000 - $ 1,999 306 8.6 8.3 3.7
$ 2,000. - $ 2,999 416 11.7 10.0 4.4
$ 3,000 - $ 3,999 506 14.2 9.8 5.2
$. 4,000 - $ 4,999 404 11.3 @9.7 5.8
$ 5,000 - $ 5,999 364 10.2 10.3 6.6
$ 6,000 - $ 6,999 280 7.9 7.2 6.9
$ 7,000 - $ 7,999 237 6.6 8.4 7.2
$ 8,000 - $ 8,999 168 4 .@ 7 6.2 7.1
$ 91000 - $ 91999 129 3.6 5.1 6.6
$10,000 - $10,999 166 4.7 7.5 11.7
$12,000 - $14,999 149 4.2 5.5 12.2
$15,000 - $24,999 166 4.7 5.7 15.2
Over $25,000 33 0.9 1.1 4.6

TOTAL 3,563 100.0 100.0 100.0

Median Income: $4,778

SOURCE: 1970 U. S. Census

At the other end of the income scale, 14.5 percent (514 families)
of Northampton families earned $10,000 or more annually while
19.8 percent of Accomack families and 43.7 percent of all--state
families earned in excess of $10,000.

POVERTY

The preceding analyses of income patterns indicate that many
families in the two Eastern Shore counties are forced to live
on very modest incomes.

The U.S. census determines the poverty level for families based
upon a variety of factors including income, family size, sex of
family head, number of children less than 18 years of age, and.
farm or non-farm residence.

In 1969, poverty thresholds varied from $1,487 for a single fe-
male over 65 living on a farm to $6,116 for a non-farm family
of seven or more individuals headed by a male. The approximate
poverty cut-off income for a non-farm family of four headed by
a male was $3,745.

The following table shows the number of Northampton County families
in 1969 with incomes below the poverty level, the average in-
come of these families, the average amount of income needed to
bring these families up to the poverty threshold leveland the
total number of persons living in poverty.

FIGURE 3-E
Families Below Poverty Level: 1969

Northampton Accomack Virginia

Number of Families 1,140 1,898 '143,005
Percent of All Families 32.0% 27.4% 12.3%
Average of Family Income $2,033 $1,800 $2,025
Average Income Deficit $1,762 $1,495 $1,548
Number of Persons in Poverty 5,915 8,765 690,615
Percent of All Persons 41.2% 30.5% 15.5%

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

The proportion of poverty families in Northampton County is signi-
ficantly greater than in Accomack County and the state as a
whole. Similarly, the amount of money needed to bring Northampton

County families out of poverty is also substantially greater
than is required for either Accomack or the state.

Nationally two groups, the elderly and blacks, have lower incomes
than the population as a whole. A similar situation exists in
Northampton and Accomack Counties.

In 1969, approximately 920 persons over 65 years of age in
Northampton County (45 percent of the county's 2,022 senior
citizens) had annual incomes below the poverty level. This is
the. same percentage as in Accomack County.. In the Commonwealth
of Virginia, 30 percent of the elderly had incomes below the
poverty level.

The following table shows the distribution of income for Northamp-
ton's black families in comparison to Accomack County and the
state.

FIGURE 3-F
Distribttion of Annual Black Family Income: 1969

Northampton County Accomack Virginia

Number bf % of % of % of
Families Families Families Families

Less $1,000 129 8.4 6 6
$ 11000 - $ 11999 200 13.0 13 8
$ 2,000 - $ 2,999 265 17.3 15 9
$ 3,000 - $ 3,999 275 17.9 15 10
$ 4,000 - $ 4,999 232 15.1 13 10
$ 5,000 - $ 5,999 120 7.8 .11 10
$ 6,000 - $ 6,999 103 6.8 7 9
$ 7,000 - $ 7,999 115 7_5 7 8
$ 8,000 - $ 8,999 52' 3.4 4 7
$ 91000 - $ 91999 9 0.6 4 5
$10,000 - $11,999 18 1.2 1 8
$12,000 - $14,999 4 0.1 2 6,
$15,000 - $24,999 8 0.5 2 4
$25,000 and more 0.4 0 1,

TOTAL 1,536 100.0 100.0 100.0

Median $3,633

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

Approximately 38.7 percent of Northampton's County black families
earned less than $3,000 in 1970 in comparison with 34 percent
of all black families in Accomack County and 23 percent through-
out Virginia. Furthermore, only 2.2 percent of Northampton
County's black families earned $10,000 or more while 5 percent
of all black families in Accomack County and 19 percent of the
state's black families earned over this amount.

Median 1969 income for black families was $3,633 in Northampton
County, $4,015 in Accomack County and $5,742 in the entire
Commonwealth of Virginia.

In 1969, 792 of Northampton County black families (51.6 per-
cent of all black families) had incomes below the poverty .
level. The average income of black families below the poverty.,
level was $2,251. At that time, an additional income of
$1,808 per family was necessary to raise the income of these
poor black families to the poverty threshold.

The status of Northampton County's poor black families is
summarized in the following statistics.

FIGURE 3-G
Black Families Below Poverty Level: 1969

Northampton Accomack Virginia

Percent of All Black
Families 51.6 43.9 29.9
Average Family Income of
Poverty Families $2,251 $2,230 $2,322
Number of Persons in
Poverty 1,808 1,657 292.,038
Percent of All Persons 57.9 48.3 35.3

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

WAGES

Northampton County's poor economic condition is in large part
a result of the low wages received by its workers.

The following table indicates average weekly wages for the two
EasternShore counties and the Commonwealth of Virginia for
March 1970 and March 1973, based upon occupations covered by
unemployment insurance.

FIGURE 3-H
Average.Weekly Wages: 1970-1973

March March % Change
1970 1973 1970-1973

Northampton County $ 83 $ 94. 13 .3%
Accomack County 87 96 10.3
Commonwealth of Virginia 115 139 20.9

SOURCE: Virginia Empl oyment Commission

Average wages in Northampton and Accomack Counties were very
similar in both 1970 and 1973. However, Northampton wages in
1970 were only 72.2 percent of the state level and by 1973,
were only 67.6 percent of the state level, further widening
the income gap.

Between 1970 and 1973, the purchasing power of the dollar declined
by approximately 18 percent due to inflation. During this same
period, average wages rose only 13.3 percent in Northampton and
10.3 percent in Accomack resulting in a net loss in buying power
for many Eastern Shore families. This unfortunate situation
is due to a lack of well paying year-round job opportunities
and a preponderance of seasonal jobs paying minimal wages..:

As an indication of a typical employees weekly remuneration, the
following chart presents March 1973 wage rates-in Northampton

County and the state for six of the county's major employment
sectors.

FIGURE 3-1
Selected Weekly Wages: 1973

% Of
Northampton Virginia State

Construction $102 $161 63.4
Manufacturing (food processing) 91 147 61.9
Transportation Communication
& Utilities 166 184 90.2
Trade 91 118 77.1
Finance, Insurance & Real
Estate 122 148 82.4
Services 79 122 64.8

SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission

Northampton wages ranged from 61.9 percent to 90.2'percent of
the statewide average. Wages in transportation, communication, and
utilities come closest to state norms, primarily because of
blanket state or regional contracts and wage rates.

Manufacturing,which accounted for 41 percent of the county's
1973 payrolls averaged a weekly wage of $91, 61.9 percent of
the state average for that sector. This reflects low employee
skill levels and low wages commonly found in the food proces-
sing industries.

EMPLOYMENT SECTORS

Figure 3-J shows employment by type of industry for selected
years from 1950 to 1972. Employment declined in 9 of the 14
industry categories studied.

FIGURE 3- J
Employment By Industry: 1950 to 1972

Data are for March of each year and represe nt year-round
workers.

% Change
1950 1960 1970 1972 1950-1972

Agriculture 2,205 1,920 1,420 1,344 - 39

Manufacturing

Durable Goods 202 33 201 175 - 13
Food Processing. 827 615 407 486 - 41
All Other Nondurable
Goods 10 169 149 125 115

Total Manufacturing 1,039 817 757 .786 - 24

Non-Manufacturing

Contract Construction 51 61 79 82 61
Transportation & Public
Utilities 953 277 197 182 - 81
Wholesale & Retail
Trade 716 521 713 606 - 15
Finance,Insurance &
Real Estate 65 58 65 67 3
Service 230 368 584 602 1@62
Government 285 443 545 696 144
All Other Non-
Manufacturing 199 27 24 23 - 88

Total Non-Manufac-
turing 2,499 1,755 2,207 2,258 - 10

All Other 1,152 1,189 901 847 - 26

TOTAL 6,895 5,681 5,2-8 55,232 - 24

SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission

Agriculture declined by 861 workers during the study period, a
loss of 39 percent. This loss is the result of increased
mechanization of farm operations, a trend which is expected
to continue in the future and result in further employment
declines.

The manufacturing of durable goods, items of relatively long
usefulness, declined 13 percent in the 22 year period, from
202 employees in 1950 to only 175 in 1972. The only sizable
manufacturer of durable goods in Northampton County is Bay-
shore Concrete Products.

Food processing employment declined 41 percent from 827 em-
ployees in 1950 to 486 in 1972.

The greatest non-manufacturing employment decline was in
transportation and public utilities which dropped from 953 to
182 employees. This was chiefly due to closing of the Kiptopeake,
auto ferry and declining railroad employment. Since the future
of the railroad is in doubt, the county faces the possibility
of losing many of these remaining jobs.

MANUFACTURING

In 1973, manufacturing 'payroll equalled $6.1 million and re-
presented 41.1 percent of local county payroll. Manufacturing
in Northampton County consists primarily of food processing.

originally the county contained numberous small canners and
processors; however, a multiplicity of problems including
transportation costs, ineffective marketing, inefficiences
due to small old plants and poor quality control, forced
many of these facilities to close. Two firms now process the
Majority of local produce: Dulany Foods, a division of United
Foods, Inc. in Exmore processes frozen fruits and vegetables
and G. L. Webster Company, Inc. in Cheriton cans fruits'and
vegetables. Dulany Foods announced on December 31, 1974 that
it was closing down its. Exmore facility on February 28, 1975.
The firm employs overl70 persons year-round and over 300 in
the summer. It has purchased approximately $2,000,000 of
local farm produce annually. It is hoped that this important
county facility can continue under other ownership and manage-
ment.

Some other major Northampton food processors or packers of seafood
are American Orqihal-Foods, Inc., H. L. and R. L. Bowen Ovster
Company, J. C. Walker Brothers, Inc., and N. W. and H. M. Terry
Company, and D. L. Edgeton Company.

The only major county manufacturer not involved in food
processingis Bayshore Concrete Products, Cape Charles a
producer of precast and prestressed concrete products.

The following table, Figure 3-K, summarizes selected
statistics for 1972 for the county's manufacturers.

FIGURE 3-K
Manufacturing in Northampton County: 1972

Total Number of Firms 19
Firms With Over 20 Employees 5
Total Annual Payroll $ 5.6 million
Man-Hours Worked 1.6 million
Value Added By Local Manufacturer $11.6 million
Cost of Materials $12.4 million
.Value of Shipments $24.3 million
Capital Expenditures $300,00.0 annually

SOURCE: 1972 U.S. Census

.Historically downward employment trends are expected to continue
to affect the food processing industries as a result of further
-,-,.,.Plant consolidations, and continuing automation,

AGRICULTURE

The U.S. Census of Agriculture in 1969 reported that Northampton
County farmers with annual sales over $2,500 sold $10.8 million
worth of produce and incurred farm expenses of $9.6 million.
Total farm payroll amounted to $4.5 million and placed agri-
culture second only to manufacturing in payroll importance.
Considering the dependence of county food processing plants
upon local produce, it is clear that the soundness of the
Northampton economy is heavily dependent upon the county's
continuing agriculture productivity.

The following table shows that Northampton farming practices
have undergone dramatic changes in recent years.

FIGURE 3-L
Farm Statistics: 1964-1969
1964 1969

Number of Farms 315 241
Farm Acreage 64,046 acres 51,160 acves
Farm Acreage as % of county land 44.2% 36.3%
Average Size (acres) 203.3 acres 212.2 acres
Value of Land & Buildings N/A $22,521,880
Average Per Farm $3,861 @$3,451
Average Per Acre $ 301 $ 440

SOURCE: 1969 U.S. Census of Agriculture

Nationally, the trend has been to fewer but larger farms, an
overall decline in total farm acreage, and increasing farm-
investment in land and buildings.

The $440 value of land and buildings per acre in Northampton
County in 1969 was 20 percent greater than in Accomack County
and 8 percent greater than the state as a whole, reflecting
the intensive use of farmland in Northampton County.

This intensive use of land is reflected in the average number
of tractors, one of the major farm implements, per farm. In
1969, the average number of tractors per farm was 3.86 in
Northampton, 2.78 in Accomack and 1.23 in the entire State of
Virginia. Twenty years ago (1954), Northampton County averaged
only one tractor per farm in comparison to .86 in Accomack
and .43 in the state. This rise in mechanization, plus
numerous farm machinery improvements,explains the rapid
decline in agricultural employment in Northampton County
and other areas of the state and nation.

In Northampton County, the number of regularly employed'farm
workers, those with 150 days of employment or more, declined 28
percent between 1960 and 1969 from 4,718 to 3,672. The number of
seasonally hired local workers declined 16 percent from 2,500 'to
2,lnn. The number of miqrant workers declined 46 percent from
2,777 to 1,486.

Despite the reduction in the agricultural work force, farming
accounted for 3Z6 percent of the Northampton County employment
in March, 1970. During the growing season, agriculture and
food processing employ approximately half of Northampton
County's work force.

The majority of county farms are truck farms cultivating potatoes
or other vegetagles. Approximately 83 percent of all farms
sales can be attributed to "truck crops". Figure 3-M shows
the value of all farm products sold in 1969.

FIGURE 3-M
Value of Farm Products (for farms with sales over $2,500)

crop 1969 % Of Total
Grain $ 659,389 6
Cotton 560 less than 1
Field Seeds, Hay, Forge, & Silage 3*,338 less than 1
Other Field Crops 4,760,654 44
Vegetables, Sweet Corn, Melons 4,150,172 39
Fruits, Nuts, Berries 130,950 1
Nursery & Greenhouse Products 552,500 5

Forest Products 1,047 less than 1

Livestock Poultry

Poultry & Poultry Products 110,721 1
Other Cattle & Calves 120,950 1
Hogs, Sheeps, Goats 156,600 1
Other Livestock & Products 82,543 1

TOTAL $ 10,729,424 100

SOURCE: 1969 U.S. Census of Agriculture

Figure 3-N indicates acreage planted in various crops in
Northampton County in 1969. The most extensively planted crop
in Northampton County was Irish potatoes. After a constant
decline in planted acreage during the 1940's and 1950's, Irish
potato . acreage remained relatively constant in the 10 years
from 1959 1969.

FIGURE 3-N
Acres of Crops Harvested

1969
Field Corn 1,324 acres.
Sorghum 217
Wheat 618
other Small Grains 1,502
Soybeans 8 239
Hay, Except Sorghum Hay 218
Cotton 6
Peanuts 71
Irish Potatoes 9,637
Sweet Potatoes 4,223
Vegetables, Sweet Corn or Melons For Sale 11,804
Berries Pot Sale 206
Orchards 153
Other Crops - 657

TOTAL 38,875 acres

SOURCE: 1969 U.S. Census of Agriculture

Irish potatoes and sweet potatoes.acreage in Northampton County
in 1969 was approximately_31 percent of the state total acreage.

Sweet potato production has been more varied. Acreage planted
in Northampton County ranged from 1,789 acres in 1949 to a
high of 9,917 acres in 1964. Total acreage in was approxi-
mately 4,223 acres. Sweet potato producers are faced with
fourproblems: 1) declining national consumption, 2) inability
to produce a quality potato for fresh consumption 3) high
cost, low quality packaging and marketing techniques and
4) increased competition.

vegetable production was reported on 120 farms with sales over
$2,400 in 1969. Since vegetable crops have high moisture re-
quirements, supplemental irrigation is commonly used. In
1969, over 20 percent of Northampton County's vegetable acre-
age was irrigated.

In summary, farming is expected to continue as a strong vital
county business; however, farm consolidation and mechanization
will continue to push farm employment.

SEAFOOD

Because of its location on both the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake
Bay, Northampton County has traditionally had a strong fishing
industry.

The following chart summarizes the value of the seafood catch
brouqht to Northampton County landings for the five year period,
1969 - *1973. Significant annual fluctuations are evident due
to the closing of shellfish waters by pollution, storms, and
other natural factors.

FIGURE 3-0
Value of Seafood Catch: 1969-1973'

V a 1 u e
Seafood
Type 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

Fin Fish $ 554,000 $1,289,000 $ 235,000 $ 149,000 $ 195,000
Oysters 449,000 381,000 445,000 232,000 266,000
Crabs 460,000 245,000 382,000 440,000 501,000
Clams 385,000 143,000 422,000 1,957,000 4,157,000

TOTAL $1,848,000 $2,058,000 $1,4b4,000 $2,778,000 $5,199,000

SOURCE: National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

TRADE AND SE RVICES

The proceding discussion concentrated primarily upon Northampton
County's basic traditionally employed sectors -- food processing,
farming, and fishing. Upon their vitality depend the other
sectors of the economy retail and wholesale trade, and ser-
vices.

The following are sales per-capita for Northampton County,
Accomack County, and the Commonwealth of Virginia based upon
1970 population and 1973 retail sales and use tax data from
the Virginia Department of Taxation.

FIGURE 3-P
Retail Sales Per Capita: 1973

Per Capita Sales % Of State Level

Northampton County $1,826 90
Accomack County 1,340 66
Commonwealth of Virginia 2,040 100

SOURCE: Virginia Department of Taxation

The lower per-capita sales in the two Eastern Shore counties in
comparison to the state is indicative of low personal incomes.
.The lower retail sales per-capita in Accomack County (despite
Accomack's higher personal income) reflects the greater drawing
power of the nearby Maryland towns of Pocomoke City and Salisbury.

Northampton County is generally below the state norms in all
forms of retail sales. However, Northampton exceeded the state
per-capita averages in four areas: boat and marine accessories;
gifts and novelties; hotel-motel, and tourist camps; and fruit
and vegetable stands. These.are industries which cater to
@travelers, tourists, and the local sportsmen. An economic
analysis of 1973 travel patterns in Virginia conducted for the
Virginia State Travel Service indicated that travelers spent
$2,693,000 in Northampton County -- a substantial sum for a
rural economy.

The growth of retail trade and services over the five year period
1967-1972 is indicated in the following table. It is formed
by aggregating data from the U.S. Census of Retail and Trade
and the U.S. Census of Selected Services.

FIGURE 3-Q
Retail Trade and Services Sales: 1967-1972

S a 1 e s

1967 1972 % Chanje

Accomack County $31,781,000 $43,631,000 +37%
Northampton County 19,721,000 25,675,000 +30

SOURCE: U.S. Census of Business

During the five year period, sales grew by 78 percent.

Wholesale trade (sales to retailers, large institutions, in-
dustrial and commercial users or other wholesalers):is another
indicator of economic soundness and strength-. The following
are wholesale trade sales based upon the 1967 and 1972 U.S.
Census of Wholesale Trade for Accomack and Northampton Counties.

FIGURE 3-R
Wholesale Trade Sales: 1967-1972

1967 1972 % Change

Accomack County 28,519,000 28,213,000 - 1%
Northampton County 11,788,00.0 16,269,000 +38

SOURCE: U.S. Census of Business

Northampton County had a significantly better increase than
Accomack County which suffered a slight decline. This de-
cline of wholesale trade in Accomack County is a further
indication of the drawing power of nearby Maryland communities.
Statewide wholesale sales rose 67 percent between 1967 and
1972.

In summary, retail and wholesale trade and services are below
state averages but have remained relatively stable in recent
years despite a declining population and downturns in other
industries. The tourist and recreation industries have shown
growth and should continue to do so in the future.

COMMUTERS

The U.S. Census reported that in April, 1970, 5,188 Northampton
County residents were employed. At that time, 4,559 workers
(87.9 percent of the total) were employed in Northampton County,
474 workers (9.1 percent) commuted to jobs outside the county
and the remaining 155 workers (3 percent) did not report a place
of employment.

For comparison, the following table indicates the proportion of
the employed labor force in each county in'the lower Delmarva
Peninsula known to be commuting to jobs outside their home
county.

FIGURE 3-S
Workers Commuting Out-of-County: 1970 Lower Delmarva
Peninsula

Percent of All County Workers

Northampton County, VA 9.1%
Accomack County, VA 20.7

Worcester County, MD 18.1
Wicomico County, MD 10.1
@Dorchester County, MD 12.6
Somerset County, MD 23.7
@Sussex County, DE 7.9

SOURCE: 1 970 U.S. Census

Sussex County, Delaware showed the lowest out-commuting pattern
on the peninsula. Sussex has a large proportion of self sus-
taining industrial employment around Seaford, Laurel, and Lewes.

Northampton County showed the second lowest rate, less than
one-tenth of its workers. In this case, the county's relative
,isolation from major industrial centers means that there is
little opportunity for residents to commute out-of-county.
There is no regular public transportation available for
commuting workers and in 1970, 28.6: percents of all Northamp-
ton County households did not have an automobile. Significant
industrial employment is available to the north in Maryland,
over an hour's drive away and in the Norfolk and Hampton areas,
but the $6.00 one way toll on the Ches Iapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
makes commuting to the south prohibitive except for high
salaried residents or workers able to car pool.

The remaining counties including Accomack had higher rates of
out-commuting. The census reports that in 1970, 1,000 Accomack
residents commuted to Worcester County, Maryland and 592
commuted to'Northampton County.

The following chart identifies the places to which Northampton
County workers out-commuted. The chart includes both 1960 and
1970 data.

FIGURE'3-T
Destination of Northampton Out-Commuters: 1960-1970

1960 1970
% Of All % Of All
Commuters Commuters Commuters Commuters

Accomack County 157 45.6 ni 63.5
Virginia Beach City 51 14.8 26 5.5
Norfolk City 29 8.4 28
Hampton City 4 1.2 10 2.1
Somerset County, MD 4 1.2
Worcester County, MD 24 7.0 43 9.1
Wicomico County, MD - 0 8 1.7
Elsewhere 75 21.8 58 12.2

TOTAL 344 100.0 474 100.0

SOURCE: 1960 and 1970 U.S. Census

As indicated in the chart, out-commuting increased between
1960 and 1970, as in-county employment continued to drop.
In general,the most significant out-commuting increases have
been to other portions of the Delmarva Peninsula's lower shore.
For example, commuting to Accomack County increased 91.7 per-
cent in the 10 years, and Worcester and Wicomico Counties in
Maryland each had a 40 percent increase in the number of Northamp-
ton commuters.

In 1960, 89 workers used the ferry to commute from Northampton
to the Western Shore; by 1970, and with the Bay Bridge Tunnel,
open, the number had dropped to 61. This may indicate that
the toll is prohibitive.

Northampton County is not only a labor exporter, it is also
an importer.

The following shows the residences of workers known to be com-
muters to Northampton County in 1960 and 1970.

FIGURE 3-U
Residence Of In-Commuters To Northampton: 1960-1970

1 9 6 0 1 9 7 0

% Of All % Of All
Residence of Workers Commuters Commuters Commuters Commuters

Accomack County, VA 626 97.5 592 91.2
Wicomico County, MD 12 1.9 - -
Worcester County, MD 4 .6 - -
Virginia Beach, VA - - 22 3.4
Portsmouth, VA 6 .9
Norfolk, VA - - 29 4.5

TOTAL 642 100.0 649 100.0

SOURCE: 1960 and 1970 U.S. Census

Almost all of the Northampton's in-commuters come from Accomack
County, The Maryland counties supplied only 16 workers to
Northampton County firms in 1960. In 1970, no Marylanders
were known to commute to Northampton County.

In 1960, no Western Shore residents were known to commute to
Northampton County, most likely because of the 1.5 hour ferry
trip and the uncertainty of available space. In 1970, 57
Western Shore residents were making the trip; however, the
majority of these commuters were employees of the Bay Bridge
Tunnel Authority traveling to the authority's offices at
the shore end of the facility. A survey conducted by the
authority in 1973 found only 18 persons, other than authority
personnel, commuting from the Western Shore to Northampton
County.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Northampton County employment is marked by a great deal.of
seasonal fluctuation.

Figure 3-V shows seasonal employment patterns in Northampton
County from 1968 to 1972. The peaks and troughs on the graph
show the annual cyclical employment pattern based upon Virginia
Employment Commission statistics from March and September of
each year. In 1972, for example, employment increased 39
,percent'from a winter low of 5,222 workers to a fall high of
7,280 workers. A similar.influx of migrant workers (discussed
in the "Seasonal Populatiorl'section of Chapter Two) fills the
great majority of this job peak.

The number of people unemployed at any one time of the year is
shown by the vertical distance between the work force curve
and the employment curve. The greater the distance, the larger
the number of unemployed.

Figure 3-W converts the total number of unemployed persons into
a percentage of the total work force in order to allow compari-
son of Northampton County unemployment with the Commonwealth
of Virginia.

The stability of the Virginia work force in comparison with
Northampton County is obvious. Unemployment in Virginia us-
ually ranks well below the national average. Employment in
Northampton County has been traditionally tied to agriculture
and food processing. February is traditionally the trough
of the Northampton County employment cycle. March marks

FIGURE 3-V
County Work Force and Employment Levels: 1968-1972

.7
6
5
4

3-
2

7000
9

8
7

X
6

5
X.
4 X.
3
>
2 :X X-
... ...... ... ..
z
...... .... ...... .....
..... .... ...
..... ....
X .....
6000
.... .... ....
X
9
8
7
6
5

4
3
2
5000 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

-P
@4
-P

Total Work Force

Tbtal aTployment

SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission

FIGURE 3-W
Unemployment: 1968-1972

A
A

14
13 1 V
.12 1 --A

z
@:) 10

E-1
z 9

4
3.01 .........
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

-P -P
R ao),
M-P U)

Northampton County

State of Virginia.

the advent of spring and the start of the major agricultural
activities such as white potato planting, the harvesting of
spinach and asparagus, and the reopening of vegetable pro-
cessing plants. Migrant workers begin arriving. By June, the
harvesting of white potatoes begins; by mid July, squash,
tomatoes, beans, cucumbers, and sweet corn are harvested and
marketed fresh or processed. Employment usually peaks at
October harvest time. At that time over 7,000 workers may be
employed in the county, including as many as 1,000 to 2,000
migrant workers.

-Fiqure 3-Y on the following page shows seasonal employment in
1972.. Manufacturing employmen increased 65.5 percent from
786 in the spring of 1912 to 1,230 in the fall. This growth
was primarily accounted for by an 89 percent increase in food
processing activity. Agricultural employment grew 82 percent
from a base of 1,341 workers in the spring to 2,442 in the fall.

The growth in the other sectors was due to an increase in trade
and other employment to serve summertime industries, their
workers and tourists.

Unemployed workers represent an immediately available labor
resource for existing and future county industries. The fol-
lowing chart presents the job skills of unemployed workers
living in Northampton County in 1970 according to U. S.
Census data.

FIGURE 3-x
Labor Pool Occupations: 1970

Number of unemployed
Male Female Total

Professional, Technical& managerial -
Sales Workers
Clerical & Kindred 19 30 49
Operatives Including Transport 60 251 311
Other Blue Collar - -
Farm Workers 51 193 244
Service Workers Except Private
Household - 36 36
Private Household - 34 34
Service Workers Including
Private Household 12 - 12
Craftsmen, Foremen& Kindred
Workers 11 11
Laborers Except Farm 23 - 23

TOTAL 176 544 720

SOURCE: 1970 U.S Census

FIGURE 3- Y
Seasonal Employment By Industry: 1972

Spring
% Of % Of Fall
Spring Workers Fall Workers % Change

Agridultural 1,341 25.6 2,442 33.5 8.2

Manufacturing

2.1 13
Durable Goods 175 3.3 153 12.6 89
Food Processing 9.3 920
All other Non- 125 2.4 157 2.2 26
Durable Goods

TOTAL MANUFACTURING 786 15.0 1,230 16.9 56

Non-Manufacturing

Contract Construction 82 1.6 89 .9
Transportation & Public 4
Utilities 182 3.5' 190 2.6
wholesale & Retail
Trade 606 11.6 781 10.8 29
Finance,Insurance & 1.0
Real Estate 67 1.3 72 7
service 602 11.5 613 8.4 2
Government 696 13.3 612 8.4 12
All Other Non-
Manufacturing 23 0.4 76 1.0 230
TOTAL NON-MANUFAC- 2,258 43.2 2,433 33.4 8
TURING 16.1 39
All other 847 16.2 1,175

100.0
TOTAL 5,232 100.0 7,280

SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission

The census recorded 720 individuals unemployed but available for
work. Females accounted for three-quarters of the unemployed
and males one-quarter.

No professionals, managers, other blue collar and only 11 male
craftmen were reported available for employment.

The census was conducted in April and therefore reflects a
"winter time" employment picture. Two categories: operatives
(machine operators) and agriculture, accounted for 555 of the
unemployed 76.7 percent of the total. It is most likely that
these workers were merely waiting to be called back to the farms
and processing plants. This proposition is supported by the
following analysis of unemployment by industry.

Every six months, the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)
studies the characteristics of a portion of the unemployed
Eastern Shore work force registered at the local VEC office
in-Exmore. The following table shows the percent unemployed
in six major industries.

FIGURE 3-Z
Distribution of Eastern Shore Unemployment By Industry

% Of Unemployed

Manufacturing 87.4

Food 81.1
Apparel 4.9
Lumber & Wood Products 1.4

Non-Manufacturing 12.6

Wholesale & Retail Trade 5.6
Services 4.9
Other 2.1

TOTAL 100.0

SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission, 1970 U. S. Census

over 81 percent of the Eastern Shore's springtime umeployed
workers were engaged in food processing.

The following is the type of work and skill characteristics of
the.unemployed manufacturing workers on the Eastern Shore in
Marc h 1972 as surveyed by the Virginia Employment Commission.

FIGURE 3-AA
Skill Level of Unemployed Virginia Eastern Shore Manu-
facturing Workers: 1972
Average
Type Of Skilled Level
Manufacturing Employment Number Unemployed Of Unemplaed

Processing (food) 1,734 low
Machine Trade 35 medium
Bench Work 123 medium
Structural Work 35 medium

SOURCE: Virginia Employment Commission

Skill levels are customarily ranked in three categories: highl,
medium, and low. A high skill level represents a person
considerable experience who is capable of teaching and super-
vising others, setting up and operating complex machinery and per-
forming oriqinal anlytical computations. It is unlikely that there
have ever been,any significant numbers of unemployed highly
,skilled workers available in Northampton County. A medium
skill level represents a person of moderate experience who
is capable of supervising others, operating machinery, and com-_
puting pre-arranged data. About 193 workers with medium level skills
were available in'Northampton and Accomack Counties in 1972..

A low skill level represents a. person capable of assisting
more highly skilled workers and feeding materials to machines.
The great majority of the Eastern Shore unemployed falls into
this category.

FUTURE EMPLOYMENT LEVELS

Previous sections of this chapter have discussed in detail the
historical changes and declines in Northampton County employ-
ment.

The following chart is a projection of estimated county employ-
ment 1&vels for selected future years.

FIGURE 3-BB
Future Employment Levels: Year-Round Workers

Y e a r

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Agriculture 2,205 1,920 1,420 1,300 1,100 11.000
Manufacturing
(food pro-
cessing) 1,039 817 757 600 600 500
Non-Manu-
facturing 2,499 1,755 2,207 2,100 2,000 1,900
All Others 1,152 1,189 901 800 700 600

..TOTAL.EMPLOYED 6,895 5,681 5,285 4,800 4,400 4,000

SOURCE: Urban Pathfinders, Inc.

Employment totaled 5,285 workers in 1970.. This was a drop of
23.3 percent over the county's 1950 employment level. The
projection presented above predicts a continuation of this
historical trend with a total year 2,000 employment approxi-
mately 24 percent below the 1970 level.

Continuing downward trends in the four major employment sectors
are responsible for this overall decline.

Agric ulture has always been'big business in Northampton County
and it is expected to continue for the forseeable future.

However., farming has undergone considerable change in recent
years including consolidation of small farms into larger ones
and increased mechanization. As a result, between 1960 and
196.9, year-round farm employment in.the Virginia Eastern
Shore dropped 28 percent, and migrant workers dropped 46 per-
,cent. An additional 30 percent decline is projected by the
year 2000.

The manufacturing sector, which is largely food,processing, has
undergone similar trends. Price competition, plant closings
and consolidations and automation have reduced the need for
personnel. Persons employed in food processing in Northampton
County declined 21 percent between 1960 and 1970. In addition, a
34 percent decline, is projected for this sector by the year
2000, as a result of continuing declines in food processing
employment.

Thenon-manufacturing and "all other" sectors of the local
economy.exist in large measure to support the needs of the
agricultural and food processing industries as well as the
population in general. Declines in these primary industries
will cause corresponding declinesin the secondary ones.
A 14 percent decline in non-manufacturing employment and a
33 percent decline in the miscellaneous category is predicted
by the year 2000.

The.above projections are based on a continuation of current
trends. Any number of factors could alter the figures signifi-
cantly, either upward or downward. The potential impact of
one of these factors, the Brown & Root proposal, will be the
subject of a follow-on study.

wmmmmmwm@ man dmmmwmmmmw@

CHAPTER FOUR
HOUSING
79

GENERAL

The 1970 census reported 5,798 housing units existing in Northamp-
ton County. Of this total, 5,468 units were for year-round
occupancy and the remaining 330 units were classified as
seasonal or migratory units.

Since most Northampton County migrant worker camps do not meet
the census definition of a housing unit, it is felt that the
majority of these 330 units were not migratory homes but sea-
sonal homes and cottages.

YEAR-ROUND HOMES

Northampton County's 5,468 year-round homes are predominantly
single-family homes. At the time of the census, approximately
88.8 percent of all housing units, 4,854 homes, were single-
family residences;@ 449 homes, 8.2 percent, were multi-family
units; and the remaining 3 percent, 165 units, were mobile
homes.

The distribution of these year-round homes among the county's
towns and magisterial districts very closely followed the dis-
tribution of population.

of the county's single-family homes, 1,867 units .(39 percent),
were in the Capeville District; 1,863 (38 percent), were in
.the Franktown District; and 1,124 (23 percent),were in the
Eastville District.

of the county's 449 multi-family units, 325 units, 73.7 percent,
were duplexes. Approximately 254 duplex units, 78 percent,
were in Capeville (pr�marily Cape Charles) while the remaining
71 were almost evenly split between the Eastville and Franktown
Districts.

These duplex homes were primarily older large residences which
has been split into two smaller apartment units. The remaining
multi-family units were located in structures of 3 to 49 units
each. Capeville accounted for 88 of these units, 71 percent
again, because of higher density development in Cape.Charles.
The Eastville District had 19 units, 8 percent, and the Frank-
town District had 26 units, 21 percent.

MOBILE HOMES

The 165 mobile homes in Northampton County were distributed in
a pattern similar to single-family and multi-family homes.
'Capeville had 64, Eastville 47, and Franktown,54.

The following table indicates the number of new conventional
single-family homes and mobile homes in Northampton County
in 1972 and 1973.

FIGURE 4-A
'New Housing Units

1972 1973

Conventional Homes 63 66
Mobile Homes -21 45

TOTAL 84 ill

.SOURCE: Adcomack-Northampton Planning District Commission
and the Northampton County Zoning Administration

Only 3 more conventional homes were constructed in 1973 than
in 1972; however, more than twice as many mobile homes were
brIought into Northampton County in 1973 than in 1972. If this
trend continues, in 1974 new mobile homes would equal the number of
conventionally built homes and in 1975 surpass conventionally
constructed housing.

This significant increase in mobile homes is a nationwide
occurence. Nationally, approximately one-half of all new
housing units constructed this year will be mobile homes and
mobile homes will comprise 90 percent of all new homes selling
for less than $15,000.

The trend towards mobile homes reflects a dramatic increase in
construction costs for conventionally built housing as opposed
to the relatively stable price of mobile homes. This stable

price combined with easy financing terms makes mobile homes
the only housing that many people, particularly young married,
couples, the poor and the elderly, can afford.

OCCUPANCY

of the county's 5,468 year-round housing units,' 4,680 were
occupied at the time of the census by either the owner or a
renter. Of this total, approximately 58 percent, 2,706 units,
were owner occupied homes, while the remaining 42 percent, 1974
units, were renter occupied. The ratio of owners to renters
is similar in Accomack County.

The following table shows how these 4 680 Northampton County
housing units are distributed among the three magisterial dis-
tricts by type of occupancy.

FIGURE 4-B
Location and Occupancy of Housing Units: 1970

Total Owner Percent Renter Percent
occupied occupied Owner Occupied Renter
District Units Units_ Occupied Units occupied,

Capeville 1,913 1,057 55.3 856 44.7
Eastville 1,014 596 58.8 418 41.2
Franktown 1,753 1,053 60.1 700 39.9

COUNTY TOTAL 4,680 2,706 57.8 1,974 42.2@`

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

Franktown ha d the largest proportion of o@vner occupied housing
while Capeville had the lowest, however, the proportion of
ownership and rental housing is generally evenly distributed
throughout the county.

The following table indicates housing occupancy by blacks and
whites. Fifteen units owned by other races are excluded.

FIGURE 4-C
Housing Occupancy By R ace: 1970

Northampton White % White Black % Black
County occupied Occupied occupied Occupied

All Occupied 4,680 2,608 55.7 2,057 44.0
owner Occupied 2,706 1,772 67.9. 934 45.4
Renter.Occupied 1,974 836 32.1 1,123 54.6

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

Approximately two-thirds of Northampton County's whites own
their own homes while less than half the county's blacks are
home owners.

AGE OF HOUSING

Of the 4,680 occupied housing units in Northampton County in
1970, 2,983, 63.7 percent, were built before 1939. The following
table, Figure 4-D,indicates the age of the occupied homes within
each maqisterial district.

Newer construction is generally well distributed throughout
the county without significant concentration in any one loca-
tion. Franktown, however, has seen more new construction than
the other two districts. Approximately.half of Northampton
County's new year-round homes have been built in Franktown
since- 1950.

FIGURE 4-D
L@2e of Occupied Housing By District: 1970

Y e a r B u i 1 t

Prior
1965- 1960- 1950- 1940- To
District Total 1970- 1969 1959 1949 1939

Capeville 1,913 3.5% 5.10-6 11.1% 10.0% 70.3%
Eastville 1,014 4.7 6.8 8.6 6.5 73.4
Franktown 1,753 7.5 8.1 17.6 15.7 51.1

COUNTY TOTAL 4,680 5.3% 6.-T-. 13.0% 11 .4% 63.7%
SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished' data)

The following table indicates age of county housing by the
manner of occupancy: ownership or rental.

FIGURE 4-E
Age of Housing By Occupancy: 1970

Prior
1965- 1960- 1950- 1940- To
Units 1970 1969 1959 1949 1939

Owner Occupied 2,706 7.6% 8.8% 15.80-o 11.2% 56. 0%
Renter Occupied 1,974 2.0 3.5 9.2 11.0 74.3

TOTAL 4,680 5.3% 6.59o 13.00-6 11.4% 63.7%

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

'In Northampton County, as in other rural areas, proportionately
more renter-s than owners live in older homes. According,to the
census, approximately three-fourths of all rented homes were
built before 1940. In comparison, slightly more than half
the owner occupied homes were built prior to 1940.

older homes are often in poorer condition than newer housing.
Insulation, heating,,,plumbing, and electrical wiring in older
homes, for example, may be insufficient by modern building codes
and housing standards. Consequen 'tly, it is assumed that many
renters live in Northampton County s poorest housing.

The construction of new rental properties had been slight.,
Between 1965 and early 1970, only 39 units has beem constructed
wh ich were rented at the time of the census. Four of these
rental units were built in the Capeville District; and 35 were
built in the-Franktown District. None were constructed in@the
Eastville District.

HOUSING CONDITION

The majority of Northampton County's residents live in safe and
sound housing. However, a significant proportion of county
families live in inadequate housing. The 1970 census enumerates
the number of housing units lacking basic facilities such as
adequate plumbing, heating, and sewage disposal and provides a
reliable measure of overall housing conditions. The-1970
census found that of the 5,468 year-round units, many units
and especially black occupied units, lacked basic necessities.
The following chart summarizes these deficiencies.

FIGURE 4-F
Housing Deficiencies
% of
Black All Black
All % of Occupied occupied
Units All Units Units Units

Lacking Some Plumbing .2,284 41.8% 1,514 73.6%
No Piped Water 1,666 30.5 1,232 56.6
No Flush Toilet 2,014 36.8@ 1,423 69.2
No Bathtub or Shower 2,147 39.3 1,463 71.1
Incomplete Kitchen 1,882 34.4 1,287 62.6
Insufficient or No
Heating 1,254 22.9 769 37.4
No Public Sewer, Cesspool
or Septic Tank 2,031 37.1 1,401 68.1

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census

Several different deficiencies usually occur in the same units.
That is to say, homes without complete kitchens usually also
lack complete bathroom, sufficient,heating, etc. Based upon
the number of housing units lacking some plumbing which is the
largest single deficiency recorded for homes in Northampton
County, it is assumed that 2,284 units,(41".8 percent of all
homes),are deficient to some degree. Approximately 1,700
units have no piped water inside the structures. It is
assumed that multiple deficiencies in these units are so servere
that it would not be economically fesabile to rehabilitate
them. These 1,700 seriously deficient units should be replaced
through new construction. The remaining 584 deficient units
could probably be economically rehabilitated.

At the time of the census, 454 of the 2,284 deficient units
were unoccuDied. It is assumed that these 454 units were part.
of the 1,700 seriously deficient units. Consequently, in 1970,
there were 1,830 occupied (2,284 - 454) deficient units and
1,246 (1,700 - 454) seriously deficient occupied units in
need of replacement. The 1,830 deficient units contained
1,514 units occupied by blacks and 316 units occupied by
whites. Consequently, 12.1 percent of all white occupied
units and 73.6 percent of the black occupied units were de-
ficient to some degree in 1970.

The following table allocates the 1,830 occupied deficient
units in 1970 by magisterial districts.

FIGURE 4-G
occupied Deficient Housing By.District

Number of Def icient Percent of All
occupied Units Occupied Units
District In District In District-

Capeville 728 38.1
Eastville 482 47.5
Franktown 620 35.4

TOTAL 1,830 39.1

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

Capeville and Franktown had the largest number of deficient
occupied homes. But since they contained a significant num-
ber of sound homes also, they were below the county average of
39.1 percent. Eastville, on the other hand, contained fewer
occupied homes than the other districts, but a larger.percen-
tage (47. 5 percent) were deficient. Conseqqently, the propor-
tion of deficient homes in Eastville is substantially above
the county average.

OVERCROWDING

overcrowding in housing is defined as having more than one.per-
son per room. A "room" is defined as a whole space used for
living purposes. It does not include bathrooms, foyers, closets,
utility rooms, unfinished.attics, or-basements.

In 1970, 304 housing units, 6.5 percent of all units, con-
tained between one and one and a half persons per room. Another
250 units, 5.3 percent of all units, contained over one and a
half persons per room. Altogether 544 units, 11.8 percent of
all units, were overcrowded in 1970. This represents an un-
.desirable condition and is significantly greater than the
state average of 7.7 percent overcrowded housing units.

In Northampton County, 184 of the overcrowded units were owner
occupied. This represented 6.8 percent of all owner occupied
units. Among the rental units, 374, 18.4 percent, were over-
crowded.

Black families occupied 88.8 percent of the all overcrowded
units while white families accounted for the remaining 11.2
percent of overcrowded units.

The table (Figure 4-H)on the following page shows the number of
overcrowded units within.each magisterial district.

overcrowding like deficient housing, was rather evenly spread
throughout Northampton County. No magisterial district.
has an unusually high proportion of overcrowded conditions.

Most of the overcrowded homes are also deficient. of the 544
overcrowded units in 1970, for example, only 68, 12.5 percent,
.had all plumbing facilities.

FIGURE 4-H
Overcrowded Units By District

Percent
.@qf All Occupied.'.
District Overcrowded Units Un-its in District

Capeville 189 .9.9
Eastville 136 13.4
Franktown 229 13.1

COUNTY TOTAL 554 11.8

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

VACANCY

At the time of the census, 788 year-round housing units in
Northampton County were vacant. This amounted to 14.4 percent
of the county's supply of year-round housing units. However,,
few of these homes represented a potential resource for
Northampton residents needing better housing.

The preceding conditions analysis revealed that 454 of the un-
occupied but year-round units lacked plumbing facilities.
Therefore, only 334 vacant units, 42.4 percent had all con-
veniences necessary for an adequate living environment.

Regardless of their soundness or deterioration, many of
these 788 vacant homes were unavailable '--- 528 were neithittr
for salenor.for rent. It is concluded that many of these 528
units were probably second homes, vacant pending their owners
use; others may have simply been abandoned.structures. Only
260 vacant year-round units were for sale or rent. Thirty-one
were for sale and 25 of these units had been vacant for more
than six months. Ninteen lacked plumbing facilities.

Another 221 units were for rent. of these, 173 had been vacant
for more than two months. Some plumbing facilities weremissing
in 153 vacant rental units.

in summary, in 1970, there were only 12 completely sound units
for sale in the county and 68 sound units for rent. Altogether
only 80 sound units were available for county residents seeking
new housing. This represented an overall vacancy rate of .0.7
percent for owner occupied housing and 3.4 percent for rental
housing when compared to-all occupied housing, usually a
vacancy rate of 1.5 percent@for owner occupied housing and 5
'percent for rental housing is desirable to provide.a normal
turnover of units and allow residents a reasonable choice.in
housing.

HOUSING VALUE

The cost of housing, especially in today's inflationary times,
is a national concern. The following analysis gives some in-
sight into what Northampton County residents spend for housing.

The data is based upon the 1970 census and consequently is 4
years out of date; however, it does indicate important trends.

The following table arrays the 1970'value of owner occupied
housing in Northampton County for homes on lots smaller than
10 acres which contained no business on the premises. The
estimates were made by the owners and generally tend-to be
conservative.

VIGURE 4-1
Value of All,Owner Occupied Homes on Lots Less Than 10
Acres: 1970

Number Of Owner
Value Occupied Homes % Of Total

Less Than $ 5,000 500 23.8
$ 5,000 - $ 9,999 821 39.0
$10,000 - $14,999 297 14.1
$15,000 - $19,999 216 10.3
$20,000 - $24,999 93 4.4
$25,000 - $34,999 106 5.0
$35,000 + 71 3.4

TOTAL UNITS- 2,104 100.0
Median Value $7,600
SOURCE:' 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

The median value of owner occupied housing.was $7,600. This is
substantially higher than Accomack County where median value
of owner occupied housing was $6,900; but is substantially less
than the state as a whole where the median value was $17,200.

The following chart presents monthly contract rents for homes
in Northampton County with lots less than 10 acres and no
business on the premises.

FIGURE 4-J
Contract Rent

Number of Units Percent of Total

Less $30 780 49.2
$ 30 - $ 39 186 11.8
$ 40 - $ 59 216 13.6
$ 60 - $ 79 91 5.7
$ 80 - $ 99 16. 1.0
$100 - $149 19 1.2

No Cash Rent 277 17.5

TOTAL 1,585 100.0

.Median Rent $ 30
SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

Halt of Northampton County's renters paid less than $30
p.er month in rent. Another 17.5 percent paid no cash rent at
all. Homes with no rent are generally occupied by farm workers
who receive free housing as part of their employment compensa-
tion. The statewide median monthly rent was $93 in 1970.

HOUSING NEEDS

How much housing at what price is needed to meet North ampton
County's citizens' needs, can be calculated using a demand

versus supply analysis. A demand/supply analysis compares the
number of families or individuals who need housing with the
number of satisfactory dwelling units available. If demand
exceeds supply, there is a shortage of satisfactory housing;
if supply exceeds demand, a surplus exists.

Using 1970 census data, Northampton County's housing demand
consists of the following elements.

FIGURE 4-K
Northam2ton County Housing Needs

Number of occupied standard units 2,850
Number of occupied deficient units
.(lacking some plumbing) I . +1,830
Number of standard overcrowded units
(more than 1.0 inhabitants per room) + @68
Desired number of vacancies (41 sale
units, 100 rental units) + 141
Existing number of vacant standard
housing units 80

TOTAL NUMBER OF STANDARD HOUSING
UNITS REQUIRED 4,809

Supply is the total number of existing housing units less
the number of substandard'units and seasonal or abandoned
homes:

Total number of existing housing units +5,46a
Number of substandard units -2,28 4
Number of year-round seasonal and
abandoned units - 528

TOTAL NUMBER OF STANDARD UNITS
PRESENTLY AVAILABLE 2,656

SOURCE: Urban Pathfinders, Inc.

When the supply and demand figures are compared, it is evident
that a shortage of approximately 2,200 housing units exists
within Northampton County-..

The U.S. Census reported that 246 homes occupied at the time,
of the census were built between January 1965 and March 1970.
Other homes were also constructed during this period, but not
occupied at the time of the census and therefore, were pro-
bably second homes. Consequently, approximately 50 new homes
were constructed each year for year-round Northampton County
residents. At this rate, 44 years would be required before
the present housing shortage of 2,200 units would be fulfilled.

Where could these 2,200 new homes by built?

Statistics compiled by the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Com-
mission indicate that only 350 residential lots are currently
available in Northampton County's towns. Another 11 lots are
owned by builders for construction of low cost Farmers Home
Administration housing and another 461 lots exist in various
county subdivisions. Most of these subdivisions are high
priced second home developments where lots commonly sell for
$10,000 to $12,000 each, prices unaffordable' by the majority
of Northampton County residents. Consequently, at least
1,800 new residential lots are required just to meet the
housing needs of existing county residents.

Part of this demand could be met by redevelopment of existing
properties. However, if present housing patterns continue,
most residential develo6ment will be new construction outside,
the incorporated towns.

A nationally recognized standard states that a family or indi-
vidual should spend no more than 25 percent of its income for
housing. Many Northampton County residents spend less than,
this ratio; however, a significant proportion spends much
more.

The following table, Figure 4- L,shows the number of Northampton
County residents, by income grouping, known to be paying
more than 25 percent of income for housing in 1970. The analysis
concentrates on renters since this is the group usually hurt
most by a housing shortage and high housing prices.

These 492 families or individuals who were known to be paying,
more than 25 percent of their income for housing comprised 24.9
percent of all 1970 renters. These families are in the lower
economic strata; all had annual incomes under $7,000 and the
majority had incomes under $3,000.

FIGURE 4-L
Rent in Excess of 25 Percent of Income

Annual Income Number of Families

Under $3,000 407
$3,000 - $4,999 70
$5,000 - $6,999 15

TOTAL 492

SOURCE: 1970 U.S. Census (unpublished data)

The following analysis computes what these renters could afford
.to spend on housing (maximum of 25 percent of income.)

Assuming a $2,000 annual income for these renters earning under
$3,000, a $4,000 income for these earnings between $3,000 and
$4,999, and a $6,000 income for those earning between $5,000
and $6,999; the maximum affordable monthly rents for these 492
families in 1970 were as follows:

FIGURE 4-M
Maximum Affordable Rents

Number of Average Maximum Affordable
Income Families Monthly Rent

Under $3,000 407 $ 42
$3,000 - $4,999 70 83
$5,000 - $6,999 15 125

TOTAL 492

SOURCE: Urban Pathfinders, Inc.

most likely, units renting for $125 could be provided by the
private housing market. However, provision by the private
sector of sound homes renting for $83 a month would be very
difficult and would require some form of government
assistance. Sound housing renting for $42 a month could only
be provided under a government subsidy program.

v 'ful I ull ii Fri 1:@ i
I/zj p
t lf

Ofi' IW 1'0 "Aig
ki

CHAPTER FIVE

This chapter deals with those public services that Northampton
County and its towns provide its citizens. Topics discussed
include education, library, social services, health care,
recreation, police, fire and ambulance protection, water and
sewer service and solid waste disposal.

EDUCATION

Northampton County has six public elementary and intermediate
schools, one public high school, one_Junio -r high school and---one
P4 i school combining grades kinderqarten throuqh 12 in Cane.-
ChArles-and one.private school for grades kindergarten through 12.--.

The public schools are organized into two independent systems:
Northampton County and,Cape Charles. Discussions about a possible
merger of the two systems have taken place for several years. It
is felt by many that the Cape Charles School will officially be-
come part of the Northampton County system within the next few
years. In the meantime, working relations between the staffs of
the two systems are good.

Enrollments in the county's public school system have been declin-
ing over recent years. The following table shows enrollments
from the last six school years.

FIGURE 5-A
Public School Enrollment

Year County Cape Charles Total

1969-70 3,611 + 339 3,950
1970-71 3,296 + 393 i_-_-3j689
1971-72 3,227 + 389 = 3,616
1972-73 3,114 + 387 = 3 501
1973-74 3,091 + 410 3:501
1974-75 3,200 + 378 3,578

SOURCE: Superintendent's Annual Reports

Over the six year period, overall enrollment fell by 9.4 percent.
The stabilization in enrollment in 1973-1974'and the slight in-
crease in 1974-75 are believed due to several factors. The
institution of public kindergarten classes has been the most
important. Another has been a lower dropout rate, the result
of a more interesting and varied curriculum. School officials
anticipate enrollment to remain fairly stable for the next sev-
eral years.

The declining school enrollment in past years does.not necessarily
mean a surplus in school capacity. A study of attendance at the
county schools at one point in 1974 andestimated capacity of each
--School are shown by the following chart.

FIGURE 5-B
Northampton County Public School Attendance: 1974

Estimated
School Grades,"--.-..'Attendance Capacity

Capeville Elementary 5-7 272 275
Cheriton Elementary K-4 356 @275
Machipongo Elementary K-7 452 400
Bird's Nest Intermediate 7 107 _100
Exmore Willis Wharf
Elementary 4-6 282 300
Hare Valley Primary K-3 333 400
Northampton Jr. High 8-9 529 600
Northampton Sr. High 10-12 708 606

3,039

Contains some relocatable classrooms

SOURCE: Northampton County Board of Education

The analysis indicates a slight deficiency in the capacity in the
..overall system. In additiont part of the capacity is in relocat-
able classrooms which are not a desirable long term solution to
the county's educational needs. The most serious capacity problem
is at the senior high school.
100

The Northampton County school system has a continuing construction
program for school improvement and has recently completed a new
addition to Hare Valley Primary School.

Plans have also been developed for improvements to the senior
high school including a classroom addition, new library and
science facilities.. additional art and music studios and incr eased
ymn asium seating. New junior high school facilities includ-
ing'a new science facility and additional classrooms are also
being planned. A new elementary school to replace the Capeville
and Cheriton s chools is also planned fo r the southern portion of
the county.-
Education is 'Northampton-County's biggest governmental expense.
The following table shows the county's education operating e'x-
penditures from fiscal years 1969 to 1973.

FIGURE 5-C
County Educational Expenses: FY 1969-1973
% Change
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1969-1973

Administration $ 42,823 $ 45,701 $ 67,194 $ 76,293 $ 68,346 59.6
Instruction 1,028,762 1,127,640 1,302,018 1,454,546 1,546,846 50.4
Attendence &
Health Services 47 18,307 36,201 -
Pupil Transporta-
tion 97,923 127,723 127,675 144,688 .149,501 52.6
School Food Ser-
i7ices Of School
Plant 27,420 72,491 94,667 126,933 148,668 44.0
Operation & main-
tenance 191,840 143,376 172,482 201,518 233,889 21.9
Fixed Charges 25,012 18,264 30,381 43,323 46,327 85,2
Adult Education 19,529 20,760 22,580' 24,548 26,036 33.3
Other Educational
Programs 186,788 301,163

TOTAL $1,433,309 $1,556,002 $1,835,304 $2,293,850 $2,556,977 78.4

SOURCE: Northampton County Annual Financial Reports

101

Total costs have increased over 78.4 percent during the five year
period. Much of this rise has been offset by increased contri-
butions from the federal and state government as detailed under
Public Finance, a later chapter in this report.

Per"pupil operating costs based upon attendance and excluding
special programs, aid to.migrants, etc., was $869 in 1974.

LIBRARY FACILITIES

The Eastern Shore Public Library in Accomack serves both Northamp-
@ton and Accomack Counties. A small branch in Cape Charles is
open on selected weekdays and evenings. Other towns in Northamp-
ton County are served by a bookmobile.

SOCIAL SERVICES

There are many public and private agencies providing social ser-
vices in Northampton County and the Eastern Shore. The largest
.and most comprehensive service is provided by the county Depart-
ment of Public Welfare. The department is supervised by a local
three member board and has a full-time director and staff.

Department programs include: general relief, old age assistance,
aid to the blind, aid to dependent children, regular foster care
of children, aid to the permanently and totally disabled, family
day care, hospitalization and other institutional care.

The 1973 costs of these programs are shown in Figure 5-D on
the following page.

102

FIGURE 5-D
Public Welfare Programs

1973 Public Assistance Costs

General Relief $ 15,929
Old Age Assistance 86,446
Aid to Blind' 14,511
Aid to Dependent Children 428,194
Regular Poster Care of Children 11,110
Aid to Permanently and Totally Disabled 100,571
Family Day Care 3,174
.Institutional Care/Hospitalization 44,437

Total $ 704,372

SOURCE: 1973 Northampton County Financial Report

Total operating cost of the department for 1973 including s taff
and office expenses was $804,651. Federal and state financial
assistance amounted to over $725,000.

HEALTH CARE

Nor thampton County is served by the new 125 bed Northampton-Accomack
Memorial Hospital. Dedicated in October 1971, the hospital is a
modern six-story structur'e just outside of Nassawadox. At present,
only four floors of the hospital are in use. The top two floors,
reserved for future expansion, are roughed in and can be completed
by local contractors. When they are finished, capacity will be
increased to 203 beds.

Northampton County has 19 practicing physicians. Unfortunately 16
of the 19 are concentrated in Nassawadox, leaving Cape Charles,
Exmore and Eastville with one general practitioner each. Further-
more, many of the 16 physicians in Nassawadox do not provide direct

103

patient care, practicing only in conjunction with the hospital or
on a special referral basis.

An acute shortage of physicians occurs throughout the Virginia
Eastern Shore. In the two county area there is only one physician
.for every 1,500 residents. For physicians in direct patient care,
the ratio is 1 to 2,172 residents. The national average is one
physician per 770 persons. ' i
It appears this situation might get.worse in the near future. Of
the 28 physicians from both Accomack and Northampton Counties
practicing at NAM Hospital, 6 are over 62 years of age and half.
are over 50. Few young doctors have.been moving in to take their
places.

The following table indicates the areas of physician shortfall
on the Eastern Shore.

FIGURE 5-E
Physician Deficiencies on the Eastern Shore

Physicians Existing
Specialty Needed Physicians Deficiency

General Practice 16 13 3
Pediatrics 2 1 1
OB/GYN 2 0 2
Urology 1 0 1
Dermatology 1 0 1
Psychiatry 1 0 1
orthopedics 1 0 1.

Totals 24 14 10

SOURCE: Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth
University

Preventive health care services are provided by the Northampton

104

County Health Department. Major health programs conducted bythe
health department include:
Maternity and Child Health
Family Planning
Chest X-ray
Medicaid Screening
Immunization
Veneral Disease
Orthopedic
Physical Therapy
Crippled Children's Clinic

General outpatient sick services are provided only during June,
July and August when night clinics for migrant workers are held
under a U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare grant.

The 1974 fiscal year budget request for operation of the Northamp-
ton County Health Department was $170,594. Northampton County's
share was 22.2 percent, $37,742; the remainder was financed through
state contributions.

With over 14 percent of,its population 65 years of age or older,
Northampton County has a pressing need for long term geriatric
facilities.

The Tidewater Regional Health Planning'Council recommends 45 nurs-
ing home beds per 1,000 persons, 65 years of age or older. Based
upon this ratio, Northampton County at present needs 97 beds and
an additional 58 beds are needed for Accomack County senior citizens.
Consequently, the planning council has proposed construction of a
120 bed facility at Nassawadox to serve both counties. A 10 mem-
ber committee of Northampton County residents is currently seeking
financing for the facility.

RECREATION

Northampton County, with its varied shoreline, sheltered coves,
marshes, forests and fields, offers excellent recreational possi-
bilities.

105

Many'of the county's recreation facilities however, are more for
the seasonal visitor than the local resident. More are privately
owned than public.

Recent studies by the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation
and the Accomack-Northampton Planning District have itemized the
following private facilities in Northampton County.

1. Four privately owned marinas concentrated, in Cape
Charles.
2. One private 9 hole golf course and swimming club in
Cape Charles.
3.1 Twolarge private hunting clubs in Exmore.
4. Four private beaches.
5. A variety of private swimming pools at the Cape Charles
Country Club, Moose Lodge, and Route 13 motels.
6. Three campgrounds on the bayside and one on the ocean-
side collectively containing 675 sites.

A number of publicly owned facilities serving both year-round and
seasonal populations also exist in Northampton County. These faci-
lities include:

1. Four launching ramps maintained by the Virginia Commis-
sion of Game and Inland Fisheries.

a. Morley's Wharf on Occahannock Creek, owned by
Northampton County - contains a 16' wide ramp
and three acres of.land..
b. Cape Charles Wharf owned by the municipality
contains one 28 foot double ramp and parking
for 150 cars.
C. Red Bank Ramp on Red Bank Creek near Nassawadox
owned by the Virginia Commission of Game and
inland Fisheries - contains two single ramp's and
parking for 25 cars.
d. Oyster Wharf on Mockhorn,Bay owned by Northamp-
ton Countv - contains one 10 foot rampand
parking for 25 cars.

2. One state owned hunting area, Mockhorn Island owned by
the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries.---
Approximately 6,000 acres are used for hunting; the

106.

remaining 3,000 acres are permanent refuge.
3. one public beach at Cape Charles
4. Three picnic groves along Route 13 near Exmore,
Eastville, and Cheriton.

The public Northampton County facilities which chiefly serve
year-round residents are:

1. Three football fields at the Northampton and Cape
Charles High Schools.
2. Four baseball fields at Northampton High School,
Cape Charles High School, Broadwater Academy, and
the Cape Charles Little League Field.
3. Tennis courts at Northampton High School.
4. Playgrounds at the elementary and middle schools.
5. A 65 acre municipal,park at Cape.Charles.

Most town and county recreation facilities are currently pro-
vided after hours on school sites. Such "doubling up" of faci-
lities can create conflicts in use and responsibility.

Figure 5-F, Recreation Facility Standard4 on the following page
lists customary recreation standards fox towns and outlying areas
in rural counties.

These standards indicate that for each 1,000 residents in the
towns, ten acres of outdoor recreational land should be provided,
half of which should be local and the responsibility of the muni-
cipal government or private developers if possible. The remaining
more regional facilities should be a county responsibility. It is
assumed that persons living outside of the incorporated towns do
not have a requirement for neighborhood/town type recreational
space; therefore, for each 1,000 of these'persons, the standard
indicates only five acres of recreation facilities need to be
provided by the county.

The'following statistics summarize the present acreage require-
ments for town and county-wide recreation needs.

Year Town Requirements County Requirements

1970 44 acres 50 acres + 14 landings and
fishing piers

107

FIGURE 5-F
Recreation Facility Standards

Recreation Facility Standards for Towns

TVpe of Facility Service Area Standard Provided BV

Play Lots neighborhoods and (as need6d) towns or
small developments developers

Neighborhood neighborhoods and 2.5 acres/1000 towns or
Parks large developments town people developers

Town Parks towns 2.5 acres/1000 towns
town people

Water-oriented county-wide 2.5 acres/1000 county
Parks county people

Inland Parks county-wide. 2.5 acres/1000 county
county people

Boat Landings, county-wide 1 landing and county
Fishing Piers pier/1000 county
people

Recreation Facility Standards for Rural Areas

Water-oriented county-wide 2.,5 acres/1000 county
Parks county people

Inland Parks county-wide 2.@ acres/1000@ county
county people

Boat Landings, county-wide 1 landing and county
Fishing Piers pier/1000 county
people

SOURCE: Urban Pathfinders, Inc.

108

EC EATION

FIGURE 5-G

.,.con-

WLE

I MR.E
SCALE

NORTH@
@To. LEGEND

PICNIC GROVES
=Us

PROPOPOSED PARKS

PUBLIC LANDING

CAMPGROUNDS

northampton
B Cl(GROUND
LIT

STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

109

!1@) help meet the demand for county-wide, facilities., Northampton
County is acquiring,two facilities for future.park development.
One is a 50 acre former Air Force"base hear'Capeville., The other
is a 52 acre former National Aeronautics and Space Administ ra-
tion property east of Eastville. -Facilities for tennis, football,
basketball, baseball, horseshoes, archery and'p icnicking have
been proposed for the site near Eastville.'.

The location of these proposed parks plus some of the other major
existing recreation facilities mentioned are shown in Figure 5-G

POLICE PROTECTION

Police protection in Northampton County is provided by the statel,
county and the towns of Cape Charles and Exmore.

The Northampton County Sheriff's Office is 1 ,ocated at the County
Jail in Eastville. The department has a staff of five deputies
to patrol the county.

The state police barracks in Accomac with 16 officers serves both
Northampton and Accomack Counties. They patrol Route 13 and other
major highways on the Shore and are available to provide assistance
to Northampton County and its towns.

Northampton has a ratio of one police officer for each 1,400 citi-
zens,assuming that one-third of the state troopers are available
on-a full-time basis to the county. This compares favorably with
a national norm of one officer per 1,000 since rural areas generally
have a lower incidence of crime and police problems.

FIRE PROTECTION AND AMBULANCE SERVICE

Northampton County fire protection is provided by five voluntary
@fire companies -- one in each incorporated town. All are coordinated
through a central alarm system in Accomack County.

Each company receives a $1,500 contribution from the county and
additional funds from the town in which it is situated. Each com-

110

pany is a not for profit corporation which holds title to its
buildings and equipment.

Emergency ambulance service is prov ided in three tow ns,' Exmore,
Nassawadox, and Cape Charles. Each rescue station has two ve-
hicles. Northampton County contributes $1,000 annually to each
squad to defray its operating costs.

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS,

Public water service systems are located in Cape Charles, East-
ville, and Exmore. Nassawadox has sought a central facility in
the past but has been unable to secure necessary federal funding.
In addition, several government institutions such as the two Air
Force installations near Cape Charles, the schools, NAM Hospital
and many local industries have their own wells, treatment, and -
distribution facilities. In 1968, the firm of McGaughy, Marshall
and McMillan developed a Comprehensive Water -and Sewer Develop-
ment Plan for the county. It recommended consolidation of Northamp-
ton's scattered water facilities into four regional districts cover-
ing approximately two-thirds of the county.

The need for regional systems was predicated upon an estimated 48
percent growth in Northampton County population from 1960 to 1990
(discussed in the Future Population Size section of Chapter Two.
Construction of new wells and water trunk lines were proposed to
be undertaken in two increments and for a total cost of $2,027,800
(1968.dollars).

Such a wide ranging regional water system.represents a substantial
financial commitment that cannot easily be funded by Northampton
County except with significant state and federal assistance.

SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS

Of the five towns, only Cape Charles has a central sewage collect-
ion system.

No town currently provides sewage treatment.'.Cape Charles dis-.
charges its untreated wastes directly into the town harbor, but
will construct a treatment plant if federal funding can be se-
cured * There are several private sewage facilities in the county
including the Cape Charles Air Force Station, NAM Hospital, and
several of the county's major motels and food processors.

The county's Comprehensive Water and.Sewer Development Plan con-
tains proposals to provide most of Northampton County with central
sewer service. The estimated cost of treatment and trunk lines
was placed at $1,839,950 (1968 dollars).

In early 1974, a Water Quality Management Plan for the Accomack-
Northampton Planning District Commission, prepared by Shore En-
gineering Company,. also examined Northampton's need for central
sewerage systems.

The plan identifiedthe need for waste treatment facilities in
Cape Charles (to prevent further discharge of untreated waste
water into the town harbor) and in Exmore. Lack of development in
many areas in and around Exmore which are ill-suited for septic
tanks, and restrictions on approvals for further septic tanks
were cited as evidence of Exmore's need.

To correct the problems in these two areas, the plan proposes
two sewer districts with central treatment facilities.

The area to be included in each is As follows: Cape Charles
to eventually serve Cheriton. Exmore - ultimately serving
Bell Haven in Accomack County and Nassawadox.

,The estimated costs for the projects in each town are as follows:

FIGURE 5-H
Proposed Central Sewage Systems

Community 1974 Estimated Costs

Cape Charles $ 680,331
Cheriton 628,458
Exmore 1,287,912
Nassawadox 606,156

Total $ 3,202,857

SOURCE: Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission

112

Construction of these facilities would represent a substantial
financial commitment for the county that cannot be easily
supported by the county's present small population and economic.
base.

SOLID WASTE

In 1969, Northampton County developed a plan for the sanitary dis-
posal of solid wastes (garbage, refuse.,and other discarded solid
materials). Based on this plan, a solid waste collection and dis-
posal system has been in effect since 1971. All the towns, ex-
cept Nassawadox which maintains its own disposal facility, have
joined the county system. Over 50 collection boxes are placed
at.strategic spots, crossroads, and population concentrations
throughout the county. The containers are emptied by the county
and trucked to a 51 acre landfill near Oyster.

Cost of operating the system, including salaries, maintenance
and operating expenses, was $12,668 in fiscal year 1973.

113

. ...... . .. ........ ..

wpamz' --GNP I

CHAPTER SIX
TRANSPORTATION
115

AS.Figure 6-A, Regional Transportation-, shows, Northampton County is
linked by highway and rail to Accomack County and the other Mary-
land and Delaware counties on the Delmarva Peninsula.

Northampton County's ties, however, go far beyond the peninsula
region. Five major metropolitan areas outside the peninsula are
within a four hour drive.

This high degree of accessibility has not al ways existed. During
the county's first 250 years, county residents and businesses
relied primarily upon water transport. The coming of the rail-
road and the development of the automobile.' reduced the county's
isolation.

HIGHWAYS

Northampton County's highway pattern can be divided into three
levels according to use: regional highways, primary county roads
and secondary county roads.

REGIONAL HIGHWAYS

U.S. Roif-te 13 is the only regional highway in Northampton County.
The highway is a four lane, divided road extending from Wilmington,
Delaware.to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. In Northampton
County, U.S. 13 bypasses the central business areas of all the
towns along its length except Nassawadox's.

Access to U.S. 13 is not limited, consequently, numerous businesses
have located along its length. This strip development contributes
to traffic congestion and accidents. Over 80 percent of all
Northampton County automobile accidents occur along U.S. 13. The
two major accident points are in the vicinity of Exmore and the
Route 184 intersection.

The importance of U.S. 13 is shown on Figure G-B, Traffic
Counts. It depicts average daily traffic along U.S. 13 and the
county's other major roads.

117

FIGURE 6-A
R GIONAL
TRANSPOR ION

--.M M

r amp on
unty-

northampton
BACI(GROUND
TAT

STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

118

North and south bound traffic moving through a counting station
near Keller, just north of the Accomack-Northampton County line,
averaged 9,375 vehicles per day. An average of 5,740 vehicles
per day entered and left the county through-the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge-Tunnel at the county's southern end. The difference of
_1,05 trips is believed to be.local commuters and shoppers.

The dramatic drop in traffic flow along:U.S.'13@between Keller
in Accomack County and Route 183 indicates that 1,500 daily trips
are made between Exmore and Accom'ack County.-, The majority of
this traffic is probably resident's of Accomack County who work
or shop in Exmore.
Route 600 (the only,other north/south' road.running the length
of the county) averaged traffic counts between 25 and'550 trips
daily over its entire length.

PRIMARY COUNTY ROADS

Primary roads are major arterial routes linking towns and unin-
corporated communities. There are only two primary roads with a
combined length of 48.8 miles in Northampton County. These are
Route 183 connecting Silver Beach and Exmore and Route 184.1ink-
ing U.S. 13 to Cape Charles.

SECONDARY COUNTY ROADS

Secondary roads provide access to outlying areas.. With the ex-
ception of U.S. 13 and Routes 183 and 184, all roads in Northampton
County fall within this category. The following table shows the
distribution of Northampton County's secondary roads according to
type of construction.

1-19

FIGURE 6-B
T, AFFIC COUN

9375

54
E-
1130
- 6245

3
507
2

I MRS
SCALE

0 240

rt.
184 7 5 NORTH.

LEGEND
CHEMMM
390
3 71 390 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
CAM
c"Ift"
COUNT
7!@O
0 COUNTER STATION

410
northampton

5740
BACKGROUND
c
R Ts
m

STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

120

FIGURE 6-C
Northampton County Sec6n(Aary-.Roa`A dharacteIristic's

Type of Construction Mileage

Hard Surfaced 220.35
All Weather Surfaced 1.00
Light Surfaced .25
Unsurfaced .60

Total mileage 222.20

SOURCE: Virginia Department of Highways

The overwhelming majority of Northampton County roads are hard
surfaced year-round roads. Most, however, have narrow rights-
of-way and sharp curves and turns and need improvement. Repairs
of these existing problems are part of a continuing program of
improvements being conducted by the Virginia Department of High-
ways.

RAILROAD

The Northampton County Penn Central Railroad line is shown in
Figure 6-D.

The railroad's main line runs from Cape Charles along Route 184
to U.S. 13 and then northward to Keller in Accomack County.

In 1972, commodities worth over $23,600,000 were shipped by rail
to and from Accomack and Northampton Counties. The value of
these commodities and number of carloads shipped is shown on the
following table.

121

FIGURE 6-D
RAIL OAD

0 All

F
MLE =
SCALE

NMH.

LEGEND
CAM PENN CENTRAL LINE
com"

northampton
BACKGROUNO
STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

122

FIGURE 6- E
Freight Shipment to and From The Eastern Shore: 1972

Total
Number Of Value Of
Commodity Car Loads Commodity

Inbound Freight
Stone-Slag 2,-160 $ 6,480,000
Fertilizer 469 703,500
Petroleum Products 456 5,061,600
Potatoes 305 915,000
Cans-Bottles 233 2,236,800
Cement 182 1,547,000
Frozen Foods 59 200,600
Steel 36 417,600
Grain 11 -27,500
Lumber 4 14,800
Miscellaneous 65 487,500

Total Inbound 3,980 $18,091,900

Freight

Fishmeal 364 $ 955,500
Pulpwood 298 655,600
Canned Goods 189 2,693,250
Feathermeal 148 592,000
Frozen Foods 4 13,600
Miscellaneous 52,500

Total outbound 1,010 $ 4,962,450

TOTAL INBOUND AND OUT
BOUND FREIGHT 4,990 $23,054,350

SOURCE: Virginia Division of State Planning and Community
Affairs

123

.-Stone-slag and petroleum accounted for 63.7 percent of the value
of all commodities shipped to the Eastern Shore.

Canned goods accounted for 54.3 percent of the value of outbound
freight. These canned goods and other exports were predominently
produce from the two counties' agricultural and food processing
industries.

A key.element of the Eastern Shore rail system is the Penn Central
car-float between Cape Charles and Little Creek in Norfolk.

In recent years, the car-float conveyed between 25,000 and 30,000
railcars annually. In 1972, 2,724 of these cars originated or
terminated on the Eastern Shore as indicated in Figure 6-F on
the following page.

These 2,724 rail cars contained commodities valued at over $12,000,000
.in 1972. over $10,000,000, 86 percent of the total value of ship-
ment was imported goods chiefly stone and petroleum. The $1,704,500
of exports were canned goods and marine oil.

The Penn Central has, announced plans to abandon rail service to the
Eastern Shore. Under federal regulations, the Virginia Eastern
Shore rail lines could remain in operation, but would recdive:fed-
dral.-financial aid only if they are part of a state rail transpor-
tation plan. At this time, it appears that this is not a viable
solution and the lines will eventually have to be abandoned.

Abandonment would have a serious impact on the Northampton and
Accomack economies.

Twenty-six Eastern Shore businesses depend upon the railroad.
Nine of the twenty-six businesses are Northampton County firms
and averaged basic employment in 1972 of 420 individuals, with
payrolls of over $2,200,000.

To replace the rail line with truck transport would cost these
industries over $390,000 in additional shipping charges. This
additional charge might cost these firms their competitive edge
and force,some out of business. A further breakdowh of addi-
tional transport and other characteristics of these nine

12.4

FIGURE 6-F
Eastern Shore Penn Central Car Float usage: 1972

Total
Number of Value of
Commodity Car Loads Commodity

Cars Originating on Eastern Shore of Virginia

Canned Goods 70 $ 997,500
Marine Oil 97 582,000
Miscellaneous 10 125,000

Total 177 $ 1,704,500

Cars Terminating on Eastern Shore of Virginia

Stone 1,637 $ 4,911,000
Fertilizer 400 600,000
Petroleum 383 4,251,300
Miscellaneous 127 952,000

Total 2,547 $10,714 300

TOTAL OF CAR FLOAT 2,724 $12,419,800

SOURCE: Virginia Division of State Planning and Community,
Affairs

125

Northampton businesses which rely upon the*Penn Central Railroad
is.shown on the following table: Payroll and employment estimates
appear to be conservative.

FIGURE 6-G
RailVs.Truck Shipping Costs

Employment, Payroll, And Estimated Rail-Truck Cost Differentials For Rail
Using Firms On The Eastern Shore Of Virginia, 1972

Cost Average
Direction Differential Employment Estimated
of Major Between January Annual
Company Shipment Rail and Truck March, 1972 Payroll, 1972

Bayshore Concrete
Products Corp. N&S $ 100,000 163 $1,018,000

M. J. Duer N&S 8,33a 14 n.a.

Cape Charles
Oil Co. S 6,560 5 341400

Dulany Foods N&S- 40,500 104 635,200

Reliable Building
Supplies & Coal
Corp. N&S 6,750- 6 44,000

Growers Seed &.Fert.
(Borden). N&S 27,000 n.a. n.a.

T & W Block N&S 60,000 15 79,200

E. J. Harrison N 990 n.a n.a.

G. L. Webster N@t, 144,000 113 472,400

Smith Douglas &
Borden, Inc. N 3,800- n.a. n.a.

Total Northampton County $ 397,930 420 $2,283,200

Accomack County $ 930,880 1,021 $5,790,800

TOTAL $1,328,810 1,441 ;?8,074,000.

SOURCE: Virginia Division of State.Planning and Community Affair*

126

Almost all the Northampton County firms depend upon both the
rail car-float for shipments to and from the south and the re-
mainder of the Eastern Shore line to reach northern markets and
suppliers. For them a solution which preserves both the rail
car-float and the main line north to Wilmington is a necessity.*

AIRPORT

Accomack County Airport at Melfa is the nearest public airport.
Constructed as a U.S. Government facility during World War II,
the airport contains a 7,000 foot concrete runway capable of
accommodating modern jets.

The airport is attended only during daylight hours. The runway
is lighted for night flights; however, night flying is not cus-
tomary.

Kellam Field at Weirwood in the northern portion of Northampton
County is a privately owned and operated facility. It is attended
during daylight hours and offers private flight instruction and
crop spraying.

----.-..The Virginia Division of Aeronautics is conducting a statewide
air transport study. Preliminary indications are that an addi-
tional public facility near Cape Charles will be recommended.

127

77/7"X,

......... ir

CHAPTER SEVEN
low

LAND USE
129

Northampton County's present pattern of land use is depicted in
Figure 7-B, Existing Land Use, on the following page. The map
is based upon 1966 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservat-
ion Service aerial photography of Northampton County and land use
surveys conducted by the Accomack-Northampton Planning District
Commission. The map shows that the majority of Northampton Coun-
ty is farms, forests or marsh lands.

The approximate area devoted to each land use category in 1973 is
shown on the following chart.

FIGURE 7-A
Land Use By Acreage

% of
Open Space Acres Total

State & Private Recreation and
Conservation Areas 16,500. 11.8@%
Agriculture & Forests 93,180 66.5
Marsh & Beach 20,000 14.3.
Open Water 4,100 2.8

Subtotal 133,780 95.4

Development,Rural Areas

Transportation/Utilities 2,450 1.7
Industrial 20 -
Commercial 40 -
Residential 2,100 1.5

Subtotal 4,610 3.3

Towns (incorporated areas) 1,770 1.3

TOTAL 140,160 100.0

SOURCE:, Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission

131

FIGURE 7-B

%.gmav
. oDoffi@ .1 -A
norftmpton X k "OP E

5 MILE

I MILEF
SCALE

NORTH@
LEGEND

CAR RESIDENTIAL
C@Ell COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION, CONSER-
VATION MARSHAEACH
A
ICtjL
GR TURAL

northampton
BACKGROUND
LAND USE

STUDY
URBAN PATHFINDERS INC.

132

The county contains approximately 140,160 acres of land and water.
Approximately 95.4 percent of the county can.be classified as
open space, undeveloped or in agricultural uses'. Agriculture
and forests, which cover nearly two-thirds of the county is the
county's major land use category.

Developed areas, including the five incorporated towns, cover only
6,380 acres or 4.6 percent of the county.

The developed areas of the county, outside the t owns, are devoted
principally to transportation and utilities, rights-of-way, (roads,
railroads, power lines, etc.) or residences (chiefly in half acre
lots).

Commercial and industrial properties collectively account.for less
than one percent of all county land uses. Many of the facilities
are strung along U.S. 13 and the other major county roads creating
safety and esthetic problems.

Northampton's five towns (Cape Charles, Cheriton, Eastville, Ex-
more and Nassawadox) total approximately 1,800 acres in area.

The estimated land use within each of these towns is presented in
@the following chart:

FIGURE 7- C.
Land Use Within The Incorporate Towns

A c r e a g e

%
Cape Total of All
Charles Cheriton Eastville Exmore Nassawadox Towns Towns

Residential 124 215 45 243 84 711 40.1
Commercial 14 6 5 36 17 78 4.4
industrial 4 - - 12 - 16 .9
Transportation,
Utilities 31 - - 16 8 55 3.1
Institutional 7 6 5 1 6 25 1.4
Recreation 65 - - - - 65 3.7
Vacant 319 58 81 211 155 823 46.4

TOTAL 563 285 136 519 270 1,773 100.0

SOURCE: Accomack-Northampton Planning District

13) 3

Collectively,,the major land use within the towns is vacant land,
which accounts for 46.4 percent of the total acreage. This would
suggest that there are significant opportunities for additional
development within the existing town corporate limits,, The second
major land use is residentialo indicating that the towns serve
principally as places for people to live. Commercial facilities
accounted for only 4.4 percent of the land area. Industrial ac-
tivities occurred in only Cape Charles and,Exmore.

LAND USE CONTROLS

Under the provisions of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, all
Virginia towns, cities, and counties have the authority to establish
local planning commissions, participate in regi onal planning com-
missions and form joint local commissions. Under the supervision
of these planning commissions the jurisdictions have the power to
use three basic planning programs: comprehens ive planning, zoning,.
and subdivision regulation.

Northampton Cou 'nty has an active planning commission.. It controls
land use-through a.zonihg ordinance adopted in 1966 and through
subdivision regulations adopted in 1970. The county intends to
develop a county-wide comprehensive plan in 1975.

The Town of Cape Charles also has a planning commission andan
adopted zoning ordinance. Exmore has established a planning com-.
mission and has a zoning ordinance under study. -The Towns of
Cheriton, Eastville, and Nassawadox have not established planning
programs.

Northampton County's existing zoning ordinance contains provi
sions for three land use districts: agriculture, residential, and
business. At present, the entire county is zoned agricultural.
Activities which a property owner may conduct as a matter of
right on any parcel of land in the county over 20,000 square
feet in size include:

1. Agriculture, dairying and forestry
2. Single, multi-family dwellings

134

3. Mobile homes
4. School or churches
5. Park or playground
6.. Home occupations and professional offices of the
occupant
7. Lodges and hunting clubs
8. Banks, barber and beauty, dry cleaning, tailor, retail,
antique or art shop
9. Temporary saw mill
10. Additions to existing labor camps

Other uses may be established on a parcel if permission is given
by the County Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board reviews each
case, based on its merits and grants permission only if in the
Board's opinion, the activity willnot conflict with or adversely
affect other properties in the surrounding area. Special permit
uses include the following.

1. Hospital or nursing homes 16. Funeral home or cemeter .y
2. Movietheater or drive-in 17. Abbattoir
3. Office building 18. Mobile home park
4. Food processing plant 19. Public utility facility
5. Wholesale establishment 20. Sanitary landfill
6. Apparel manufacture 21. New labor camp
7. Borrow pit 22. Commercial campground or
8. Bottling works recreation area
9. Contractor's yard 23. Gift or novelty shop
10. Scientific research 24. Seafood receiving, storage,
11. Metal work or processing facility
12. Planing mill or saw 25. Concrete plant
mill 26. Automobile and machinery
13. Grain, feed, fertilizer sales and gas station
or general farm supply 27. Motel s or restaurant
establishment including drive-in
14. Truck freight terminal 28. Mobile home sales
15. Airport 29. Junkyard
30. Festival

Should the county experience significant new development, strong-
er zoning regulations which control the density of development
and ensure the adequate separation of potentially conflicting,
activities will be mandatory.

135

FACTORSAFFECTING LAND USE

Northampton County's land use patterns have remained relatively
stable,for the last several decades. Past changes have been few
and generally small in scale, a new subdivision for example.
Generally,.this condition is expected to continue for the fore-
seeable future.

The following is a discussion of three factors which are expected
to have some impact on future land use. They are generally fac-
tors or trends which have been presented in detail in earlier sect-
ions of this report and therefore are only summarized below.

1. Declining Population
The county's population has been steadily declining for
several decades and is expected to continue to do so for
the foreseeable future. This decline will affect both
the towns and the rural areas and result in lower popu-
lation densities and more vacant structures.

2. Changing Agricultural Practices
As the county's major land use and economic activity,
any change in agriculture will have widespread effects.

In coming years, the county's.traditional family run
farms, 'commercial farm suppliers and food processors
will continue to consolidate into larger commercial
@agri-businesses. As a result, small farm communities
will decline and larger centralized and industrialized
farm and support operations will appear.

3. Tourism and Recreation
Northampton County has an abundant supply'of open space
which is becoming a highly desirable commodity.

Second homes, recreation subdivisions, campgrounds and
other recreational developments are already established
in Northampton County. The dounty's abundant supply of
open space, in particular shoreline, will continue to
attract these types of development.

136

Under present conditions, Northampton County is likely
to experience its most significant economic growth
opportunities and land use changes as a result.6f
increased tourism and recreation. Route 13, a major
East Coast north-south route will continue to carry in-
@reasing amounts of through traffic. This flow of
traffic generates a need and an opportunity for adja-
cent service facilities such as motels, restaurants,
and gas stations. However, the high Bay Bridge-Tunnel
toll and the rising cost of gasoline will be mitigating
forces.

137

o )71
1,

CHAPTER EIGHT

139

Northampton County's ability to provide services to its citizens
is directly related to its financial soundness. This eighth and
final chapter explores the complex interplay between county re-
venues and expenditures necessary to provide Northampton resi-
dents with the schools, services, and government programs that
they require. The study covers the last five fiscal years for
which complete records are currently available: fiscal years
(FY) 1969 through 1973. The analysis is based on material drawn
from county annual financial reports and assessment records, and
from studies performed by the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts.

TOTAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

The following table compares total revenues with total expenditures
for the county government for the five year period.

FIGURE 8-A
Total Revenues and Expenditures

F i s c a 1 Y e a r s

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

Revenues $2,228,885 $2,368,507 $2,692,938 $3,505,903@ $4,303,460
Expenditures 2,240,198 2,287,163 2,853,392 3,555,700 4,121,777
NET BALANCE $ (11.,.313) .$ 81,344 $ (160,454.) $ (49,797) $ 181,683

Indicates negative balance

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

As the table indicates, both revenues and expenditures have been
steadily climbing in recent years. Between 1969 and 1973, a
five year period, revenues and expenditures increased by approxi-
mately 88 percent, or 22 percent per year. During this same
period, inflation eroded the purchasing power of a dollar about

141

21 percent. This,suggests that about three-fourths of the in-
crease in revenues and expenditures represented new programs or
increased services to county residents and one-fourth of the
increase was required to offset the effects of inflation.

In 1969, revenues and expenditures represented about $155 per.
county resident; by 1973, the figure had risen to $292 per per-
son.

In three.out of the five years studied, the county operated at
a loss, not an unusual or alarming situation. In 19,73, the
county realized a handsome surplus, the effects of its first
year of federal revenue sharing and a county-wide reassessment
of real property.

Expenditures and revenues were within 0.5 percent of each other
during each year studied reflecting good financial management
and a well balanced budget.

TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES

County expenditures can be divided into three broad categories:
general operations, capital outlays, and debt service. General
operations including continuing expenditures necessary to run
the county such as salaries, and supplies. Capital outlays in-
clude the purchase of land, buildings, and major equipment.
Debt service is the interest and principal cost of retiring
long term county bonds.

Figure 8-B on the following page summarizes the three categories
of Northampton County expenditures for the'five fiscal years.

General operations represents approximately 90 percent of the
county's total expenditure. It has exhibited steady annual in-
creases reflecting the effects of inflation and increasing services.

142

'FIGURE 8-B
Total County Ex]2enditures

F i s c.a 1 Y e a r s

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

General Operations $2,024,
655 $2,174,235 $2,611,028 $3,329,222 $3,616,991
Capital Outlays 141,345 40,339 176,204 156,929 440,605
Debt Service 74,198 72,589 66,160 69,549 64,181

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,240,198 $2,287,163 $2,855,392 $3,555,700 $4,121,777

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

Capital outlays,on the other handhave varied considerably from
year to year. This is a normal occurrence and reflects the period-
ic purchase of equipment or the one time construction of a building.

Debt service has shown a steady decline, as the county continues
to retire several school bonds.

GENE RAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES

Figure 8-C on the following page indicates general operat ing ex-
penditures of the Northampton County government during the fiscal
years 1969 to 1973.

Expenditures in two areas, education and public welfare, accounted
for over 90 percent of these Northampton expenses in 1973.

Educational costs as a proportion of tota 1 county expenditures
stayed remarkably stable, hovering between 70.8 percent of the
total expenditures in 1969 and 70.6 percent in 1973. Public

14-1)

FIGURE 8-C
General Operating Expenditures %
Change
Administration & Fiscal Years 1969.
Public Services 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1973

Schools $1,433,309 $1,556,004 $1,835,303 $2,293,849 $2,556,97@ 78.4
Public Welfare 3811792 416,199@ 551,501 776,608 804,652 20.2
County Admini-
stration 8,668 8,826, 10,053 15,079 16,251 87.5
Assessment Taxes 8,678 9,780 12,168 21,240 11,593 33.4
Collection & Dis-
bursement of
Taxes 13,466 14,693 15,641 16,458 15,003 11.4
Recording of
-Documents 9,067 9,387 9,944 13,650 11,973 86.8
Administration
Of Justice 10,353 10,999 12,266 13,028 13,580 31.2
Crime Preven-
tion & Detec-
tion. 27,209 27,281 29,047 32,735 37,457 37.7
Fire Prevention
& Extinction 7,855 7,834 7,873 7,822 8,016 2.0
Public Health 33,842 38,800 45,623 50,098 42,179 24.6
Public Wc;rks 7,293 6,797 15,881 20,3.24 20,734 187.0
Agriculture &
Home Economics 7,552 7,531 8,032 9,473 9,381 24.2
Protection Of -
Livestock &
Fowl 6,372 6,759 6,826 7,247 6,919 8.6
Elections 2,396 4,644 5,140 6,769 5,946 148.2
Maintenance of
Buildings &
Ground 14,293 11,421 9,270 15,165 11,938 -16.5.
Roads 100 6,650 5.04 100 100 -
Miscellaneous
Functions 52,400 30,629 35,954 29,577 44,291 -15.5

TOTAL $2,024,655 $2,174,235 $2,611,028 $3,324,322 $3,616,991 78.6

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

144

welfare's proportion of total expenditures increased slightly
from 18.9 percent in 1970 to 22.2 percent in 1973. Fluctuations
in other categories were not of major significance because of
the small expenditures in each category.

CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENDITURES

Adequate services require adequate facilities. Capital outlays,
the purchase of equipment, land, and the construction of new
facilities has increased substantially over the five year period
1969 to 1973 as shown on the following table:

FIGURE 8-D
Capital Outlay Expenditures

Fiscal Years

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

General
Operations $ 19,256 $30,907 $ 96,051 $ 30,433 $ 28,118
Schools 22,854 9,432 80,153 126,496 412,487
Courthouse
Construction 99,235 - - - -

TOTAL $141,345 $40,339 $176,204 $156,929 $440,605
SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

General operations capital outlay is primarily for motor vehicles,
furnituref fixtures and other equipment. No substantial increase has
occurred over the years. School capital outlays include similar
items plus, in 1973, additions to existing school buildings.

The 1969 annex to the Eastville Courthouse was the only significant
non-school construction project in Northampton County within the study
period. Current capital improvements include several new school addi-
tions, remodeling of the Eastville Bank buildingand remodeling of
the County Jail.

145

DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES

To finance some of its school improvements in the past, Northampton
County issued several serial bonds and borrowed from the State
Literary Loan Fund. Principal and interest payments for the five
fiscal years analyzed are as follows:

FIGURE 8-E
Debt Position: FY 1969-1973
Fiscal.Years % Change
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1969-1973

Interest &
Other Debt
Costs $14,198 $12,589 $11,160 $ 9,549 $ 9,181 -33.3
Redemption:
of Debt 60,000" 60,000 55,000 60,000 55,000 8.3

TOTAL $74,198 $72,589 $66,160 $69,549 $64,181

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

Over the years, Northampton County has made substantial repayments
of principal. Figure8-F 'on the following page depicts Northamp-
ton County's outstanding indebtedness for each fiscal year from
1970 to 1973.

During the study period, Northampton County's indebtedness de-
clined from $425,000.to $395,000, despite the addition of two
State Literary Fund loans.

146

FIGURE 8--;F
Northampton County Long Term Indebtedness

Fiscal Years

1970 1971 1972 1973

County School Bond
of 1953 $270,000 $235,000 $200,000 $165,000
County School Bond
of 1964 115,000 100,000 80,000 65,000
State Literary Fund
Loan 1958 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000
State Literary Fund
Loan 1973 - - 140,000

TOTAL $425,000 $370,000 $310,000 $395,000

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES

The county receives its revenues from three basic sources: federal
grants, state grants, and local taxes and fees. Figure 8-G on the
following page summarizes the amounts received each year during the
study period. Non-recurring revenues such as the sale of assets
and recoverable expenditures.are excluded from the data.

During the five year period, total revenues increased 93.1 percent.
In 1969, federal grants represented only 1.7 percent of the county's
revenues. By 1973, the federal contribution equaled 22.3 percent.
This reflects a national trend towards more federal programs and
an increasing dependency by local governments on federal financial
assistance.

14 7

FIGURE 8-G
Total County Revenues
% Of
F i s c a 1 Y e a r s 1973-'Total
1969 1970 Revenues
1971 1972 1973 1973

Federal Grants $ 37,614 $ 68,096 $ 226,645 $ 732,394 $ 959,346 22.3
State Grant s 1,309,958 1,410,430 1,565,545 1,867,335- 2,169,145 50.4
Local Taxes
and Fees 881,813 890,181 900,747 906,171 1,174,965 27.3

TOTAL $2,229,385 $2,368,707 $2,692,937 $3,505,900 $4,303,456

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

During the study period, the state grants increased at a slower
rate than total revenues. As a result, the state's contribution
of 58 *8 percent of county revenues in 1969 fell to 50.4 percent
in 1973.

Similarly, revenues raised locally fell from 38.6 percent to
27.3 percent. In summary, about one-half the county's income
comes from the state; one-fourth@from the federal government,
and the remaining one-fourth from local citizens and businesses.

FEDERAL GRANTS

Figure 8-H on the following page presents.federal grants to the
county during the study period.

The increased federal funds for education are part of a substantial,
national effort to assist children whose educational performance
is below the level appropriate for their age and grade.

148

FIGURE 8-H__
Federal Grants to Northampton Countv
Fiscal Years
1969 @1970 1971 1972 1973

Title I & Other
School Funds $ 3,337 $103,647 $628,064 $530,865
School Food
Programs 34,277 68,096 122,997 104,330 166,893
Justice & Crime
Prevention Grant 21,809
Construction Grants 136,562
Revenue Sharing 103,217

TOTAL $37,614 $68,096 $226,644 $732,394 $959,346

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

STATE GRANTS

Revenues from the Commonwealth of V irginia come to the county under
a wide variety of programs., Figure 8-1 details the 12 major cate-
gories of state assistance to Northampton County from 1969 to 1973.

Northampton County's annual receipts for public assistance programs
include federal funds passed on to Northampton County by the Com-
monwealth of Virginia. These public assistance funds accounted
for 18.3 percent of all revenues from the Commonwealth in 1969
and 33.0 percent in 1973. State school funds on the other hand
declined in proportion to total revenues from the Commonwealth
as additional federal education funds became available. State
school funds were 59.6 percent of all revenues from the Common-
wealth in 1969 and 48.1 percent in 1973.

149

FIGURE
State Grants To The County

F i s c a 1 Y e a r s
Revenues From
Commonwealth 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

State'& Local
.Hospitalization $ 12,762 $ 47,619 $ 27,408 $ 21,846 22,156
Jail 8,183 9,93-3. 10,172 13,235 9,012
Public Assistance
Grants (Federal &
State) 237,769 271,232 391,297 649,920 713,604
Virginia Commission
for the Blind 16,409 12,357 14,391 15,918 14,520
Capitation Taxes
Returned 996 780 667 547 -
Share of ABC Profits 35,295- 37,339 43,619 32,113 34,654
School Funds 781,022 796,610 827,356 848,537 1,045,94-0
Share of State Sales
and Use Tax 202,103 216,434 234,334 272,088 314,759
Share of Wine
Tax 3,244 3,369 3,854 3,259 4,151
Civil Defense
Aid 1,062 3,523 71.2 981 790
,Motor Vehicles
Carrier Tax 2,790 2,666 2,433 2,438 2,192
State Share of
Miscellaneous
Local Expenses 8,323 8,677-- 9,292 6,443 7,361

TOTAL $1,309,458 $1,410,430 $1,565,545 $1,867,335 $2,169,145

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

150

LOCAL TAXES AND FEES

The preceding federal and state revenues represent income sources
controlled in Washington and Richmond. The county has no direct
control over these programs. On the other hand, local taxes and
fees are controlled by Northampton County and represent the coun-
ty's most direct means of raising additional revenues in time of
need. Figure 8-,T on the following-page identifies.the wide variety
of local revenue sources.

From 1969 to 1972 there had been little-significant increase in
locally generated revenues. In 1973, however, local revenues
showed a dramatic increase, rising 44 percent over 1972 levels.
Approximately 90 percent of this rise can be attributed to a
$332,401 rise in receipts from property taxes, the result of a
county-wide property reassessment the year before. Property
taxes are discussed in more detail in the following section.

PROPERTY TAXES

Northampton County's expenditures are relatively fixed. Little
can be cut from the county budget without seriously reducing exist-
ing programs. To finance new programs or increase services, the
.county, like most other jurisdictions, has only two means of rais-
ing significant additional revenues --- by increasing the property
tax-or by-borrowing through public bond issues.

Property taxes include taxes on real property, personal propertyl-
machinery and tools and merchants capital.

The real property tax applies to two kinds of property: public
.service corporations and all other real estate. Assessment of
public service corporations, including railroads and electric
and telephone utilities, is done by the, State Corporation Commis-
sion. Assessed valuation of public service properties in Northamp-
ton County was $3,817,906 in 1970 and $3,754,672 in September 1974,
a decline of 1.7 percent,during the four year period. This is be-
lieved to be due chiefly to recent changes in assessment ratios
and procedures by the State Corporation Commission.

151

FIGURE 8- J
Local Revenues To The County

F i s c a 1 Y e a r s

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

Local Sources

Property Taxes $ 495,995 $ 491,605 $ 481,823 $ 489,150 812,228
Delinquent Taxes 19,319 18,147. 16,592 18,881 15,3218
Land Redemptions 792 1,432 2,1715 1,868 1,863
Transfer Fees 3,636 5,486 5,242 6,987 8,835
Interest Adver-
tising Cost
Delinquent Taxes 1,783 1,551 1,526 1,704 1,514
County School Funds 95,940 101,625 109,984 105,365 21,476
Sheriff Fees 300 306 354 316 298
Da nce Hall Licenses
etc. 956 - - - -
Trailer Camp Licenses
permits 1,113 1,261 2,139 4,122
interest on In-
vestments 2 8, 9 49'@_ 43,493 35,792 9,1997 21,874
Rents From County
Property 2,840 3,040 3,460 6,322 10,860
Sale Auto Decals 30,155 28,348 28,785 29,730 30,817
Local Sales.Tax 168,067 150,041 171,749 186,194 197,675
Accomack County's
Share Special
School Costs 8,319 108,97M 8,693' 8,736 8,149
Services to Cape
Charles 13,192 17,971 14,253 12,370 10,487
Drayage or Surplus
commodities 1,467 1,508 1,269 1,734 -
commonwealth At-
torney's Fees 22 48 14 9 19
County Pines - 81 199 26 70
Dog Tag Sales 2,287 3,214 3,282 2,876 2,733
Glebe Trust Fund 946 1,200 1,525 628 1,321
Donations, Refunds,
etc. 6,848 8,874 12,763 21,138 25,296

TOTAL $ 881,813 $ 890,181 $ 900,747 $ 906,171 $1,174,965

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

152

Other real property, however, comes solely under local apprais-
ing and taxation authority. This other real property accounted
for over two-thirds of Northampton County's property tax receipts
in 1973.

The dramatic rise'in property tax receipts in 1973 is due to a
county-wide real property reassessment in 1971-1972. The follow-
ing table shows the assessed value of all real estate in Northamp-
ton County except public service corporations by magisterial dis-
tricts and towns after the reappraisal.

FIGURE 8- K
1973 Real Property Assessments by Distric-tsand Towns

Value % of Total Assessed Value

Franktown District $ 2,760,559 18.8%
Eastville District 4,757,494 32.3
Capeville District 2,842,997 19.3
Exmore Town 1,331,345 9.0
Nassawadox Town 449,159 3.1
Eastville Town 248,225 1.7
Cheriton Town 380,948 2.6
Cape Charles Town 1,947,824 13.2

TOTAL $14,718,551 100.0%

SOURCE: Northampton County Commissioner of Revenue

The five incorporated towns(Exmore, Nassawadox, Eastville, Cheriton,
and Cape Charles) accounted for 29.6 percent of the county's assess-
able base.. The remaining 70.4 percent of the county's assessed
value is contained in its rural sections.

Under state law, every Virginia county must reassess all real pro-
perty at least once every six years. only six Virginia Counties

153

currently choose to conduct reassessments more frequently. Under
a six year assessment policy, increased property value due to new.
construction, rezoning, or subdivision is assessed at the time
it occurs; however, general increases in property value due to
market pressures and inflationare not reflected in ahigher
assessment until the next six year blanket reassessment occurs.

This six year reassessment cycle can have undesirable effects on
county finances. For all practical purposes, it freezes real pro-
perty revenues for six years unless the tax rate in increased.
For example, Northampton County's assessable base between 1970
and 1971 increased only $50,761, 0.5 percent. This small rise in
assessable base was due primarily to new construction and failed
to reflect inflating increases in market value.

If properties had been reassessed annually during the period, coun-
ty revenues would have been higher by $25,000 to-$100,000 per year,
assuming no change in the tax rate.

The six year reassessment policy may work hardships on property
owners. Speculators who characteristically rely upon holding a
property for a short time only to resell it at a higher price
would escape paying higher property taxes on their rapidly ap-
preciating properties. On the other hand, long term property
owners in areas of declining property values would be paying un-
fairly high taxes based on the older assessments.

The present Northampton County real property tax is $4.50 per
$100 of assessed valuation. Normally, assessed value is 30 per-
cent of appraised value, but records indicate a true county assess-
ment ratio of 14.5 percent of market value. A low ratio is not
uncommon for rural. Virginia counties.

Assessment ratio as a percentage of fair market value in Accomack
County was 18.8 percent. The true tax rate in Northampton County
was $.65 cents per $100 of market value while Accomack County's
was $.55 per $100 of assessed value.

154

In addition to the county, all the towns except Cheriton and
Nassawadox also impose real estate taxes. The rate per $100
of assessed value in each town is as follows:

FIGURE B-L
Tax Rates, Incorporated Towns
Tax ,Rate Per $100 of Assessed Value-
Cape Charles 1.30
Exmore 1.00
Eastville .50

FARMLAND ASSESSMENT

To preserve farmland and other open spaces and prevent their con-
version to other uses because of high real estate taxes, the
Virginia General Assembly in 1973 adopted a Land Use Assessment
Law (Code of Virginia, Chapter 15 of Title 58, Article 1.1)
which permitted counties, at their option, to assess agricultural,
horticultural, forest, and other open spaces-according to use
rather than market Value.

Northampton County has not adopted the necessary legislation to
join this program, but has been using assessment ratios similar
to those possible under the Land Use Assessment Law and thus
achieves the same effect. The appraised and assessed value of
farm and open space in Northampton County is as follows.

FIGURE 8-M
Appraised and Assessed Value of Farm Land and open Space

Appraised Value Assessed Value

Per Acre Per Acre

Tillable $ 250 $ 75
Pasture 100 30
Timber 200 60
Cut Over (1 15,
Marsh 10. 3
Pits 100 30

SOURCE: Northampton County Commissioner of the Revenue

155

PERSONAL PROPERTY AND OTHER LOCAL TAXES

In addition to real property, Northampton County taxes tangible
personal property, machinery and tools, and merchants' capital.
All taxes are levied at the same $4.50 per $100 of assessed val-
uation as.occurred with real property.

The tax revenue from tangible personal property, primarily ve-
hicles, is the largest of the other local taxes in Northampton
County. Revenues in 1974 amounted to $89,702. Total assessed
value.of tangible personal property was $1,993,355. The assess-
ment ratio on automobiles is 30 percent of the retail value listed
in the Red Book, National Market Reports, Inc. An assessment
ratio of 15 percent is applied to the Red Book.Value of Trucks.

Taxes on merchants" capital is a levy on business inventories.
Merchants' capital was assessed for $75,190 in 1974 and generated
revenues of $3,383. The assessment ratio is ten percent of value
of the year end inventory.

Machinery and tools, with an assessed value of $265,700, generated
$11,959 in revenues in 1974. Value of machinery and tools is
computed by applying a 25 percent assessment ratio to the remain-
ing value of items to be depreciated on the owner's federal in-
come tax return in the future. If the items are fully depreciated.
the assessment ratio is applied to the percent of the original
cost of the fully depreciated items.

The assessment ratio on farm machinery is slightly lower; ten.
percent of depreciated value according to the owner's federal.
income tax return or 10 percent of original cost if fully de-
preciated.

Boats are assessed at 20 percent of Blue Book value, if factory
built, or the appraised value if independently built.

Mobile homes are assessed at 20 percent of-depreciated value
based upon the Insurance Underwriters Depreciation Schedule.,

156

FUTURE INDEBTEDNESS

The only other significant alternative to property taxes for raising
additional revenue is further indebtedness, chiefly through the
issue of bonds.

The following table summarizes Northampton's bonded indebtedness
for the fiscal years 1970 to 1973.

FIGURE 8--@N
Bonded Indebtedness:FY 1970-1973

FISCAL YEARS

1970 1971 1972 1973

Indebtedness $ 425,000 $ 370,000 $ 310,000 $ 345,000
Assessable Base $9,306,580 $9,357,341 $1-4,-366,244- $14,718,551

Ratio of Bonded
Indebtedness to
Assessable Base 4.6% 4@0%- 2.2% 2.7%
(Percent)

SOURCE: Northampton County Financial Reports

During the four year period, the ratio of bonded indebtedness to
assessable base declined, dropping from 4.6 percent to 2.7 percent.
This decline is the result of annual bond redemptions and the
dramatic 1971 real property reassessment.

A county's ability to sell bonds is limited by its assessable tax
base. With a few exceptions, such as revenue bonds, the Constitu-
..tion of Virginia prohibits a county's indebtedness from exceeding
18 percent of the assessed value of its real estate. Using this
ratio for Northampton County, the level of bonded indebtedness
could be raised to approximately $2,600,000 if needed for public
improvements.

157

I
colledON
c

3 6668 1410C -36

ro il:@, I'll
4 F rim