Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Plan The Economy-1991 -The Economy 'of New Hanover, County T ` December 1991 " := New' -Hanover County Planning Department , - Dexter Hayes, Director _ Patrick=Lowe, -Assistant Director Staff Planners Walter "Pete" Avery Wariaa coston am`Burgess; . Chris.O'Keefe CAMA Intern JoAnne Shadroui Administrative Secretary - „.. Phoebe. Saavedra - Graphics Planning Technician _ Lisa Elaine Home - =` New' Hanover County Board of -Co nuissioners - E. L. "Hiatt !-Mathews C Wriran :Robert G. Greer;. Vice Chairman Jo nathan;Barfield .. � . Fred Retchm ,. William He Sutton Planning Board Members-:. EarnestPuskas, Chairman Kenneth A. Shanklin; race 11 i rntan . Robert McDonald, Wesley O. Nixon William Giathwol C.-Richard Boisl y Charles R' Howell 1Le preparatim of this daoument worm fmaowd, m part, theongh a Coarmt Aroa ManagemeotAat _ _ _ gran;P� ided by the North CSi,oloiav Coa�trJ Mamgemme Program. through Fumda provided -by the,C.oartal ?.roe M-9-meot Ad of lM at amended. %Nch i administered -by the Office ofOommod Coastal Aeaource Ahmgemeat. Natie®l Oceanic aodAtmmlkdp" mioirtrstioo. 0 0 The Economy of New Hanover County December 1991 Wilmington - New Hanover County Land Use Plan Update 9 Preface The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), enacted in 1974 by the North Carolina General Assembly, requires that the 20 coastal counties of the state prepare land use plans. These plans provide a framework used to guide local leaders as they make decisions for the protection, preservation, orderly development and management of the North Carolina coastal area. The original CAMA Land Use Plan for New Hanover County was adopted in 1976. Updates to the plan are required by CAMA on five year intervals This report is part of the third plan update (1981, 1986 and 1991) performed in conjunction with the Wilmington -New Hanover Comprehensive Planning Program, initiated in 1974. In accordancewithCAMArequirements, thelanduseplanconsists ofthefollowing elements: 1.) Summary of data collection and analysis; 2.) Existing land use map; 3.) Policy discussion; 4.) Land classification map. This information plays an important role in the formulation of local development regulations, such as zoning ordinances, and it provides input for growth policy decisions. These reports also provide useful data to the public and private sector in considering development proposals. O I TABLE 0F CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY OF ECONOMY .................................................. I A. County's Total Employment........................................................................... I B. Changes in Manufacturing Employment......................................................... 1 C. Changes in Nonmanufacturing Employment ................................................... I D. Employment in New Hanover County and U.S............................................... 2 E. Shift Share Analysis Results........................................................................... 2 F. Completion of I-40......................................................................................... 2 G. Travel and Tourism Expenditures.................................................................... 2 H. State Pon Impact............................................................................................ 2 I. Construction Activity...................................................................................... 2 J. Retail Sales Per Capita.................................................................................... 2 K. Improvement of Airport Facilities................................................................... 2 II. ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC DATA USED .................................................... 3 A. Types of Statistics Utilized............................................................................. 3 B. Types of Employment Catagories Used........................................................... 3 C. Handling of Other Economic Data .................................................................. 4 III. EMPLOYMENT INDICATORS.......................................................................... 4 A. Employment by Place of Work....................................................................... 4 B. Industry Employment......................................................................................4 O C. Manufacturing Employment............................................................................ 8 D. Non -manufacturing Employment.................................................................... 8 E. New Hanover County and U.S. Employment Compared ................................. 8 IV. SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT ............................................... 9 A. Explanation of Methods Used......................................................................... 9 1. National Growth Effect............................................................................. 9 2. Industrial Structure Effect....................................................................... 18 3. Competitive Edge Effect......................................................................... 18 B. Comparison of Results.................................................................................. 18 1. Results for Interval 1978-1983................................................................ 18 2. Results for Interval 1983-1987................................................................ 19 3. Results for Interval1987-1990........................................................:....... 19 V. DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC FACTORS ............................... 19 A. Completion of I-40....................................................................................... 19 B. Travel and Tourism Impacts.......................................................................... 20 C. State Port Impacts ............................. ........ .................................................... 20 D. Construction Activity.................................................................................... 21 E. Per Capita Retail Sales.................................................................................. 21 F. Expansion of Airport Facilities..................................................................... 21 VI. ECONOMIC OVERVIEW................................................................................ 30 OREFERENCES.............................................................................................31 U LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Employment by Place of Work.............................................................................5 Table 2 IndustryEmployment..........................................................................................7 Table 3 Manufacturing Employment..............................................................................10 Table 4 Non -manufacturing Employment.................................................... Table 5 U.S. and New Hanover County Industrial Employment Percentages ..................15 Table 6 Shift Share Analysis of New Hanover County Employment Growth Factors ........... 23 Table 7 Enplanements at New Hanover County International Airport ............................ 29 J U LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Employment by Place of Work........................................................................... 6 Figure 2 Manufacturing Employment........................................................................ 11,12 Figure 3 Nonmanufacturing Employment................................................................. .......14 Figure 4A U.S. and New Hanover County Industrial Employment Percentages (1978 andl983)............... :........................ 16 Figure 4B U.S. and New Hanover County Industrial Employment Percentages (1987 and1990)........................................17 Figure 5 New Hanover County Travel and Tourism Expenditures ................................... 22 Figure 6 New Hanover County Room Tax Receipts........................................................ 24 Figure 7 Value of New Construction............................................................................... 25 Figure 8 SubdivisionActivity.......................................................................................... 26 Figure 9A Population and Per Capita Retail Sales(1990)................................................... 27 Figure 9B Population and Per Capita Retail Sales (1980)................................................... 28 X n The Economy of New Hanover County This document is the 1991 updatetothe 1986 "Economy ofNewHanoverCounty,"one of the technical reports of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan. The main purpose of this report is to evaluate the present condition of New Hanover County by examining its economic base and some of the factors which affect it, such as: changes ill employment patterns, anticipated impacts due to the completion of I-40, variations in travel and tourism expenditures, development of the state ports, past and current construction activity, changes in retail sales, expansion of airport facilities, and the overall outlook for the local economy. By examining recent trends in these various sectors, it is possible to determine which parts of the economy are the strongest. Some factors in the economy are quite stable, while others show monthly or yearly fluctuations. The information provided in this report helps the County project the amounts and types of future land use needs, as well as improve the quality of public policy decisions. I. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC. GROWTH A. In 1990, Total Employment in New Hanover County, which is based on monthly averages, was 67,387, according to the yearly data obtained by the North Carolina Employment Security Commission. Of that total, Nonmanufacturing made up 52,340 jobs, Manufacturing made up 9,588, Agriculture made up 303, and the category consisting of Self- employed workers and Domestic workers made up 5,156 jobs. B. Although the total Manufacturing employment figures have remained fairly constant over the last ten years, the relative proportion of Manufacturing in the County's - Total Industry Employment has decreased, from 29.6% in 1972 to 15.5% in 1990. Significant decreases in employment took place in the Fabricated Metals and .Textiles industries, and significant increases took place in the Chemicals and Machinery industries. C. Over the past 18 years, the proportion of Nonmanufacturing employment has continued to increase, from 70.4% of the County's Total Industry Employment in 1972 to 84.5% in 1990. Trade, Service and Goverment employment constitute the major proportion of the Nonmanufacturing employment. The most significant growth has been in two areas: Service, from .11.4% of the Total Industry Employment in 1972 to 21.3 % in 1990; and Trade, from 23.6% in 1972 to 28.9% in 1990. 1 D. A comparison of County and U.S. employment figures shows that the relative proportion of Nonmanufacturing employment in the County has exceeded the U.S. level O since 1972. Most significantly, the Trade sectorofNonmanufacturingisconsiderably higher in New Hanover County than in the U.S., commanding 28.9% of the County's Total Industry employment as compared to the nation's 21.1 %, thus indicating a more "trade -oriented" economy in the County than in the nation. E. Shift Share Analysis is a method used to interpret the County's employment record when compared to the national employment figures. This method analyzes the growth history of each industry in the county as compared to the nation. The results show that the County's Manufacturing employment growth rates are very similar to the nation's, but considerable differences are observed when the growth rate of Nonmanufacturing industries is compared. F. According to the 1990 UNC-Charlotte Interstate 40 Economic Impact Study, by the Center for Business and Economic Research and Dr. David T. Hangen; the completion of I-40 is expected to provide a boost to the county's economy, adding about 500 jobs per year and contributing about $6 million per year. G. In 1988, Travel and Tourism contributed $252 million to the County's economy, ranking New Hanover eighth in the state. In 1989, Travel and Tourism declined to $173 million, ranking the County ninth. The methods used to generate these figures changed in 1989, and the Travel and Tourism Division suggests that this significant decline is caused by the new methodology, and not an actual decline in travel and tourism. More than $1.1 O million in revenue was generated in 1990 by the County's 3% room occupancy tax, 75% of which was contributed to beach renourishment and 25% to travel and tourism promotions. H. Accordingtothe]990 Wake Forest North Carolina State Ports Authority Economic Impact Study, by the Babcock Graduate School of Management and Dr. GaryShoesmith, the Wilmington Terminal directly and indirectly contributed 2,744 jobs, $58 million in income, $231 million in sales, and $7 million in taxes to the region which includes New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus and Pender Counties for the fiscal year 1990. 1. Construction Activity gradually increased throughout the 1980's, continuing an upward trend which began in 1982. These activities leveled off in 1990, reflecting an economic slowdown. The value of new construction in the County peaked at about $160 million in 1989. J. New Hanover County continues to serve southeastern North Carolina as a regional trade and service center. Ranking third in the state, behind Mecklenburg's $17,000 and Guilford's $15,000 per capita retail sales figures, the County's $13,000 per capita retail sales figure is comparable to several of the more populous counties across the state. Since 1980, the County has commanded an increasingly larger proportion of retail sales for the southeastern area. K. Although expansion of airport facilities is not expected to affect settlement patterns O in the surrounding area, proposed industrial and commercial expansion in the airport area will result in employment opportunities for county residents. According to the 1989 Airport U J U Master Plan Study by Talbert, Cox and Associates, the airport contributes about $20 million dollars annually to the County's economy. II. ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC DATA USED A. Types of Statistics Utilized In evaluating the employment conditions of New Hanover County, two basic types of information are available: 1) Labor Force statistics: characterize the residents of the area with respect to how many persons are employed or unemployed, and what their socioeconomic characteristics are; and 2) Work Force statistics: characterize the number and type of jobs made available by New Hanover County employers. Work Force statistics are utilized throughout this report because these values show industrial growth trends and allow the County to analyze the number and types of jobs which are currently available and project what may be needed in the future. This data also enables the County to estimate and allocate land to accommodate future nonresidential land use needs. In addition, many local residents may have jobs outside the County, and residents from other counties may commute to the County for employment. Although it would be helpful to know the number of workers who commute into and out of the County each day for employment, this information will not be available until the 1990 census data is complete. In the meantime, this number can be roughly estimated by subtracting the total employment by place -of -work from the total employment by place -of -residence. If the place -of -work employment exceeds place -of -residence employment, there is "in -commuting", and if the opposite, there is "out -commuting". Using this method, it is shown that throughout the 1980's, there has been consistent "in -commuting" into the County; i.e., there are more workers coming into the County than there are going out. B. Types of Employment Categories Used It should be noted that in describing the employment in the County, the, term "industries" refers to both manufacturing and nonmanufactuing establishments. Collec- tively, these industries make up the non-residential element of all developed land areas in the County. The work force data used throughout this report includes only those industries reported as "Industry Employment by Place of Work" and provided by the North Carolina Employ- 3 ment Security Commission (ESQ. Two additional categories are mentioned in the first figure of this"report. These are Nonindustry workers: "Agricultural Employment" and "All Other Non-agricultural Employment", the latter including non-agricultural self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, and domestic workers in private households. These are included in ESC's Labor Force statistics, but are not considered by ESC as part of the Total Industry Employment. Omitting these workers throughout the rest of this report should not cause asignificant impact on the results. C. Handling of Other Economic Statistical Data Several economic impact studies are utilized within this report. Although these studies use currently accepted methods to analyze the effects that a particular activity may have on the County's economy, the magnitude and significance of the results depend upon the particular method used. For example, the model used to evaluate the State Port's impact on the economy includes direct impacts, such as jobs, as well as less readily defined, indirect and induced impacts, such as the subsequent spending that may result due to those jobs. For some activities, economic impact studies are not available, so yearly data is used to indicate the activities' impact. For example, while travel and tourism are known to affect the County's economy, particularly in the summer months, the exact amount that can be regarded as strictly tourist -related rather than business -related is impossible to differentiate, given the data currently available. Therefore, more general information must be utilized, such as total room occupancy tax receipts and travel and tourism expenditures. III. EMPLOYMENT INDICATORS A.. Employment by Place of Work: Table 1 and Figure I show that Total Employment has increased consistently in New Hanover County since 1972, from 40,370 to 67,383 in 1990. Nonmanufacturing Industry employment increased from 24,170 to 52,340, while Manufacturing Industryznd Agricul- tural and Other Workers (self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, and domestic workers in private households) have varied only slightly since 1972. The population for the County increased from 103,471 in 1980 to 121,218 in 1990. Additional details on population are available in the CAMA Land Use Plan Update Technical Report entitled "Population Study of New Hanover County." B. Industry Employment: As shown in Table 2, Nonmanufacturing Industry employment has more than doubled since 1972, from 24,170 to 52,340 in 1990, accounting for an increasingly larger proportion of the County's Total Industry employment, from 70.4% to 84.5%. On the other hand, Manufacturing Industry employment has dropped from 10,160 in 1972 to 9,588 in 1990, showing a drop in proportion from 29.6% in 1972 to just 15.5% in 1990. These changes mark an important shift in the economic base of New Hanover County. Table 1 located page 5. Figure 1 located page 6. Table 2 located page 7. K 4 to O TABLE 1 EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK Total Industry Employment 1972 34,330 1973 37,580 1974 38,890 1975 36,570 1976 38,230 1977 39.160 1978 41,780 1979 43,580 1980 43,560 1981 45,110 1982 44,740 1983 45,410 9,100 1984 49,150 8.940 1985 52,330 9,240 1986 55,280 9,420 1987 55,960 8.980 1988 58,420 8,810 1989 60.840 9,450 1990 61,928 9,588 Manufacturing 10,160 10,700 10,570 9,710 10,240 9,890 9,880 10,480 9,990 10,280 9,820 Nonmanufacturing 24,170 26,880 28,320 26,860 27,990 29,270 31.900 6.230 480 5.750 33,100 33,570 34,830 34,920 36,310 40,210 43,090 45,860 5,020 280 4,740 46,980 5,090 210 4,880 49,610 5,360 240 5,120 51,390 5,520 290 5,230 52,340 5,459 303 5.156 Total Non -Ind. Employment Agriculture 6,040 450 6,291 464 6,341 428 5,999 442 6,161 464 5,697 6,262 392 5,870 6,500 450 6,050 6,140 420 5,720 6,300 390 5,910 6,660 370 6,290 7,010 340 6,670 4,680 320 4.360 4,850 300 4,550 Other" 5,590 5,827 5,913 5,557 Total Employment 40,370 43,871 45,231 42,569 44,391 45,422 48,010 50,080 49,700 51,410 51,4(N) 52,420 53,830 57,180 60,300 61,050 63,780 66.360 67,387 *Other Non -Industry Employment: Nonagricultural self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, and domestic workers in private households. Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission Ee Work Force 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,OOa 40,000 35,000 a` 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 FIGURE 1 EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK EMENEEMEN =MENNEN ME-MEMENNEEMEN a N SWERNMEMENNE I-EMEN EMEMENMEN UMMENE MENEM =amN__1NNEENE coca MENNEEMENNE W-M 1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 8182 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Manufacturing .00000000000000 Agriculture —________ Total ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Nonmanufacturing — — Other Other Non -Industry employment: Nonagricultural, self employed workers, unpaid family workers and domestic workers in private households. --j O TABLE 2 - INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 ............. Total Industry 34,330 36,570 41,780 45,110 49,150 55,960 61,928 Manufacturing Total 10,160 9,710 9,880 10,280 8,940 8,980 9,588 Nonmanufacturing Total 24,170 26,860 ......... . 31,900 34,830 40,210 46,980 ...... 52,340 Percent of Total Industry Employment Total Industry 34,330 36,570 41,780 45,110 49,150 55,960 61,928 Manufacturing Total 29.6% 26.6% 23.6% 22.8% 18.2% 16.0% 15.5% Nonmanufacturing Total 70.4% 73.4% 76.4%1 77.2% 81.8% 84.0% 84.5% Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission n Table 3 located page 10. Figure 2 located page 11. Table 4 located page 13. Figure 3 located page 14. Table S located page IS. Figure 4 located 0 page 16,17. C. Manufacturing Industry Employment: Detailed examination of the records of the Manufacturing Industry in Table 3 and Figure 2 show that while this portion of the County's Total Industry employment has been fairly stable, individual industries have fluctuated considerably. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's, Manufacturing employment has varied between approximately 8,900 and 10,100 workers. However, beginning in 1980, a significant decrease in the Fabricated Metals and Textiles portion of the Manufacturing Industry occurred, with Fabricated Metals decreasing from 2,890 to 243 employees and Textiles showing a drop from 1,360 to 126 employees. A significant increase in the Chemicals and Machinery sector occurred, with Chemicals increasing from 1,100 to as high as 3,280 in 1981 and leveling off at 2,113 in 1990. The Machinery employment increased from 810 in 1978 to 1,920 in 1987, and then declined to 1,293 in 1990. The remaining categories of the Manufacturing Industry experienced only minor growth or reductions. The "Other Manufacturing" category includes a wide range of smaller industries, as defined in the footnote of Figure 2. The largest employers within this category are: Paper, Transportation Equipment, Furniture and Rubber. Many of the industries within this large category have had increases in employment, resulting in the overall growth of this category since 1980 as shown in Figure 2, but in orderto protect the privacy of individual businesses. the long term employment records of these companies are not made available. D. Non -manufacturing Industry Employment: Table 4 and Figure 3 present the employment records of the Nonmanufacturing Industries in New Hanover County. Whereas the total Manufacturing Industry has seen no substantial increases since 1972, the Nonmanufacturing Industry employment category exhibits overall consistent growth, which seems to have leveled off in 1990. The Trade industry has dominated the Nonmanufacturing employment category and has more than doubled since 1972, from 8,090 to 17,896 in 1990. Government was the second ranking employment sector in Nonmanufacturing from 1972 until 1984, accounting for 14% to 209/ of Total Industry Employment. In 1984, the Service sector began to increase and by 1990. well surpassed Government employment levels. Service accounted for 18.8% and 21.3% of Total Industry employment in 1987 and 1990. The category of Transportation, Communi- cation_ s and Public Utilities decreased its proportion, though the figures actually increased -from 3,200 to 3,673 employees. The category of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, and the Construction sector have remained fairly constant between 1972 and 1990, each making up about 6% and 4%, respectively, of the Total Industry employment. E. New Hanover County & U.S. Employment Compared: Table 5 and Figure 4 show U.S. and New Hanover County Industrial Employment percentages for 1978, 1983, 1987, and 1990. The trend away from Manufacturing toward Nonmanufacturing, which began in the 1970's, is readily apparent. New Hanover County trailed the U.S. in terms of percentage of Manufacturing employment during these years. In 1978, Manufacturing accounted for 26.1 % of Total Industry employment in the U.S. and 23.7% in the County. By 1983, Manufacturing accounted foronly 20% in both the U.S. and 9 the County. Throughout the 1980's, these percentages continued to decrease, so that by 1990, Manufacturing accounted for only 18.3% in the U.S. and just 15.5% in the County. O Within the Manufacturing Industry, the County has consistently had a higher percent- age than the U.S. in the Apparel and Chemicals sector. In 1990, the County's percentage surpassed the nation's level of Stone, Clay and Glass employment. The two sectors that have experienced considerable declines in the County, as well as the nation, since 1978 are Fabricated Metals and Textiles. By comparison, the amount of Nonmanufacturing employment has increased for both the U.S. and the County. In 1978, Nonmanufacturing employment accounted for 73.9% of the U.S. and 76.3 % of the County's Total Industry employment. By 1990, these percentages had increased to 81.7% in the U.S. and to 84.5% in the County, with the County continuing to lead the U.S.. Within the Nonmanufacturing category, the U.S. and New Hanover County's Service and Trade sectors have increased substantially, commanding an increasingly larger propor- tion of the Nonmanufacturing employment. In 1978, Trade accounted for 20.2% of Total Industry employment in the U.S. and 24.5% in the County. However, by 1990, the County's lead had increased significantly to 28.9% as compared to 21.1 % for the U.S.. The Service sector has also increased from about 14% to 21 % for the County and 15.5 % to 21.8% in the U.S.. Government employment levels in the County were somewhat higher than the nation's level in 1978 and 1983 but by 1990 these percentages were about even, with the County showing a minor decline. O IV. SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS A. Explanation of Methods Used Shift Share Analysis is. a regional economic analysis tool that describes changes in the industrial structure of a community in terms of three different effects: national growth effect, industrial structure effect, and local competitive edge effect. These three effects sum to give net County growth in terms of number of employees for each industry. 1. National Growth Effect - This indicator essentially answers the question "How much would a given industry in a given locality have grown, if the industry had the same proportion of employees in the local community's economy as existed in the national economy, and if the local industry had grown at the same rate as the industry at the national level?" EX: Ifthe machinery manufacturing industry aceountedfor5.2 %r ofthe national employment in 1978 and dropped to 4.6% in 1983, then the national growth effect assumes that the County's machinery industry had been 5.2%*of the Total Industry employment in 1978 and had also dropped at the same rate to 4.6% in 1983. This effect measures the growthldecline in terms of number of employees. In O fact, New Hanover County's machinery employment declined by 42 employees due to the national growth effect during the interval 1978 to 1983. V] O TEE MANUFACTURING 3 EMPLOYMENT 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 Total Industry 34,330 36,570 41,780 45,110 49,150 55,960 61,918 Manufacturing Total 10,160 9,710 9,880 10,280 8,940 8,980 J - 9,588 Food --•--^ - 970 --- 550 670 - 520 ---- -- 510 ----� 600 -.__... -- --- 433 Textiles 1,360 1,530 1,320 790 - 296 131 126 Apparel 1,590 760 920 1,190 1,150 1,160 1,250 Lumber & Wood 800 620 590 470 340 450 370 Printing 310 290 280 330 370 440 - 490 Chemicals 1,110 1,480 1,350 3,280 2,810 2,120 2,113 Stone, Clay & Glass 280 260 260 320 160 200 1,106 Fabricated Metals 2,890 3,310 3,450 1,400 200 210 - 243 Machinery- 500 720 810 1,450 - 1,850 1,920 1,293 Other Manufacturing* 350 190 230 530 R 1,254 1,749 2.170 Percent of Manufacturing Employment Total Industry 34,330 36,570 41,780 45,110 49,150 55,960 61,918 Percent Manufacturing 29.6% 26.6% 23.6% 22.8% 18.2% - 16.0% 15.5% Food 2.8% 1.5% 1.6% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 0.7% Textiles 4.0 0 4.2% 3.2% 1.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% Apparel 4.6% 2.1% 2.2% 2.6% - --2.3% 2.1% - ---- 2.0% Lumber & Wood 2.3% 1.7% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% Printing 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% --Y--0.8% 0.8% --- - --0.8% Chemicals 3.2% 4.0% 3.2% 7.3% 5.7% 3.8% � - 3.4% Stone, Clay & Glass 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 1.8% Fabricated Metals 8.4% 9.1 % 8.3% 3.1 % 0.4% 0.4% � 0.4% Machinery 1.5% 2.0% 1.9% 3.2% 3.8% 3.4% 2.1% Other Manufacturing* 1.Og'o 0.5% 0.69. 1.2% 2.6% 3.1% 3.5% *Other Manufacturing: Furniture, Rubber, Transp. Equip., Paper, Petroleum, Primary Metals, Instruments, Prof. Photo. Equip., Tobacco, Toys, and Miscellaneous. The largest industries are Paper, Transp. Equip., Furniture, and Rubber. Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission wi FIGURE 2 MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT Work Force Part. I of 2 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600. 2,400 2,260 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Chemicals • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • Textiles Stone, Clay _ _ — _ _ Machinery Fabricated Metals and Glass N EO w FIGURE 2 MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT Work Force Part 2 of 2 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 K 1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Printing Food Other' — _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ Lumber&Wood Apparel ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ *Other Manufacturing: Furniture, Rubber, Transp. Equip., Paper, Petroleum, Primary Metals, Instruments, Prof. Photo. Equip., Tobacco, Toys, and Miscellaneous. 0 0 0 TABLE 4 NON -MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT 1972 1975. 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 Total Industry 34,330 36,570 41,780 45,110 49,150 55,960 61,928 52,340 Nonmanufacturing Total 24,170 26,860 31,900 34,830 40,210 46,980 Construction 2,280 1,720 2,130 2,400 2,920 3,600 3,740 3,673 Transp., Comm., Pub. Util. 3,200 3,340 3,640 3,380 3,440 3,610 Trade 8,090 8,950 10,240 11,800 13,980 16,240 2,240 10,510 9,170 17,896 2,386 13,163 11,106 Finance, Insur., Real Est. Service Government 1,510 3,930 5,010 1,460 4,520 6,760 1,640 5,970 8,110 1,550 6,390 9,130 1,980 8,430 9,130 Other Nonmanufacturing* 150j 110 170 180 290 410 376 . ...... ... . ..... Percent of Nonmanufacturing Employment Total Industry 34,330 36,570 41,780 45,110 49,150 55,960 61,928 Nonmanufacturing Total 70.4% 73.4% 76.4% 77.2% 81.8% 84.0% 84.5% 6.4% 6.0% Construction 6.6% 4.7% 5.1% 5.3% 5.9% Transp., Comm., Pub. Util. 9.3% 9.1% 8.7% 7.5% 26.2% 3.4% 7.0% 6.5% 29.0% . ...... 4.0% 5.9% 28.9% 3.9% Trade .. ......... Finance, Insur., Real Est. 23.6% 4.4% 24.5% 4.0% 24.5% 3.9% 28.4% 4.0% Service Government 11.4% 14.6% 12.4% 14.3% 14.2% 17.2% 18.6% 18.8% 16.4% 21.3% 17.9% 18.5% 19.4% 20.2% Other Nonmanufacturing* 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% *Other Nonmanufacturing: Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining. Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission K Le FIGURE 3 NON -MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT Work Force 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 I J M imm MMMMOMMOMMM Mmmmm i o �rM1 1,000 0 -- - - - 1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Construction Trade ■ ■ now ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Service Transp., Comm., Pub. Util. .� Fin., Insur., Real Est:.r_ Government . • • • • • • • • . • *Other Nonmanufacturing: Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining. 88 89 90 Other* _... _ TAOLE 5 K U. S. & NEW HANOVER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGES . . . . ....... 1978 U.S. County 1983 1987 U.S. County 1990 ; .. - U.S. County U.S. county Manufacturing: Food 2.4 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.6 0.7 Textiles 1.3 3.2 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.2 2.1 0.8 0.8 3.8 0.6 0.9 0.7 1.6 1.1 0.2 2 0.6 0.8 3.4 Apparel 1.8 2.2 1.2 2.2 1.1 V 1.6 1.1 Lumber and Wood Printing 0.9 1.5 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.8 0.7 Chemicals 1.4 3.3 1.2 6.4 Stone, Clay & Glass 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.2 4.2 6.5 191 0.4 0.4 3.4 3.1 16 0.5 1.1 3.9 6.3 18.3 I 1.8 0.4 2.1 3.5 15.5f Fabricated Metals 2.1 5.2 8.2 2 1.3 4.6 1.3 3.6 Machinery Other Manufacturing 8.6 0.5 6.7 2.6 Total Percentage 26.1 23.7 .. 203 20 Nonmanufacturing: Construction 4.8 5.1 6.3 5.4 6.8 6.4 6.7 6 Transp., Comm., Pub. Util. 6.1 8.7 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.5 7.1 5.9 Trade 20.2 24.5 21.7 27 21.4 29 21.1 28.9 Finance, Insur., Real Est. 4.9 3.9 6.7 3.5 7.1 20.7 4 18.8 7 21.8 3.9 21.3 Service 15.5 14.3 19.1 16.2 Government 16.9 5.5 19.4 0.4 17.6 1.1 20.1 0.6 16.8 0.9 80.9 16.4 0.7 841 1 17.2 0.8 81.7 17.9 0.6 84.5 Other Nonmanufacturing Total Percentage 73.91 76.3 f 79.7 80 *Other Manufacturing: Furniture, Rubber, Transp. Equip., Paper, Petroleum, Primary Metals, Instruments, Prof. Photo. Equip., Tobacco, Toys, and Miscellaneous. **Other Nonmanufacturing: Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining. FIGURE 4A PERCENT OF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY 3i 1978 Z 2i 2- 2; 21 11 11 1� 1; 11 E t ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ A B C DE F G H I J K LMNO PQ U.S. percent ® New Hanover County percent A=Food G=Stone, Clay & Glass M=Trade B=Textiles H=Fabricated Metals N=FuEance, Insur., Real Est. C=Apparel I=Machinery 0--Service D-Lumber & Wood J=Otber Manufacturing J'=Government E=Printing K=Construction Q=Other Nonmanufacturing F=Chemicals L=Transp., Comm. & Pub. Util. Source. North Carolina Employment Security Commission & U.S Department of Labor O 16 K FIGURE 4B PERCENT OF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY 1987 Im 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 ABC D E F G H I J K L M_N O P Q A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q U.S. percent ® New Hanover County percent A=Food G=Stone, Clay & Glass M=Trade B=Textiles H=Fabricated Metals N=Finance, Insur., Real Est. C=Apparel I=Machinery O=Service D--Lumber &Wood J--Other Manufacturing P=Government E--Printing K--Construction Q=Other Nonmanufacturing F=Chemicals L=Transp., Comm. & Pub. Util. Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission & U.S Department of Labor 17 U U See Table 6 page 23. 2. _ Industrial Structure Effect - The industrial structure effect attempts to adjust the national growth effect by acknowledging that the locality's proportion of employment in a given industry is not likely to equal the national proportion. The industrial structure effect does assume that the local industry grows at the same rate as the national industry. The effect applies that growth rate to the localities' own industrial mix. EX: Since the county's machinery industry accounted for only 2% of the Total Industry employment in 1978 as compared to the nation's 52 %, and the county's percentage increased from 2 % to 3.61! in 1983, while the nation's percentage decreased, then the decline observed due to the national growth effect is offset by an increase of 26 employees for the County's machinery industry, due to the county's industrial structure. 3. Competitive Edge Effect - This adjustment to the national growth and industrial structure effects accounts for the fact that growth rates in local employment may be different than national industry employment growth rates due to such factors as efficiency of local firms and attractiveness of living environment. EX: Since the county's machinery industrygrewfrom2% to3.6% as comparedto the nation'sdectine from 5.2% to 4.6%, the County apparently possesses some competitive edge that accounts for an increase of 850 employees between 1978 and 1983. In fact, the County's Machinery industry actually experienced a net gain of 840 employees from 1978 to 1983, most of which can be attributed to the County's Competitive Edge, according to this shift share analysis. B. Comparison of Results: Using the County's and Nation's employment records for the intervals 1978-1983. 1983-1987, and 1987-1990, Shift Share Analysis reveals that the County's employment patterns differ considerably from the Nation's. Overall, the results of the Shift Share Analysis show that the County possesses some advantages over the nation, particularly in the Nonmanufacturing industry, and to a much lesser degree, in the Manufacturing industry. Generally, these differences are due to the national growth effect, i.e. industries in the county that grew at a greater/lesser rate than the nation's; and the County's competitive edge effect, i.e. industries in the county that exhibit growth/decline which is not due to national growth rate orindustrial structure but some other, undefined factor. Results of the analysis show that the county's industrial structure is rarely the significant factorforgrowth ofindustry employment although in some cases it is a modest factor for growth, but frequently indicates a loss of employment in many industries. 1. Shift Share Analysis of the Interval 1978-1983 The County experienced an overall net growth of 3,630 employees between 1978 and 18 1983. Although total manufacturing declined, the County's Chemicals and Machinery O industries did grow, mostly due to the County's competitive edge effect. The Total nonmanufacturing employment increased, with significant changes in Trade, Service and Government, mostly resulting from the national growth effect and the county's competitive edge effect. 2. Shift Share Analysis of the Interval 1983-1987 During the interval 1983-1987, the County experienced a very substantial increase in employment, showing a net growth of 10,550. Total Manufacturing continued to decline as a percentage of total industry employment, although there was moderate growth in the Machinery industry. This growth can be attributed to the county's competitive edge effect. All of the Nonmanufacturing industries showed increases in employment and most of these can be attributed to the national growth effect and the County's competitive edge effect. These effects were particularly significant for the Trade, Service, Government and Construc- tion industries. 3. Shift Share Analysis of the Interval 1987-1990 Total employment increased during the 1987-1990 interval, showing a net growth of 5,968, considerably less than the 1983-1990 interval. Total manufacturing increased, mostly as a result of growth in the Stone, Clay and Glass industry due to the County's competitive edge effect. Nonmanufacturing increased, again with significant growth in Service, Trade and Government, resulting principally from the national growth effect and the county's competitive edge effect. V. ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC FACTORS A. Completion of I40: The completion of Interstate 40, connecting Wilmington with Raleigh, Interstate 95, and points west, is expected to have considerable impact on the economy of New Hanover County, as well as the region. The 1990 UNC-Charlotte study, "Interstate 40 Economic Impact Study -Twenty Year. Economic Forecast" outlines some of these impacts, as discussed below. County construction expenditure impacts were estimated for each year between the startof construction in 1980 to the completion year of 1990. New Hanover County's average annual construction impact was $8,527,216, constituting 7.0% of the County's total average annual construction expenditures and 0.4% of the County's total average annual expendi- tures. According to this UNC-C study, an average annual increase of 493 jobs in New Hanover County are expected to result from the Interstate completion. Based on the results O of this study, projected over the next twenty years, 54.5 percent of the County's employment growth will be attributable to the Interstate completion. 19 Utilizing the employment growth figure, the projected average annual expenditure O impact resulting from the completion has been computed to be $6,046,014. Though this amount is large, the study points out that this constitutes only 1.0% of the 1988 Total County Expenditures. The completion of I-40 will also affect the Wilmington Port, as discussed below in the section titled "Port Impact". B. Travel and Tourism Expenditures: In 1988, travel and tourism expenditures in New Hanover County amounted to more Figure S located than $252 million, ranking the County eighth in the State (Figure 5). In 1989, the methods page 21. used to generate these figures were changed, and the 1989 figure declined to $173 million. again ranking the county eighth in the state. The North Carolina Travel and Tourism Division states that this decline likely reflects the new methodology and not a real decline in travel and tourism for the County. More than $1.1 million was collected by the County's 3 % room occupancy tax in 1990. of which 75% was designated for beach renourishment and 25 % fortourism promotions. The records show that room tax receipts increased by about 12 percent from 1989 to 1990. A comparison of monthly room tax revenue records over the past several years indicates that room tax receipts have increased consistently, particularly for the "shoulder seasons" of fall Figure 6 located and spring (Figure 6). page 22. C. Port Impact: The economic impact of the state ports is examined in a 1991 study sponsored by the North Carolina State Pons Authority (NCSPA) and conducted by the Babcock Graduate School ofManagement at Wake Forest University. The study compares the economicimpact of the ports on various regions across the state and the amount contributed by each of the two state ports. Three separate categories of port impacts were identified in the study; port industry. port capital investment, and local port users. Based on estimated direct, indirect and induced impacts of each of these 3 sources of activity, the NCSPA Wilmington & Morehead City terminals are shown to have contributed substantially to North Carolina's economy during the 1990 fiscal year. Specifically, the combined impacts of the two ports on North Carolina were 25,888 jobs, $489 million in income, $1.9 billion in sales and $57.1 million in state & local taxes. _ In terms of total economic impact (sales, employment, income, and taxes) attributable to the ports, New Hanover, County's region, (which also includes Pender, Columbus, and Brunswick counties) ranks 4th, following behind top ranking Winston Salem region, second - ranking Greensboro -High Point region, and third -ranking Charlotte region. Of these total impact amounts, the Wilmington Terminal is credited with a combined total of 19,812 jobs. $370 million in income, $1.5 billion in sales, and $43 million in taxes. According to the O study, the Wilmington Terminal directly and indirectly contributes 2744 jobs, $58 million in income, $231 million in sales and $7 million in taxes to the New Hanover County region. 20 The study shows that the Wilmington Port accounted for about three times as much income and taxes as the Morehead City terminal. This difference reflects the different types of cargo handled at each site. In the previously mentioned 1990 UNC-C study, "Interstate 40 Economic Impact Study", completion of 1-40 into Wilmington enables a 25% savings in transportation costs for the typical mid -Piedmont Port user. The study points out that the Wilmington port is import focused whereas other regional ports are more evenly balanced between imports and exports. Wilmington's exports are concentrated in pulp, chemicals, tobacco and lumber. The port's total revenues and profits declined in the late 1980's, as did it's share of port business relative to the other southeastern ports (Norfolk-, Charleston, and Savannah). In addition, railcar traffic into Wilmington has declined from 11,000 in 1987 to 5,000 cars in 1990. Truck traffic generally increased through the 1980's and is now steady. The study encourages a focus on export commodities, restoring rail and ship services, and continued focus on the mid -Piedmont market. D. Construction Activities: Construction activity continued its overall upward trend throughout the 1980's but underwent considerable decline in 1990. Figure 7 reveals that the most significant change in total value of new construction was for the City of Wilmington where construction activity declined by about 50%, from $58 million to $24 million between 1989 and 1990. The three beach communities showed a modest increase during this same interval. Subdivision activity peaked in 1987 and leveled off from 1988 to 1990. As shown in Figure 8, the number of lots, and hence the number of subdivisions being created, decreased from the 1987 record high of 2,134 lots to an average of 1,100 lots for the succeeding three yam• E. Per Capita Retail Sales: New Hanover County continues to serve as a regional trade and service center for southeastern North Carolina. Figure 9A illustrates that the per capita retail sales in New Hanover County are comparable to many much more populous counties across the state, and rank the county third behind Mecklenburg and Wake Counties. Figure 9B illustrates that the county's per capita retail sales have increased substantially since 1980, changing the county's ranking from fifth to third highest in the state. For the past several years, the leading contributors to the total retail sales have typically been, in descending order: general merchandise (such as department, drug and discount stores); food (such as grocery stores and restaurants); unclassified (such as hotels, office machine and supply stores); and automobile sales (such as motor vehicle, mobile homes and service stations). F. Airport Impacts: Although future development at the Airport is not expected to have a major impact on planned settlement patterns in adjoining neighborhoods, indirect impacts on population and Figure 7located page 25. Figure 8 located page 26. Figure 9A located page 27. Figure 9B located page 28. LJ N RON 21 N N FIGURE 5 NEW HANOVER COUNTY TRAVEL AND TOURISM EXPENDITURES Millions of Dollars 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 *The formula used to calculate these values was changed in 1989, which has resulted in a variance between 1989 and previous figures. Source: North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development, Travel and Tourism Division 0 0 TABLE 6 SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS OF. NEW HANOVER COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROWTH FACTORS 1978-1983 1983 -1987 1987- 1990 Net Change National Effect Industry Effect Competit Effect Net Change National Effect Industry Effect Competit Effect Net Change National Effect Industry Effect Competit Effect Manufacturing: Food -160 -105 23 -77 90 32 .10 67 -167 58 -18 -207 Textiles -896 243 3321 -4448 -293 150 -12 9 -4 8 7 -276 132 39 -5 90 -80 -10 -46 15 6 A9 2 -1 185 -97 Apparel 90 -59 -33 182 Lumber and Wood -230 -29 -23 -171 90 42 Printing Chemicals Stone, Clay & Glass 50 1500 -80 98 -16 -55 -56 -24 9 7 110 0 28 134 -3 81 -894 6 50 -7 906 43 50 12 -22 121 -4 29 -178 897 1525 -33 -730 20 31 17 Fabricated Metals Machinery Other Manufacturing* -2850 840 956 -85 -42 -384 -359 26 324 -2383, 85U 966 -390 270 563 11 8 245 12 -1 -150 403 262 467 33 -627 421 608 -9 -18 36 497 71 3 -18 -398 36 -641 402 502 Total Manufacturing 780 13331 78 484 -120 455 -9 -564 Nonmanufacturing: Construction 300 47 -10 261 1170 607 386 653 140 122 -7 21 Tran., Comm., Pub. U. -360 378 108 -844 330 413 3 -88 63 129 -13 -54 Trade 2020 867 136 1013 3980 1039 259 2672 1656 443 157 1039 Fin., Ins., Real Est. -30 506 -172 -364 630 582 -273 320 146 131 -57 i 71 Service 1370 -593 193 1767 3170 1804 -226 1585 2653 736 -34 5360 1566 312 -54 2668 -99 18 10 103 1177 3731 11 2583 Government 1030 175 2 851 1230 604 62 557 175 5591 Other Nonmanufacturing** 80 41 -26 64 160 -31 15 Total Nonmanufacturing 4410 4285 84 31 10670 5020 27 *Other Manufacturing: Furniture, Rubber. Transp. Equip., Paper, Petroleum, Primary Metals, Instruments, Prof. Photo. Equip., Tobacco. Toys, and Miscellaneous. **Other Nonmanufacturing: Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining. # Numbers do not total due to rounding. N �P O O O Thousands or Dollar§ 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 O FIGURE 6 NEW HANOVER COUNTY ROOM TAX RECEIPTS June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Fiscal Year ® 1986 ® 1987 ® 1988 ® 1989 ® 1990 Source: New Hanover County Tax Collections Department w N U Millions of Dollars 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FIGURE 7 VALUE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 ® Uninc. County ® Wilmington ® Wrightsville Beach ® Carolina Beach ® Kure Beach Source: New Hanover County Inspections Department N O O O FIGURE 8 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY Number of Lots Approved 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 N 1,2 O� 1,000 800 600 400 200 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Source: New Hanover County Planning Department N v County Population 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 triecklenburg Wake GuIW Cumberland Forsyth Durham Godan Bunwn be Onclaw Davldsan New Nar w Catawba 1990 Population (see left scale) ® 1990 Per Capita Retail Sales (see right scale) Source: North Carolina Department of Revenue and U.S. Bureau of Census 6,000 4,000 2,000 Ct] o 0 w 00 County Populatio 600.000 r 500.000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Awam=n t"mm waits cumbsmna "rsym OwAn Mx n= wxnam oavoson OMIow G9Wwba New Hanover ® 1980 Population (see left scale) MM 1980 Per Capita Retail Saks (see right scale) Source: North Carolina Department of Revenue and U.S. Bureau of Census TABLE 7 ENPLANEMENTS AT 0 ' NEW HANOVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT n jGrowth Year j Number of enplanements Rate for enplane- ments (as %) ; Population of Region* Population/ Enplanement I Ratio 1970 61,807 27.8 174,229 0.35 1972 68,071 9.2 j 181,881 0.37 1 1974 I 82,122 17.1 189,533 0.43 1976 I 78,117 -5.1 197,186 0.4 1978 88,097 -11.3 1 204,838 0.43 1980 77,608 -13.5 212,490 0.37 1982 ' 77,735 0.2 221,586 0.35 j 1984 123,255 36.9 1 230,683 0.53 ' i 1986 172,073 28.4 i 239,779 0.711 1988 197,052 12.7 I 248,017 0.791 1990 166,015 1 -18.7 1 250,045 0.661 * Estimated population figures for region consisting of New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender Counties. Source: Airport Master Plan Study,1989 by Talbert, Cox and Associates and the U.S. Bureau of Census 29 J Table 7 located page 28. economy will continue as industrial, commercial and service -related businesses attracted to Wilmington locate near the airport. Proposed industrial and commercial facilities, and aviation -related expansion potential could result in both permanent and short term employ- ment opportunities for New Hanover County citizens. In 1989, an "Airport Master Plan Study" was produced by Talbert, Cox and Associates, which examines present and future impacts of the airport on New Hanover County and the surrounding region. Using Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved methodologies, an estimate of direct, indirect, and induced economic inpacts generated by aviation activity for 1988 and forecast for the year 2010 was conducted. The results show that New Hanover County Airport contributes just over $20 million annually to the Wilmington -New Hanover County area economy, and that this amount will more than double by the year 2010. According to projections contained in the Talbert and Cox study, the volume of air cargo traffic is expected to more than double by the year 2010. Since 1980, the volume of domestic air cargo has averaged approximately 2.7 million pounds per year. In 1987, a high of 2.9 million pounds was handled, most of which was transported by the commercial air carriers. Of that 2.9 million pounds,1.7 million pounds (58%) were inbound, and 1.2 million pounds (42%) were outbound. Table 7 shows some of the total enplanement figures for the airport forthe past 20 years. Despite declines in total enplanements during the past 2 years, the study projects an overall continued but diminishing growth rate from 6% to 2% for the next two decades. VI. ECONOMIC OVERVIEW The results of this study show that New Hanover County is the economic trade and service center for southeastern North Carolina. As such, the County's economy is partially dependent on the economic health and growth of the surrounding counties. Employment data show that the County is amajorgeneratorofjobsfortheregion. There is a substantially I arger number of employees that commute into the county daily than there are residents who leave the county for work. The three larges employment sectors are Trade (28.9%), Service (21.3%) and Govemment (17.2%). The County's employment level in Trade exceeds the national level, whereas Service and Government levels of employment are about the same for the County and nation. Though manufacturing has not grown overall, increases have occurred in many of the smaller sectors that make up the manufacturing category. With the opening of Interstate 40, the Wilmington area is now tied to the national Interstate system. This should improve regional access and should also be a benefit to the ports and air transportation facilities. Immediate affects should also be felt in the Tourism industry, which accounts for an important part of New Hanover County's economy. Continued growth and expansion in all of southeastern North Carolina will have a positive impact as the County continues to lead the region in trade and service. M X K References 1. "Airport Master Plan Study,1989-2021," prepared by Talbert, Cox, and Associates, Inc., 1989. 2. "Construction Activity, 1973-1990," New Hanover County Planning Department, 1991. 3. "Employment and Earnings," Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC. 4. "Interstate 40 Economic Impact Study -Twenty Year Economic Forecast," Center . for Business and Economic Research, UNC Charlotte, 1991. 5. "Labor Area Summary," EmploymentSecurity Commission of North Carolina, Labor Market Information Division, Wilmington, NC. 6. "North Carolina State Ports Authority, Economic Impact Study, 1990, ' prepared by Dr. Gary L. Shoesmith, Babcock Graduate School of Management, Wake Forest University, 1991. 7. "State Sales and Use Tax Statistics," State Department of Revenue, Raleigh, NC. 8. "The North Carolina Travel Survey," North Carolina Travel and Tourism Division, Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC. 31